Loading...
PC 06-24-96CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 24, 1996 ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Chairperson Harris Commissioners absent: Mahoney and Roberts Staff present: Robert Cowun, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 13, 1996 Regular Meeting: The following changes were made to the May 13 minutes: Page 7, Paragraph 5: Change the paragraph to read: "Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, explained that the procedure is that ff approved by Public Works and all public utilities, it would go to City Council to order the vacation; then it has to go to one more meeting and the time could possibly be shortened." MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: May 28, 1996 Regular Meeting: Com. Austin moved to approve the May 13, 1996 minutes as amended. Chair Harris Com. Doyle Corns. Mahoney and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the May 28, 1996 minutes as presented. Com. Doyle Coms. Mahoney and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 June 10, 1996 Regular Meeting: Thc following changes were made to the June 10 minutes: Page 14, Paragraph 8, second line: Change to read: "collected there can be storm drains installed. The City currently has a master storm drain plan that has been updated." Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 24, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the June 10, 1996 minutes as amended. Chair Harris Com. Doyle Corns. Mahoney and Roberts 3-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted written communications from Auto Supply of Cupertino; letter dated J'une 4 from Sheila Mob. an with response from Community Planning Director; SCVWD Annual Performance Report; and Announcement on Housing Trends in Silicon Valley. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 1. Presentation from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Using a slide presentation, Mr. Malcolm Smith, Public Affairs Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, presented un overview of the Open Space District. He explained that presentations were being made to City Councils, Planning Commissions and Parks and Recreation Commissions in the 16 cities within its jufisdictinn. He presented a history of the Open Space District which is a public agency formed by voters in 1972 to preserve a regional open space greenbelt, linking District preserves with other public parklands. Mr. Smith distributed a brochure which contained the background material discussed. Chair Harris thanked Mr. Smith for the informative presentation on the Open Space District. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: g-ASA-96 PSS Ventures, LLC Citation Homes DeAnza/Homestead Architectural review for modifications to an approved plan, relating to elevations, recreation building,' lighting, landscaping and fencing. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff oresentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner H, reviewed the background of the application for architecture and site approval for architectural changes, fencing details, project lighting, landscaping and signage as outlined in the attached staff report. She noted that staff was in agreement with the applicant on several items including fencing, landscaping and the recreation building, with conditions of approval included in the model resolution. However, staff is not in agreement with the applicant on the issues of lighting and a majority of the architectural changes that were made. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 24, 1996 Referring to the overhead of the ASA Review Required, Ms. Bjurman reviewed the four items to be reviewed from an architectural standpoint including fencing, project lighting, special landscape design for the gated entry at Homestead Road, and specific landscaping guidelines for the conunon areas. Staff feels that the architect has done an excellent job on fencing and staff has created conditions of approval for materials for fencing. The landscaping design for the gated entry is acceptable to staff. Staff has created conditions of approval for the common area which require that the landscaping design be compatible with the xeroscape guidelines. Ms. Bjurman said that staff feels that the added landscaping in the area of the pool, although it does not meet the minimum width requirement, is consistent with the use needs of the area and staff believes it is a positive change. Staffis not in agreement with the project lighting. Referring to the overhead of the street lighting plan, Ms. Bjurman explained that staff feels the lighting design is incompatible with the architecture as proposed and are suggesting that the applicant return with more architecturally compatible lighting standards. Ms. Bjurman explained that there were three condition items: window changes to be made, roof overhang required, and garages required to be recessed. Staff is not in conflict with the applicant on the window changes, but does not agree with the remaining two items. Ms. Bjurman stated that there were a series of other architectural changes that staffprovided side by side plans shown in the packet; the majority of which are not driven by the Uniform Building Code but merely are changes to the building that arc not required. Although the applicant has indicated there are two architectural changes, specifically the catwalk and some window pillars required by the Uniform Building Code, staff has not seen proof of the requirement, or that there are not some other alternatives to those requirements, and staffwould like to seek some alternatives to those. Stuff recommends approval on the issues including fencing, landscaping in the recreation area, but are suggesting continuance on two items regarding lighting and architectural changes to allow applicant to return with modifications to the two items. In response to Com. Austin's question, Ms. Bjarman said that staffwns concerned with the lighting fixtures on the buildings, as well ns the private street lighting. Mr. Jim Sullivan, Citation Homes, reiterated that the applicant was anxious to proceed with the construction of the apartment units as quickly as possible. He reported that meetings have been held with the City Attorney and City staff and the BMR units have been designated, with the goal of offering both market rate and BMR units for rental before the end of 1996. Referring to the street lighting plan, Mr. Sullivan explained that applicant was proposing to provide three different types of lights within the subdivision, namely the standard electrolier, the decorative light fixture which is an incandescent light to illuminate a small area of the building, and the high pressure sodium building-mounted lamps. Detailed information relative to the lighting fixtures is contained in the letter from Holophane Company in the attached staff report. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that a substitution for the high pressure sodium lamps would require 300 incandescent lights to take the place of 25 of the high pressure sodium lumps. He said he felt the only alternative would be to utilize more electroliers on the interior section of the property, which they have attempted to avoid in order to provide as much ground landscaping. He noted that the life of the sodium lamp is 24 times that ora similar watt incandescent light. Planning Commission Minutes n June 24, 1996 Mr. Sullivan explained the request for variance to place tuffin areas that does not meet the 15 foot minimum dimension. He pointed out that the area close to the basketball court was more suitable for grass to prevent people from tripping over shrubbery; and the area behind the pool would be conducive to the residents using the area to put their towels on the grass area. Mr. Justin Mann, Holophane Company, Inc., explained that the g~cture chosen was an option in terms of using a high pressure sodium lamp or lumin source. He said it was chosen because it is high pressure sodium and was specifically designed for the application for roadways, and walk~vays in that it directs light in a downward pattern minimizing light trespass above the fixture and focusing light on the ground. A discussion ensued regarding the location of the proposed lighting fixtures. Mr. Mann distributed pictures of the proposed fixtures. Ms. Bjurman explained that staff's objection was to the architecture of the lighting fixtures. In response to Chair Harris' question if the applicant was willing to work with staff regarding the lighting, or if the applicant preferred the Planning Commission to render a vote on the lighting fixtures, Mr. Sullivan stated that they would like to move forward as quickly as possible. He expressed concern that non-approval of the proposed lighting would delay the project. He said he was willing to install more eleotroliers even though he felt it might create future problems, and that the incandescent lighting would attempt to light the interior of the project utilizing approximately 300 fixtures, and cause a maintenance nightmare for the residents. Mr. Dave Kane, architect, referred to the architect's renderings and discussed the revisions to the side, front and rear elevation mad explained the staff notations on the renderings. He stated that most of the changes to the project since its inception were relatively insignificant and enhanced the project in several areas. Mr. Kane said that several issues were discussed with staff and interior changes were made to make the units more furnishable, as well as the addition of structural features and addition of the catwalk which is an exiting requirement. Referring to the bottom elevation he noted the vertical elements where in the previous designs the water heaters were located on the balcony. The water heaters have been relecated; and the design elements of the balcony have been strengthened with columns and a trellis; the trellises over the windows on the third floor have been removed and relocated to the second floor. He discussed the changes to the window sizes and location for better fumishability of the units. Mr. Kane then discussed the changes to the garages, roofs, and windows. Mr. Kane explained that the utility cabinets were relocated to the center of the garage. Ms. Bjurman pointed out that there was a condition of approval that required that the roof overhang be duplicated on the side and illustrated the changes on the overhead. In response to a question from Com. Doyle regarding the location of the staircase, Mr. Steven Sennikoff, architect, noted that the staircase was inadvertently omitted from the drawing, but did exist. Com. Harris questioned if there would be more room for landscaping in front of the garages by non-recessing the garages. Referring to the overheads of the floor plan, Mr. Sullivan explained that the unit itself between the garages was envisioned to have planting, and that there is a requirement for a minimum distance from the face of the garage to the rear and pointed out that it was presently at the minimum. In Planning Commission Minutes 5 Jane 24, 1996 order to recess the garage, the garage door cmmot be brought back, but the face of the building is brought forward, and in doing so the landscaping that can be planted in the pockets between the garage doors is cut out. The solution was to build a trellis above the garage door and plant vines which would grow over the top and down between the garage doors to provide a recessed feeling. Mr. Kane said that by adding the wood trellis and the plant material it creates more scale and texture which is more appreciative than a shadow. Regarding window size, Mr. Kane explained that the code requires that rooms have egress below the 4th floor, therefore there are requirements for sliding windows or single hung windows. Com. Harris commented that it appeared some of the changes were merely cost saving items. Mr. Kane responded that in some areas, the costs actually increased. He said he felt the building has not been compromised from the original drawings. Com. Doyle questioned if the per unit square footage was changed. Ms. Bjurman responded that the building plans do reflect some changes, mainly a net overall decrease. Mr. Sullivan commented that the change resulted in a net change of less than 1%. Com. Doyle questioned the reason for enclosing the walkways and requested clarification of the change in size of the rear windows. Mr. Kane explained that there was an acoustical report requiring that stucco rails be used in place of the open wood rails because of soand requirements. He noted that there were some areas on the site that required soundwalls of lexon or plastic because of the proximity to the road. He indicated the windows in the top elevation were the side windows, and noted that the large windows in the bottom elevation rotated to the side of the unit. Mr. Bjurman said that her position had not changed since the beginning of the process, and that she felt there were architectural treatments that were removed unnecessarily. She said that farther consideration was needed before staffwould render a decision. Ms. Bjurman explained that the architect indicated the changes in windows were a result of the changes to the interior spaces and the shifting of rooms. She said she felt a lean-to structure has been created instead of adding a roof structure. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of recessing .the garages, and installation of trellises wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Ms. Bjurman said that the architect presented a convincing case regarding the windows and staff was not concerned about them. She noted that the only planter boxes required were a condition of approval that the interior court3~ard area have planter boxes and the landscape architect included them in the plan. Mr. Kane clarified that to help solve the problem of the fiat buildings, the faces were projected out after discussion with the staff. He noted that the windows are actually recessed windows and a slope stucco seal to add shadow and additional modulation of the elevation. He pointed out that the planter boxes are in the interior court and elevation. Planning Commission Minutes 6 Jane 24, 1996 In response to Chair Harris' question about the change in trellises, Ms. Bjurman indicated the changes in the trellises, and pointed out on the overhead of the elevation the change to the roofing structure. She explained that the trellises should be reiaserted and that particular feature is duplica~l throughout, including the recreational building. She stated that she was not convinced that the change in the window boxes fi.om the second floor to the third floor made a significant difference, and that the structure may not be heavy enough to carry the lower floor. Chair Harris summarized that the staff recommendation was to reinstate the third story trellises and replace the shed-type lean-to with the supports to revert to the roof overhang. In response to Chair Harris' request for clarification on the first story balcony pillar, Ms. Bjurman said that according to the applicant it was a requirement and staff did not debate the issue. She also indicated staff did not object to the change in the walknvays between the buildings. Com. Doyle stated that the side elevations relative to the window sizes, shapes and locations were acceptable and the planter boxes were acceptable. He said he did not feel the third floor trellises were necessary. He said that the depth of the balconies was acceptable, and he preferred that the walkways be left open, although some along Highway 280 would remain enclosed. Com. Austin stated that she approved of the catwalk and the trellis, and that she preferred the side elevation changes. She said the bottom floor trellises and color renderings were acceptable; however, she was not in favor of adding the trellis back to the third floor. Com. Austin stated that she approved of the enclosed balconies, and was in favor of soandproofing the balconies. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the applicant had originally proposed the third floor trellis and removed them at the Planning Commission's request. He said he was not opposed to reinstating them if the Planning Commission so requested. Chair Harris said that she preferred the enclosed balcony for uniformity and that she would like to see the trellis added back to the third floor. She said that the other changes were acceptable. She said she concurred with staff that the roof changes to a shed-type roof was a quality issue, but if it served no purpose to have the element there, it becomes decorative only and perhaps the shed-type roof would be more suitable. She noted that the issues in the staff report are the removal of the first story overhang, the deletion of the balcony pillars, elongation of balconies and the addition of a catwalk. She asked staffto comment on the items that they were not in agreement with. Ms. Bjurman said she originally supported recessing the garages, but did not feel that a recessed garage look could be softened with the landscaping. She indicated that she did not have a concern with the deletion of the balcony pillars. Relative to the catwalk, Ms. Bjurman said staffhad not received confirmation that other alternatives did not exist, and she would work with the building department and architect and on a solution or identify what impacts would result by utilizing other alternatives. She noted that the center structure was insignificant in size and dimension compared to previously, noting that it was an insignificant visual change. Chair Harris asked for Planning Commissioners' input on the recessed garages, the front prominent element and the catwalk. Planning Commission Minutes ? June 24, 1996 Com. Austin reiterated that she approved of the changes, the open archway and the catwalk and the trellises. She said she approved of the roof changes but would not like to see the garages recessed any further. Com. Doyle said he had no objection to the catwalk; the externally facing garages should be recessed, and the internally facing ones could remain flush mounted and use planting trees. Mr. Cowan summarized that if the garage doors are not recessed, the upper level could be brought out. He questioned the result to the square footage. Mr. Sullivan explained that applicant was proposing a minimum of 8 inches which would not increase the livability of any unit, but would be added on as a thicker wall covered with stucco. He said that it would not be a problem for the externally facing garages. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the trellises could go over the top. He added that by bolting up the walls in between the garages, the landscaping designated for the pocket is cut down. Following a brief discussion, Com. Doyle directed staff to work with Public Works to attain the maximum depth. Mr. Sullivan indicated he would also work with staffon the issue. Referring to the staff report, Ms. Bjurman stated that she did not object to the addition of the balconies or the type of balcony columns. She said she was concerned about the small windows. Ms. Bjurman stated that she was in favor of having the removal of vertical design elements reinserted, and the removal of window trellises to remain. Pertaining to the review of additional building architecture, Ms. Bjurman said that she approved of the recreation building with the condition it is contained in the model resolution. Chair Harris said that on the front elevation she preferred the recessed garages on the visible frontage. She stated that she was opposed to the small windows and said they should be replaced with larger windows. She said she approved of the vertical element shift, as far as the second story window trellis treatment obliterates the need in this case for the third story. She said that the catwalk was not an issue on this elevation in the staff report. Chair Harris said that the third story trellises were acceptable. On the side elevation Com. Harris recommended reinstating the third floor trellis. Com. Doyle said that for purposes of expediency his only concern was to return to the larger windows and he said that the third story trellis was acceptable. He said he would leave it to the applicant to remain consistent. Following a discussion regarding the placement of windows for better room utilization, there was consensus to go with the three sill windows on the rear elevation for aesthetic appeal. Com. Austin stated that the second sto~y trellis was preferable. There was consensus to add Condition 6 stating that lighting fixtures would be changed to more aesthetic ones, such issue to be resolved with staff; and to create three small windows in the rear elevation to the satisfaction of staff. The approved exhibits will include the front, rear and side elevations provided, dated lune 4, 1996, mended with the omission of the stairwells. Planning Comm/ssion M/nules s June 24, 1996 Ms. Bjurman provided clarification on the colors, stating that the darker building material would appear on the lower elevations. She recommended the originally approved colors but with darker color on the floor. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 8-ASA-96 per the model resolution with the proposed changes discussed and the addition of Condition 6. Com. Doyle Corns. Mahoney and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-ASA-96 (Mod.) Cupertino Village Associates Same Northwest Comer of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Interpretation regarding roof materials on an approved architectural plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff presentation: Ms. Bjurman reviewed the application sununary for Planning Commission interpretation of the review of the roof sample for the previously approved Cupertino Village remodeling project. Material samples of the roof were shown and discussed. Ms. Bjurman stated that staff feels that the proposed composition shingle roof material does not meet the intent of Condition 4. Ms. Bjurman referred to the slide of Cupertino Village and illustrated that the building design makes the roofing very visible from the adjoining roadways, and it is dearly shown that there is signfiicant depth to the heavy shake roof. Mr. Peter Pau, owner of the shopping center, explained that he had philosophical differences of the roofing materials to be used. He said because of the heavy, prominent roof and deep overhang, the storefronts basically disappear and are difficult to see from the parking lot. He said it was his intent to bring the attention away from the roofliae. Mr. Pan explained that because of the age of the buildings, and the fact that plywood will have to be added to the roof for seismic reasons, the choice of roofing materials is limited to similar shake roof or composite shingle because of the added weight to the roof. Mr. Kenneth Ko, Kenneth Roddquez & Associates, distributed a roofing sample and colored photos of a 4 by 8 foot panel constructed for comparison purposes. A discussion ensued wherein Mr. Ko discussed the various types of roofing considered for the shopping center. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak on the item. - Com. Austin stated that she was not in favor of the roof material proposed and concurred with staff recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 24, 1996 Com. Doyle said he did not approve of the proposed composite roof, and stated that the roofing material should be thicker to be consistent with the remainder of the development. Com. Harris said she did not approve of the composite roof material. She said the colors were open to discussion if the right product was presented. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved approval of the determination that the submitted composition shingle roof does not meet the intent of Condition 4 of Resolution No. 4667 in aecordanoe with the model resolution. Com. Doyle Coms. Mahoney and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 In response to Mr. Pau's question, Chair Harris clarified that the present shake roof could be utilized, but if a different product were chosen, it should emulate something of more substantial thickness than the composite roof material presented. Chair Harris declared a recess at 9:05 p.m. Upon reeonvening at 9:20 p.m. the same Commissioners and staffwere present. POSTPONEMENT/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Parking Ordinance Amendments and 1-EA-96 City of Cupertino Citywide Zoning amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding parking standards. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 15, 1996 CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 28, 1996 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue Item 6 to the July 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting because of the time schedule. Com. Doyle Corns. Mahoney and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 Chair Harris moved the agenda back to Item 4. PUBLIC HEARING Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-U-94 (Mod.) Green Valley Corp. Same 19110 Stevens Creek Blvd. (Comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. & Tantau Ave.) Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 24, 1996 Use Permit Modification to allow un additional speciality food store in a 4,000 sq. R. building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED Staff nresentation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the application for use permit modification to allow an additional specialty food store, the Daily Squeeze, as outlined in the attached staff report. The owner of the Daily Squeeze has agreed to eliminate seating in his facility entirely, which would free up parking space in the center parking lot. Referring to the view foils, Mr. Cowan outlined the parking requirement for the shopping center and the aparanent complex. Mr. Cowan noted that the traffic pattern at the comer of Tantau and Stevens Creek Blvd. was consistent with the level of service standards. Mr. Dave Gibbons, Green Valley Corp., explained that the tenant, the Daily Squeeze, is willing to accept the staff recommendation with respect to the reduction of the seating. Mr. Scott Asher, the Daily Squeeze, explained that it is a common arrangement in a juice bar to have only a counter and a few stools for patrons waiting for their order. In response to a question from Chair Harris, Mr. Cowan said that outdoor seating in the area is not part of the proposal plans, but could be considered. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Al DeRitter, 19146 Anne Lane, read a letter into the record: "At a Planning Commission meeting hearing on 22 January 1995, we requested several answers from the Planning Commission members concerning the use of the structure at the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau Avenue. At that time we questioned the type of business that would occupy the building and the amount of traffic that it would add to an already busy intersection. We were assured that no drive- through type of business would be considered because of the known traffic burden it would cause. We were led to believe that there would be a business which would not require a high volume of vehicular traffic. Now we find ourselves facing the situation where there will be three separate businesses in the building, and by the way, the coffee shop is really a part of the fourth one, because it!s going to have the post office substation in there. I am not a business expert that eauld predict the percentage of walk-in trade vs. a percentage of drive-in trade that is required to support each of these establishments, but I would venture to say that not more than 20% would be walk-in business; maybe the juice bar would fair better during the school year, but that still leaves us with the same traffic problems that we requested the Planning Commission to look into 1-I/2 years ago. Traffic is heavy at that intersection at very predictable times of the day, 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., 11:00 to 1:30, and from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. These hours just happen to be the same hours that any type of food service business gets the bulk of its business. Now the City is just going to create a problem and a headache for itself if we don't address the problems properly tonight. We have a suggestion. Route all the vehicular traffic off from Tantau coming on Tantau, and exiting onto Stevens Creek." Referring to the view foil Mr. DeRitter illustrated the area where parking space was removed for access. He suggested an alternate one-way route for traffic to get onto Stevens Creek Blvd fi.om Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 24, 1996 Tantau. He also suggested installing the one-way spikes in the driveway which prevents two way traffic. Mr. DeRitter continued his letter, "Please understand, we are not against having businesses there on the corner, we are concerned about the traffic congestion. Please do your homework as a Commission; don't just give rubber stamp approval for anytking that comes up. Check it out for yourselves; dig out the facts and do the trouble of going to the site, to the comer and visit that site, look at the traffic. Thank you for your attention." Mr. DeRitter expressed concern about the traffic pattern at the comer of Tantau Ave. and Stevens Creek Blvd. and urged the Planning Commission to consider the pattern of traffic before approving the application. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, reported that a recent level of service indicated the intersection was at a C-. She reported that a calculation on the trips generated from a speciality- type store in the center indicated 20 trips per hour during peak p.m. hours, and it is staff's opinion that the amount of traffic would not put the intersection into a level of service that would cause a problem. Mr. Cowan noted that a level of service intersection analysis takes into account all the legs of traffic and a weighted average is used. Ms. Lynaugh explained that the C- rating would be the worst that the level of service would get. She said that the problems Mr. DeRitter encountered could have possibly been a timing problem and she would work with the traffic department, as they had flexibility in thc timing of the lights. Mr. Ron Walker, 19160 Anne Lane, said he was confused on how the City could depend on shared parking from the commercial building and the housing project. He said that the City requires those spaces during aRer hour use to make the housing project work, but when the speciality restaurants open and close, it would not be feasible. He said the hours of operation were not addressed during the City meeting and is something that was overlooked. He questioned where the overflow parking would go because the commercial building needs 7 spaces from the affordable housing project to makes its 20 spaces work. Mr. Walker predicted that the overflow parking would go out in front of the residential homes on Tantau or next to the auto parts store. He emphasized that the problem needed to be addressed as any new project needed to handle its own parking.. He also recommended that the parking along the Tantau Avenue curb should be painted red to eliminate the potential for accidents. Mr. Walker said that during a City Council meeting, the neighbors were informed by the City traffic engineer that the level of traffic at the corner would not be adversely impacted by this development. He said he has lived in the area for 13 years and the comer of Tantau and Stevens Creek is a trouble spot. Mr. Walker continued to describe the traffic problems encountered at the intersection and expressed his frustration regarding potential increase of problems because of the added traffic from thc new shops and housing development. Mr. Walker urged the Planning Commission to work on the traffic problem before approving another specialty shop on the comer. He said that in other parts of Cupertino when the residents feel the traffic is excessive they get results. He cited examples of blocking the streets during peak hours, making certain streets not-through streets, and providing one-way streets or one-way entries. He said that county residents deserve the same treatment as city residents. Mr. Walker said that Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 24, 1996 the neighbors feel the solution could simply be the one way entry offTantau Avenue. He reiterated that the neighbors were not being unreasonable but that they wanted to be heard and have something positive done about the serious problems. He said that everyone that uses Tantau Avenue for travel expects the same treatment and results. A discussion followed regarding the traffic concerns at Tantau and Stevens Creek Boulevard wherein staffanswered questions. In response to Chair Harris' question about the use of the center during the 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. hours, Mr. Gibbons stated that he felt the coffee house would be active, with the juice bar less active and the sandwich shop very minimal early in the morning. He said that during the hours of 4 to 6 p.m. the juice bar and the sandwich shop would be very active. Mr. Gibbons said that he anticipated walk-in business from the adjoining apartment complexes and the nearby businesses. Mr. Asher explained that the location was chosen due to response received at the Willow Glen location from Intel employees who reside in Willow Glen who expressed the desire to have a similar business they could utilize in their area of employmem. He said it would also serve the Cupertino High School campus students and staff. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Gibbons said he felt that to preclude exit onto Tantau Avenue would be a mistake. He said that other than the peak hours, the traffic turning from Tanlau Avenue to Stevens Creek Blvd. was light. Chair Harris summarized the issues for discussion: (1) whether or not to allow another speciality food store; (2) institute a one way drive in access and (3) should there be seats installed in the Daily Squeeze shop? Com. Doyle said that relative to the parking for the juice bar, in the original building plans of the development, he was suspect of the shared parking idea and there were issues relative to what kinds of businesses that would go in the center and he said this may exacerbate the issue. He said he was supportive of the juice bar if the lights at Tantan Avenue were timed; he was not supportive of the left: mm onto Tantau; and suggested the timing of the lights in the moming hours would be more effective, ~ Com. Austin said that she was in favor of an entrance from Tantau as well ns Stevens Creek, with exit only on Stevens Creek. She said she felt the lights on Tantau should be retimed as it is a C-. Com. Austin said she was in favor of at least 6 bar stools for the Daily Squeeze ns she felt there should be seating available while patrons wait for their order to be filled. She said she approved of the application for the specialty shop. Chair Harris said that she was not in favor of the one way access wherein traffic would have to go through the apartment complex. She said she felt many patrons would walk to the juice club and was in favor of 6 bar stools for patrons. Chair Harris said she approved of the application for the juice club and that staff should work on the light timing. Mr. Cowan suggested a minute order relative to the timing of the lights. Ms. Lynaugh offered that Public Works staff could look into the timing of the lights to ensure proper operation. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve Application 4-U-94 (Mod.) according to the model resolution with the addition of 6 bar stools and no one way access onto Tantau. Com. Doyle Corns. Mahoney and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle proposed a minute order that a traffic study be conducted for the light timing on Tantau Avenue to make certain light timing has been optimized between 6 to 8 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., and that staff report back to the Planning Commission. Com. Austin Corns. Mahoney and Roberts Passed 3-0-0 Mr. Walker requested that the traffic study of the intersection be done when school is in session, and asked if the neighbors had problems with the parking if they could return to the Planning Commission for further review. Chair Hams suggested September 15 as an appropriate time to conduct the study because the high school would be back in regular session. Ms. Lynaugh confirmed that the study would be conducted after school was back in session in September and staff would report back to the Planning Commission. Application No.(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 4-U-96 and 5-EA-96 Pacific CarCare Al Cali 19480 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use Permit to construct an approximately 3,500 sq. ff. automotive fluid maintenance filter replacement building on a 22,300 sq. ft. vacant lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JLrNE 10, 1996. Staff t~resentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct an automotive fluid maintenance and filter replacement building on the comer of Stevens Creek and Miller as outlined in the attached staff report. Referring to the overhead site plan, Mr. Cowan illustrated the proposed location of the building in relation to surrounding office buildings. He reviewed the environmental impacts relative to the disposal of haTnrdous materials and locating the development in a floodplain, as outlined in the staff report. He noted that the environmental issues have been resolved by the applicant and the Environmental Review Committee is recommending approval of a Negative Declaration. Mr. Cowan explained that staff would work with the Water District on the condition that the finished floor must comply with their requirement of 194 feet. Mr. Dave Whitgob, Pacific Car Care, provided an outline of the services performed by the business. He stated that the business focused on fluid maintenance only and provided no car Planning Commission Minutes 14 Jane 24, 1996 repairs; consequently at the end of the day there are no cars left on the property. Mr. Whitgob noted that there was no site pollution because there were no repairs completed on the premises, cars would not be moving up and down on a hoist and there are no impact wrenches used. He explained the process for the refinement of the oil. He said he felt that the business would provide a valuable service to the community, employees would be from the local community and the building would set the standard. Mr. Whitgob explained that they were in favor of the outdoor seating proposed by staff. Mr. Kurt Harold, architect, referred to the overhead of the site plan, and illustrated the proposed area for the outside seating area. Mr. Harold read context from the Santa Clara Valley Water District's letter referring to the requirement of 194 foot elevation. "Based on the topography survey for the sight, the highest existing ground elevation of the proposed structure is 192". He explained that when they sent site plans they were planning on a floor elevation of 192. "The 1% flood elevation at the proposed structure would be 193. We recommend an additional foot as an extra which would make it 194," which is how the elevation of 194 was calculated. Mr. Harold said that the applicant would like to propose to stay at the 193 elevatinn, and would work with the water district staff on a satisfactory resolution. A discussion ensued regarding the planting of trees on the property. Mr. Cowan clarified that staffwould use the Stevens Creek standards and have standard spacing for ash trees. He indicated that the placement ora bus shelter would be taken into account when planting trees. Mr. Whitcomb added that another feature of the proposed business is that it will accept oil from people who change their own oil and will recycle it for them. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Thomas Stutzman, attorney, 1625 The Alameda, San Jose, stated that he represented the owners of the immediate adjacent buildings not shown on the maps. He distributed copies of a petition signed by 126 people who opposed the Pacific CarCare Development. He referred to a map and illustrated the areas owned by his clients. He explained that the main reasons for the opposition to the building were the noise from the cars and the equipment; presence of flammable products~ which in turn increases the strain on the fire depamnent; payment of minimum scale wages to employees; increased traffic flow; total incompatibility with the neighborhood; and does Cupertino need another auto service company? Mr. Stutzman disagreed with statements made by Mr. Whitgob, such as the number of cars worked on per day, the claim that there would be no pollution causing products; his claim that noisy equipment was not being used; and his claim that there would be no soil contamination. Mr. Stutzman objected strongly to the determination by staff that there was no significant environmental impact. He said there was no basis for the decision. He quoted the California Legislature when they passed CEQA, Section 21000 "The legislature finds and declares as follows: The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. It is necessary to provide a high quality environment that at all times is helpful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. It is the intent of the legislature that all agencies of the state guvemment which regulate activities shall regulate such activities, and major Planning Commission Minutes IS June 24, 1996 consideration is given to preventing environmental damage. The legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency or noncompliance with substantive requirements of this division may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion". Mr. Stutzman said he felt it would happen if the Planning Commission makes the decision without having any idea what kind of environmental impact it is going to have. He said he did not know what the environmental impact would be, but that it is not a clean environment. He said he respected their efforts but it would still involve dirty substances being spilled on the ground. He urged the City to conduct an environmental impact report and not grant a negative declaration; he stressed the importance of keeping Cupertino beautiful. Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the meeting. Chair Harris asked the applicant to respond to the comments made by Mr. Stutzman, specifically the noise from the oil compressor, the electric &-ill, fire risk, toxic risk of soil contamination and possibly water contamination, the fume issue, the estimate of the number of cars worked on per day and if there have been other locations for similar properties, and if an environmental impact review was ever done. Mr. Whitglob addressed the issue of noise. He explained that there were no compressors used to remove the oil; a box-in wrench is used to remove the drain plug and the oil drains out with gravity. He clarified that electric or pneumatic drills were not used to remove or reinstall the drain plug, and commented if used, it would rain the engine oil pan because it only requires 22 foot pounds of torque and it must be put on by hand and a hand torque wrench must be used. He said there was no noise involved; no repairs are made and no hoists or lifts are used to raise the vehicle up offthe ground. Mr. Whitgob addressed the issue of using unskilled labor. He pointed out that the effective hourly rate is $8.50 per hour for an employee working on the vehicles. The company prides itself in a drug free environment and employees befit a correct image; have communication skills, hand and eye coordination and go through extensive 4 day training, testing after each day and are given a signing bonus when they are hired. They continue through a variety of levels of certification to make sure they remain current with their job and are monitored carefully. The company offers a career ladder for its employees and remains competitive in its field. Mr. Whitgob said that with respect to managing the oil, when the oil is drained from the vehicle it enters into an oil caddie which holds up to 30 gallons of oil. When the capacity reaches 25 gallons of oil, it is transported to an evacuation area and is drained into a 1,000 gallon UL approved tank that is located in the lower bay, the lower bay walls are approx. 8 to 10 inches thick. He explained that a licensed hauler from Newark suctions the oil out and takes it to the refining facility and it continues through an extensive process there. From the used oil tank and the secondary containment of the walls, all of the oil is contained and no fumes escape. Mr. Whitgob remarked that the former gas station probably serviced between 500 to 750 cars per day pumping gasoline and emitting fumes and the adjoining businesses would probably applaud the proposed facility in light of the former facility. Planning Commission IVlJnules 16 June 24, 1996 Mr. Whitgob addressed the issue of number of cars serviced daily. He reported that his company formerly built and operated 30 Jiffy Lube stores and the average daily cars serviced was 55. He commented that it would have been wonderful to service 180 cars per day but it just did not happen. He said there was not a fast oil change in the entire bay area that services 180 cars per day and that 55 cars per day was an accurate estimate. He pointed out that it would take about 24 months for the business to reach maturity. Addressing the issue of traffic flow, Mr. Whitgob explained that the traffic flow is metered, and the bus stop has been located at that location for some time; it was there when the gas station was located at the intersection and traffic has never posed a problem. He explained that the flashpoint ofoil is approximately 370 degrees and the fire marshals throughout ~e entire Bay Area approve of the company's procedures for the removal and containment of the used motor oil. He said that there has never been a problem in any of the municipalities the company has done business in throughout the greater Bay Area. Mr. Whitgob stated that an Environmental Impact Report has not been done previously. Com. Doyle asked if any of the neighbors had contacted the applicant. Mr. Whitglob said that he was not contacted, and expressed surprise that none of the opponents were present at the meeting. He pointed out that the residential area in question was not close to the proposed facility. Com. Austin questioned the function of the Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Cowan explained that the Environmental Review Committee in Cupertino was a group consisting of one member each of the City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works Director, Community Development Coordinator and the City Maaager. The Committee's task is to review projects to determine the probable significant impact of the project on the environment. If there is a significant environmental impact, an EIR is required. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the Committee determined that an EIR was not required for this particular project. He also stated that in addition to the Environmental Review Committee, there is a pre-hearing meeting consisting of the major agencies. A brief discussion ensued relative to traffic pattern in the immediate area. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Ms. Lynaugh said she did not have an exact count of the actual quantity of ears using th~. intersection per day; however the level of service is D-. She indicated that the calculations on the peak hour p.m. would be an additional 12 trips per hour, but that would not significantly change the level of service. Com. Austin said she approved of the application; that it was a necessary service. She applauded the recycling of materials, which was environmentally positive. She said that it would provide a time saving service; that it was a pleasant facility for the intersection and a positive improvement over the previous gas station. She said the 10 foot planting strips were acceptable. Com. Austin expressed concern about the floodplain. She said she was in favor of the Negative Declaration. Com. Doyle said that relative to the Environmental Impact Report, he felt the staff and the organization acted in due diligence. Relative to specific projects, he said he approved the sidewalk issue; and said it was important to incorporate the tree planting requirements into the resolution; the 193 foot elevation was appropriate. Com. Doyle expressed concern about the number of people signing the petition in opposition of the proposed facility and suggested a delay in making a Pl~tlllillg Cort~lliS$ioll MJllules 17 June 24, 1996 decision so that the residents could provide input relative to their opposition of the project at the next meeting. In response to Chair l-larfis's question about prior notification to residents, Mr. Cowan said that property owners within 300 feet were notified. He pointed out that they have the ability to appeal the decision. Discussion ensued regarding how the petitioners would be notified of the meeting. Com. Harris said that she felt it was a worthwhile project and that a lot of work has been done to make it physically attractive; it is a useful property for the community. She said it was a positive approach to encourage people to have their oil changed and applauded the recycling service. She said she would like more specific direction on the tree planting in the ordinance. She also expressed concern about approving the application in light of 126 Cupertino residents opposing the project. Mr. Stutzman said he felt adequate notice was not given to the residents and most of the people on the list felt this would be a confrontational situation and would not have felt comfortable in such a situation. Com. Austin remarked that a similar occurrence was the petition signed by Taco Bell customers. She said she felt the residents had ample time to oppose the project and now have ten days to appeal the decision. She recommended further discussion and staff's recommendation. Com. Harris said that she would recommend a 2 week continuance to allow the community the opportunity to provide input if they are opposed to the project. She noted that it is the responsibility of Mr. Stutzman to notify the opponents of the continuation so that they can provide input and/or appear at the meeting. This would also provide aa opportunity for the developer to meet with the community to help dispel fears they may have about the proposed facility. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT; NOES: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 10-U-94 (Mod.) to the July 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the interested public to receive more information on the issue. Com. Harris Corns. Mmhoney and Roberts Com. Austin Passed 2-1-0 OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION - None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None