PC 07-08-96CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 8, 1996
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Corns. Doyle, Harris, Mahoney and Chairperson Roberts
Commissioner absent:
Com. Austin
Staff present:
Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell,
City Plamaer; Michelle Bjurman, Planner II; Carmen Lynaugh,
Public Works; Tom Wiles, Planning Intern; Charles Kilian, City
Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
June 24, 1996 Regular Meeting:
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve the Jane 24, 1996 minutes as presented.
Com. Doyle
Com. Mahoney and Chair Roberts
Com. Austin
Passed 2-0-2
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Chairman Roberts noted material pertaining to Item 4;
Memorandum and Revised Resolution for Item 5; Correspondence from J. Stocckenius and Julia
Tien; ~onald Gaubatz, Gulsen Maloaey pertaining to Item 7.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
Amendments to Chapter 19.108 - Television and Radio Aerials
Ordinance Amendments and 6-EA-96
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.108, Television and Radio aerials of the Cupertino Municipal Code,
related to expansion of definition to include other wireless communication facilities, location, citing
design and other related subjects to be determined by the Planning Commission.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANN1NG COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22, 1996.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 8, 1996
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
smadards.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22, 1996.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
6-U-96
Hossain E. Khaziri
Same
1002 DeAnza Boulevard
Use Permit to demolish an abandoned service station and construct a 1,500 sq. ft. service station and
carwash.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22, 1996.
9. Interpretation for a front property line located at 10475 Imperial Avenue.
Applicant requested that the item be removed from calendar.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to continue Items 2, 3 and 6 to the July 22, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting, aad remove Item 9 from the calendar as requested by the
applicant.
Com. Mahoney
Com. Austin
Passed 4-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
· 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. ft. 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 JUNE 24, 1996.
Staff ~resentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, explained that
following a lengthy discussion of the application at the June 24 Planning Commission meeting, the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 8, 1996
Planning Commission decided to continue the application to the July 8 meeting to allow interested
individuals who had signed a petition in opposition oftbe application the opportunity to appear at the
July 8 meeting to discuss the application.
Mr. Dave Whitgob, Pacific CarCare provided a background of the business and the services to be
performed at the proposed location. He reiterated that the business focused on fluid maintenance
only and provided no car repair services.
Referring to an overhead of the petition signed by opponents of the application, Mr. Whitgob said he
felt false statements relating to the impacts of the facility would have influenced uninformed
residents to sign the petition in opposition of the application. The list included: mismanagement of
ha~ardons materials; inconsistent use of land; increased traffic congestion; increased noise pollution;
creation of parking problems; and a negative environmental impact.
Mr. Whitgob addressed the alleged negative impacts which were included in his presentation to the
Planning Commission on June 24, 1996 and his responses were explained in detail in the minutes of
the meeting.
Mr. Whitgob explained that he visited the office building adjacent to Mr. Fung's office building and
spoke with 22 people in the area who had previously signed the petition in opposition of the proposed
facility. He pointed out that 21 of the people said they were in favor of the application. He also
spent a considerable mount of time talking with the people in the community who had signed the
petition and after explaining the facts, 83% of the people signed a petition stating that after knowing
the correct facts, they were in favor of the project.
In response to Chair Roberts' question about the requirement for the finished floor elevation, Mr.
Cowan said that in talking with staffthey felt they can keep the same finished floor, the 193 number.
He said it would not make sense to go the extra margin of safety when the Calaba?a-q Creek project
is going to be completed within two to three years, and the flooding danger will be alleviated.
Chair Roberts opened the public hearing for public input.
Ms. Nora Chan, 10061 Miller Avenue, said that the developer responded to the questions asked by
the residents. She said that someone canvassed the neighorhood to see how the neighbors felt about
the facility; and at that time brought a package prepared by the City of Cupertino to review. They
reviewed the packet and the majority of them felt that the City Council did not listen to the residents'
opinions. The neighbors felt that their opposition was ignored when Vallco Center was built, and
they felt that having a signature did not carry any weight. The neighbors objected to the number of
car care facilities on the four comers. In that neighborhood they would prefer to have something else
to serve the neighbors. She said that the bus stop creates a lot of foot traffic and a dangemns
situation with students and elderly people passing through the busy intersection. She said that no
matter what type of business, there would be cars going in and out; possibly there could be a
business that would have less traffic. She said she doubted that the business could remain stable
with only 55 cars per day serviced. She questioned if there would be outside seating area, and said
the people in the adjacent buildings were opposed to people loitering in the area. She asked that the
Council reconsider the traffic study on Miller Avenue because the traffic on Miller Avenue is heavy.
With two office buildings bordering the property, there is a concern about visual impact from the
occupants of the building. The office building is a two story office building and the visual impact is
poor. Concerning the environmental impact, she asked how often the oil is removed, is there a fire
Planning C0mnfissi0n Minutes 4 July 8, 1996
ba-urd, and how is the oil being removed from underground; is there a possibility of spillage of the
ba?ardous materials?
Mr. Cowan said that staffhad suggested an outside seating area for customers, which is a condition
of approval.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that the area for the outside seating area would be Miller and
Stevens Creek, not adjacent to the offices.
Mr. Bob Reister, 19405 Greenwood Drive, said that he was in favor of the proposed facility. He
said that the owner of the BP station on one of the other comers had future plans to turn the BP
station into a convenience store. Mr. Reister explained that he worked for Jiffy Lube in the past and
residents would drop off oil at the station to be recycled. The fire department would have to be
contacted to pick up the oil to dispose of it properly. He expressed concern relative to who would
bear the cost of the disposal of the h~7~rdous waste that the residents would be dropping off at the
station for disposal. Mr. Reister said that in the past the owners of the stations would work
diligently to keep the premises clean of oil drippings, etc. He said in his prior experience, the Jiffy
Lube employees used unauthorized chemicals and detergents to keep the premises clean and thus
earn bonuses for clean premises. This activity was done on the weekends when the city and county
workers were not working. He expressed concern as a local resident that the waste material might be
hosed into the gutters and questioned how the city or Mr. Whitgob could assure that the activity
would be monitored.
Mr. Dick Schuster, 777 Stendahl Lane, said that he initially signed the petition in opposition to the
project out of ignorance of the facts. He stated that after hearing the facts, he was in favor of the
proposed facility. He noted that the comer lot has been vacant and abandoned many years and has
been an eyesore, as well as the vacant savings and loan building. Mr. Schuster pointed out that the
proposed facility was a great distance from the building located at 10062 Miller Avenue. He urged
the Planning Commission to approve the proposed facility.
Mrs. Eva Shamble, 10210 Richwood Drive, said she was a resident of the area for over 30 years.
She said that Ms. Chart discussed the issues that she was concerned with also. She said she signed
the petition in opposition to the CarCare facility and noted that there were other car facilities in the
neighborhood. Mrs. Shamble said that she spoke with the person who was canvassing the
neighbgfaood in favor of the facility but she was still opposed to the facility. She felt that used oil
could be disposed of at DeAnza. She said that she felt the traffic was too heavy on the comer for
that type of facility.
Mr. J. Alfred Shamble, 10210 Richwcod Drive, said that when the Shell gas station was located on
the comer the traffic was horrendous. He questioned whether the oil would be stored underground
or above ground and if underground there should be assurance that the floor and walls of the
basement would not leak into the groundwater. He expressed concern relative to the traffic entering
and exiting the facility. Mr. Shamble urged the city to address the issue of the timing of the
crosswalk signal, pointing out that foot truffle is not able to make it to the center island with the
walking signal and the increased traffic would only worsen the situation. He requested a response on
the oil storage.
Mr. Thomas Stutznma, attorney, said that he was appearing in two capacities; one as an attorney
licensed to practice law in California. He said that he took an oath when licensed as an attorney to
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July ~, 1996
uphold the constitution and laws of California and said he was certain everyone present had the same
intention. He said that one of the laws of the State of California is the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) that obligates by the legislature to follow CEQA to make the findings. He said
there were a lot of glib answers two weeks ago and tonight by the proposers of this project; and
questioned how it is not going to have a negative environmental impact. He said he heard only
conclusions, not a single study or one scientific fact quoted. He asked what the bases of the
conclusions were. He said that the reason CEQA was passed was to require bodies to have before
them facts devised by scientists, people, before making a decision that could affect a city or region
for many years.
Mr. Stutzman questioned what kind of traffic study has been done to support the claims; what kind
of study has been done about the containers that are going to house the oil; what kind of study on
noise pollution and air pollution has been done.'? He said there were interesting comments made such
as it would not create any air pollution. He said cars create air pollution; and asked how the cars
would get into the station without their motors running. Mr. Stut2man said that the employees will
use air compressors to check the oil pressure which is noisy. Them was a general question about oil
spillage; he said anyone living in California has seen service stations that have had the tanks
removed fi.om the ground because they leak.
Mr. Stutzman said there was no scientific basis for approval of the project; that there was a need to
have aa Environmental Impact Report done. He said there were concerned citizens out in the
community who are entitled to have their air and groundwater protected and there was no legitimate
basis to approve the project because nobody had completed the studies that are required by CEQA.
He alleged that the Planning Commission would be violating the laws of the State of California to
approve the project at this time and be subjected to a laxvsuit. He suggest that would be an abuse of
discretion on their part to subject the citizens of Cupertino to that kind of lawsuit without having
scientific facts. He said they may find in fact when the homework is done and the study completed
that this is not likely to have a serious negative environmental impact but there is no way to do that
now; the homework has to be done; that's why CEQA was passed. He said that once a decision is
made it is irreversible; there is only one oppommity to protect the environment; the law requires that
oppommity be taken now. Mr. Stutzman respectfully requested that an EIR be done to provide
some scientific facts. He said there were legitimate questions asked this evening that can't be
answered; the developer can't answer them and they can't be answered without the necessary
studies. He urged the Planning Commission to protect the environment, protect your citizens, follow
the law.:
Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, said that the City always makes every effort to adhere to the law.
He pointed out that there is an initial checklist completed by the Environmental Review Committee in
the agenda packet. He stated that the Planning Commission is only recommending to the City
Council as to whether or not there should be an EIR or whether there should be a Negative
Declaration; however, it has the discretion to request an EIR if desired. He said that it appeared
fi.om the checklist as well as the staff's report of prospective mitigation that a Negative Declaration
could be recommended as well.
Mr. Cowan noted that when the General Plan is completed and the cumulative impact of all
development is considered, the question is asked whether there is some special activity that occurs at
the site out of the ordinary that would require the preparation of an EIR, because the general impact
of the cumulative development has already been thoroughly assessed by the city and reviewed by
Plmming Commission Minutes 6 July 8, 1996
other agencies on the list for CEQA review. He commented that it was relevant that the property has
been used as a service station.
Ms. Nancy Barthelmess, 10290 Vicksburg Drive, said that the 17% of the opponents probably
resided in her area because her neighbors were not in favor of the facility. She stated that there are
three lube facilities on Homestead Blvd., not including any on DeAnza Blvd., and there was not a
need for more in the neighborhood. The intersection gets a heavy flooding about every 10 years
which requires sandbagging. She asked what happens when water goes down into the underground
storage area; how often does the tanker come to deliver and how often to take the oil out? She said
she would like an accurate response. She said if the facility was approved she would not utilize it.
Mr. Bernard Klein, 11625 Oak Springs Court, asked about muffler changes, brakes, and clutches
because he felt it was part of the franchise services.
Mr. Whitgob responded to concerns raised. He reiterated that the cleaning chemicals used were
biodegradable; he said he had not ever purchased b~-~rdous or toxic chemicals and didn't know if
they were still available for purchase. He assured them that CarCare would not use them, and would
make sure everything used is environmentally correct. He explained that the tank in the lower bay,
which is a UL approved tank, is emptied every two weeks and a local licensed hauler takes the oil to
their plant in Newark for a refining process. The lower bay basement is a minimum of 6 to 8 inch
thick cement walls. He said it was not considered underground, pointing out that technically for a
tank to be underground, it has to sit in the dirt. He said there were no tanks that touch the soil and
leaks would be readily seen. Mr. Whitgob pointed out that the only services offered are the fluid
maintenance and to offer anything else would defeat the purpose of providing a convenience while-u-
wait service. He explained that the company pays for the disposal of the oil dropped off by
residents. When oil is purchased in a store, there is a 4 cent per quart tax and when used oil is
disposed of properly, the company reimbursesthe 4 cents per quart to the residents dropping offthe
used oil. If oil was dropped off after hours and the fire department was called in, the financial
burden would be on the company, not the citizens.
Mr. Cowan explained that staff hms consulted with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and they
have given a finished floor elevation of 193. He noted that the problem would be eliminated when
Calabash Creek is completed in approximately two years. He said that relative to b~7~rdous
materials, there will be a ha?nrdons materials plan submitted to the Central Fire District and it will
be reviewed by the agency. He said the agency has looked at this application in their pre-hearing
review and had no comments.
Chair Roberts asked staffto respond to the bus stops and entrance/exit of traffic.
Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, said that similar situations existed in many locations where
there is a bus stop and a driveway onto a main street such as Stevens Creek, and noted that Public
Works did not have concerns about it. The transit district also reviewed the bus stop and they didn't
have any concerns with the driveway; the duckout is an advantage because it gets the bus out of the
travel lane.
Mr. Cowan responded to a speaker's comment about the signal timing for pedestrians, stating that he
would turn the concern over to the traffic department for review.
Chair Roberts closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
?laaning Commissiou Minutes 7 July 8, 1996
Com. Doyle said he suppot~l the application. He stated that even if the usage was increased to 100
cars per day it was minimal compared to the convenience store and other gas stations that may be in
existence. He said the EIR is sufficient to address the issues presented.
Coms. Mahoney and Hams agreed with Com. Doyle's summary and said they supported the
application.
Chair Roberts said that the application is to be viewed as a new use but it is replacing the previous
use of a gas station and is much less environmentally objectionable compared to the gas station and
in particular to the abandoned gas station.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE :
Com. Mahoneymoved to approve theNegativeDeclamtionon5-EA-96
Com. Harris
Com. Austin
Passed 4~-0
Mr. Cowan clarified that the application involves less than 5,000 square feet of space and is not
forwarded to City Council. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed.
Mr. Kilian clarified that the Planning Commission would be making a decision with respect to the
Negative Declaration or EIR, unless appealed to the City Council.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 4-U-96 in accordance with the
model resolution.
Com. Doyle
Com. Austin
Passed 4-0-0
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
9-U-96 and 13-EA-96
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Same
Stevens Creek Boulevard/Vista Lane
Use Permit to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a new 11,900 sq. R. fire
station adjacent to the old station.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
'I'I~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 15, 1996
Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish the present
Cupertino Fire Station which was built 48 years ago, and construct an 11,900 sq. ft. fire station on
the site of an existing car dealership fronting on Stevens Creek Boulevard. In 1995 Central Fire
Protection District representatives submitted plans to build a new station on Vista Drive. Residents
opposed the project, expressing concern about the noise and traffic. The proposed building site is
farther away from the residential area. The new architectural design submitted is more urban in
character and fits with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Staff has met with the fire district
representatives to discuss various elements of the proposed station, and recommends approval of the
project.
Planning Commission Minutes g luly I, 1996
Referring to an aerial photo of the proposed site and the vicinity map, Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City
Planner, illustrated the locations of the old fire station and the proposed facility. She reviewed the
land use, stating that the north end of the parcel would remain vacant; the west end would be utilized
for office use; the northwest residential; beyond the vacant land is also residential, and office in the
other directions.
Referring to the overhead of the exit plan and re-entrance, Ms. Wordell reviewed the traffic
circulation for the new station. She illustrated that the equipment would exit onto Vista Drive and
most of the trips would go to the right or left once exited. No public traffic would be permitted to
enter onto Vista Drive as it would be restricted to use by fire equipment. The returning fire
equipment would have to circumvent the neighborhood in order to enter the new fire station. No
traffic will have to be stopped in order for the equipment to re-enter, as was the previous practice.
Ms. Wordcll summarized that thc only noise impact that exceeds the noise standards is the siren
which is exempt and does not have to be mitigated. She noted that thc siren is only used when there
is intervening traffic. The other noises will bc mitigat~l to meet Cupertino's standards.
Addressing the issue of design, Ms. Wordell explained that the areas of concern related to how the
building relates to Stevens Creek Boulevard, what kind of face does it give to the Boulevard, what
kind of an impact the entry way has, and also the design and location of the tower. She referred to
the overhead of the side elevation and the west and south elevations and reviewed the proposed new
plans that would address staff concerns as outlined in the attached staff report.
The Planning Commissioners took a short time to examine the perspectives of the proposed fire
station.
Ms. Wordell indicated that staff believes the applicant has responded to the concerns of both staff
and the design firm. She stated that a revised landscape plan has been submitted because of the
change to the entry way and the elimination of two parking spaces. Some conditions of approval
were changed: site plan dates and page numbers were changed to acknowledge the new plan set and
some new letters from the Water District and the Los Altos Garbage Company regarding recycling
areas for the fire station and abandoned wells. Staff and the Environmental Review Committee are
recommending a Negative Declaration and staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the project to the City Council.
In response to Com. Harris' question regarding reference to the City's noise standards on Page 4-2,
Ms. Wordell explained that because of the noise study prepared by the applicant showing that
construction equipment could possibly exceed the noise standards, and if they are using the best
possible equipment and methods and still exceeding the standards, the problem would be with the
noise standard and not the equipment if they are observing the best possible construction methods.
She confirmed that the same situation had existed with the Monta Vista fire station. Ms. Wordell
said it was possible that a proposal to change the city noise standard would be submitted if thc noise
standard was tested during cons'traction.
Chair Roberts questioned the tree plantings and the visibility at the fire truck exit. Ms. Wordell
stated that the fire trucks would exit at Vista Drive which is a lighted intersection. Referring to the
landscape site plan, Ms. Wordell pointed out that there was a site triangle requirement; Chair
Roberts asked if the trees adjacent to the entrance/exit would violate that. Ms. Wordell responded
Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 8, 1996
that a condition could be added or checked at the building permit stage. Following a brief discussion,
there was consensus that a common sense approach be used by the landscape architect to chose
plantings that don't cause a problem.
Fire Chief Doug Sporader, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, prodded an
overview of the selection process for the proposed site of the new fire station. He pointed out that
the new location was farther from the residential area which presented many pluses to the neighbors,
the city and the district. He said that the fire district had consulted extensively with the city staff,
and the architect, to design a fire station suitable for a prominent comer in the city. The building
design was reviewed by the Heaa of the City architects and their concerns were addressed in the
redesign. He requested approval of the application so that the project could move forward as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Glen Bownmn, Robinson, Mills & Williams, architects, said that there were three goals for the
design of the project: primarily a functional and efficient operational fire station to serve Cupertino
for years to come; it was also important that the existing fire station remain in operation during
construction of the new fire station; and thirdly, through the design of the station an attempt was
made to create a building that contributed to the look and feel of Cupertino; that fits in and relates
well to its neighbors and is a piece of the Heart of the City puzzle.
Mr. Bowman explained that the three main uses of the building included the apparatus room for
storage of the fire fighting equipment, crew living quarters, and the ability for the apparatus to get
out into Stevens Creek before going through the intersection. He discussed the elements of design of
the building as outlined in the attached staff report. He said he felt the building would fit in with the
future developments in Cupertino.
In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Bowman said that other tower designs were considered
before the final design was chosen. He said that the 45 foot high structure was mostly an exterior
plaster and the top portion was perforated metal. Mr. Bowman said that the plan for the selection of
plant material was to work with staff to select the most appropriate plant material. Com. Harris
suggested that there be a condition stipulating that blooming plants be used in the landscape plan.
Com. Harris asked if thought was given to the portion that faces Stevens Creek which effectively
would be viewed as the front of the building even though it isn't the front; to anything other than the
reverse.shed roof treatment. Mr. Bowman responded that a number of designs were considered,
particularly at the entry area. He said that the architect wanted to make sure there was a gable to it
with a roof overhang; the design guidelines strongly suggest that and yet wanted to praduee
something distinctive and clearly modem. He said he felt this met the criteria.
Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Don Kinne, 20260 Rienell Place, questioned the process for public input on the proposal, noting
that the only notification received was from the Chief of the Fire District in late December that the
proposal was in process, and the notice of the June public hearing that there would be an opportunity
to meet with the neighbors. He questioned if the apparatus room was moved to the rear to make the
truck movements work; in the last approved configuration the crew rooms were flipped over with the
apparatus room to provide some buffer to the rear residential area and in the one presented as part of
the packet, it is moved toward the residential area. He requested that the doors facing Vista Drive be
a non-metallic fiat finish; as well as a condition that the doors remain open. He noted that the
P/a/liiJ/lg ColllmissiOtl Minutes 10 July 8, 1996
recreation ar~a is unsightly in front. Mr. Kinne said that as a neighbor and tmxpayer he appreciated
what the fire department has done; it is an improvement over the last version approved.
Ms. Janie Phillips, 20192 Joseph Circle, spoke on behalf of the Joseph Park Homeowners
Association. She thanked the fire district for the new plan, noting that she was appreciative of their
concerns being addressed in the plan. She commented on the aesthetics of the project. Referring to
the renderings illustrated, she expressed concera about the green metal roof and suggested that red
tile or shake roof would fit in with the local neighborhood. She said they preferred that the green
metal roof on the other side of the street not be used either. Relating 'to the tower, she said the
association had concerns about the nature of the equipment to be housed in the tower. She said it
appeared to be a fairly expansive tower to house what is seen, and asked for an explanation. She
pointed out that it has been described as an architectural statement, and with a building such as the
fire station, which is a semi public building that is intended as a service building as opposed to
needing to draw the public in, they preferred to see the architecture blending with the community as
opposed to making an architectural statement. She noted that them were conflicting comments
made in various documents about whether or not the wall between Joseph Park and the fire station
would be wood or concrete. She questioned which baffled the sound more.
Ms. Phillips said there were also comments made in various documents that thc noise levels are
acceptable except for the upper floors of three affected buildings. She questioned whether they were
buildings or homes, and how many homes were affected on the upper levels by noise. She suggested
that a park be put in the space between the fire station and the homes.
Ms. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oak Way, said that she considered it a privilege to address the
Planning Commission and City Council on any topic. She also thanked the city staff for their work.
She said that the fire station has never caused her any inconvenience, and has earned her undying
gratitude over and over again. She pointed out that the City of Cupertino is growing and her
neighborhood is growing older and as a result she understood that about 80% of the calls to 911
involving the fire district were medical calls. She said she was grateful for the education she
receives from the public hearings. Ms. Smith said she did not have any concern of the impacts on
the neighborhood relative to the Monta Vista station. She recommended and urged the Planning
Commission to grant the fire district what it needed to address the important emergency services.
Mr. Robert West, 20232 Joseph Circle, thanked the Fire Chief for all the extra effort and said he
was happy to see the plan. He expressed concern about the fuel storage capability in the new plan,
and asked if the storage tanks were underground or above ground? He said that his wife and he
approved of the project.
Chair Roberts summarized community concerns: the tower; the door - whether or not it is to be open
and where the fire station pemoanel will have their recreation area; the roof; the wall; the noise
levels, especially upper levels of adjacent buildings; fuel storage; and if anything is known about the
designation of the space between the fire station and the homes to the north.
Mr. Bowman said that the fuel storage will be in an underground tank, specifically built, with double
wall and monitored 24 hours a day, with an alarm system for potential leaks. He explained issues
relative to the proposed tower: It has both an architectural symbolic function and an operational
function, the operational function being that it does enclose cemmunieation equipment. The antenna
and the dish located outside the tower are the only items of the communication equipment that has to
have line of sight to the relay station; other antennas are locateA inside the tower and it would be
Planning Commission Minutes Il July 8, 1996
preferable to put them inside as opposed to the roof where they would be mom visible. The dish
needs to be at a line of sight height that makes it functional; the tower is up to 45 feet mainly as a
punctuation statement; something that is meant to be a marker to make the station more memorable
during the day as well as the evening.
Mr. Bowman pointed out that the trees that line the north property line will not go in at 50 feet but if
poplars are selected they will provide an effective screen between the nearest residences to the north
and the station. The recreational area for the crew is an outdoor deck off the crew area which sits
behind the screen wall. There is also an outdoor area to the east of the deck where the crew will be,
not on the Vista Drive side.
Mr. Bowman stated that the roof needs to be durable and maintenance free. The roof form is a
residential form to strike a balance with the residential area. In response to Com. Doyle's question,
Mr. Bowman said that the concrete wall was a screen wall to enclose the area and provide noise
protection between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the deck area.
Ms. Wordell clarified that the applicant requested masonry for the perimeter wall and the condition
refers to wood. She said that unless the Planning Commission changes it, it should read masonry.
Mr. Bowman explained that the proposal for masonry wall was to be used for sound attenuation
purposes. Functionally a wood wall would be fine with the district; the noise report is based on
using a masonry wall for sound attenuation. He pointed out that it would be a split faced block
arranged in a pattern which has not yet been designed, and then painted.
Chairman Roberts said that the changes were positive; major elements were the location and the
aesthetics.
In response to Com. Harris' question if the vacant area was to be fenced, Ms. Wordell said that it
was not fenced. The wall is between the portion of the property that is being used and the portion
not being used. A discussion ensued regarding the vacant land area. Ms. Wordell said that the
property might be subdivided at a later date.
Com. Doyle said he was not comfortable with the design of the tower, specifically the aluminum
finish; and he said he felt the metal roof was out of character. He said he was concerned with the
fi'ont wall on Stevens Creek Boulevard which looked like a fort and appeared to be an isolation
between the facility and the street. He said the location was appropriate. Com. Doyle stated he felt
there was a problem with the fire trucks going in the residential neighborhoods when heading west on
Stevens Creek Boulevard but that complaints have not been raised about that.
Com. Mahoney said he didn't have a problem with the wall, that it shouldn't be open. He stated that
he was concerned with the tower and the entry roof, and that he did not like the tower. He said the
perspective pictures helped with some of that, especially the entry roof and the discussion about its
function.
Com. Harris said she felt the tower was too high at 45 feet, testimony was received that it could be
lower and still maintain the integrity and functional needs. She said she did not like the green metal
roof but realized when there is an architectoml determination, it should fit in. She said she was not
in favor of the reverse shed roof; it was unattractive and is a major focal element on Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Relating to the wall, she pointed out that a great amount of work was done on the wall
to put in the glass; however, the side wall needs to look like a front for purposes of its appearance on
Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 8, 1996
Stevens Creek Blvd.; it is the front, not the entry. Com. Harris said she felt more work needs to be
done on the reverse shed aspect. She stated that the apparatus room toward the back was
appropriate. She recommended that the requirement for blooming plants be incorporated for Stevens
Creek Blvd. and Vista Drive.
Com. Harris expressed concern regarding the wording relative to the noise impacts. She said she felt
that this approval should not be used to change the noise standards; that it should be presented to
staff separately. She requested that the sentence be deleted. She also expressed concern about the
vacant land area. She recommended that it be surrounded by a low wall or low shrubs because of its
size and potential time for development. She recommended that it be a condition of approval in
addition to the fact that it should be kept clear of weeds and storage. She said that the 8 foot wall
constructed on the north and east side of the development was also an issue, in that the wall needs
to be oonstmcted for attractiveness as well as function.
Com. Harris said she was 85% in favor the project; that it was a project with merit with some
architectural issues to be worked on.
Chair Roberts complimented all involved in the location change to Stevens Creek Boulevard. He
said he liked the oontemporary design but was uncomfortable with the tower, stating that it had a
protruding appearance from the west elevation and appeared to be out of proportion from the
remainder of the building. He said he would like to see some more reiterations on it. He said the
roof design was appropriate and if the wall was adorned with blooming plants it would be a
favorable dement, providing privacy for the fire station crew in the rest area.
Chair Roberts said that overall the design ties in nicely as a transition between the commercial area
along Stevens Creek Boulevard and the residential area to come. He said it should be kept in mind
that there will be future development to the north and that would be the critical choice as far as the
roof elements.
Discussion ensued relative to the unresolved issues. Com. Doyle requested clarification on Com.
Harris' earlier comment about the front wall and having it look like an entry or front of the building.
Com. Harris clarified that the entire wall on Stevens Creek Blvd. is really a side wall for the facility
because the facility corners Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd., which is the front. She said that
when buildings are built on a primary thoroughfare, their sidewalls are typically designed to look like
fronts because the other buildings front on that street. Com. Harris pointed out that this is in the
Stevens Creek Heart of the City and more work needs to be done to make it appear as a front. She
commented that it was a vast improvement over the previous plan.
Com. Doyle said he concurred with Com. Harris. He expressed concern about a fort-like
appearance because of the wall.
Com. Mahoney stated that he was in favor of the wall.
Mr. Cowan said that the applicant would respond to questions about functional need of the space.
He said it was a service area primarily for washing tracks, equipment etc., as well as a parking lot.
Mr. Bownmn explained the functions of the vacant lot, pointing out that it is a staff parking lot and
an area for servicing the equipment. He said that security is an issue and the fire district is
Planning Commission Minutes 13 lxlly %, 19%
concerned that there is some suitable deterrent around the site. He added that it serves as a screening
function mainly for the cars as well as the service activities going on and it functions as a security
fence for the property. Mr. Bowman clarified that in terms of the visibility of the area, it is
comparable to the project across the street which has a comparable setback in terms of building, and
very similar types of planting.
Fire Chief Sporader clarified that when the public visits the premises, the staff prefers they enter
through the front entnmce because of various activities taking place in the rear of the facilities. Staff
instructs visitors to park offthe street.
Discussion continued regarding the design guidelines relative to the screen wall, landscaping, roof
and entrances.
Chairman Roberts summarized that the issues of concern remaining were the shed roof and the
tower. Agreement was reached on the blooming plants. Com. Harris indicated she would like to see
more work on the perimeter wall. Com. Doyle said he would like to see a tower with some
architectural merit rather than a big aluminum shell with a dish on top. Corn Harris said that she
was in favor of the aluminum feature and the fact that it is used in three places. She said she felt the
tower shouldn't be higher than 38 feet or 8 feet taller than the highest point.
There was a brief discossion on whether or not a model of the tower was necessarily. Com. Harris
pointed out that models were very costly. She said she would be willing to support the tower without
viewing a model if there was a change in the roofline of the shed roof.
Com. Mahoney said he needed to see more detail and suggested more detailed drawings rather than a
model.
The Planning Commissioners expressed concerns regarding design elements which might defer
approval.
Com. Doyle said he would like to see another alternative design for the tower; the height not so much
the issue as the design or the implementation of the design. He expressed concern about the metal
roof, does it really portray that it is a rich building with character, or is it industrial with a metal
roof?. Because of the safety issues raised about the front wail, he said was not concerned with the
wall...
Com. Ma,honey said the size and shape of the tower were acceptable but would like to see more
detail on how it will look; there is no example within the city that has used similar material. He said
he would like to see more detail on the reverse shed element on the front of the roof or alternatives
relative to the roof design. Com. Mahoney said that the wall was appropriate.
Com. Harris said the design of the tower was appropriate; however the height should be reduced to
38 feet; cover is apppropfiate; metal roof as planned is appropriate. She stated she would like to see
the reverse shed roof element modified on the two areas where located, and would like to see what
the perimeter wall would look like because it would be visible and needs to be planned for
attractiveness.
Chair Roberts said he liked the concept of the orientation of the building and expressed concern that
if sustantial changes were made it might present other problems, and he did not see a solution to the
Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 8, 1996
roof design. Chair Roberts summarized that it would be simpler to work on modifications of the
tower design; but the roof design is more fundamental to the whole concept. He asked the
commissioners for their input on the roof.
Com. Hams said she needed to see something different; Com. Mahoney said he would like to see
something different in the form of those parts of the roof; definitely like to see some alternatives in
terms oftbe details. Com. Doyle said he was in line with Com. Mahoney's comments but would like
to see other material. Com. HanSs said she would be in favor of different material also. Chair
Roberts said he would not be insistent on any of the items mentioned, but if the majority felt that
way, he would be agreeable to looking into it also.
Mr. Bowman said that there would be problems with a lot of different materials. He said that there
needs to be an incombustible roof; it is very difficult to do a wood or shake roof, and to use a qua-
tile roof is not appropriate for the building. Fie explained that it is a mock historical material if used
on this building. He explained that it would look like a very odd addition to the intent of the
building, which is ultimately a modem building with a lot of detail.
Com. Doyle recommended returning with more detail for the entry way roofing to be able to show
the merits of it; he said Com. Mahoney and he would agree to come back with some different looks
for the tower.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to continue the application to the July 22, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting.
Com. Doyle
Com. Austin
Passed 4-0o0
There was consensus to discuss Item 7 in proper sequence.
Chair Roberts declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. Upon mconvening at 10:03 p.m, the same
Commissioners and staffwere present.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
· property Owner:
Location:
5-U-96 and 14-EA-96
Sobrato Development Co.
Same
19310 Prunefidge Avenue
Use Permit to add 24,000 sq. ft. to an existing building and modify existing landscaping and parking
lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
II:NTATIVE crrY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 15, 1996
Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for an addition of 24,000 square
feet to an existing building. The building is currently vacant, and applicant plans to renovate the
building to attract prospective tenants. It illustrated the location of the addition to the building,
noting the 11 trees in the parking lot to be removed for the addition. Twenty trees will be included in
the landscape plan. Of the 24,000 sq. ft. addition, approximately 5,000 sq. ft. will be considered
amenity space reserved for a lobby on the first floor and a break room on each of the floors. Staff
Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 8, 1996
notes that if amenity space is excluded from thc calculation of floor area ratio (FAR), it will meet thc
FAR limit of .33 and be acceptable. In addition to reviewing the relationship of amenity space to
FAR, staff will discuss the topic of parking and circulation, and housing mitigation requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the application.
Referring to the overh~,~ of the site plan and planned amenity space, Mr. Tom Wiles, Planning
Intern, reviewed the site location and discussed the planned amenity space for the site, which
included a cafeteria, nursing room, and 2 break rooms, totaling 5,079 square feet, putting the FAR
of the site at .328. He reviewed the parking and circulation as outlined in the attached staffreport.
Mr. Wiles discussed housing mitigation requirements as outlined in the staff report. He stated that
the last concern dealt with the landscaping for the area. There will be trees removed from the site.
However, the applicant will put in 20 additional trees around the site to replace the tree cover
removed from the building addition as well as the condition of approval from the Public Works Dept.
will require that street trees be planted. An updated resolution included the condition that they were
allowed to take trees out of the proposed demolition area but they would have to submit a landscape
plan and any further tree removal would require a tree removal permit.
In response to Com. Harris' question regarding reference to amenity space, Mr. Wiles clarified that
amenity space included the first floor cafeteria as well as the break rooms on the first and second
floors and the nursing facility. He noted that the resolution would be amended to reflect the changes
and the removal of the shower, conference and references rooms and lobby. He noted that under the
conditions of approval, the rooms must be utilized for the uses stated.
Mr. Phil Taylor, Sobmto Development Co., clarified that the building tenant would be Hewlett-
Packard. He presented a history of Hewlett-Packard's occupancy of the facilities, noting that the
previous owner went into bankruptcy and the property remained vacant for years. Under Sobmto
Development, the facilities have undergone extensive renovation and upgrades. Sobmto
Development and Hewlett-Packard agreed to a lease contingent upon the renovation of the facilities
and the ability for Hewlett-Packard to expand in the location.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one who wished to speak.
Chair Roberts noted that the only issue was the FAR and the need for counting amenity space to
satisf-y, that criteria or otherwise making an exception.
Com. Harris responded that she felt the they were manipulating amenity space to allow for this and if
the cafeteria is 3,661 sq. ft. she approved of it; she expressed concern with the addition of 23,912
sq. ft. containing 5,000 sq. ft. of amenity space or 21%. She said she would like the FAR
calcolated with the 3,661 sq. ft. only, and if not possible, go with the appropriate FAR looking at the
cafeteria space as amenity space.
Chair Roberts requested clarification from staff. He said that if subtracting only 3,661 sq. ft.
instead of 4,407 sq. ft. what would the FAR be? How would that compare to our criteria?
Mr. Wiles clarified that the space was 8.5 acres, which would move to an allowable square footage
of 122,186 sq. t~. The building itself is proposed to be 126,528 sq. ft. less 122,186 sq. ft. it would
be 4,342 sq. ft. With the 3,661 sq. ft. of cafeteria plus the 75 sq. t~. nursing facility, it would be
3,736 sq. ft. which would be a shortfall of 606 sq. ft.
Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 8, 1996
Com. Harris stated she was not in favor of calling the nursing facility amenity space, noting that
most large buildings have a first aid station. She said she did not object to approving it in excess of
the FAR if it is allowed, but did not want to manipulate the amenity space as it was poor practice.
She stated that if approval could not be granted for something in excess of the FAR without
manipulating the amenity space, she was in favor of approving a slightly smaller building.
Mr. Cowan clarified that the .33 FAR had to be used; the applicant can transfer from some other
property. The rules are that you have to allow building space based on the FAR of that properW
unless you transfer credits from some other property owner.
Chair Roberts expressed concern that a future occupant could convert the break rooms into
conference rooms.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to approve the Negative Declaration
Com. Ma,honey
Com. Austin
Passed 4-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to approve Application No. 5-U-96 with amended wording in
Item 3 Amen#y Space oftbe model resolution
Com. Mahoney
Com. Harris
Com. Austin
Passed 3-1-0
Mr. Cowan commented that staff has discussed amending the development intensity standards for
clear concise rules and is part of their work program.
Item 6 was postponed to the July 22, 1996 Plaaning Commission meeting.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
· Location:
7-U-96, 2-A-96, 3-TM-96 and 11-EA-96
Lily Change, Inc., and WBF Enterprise LLC
Same
22371 Cupertino Road
Use Permit to construct 3 single family residences on a 10,165 sq. ff. lot in a proposed Planned
Development Zone. Zoning to rezone a I0,165 sq. ft. parcel from R-3 to Planned Residential or
other appropriate zoning. Tentative Map to subdivide a 10,165 sq. ft. parcel into three
approximately 1,800 to 2,200 sq. ft. parcels.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMENATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 5, 1996
Note: Com. Doyle excused himself from discussion of the item because of conflict of interest.
Chair Roberts noted correspondence received pertaining to Item 7 from Gulsen Maloncy, James
Stoeckenius and Julia Tien, and Donald Gaubatz.
Planning Commission Minutes 17 July 8, 1996
Staffnresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct 3
single family townhanses in place of the single family residence on the 10,165 square foot parcel,
and for rezoning from R-3 to Planned Development Residential or some other appropriate
designation. The video outlined the background of the item as explained in the attached staff report.
Staff will discuss which trees will be protected and which will be removed; and the proposed FAR
and design. Staff recommends approval according to the model resolution.
Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II, reviewed the application as outlined in the attached staff report.
She pointed out that the most significant aspect of the application is the zoning request and its
compatibility with the adjoining properties and its relationship to the General Plan itself. As outlined
in the applicant's request for rezoning, the request is to modify the zoning from multi-family
residential to single family residential cluster. If staff chooses to rezone the property, that particular
zoning would not be appropriate because it is designed to protect a certain significant environmental
feature of the property which would not be appropriate as it should be to Planned Development
Residential with the proposed conditions.
Ms. Bjurman pointed out that there is a proposed retaining wall on three sides of the property
because of a change of elevation between 8 feet in one direction and 6 feet in another. Staff has
created a condition of approval limiting the good neighbor fencing between the properties.
Referring to the grading plan, Ms. Bjurman reviewed the tree protection issue. She pointed out a
staff concern that the issue of the protection of the pepper tree and oak tree in the area has not yet
been settled between the architect and civil engineer. Confirmation has not yet been received from
the arbofist that the trees will be protected under the revised plan. A $I0,000 bond per tree has been
created to assist in meeting the arbofist's recommendations provided.
Referring to the overhead of the elevations, Ms. Bjurman pointed out the concern relative to the
awkwardly placed fireplace flue on two of the buildings. Staff recommends approval of the
rezoning.
In response to Com. Harris' question relating to staff's request for a designation of 10 units per acm,
Ms. Bjurman confirmed that the General Plan calls for 20 to 35 units per acre, but clarified that
there is a General Plan policy that allows deviations to the density on a site as long as the
characteristics of the project is consistent with the surrounding land uses. She pointed out that
density is based upon gross acreage which includes up to 30 feet of right of way.
Mr. Darrel Fazekas, architect, referred to the vicinity map, and explained that the site was a difficult
site to develop because it is adjacent to an Ri-10 zoning. He illustrated the various surrounding
zoning designations adjoining the proposed site. He said that at 10 units per acre there could be a 3
unit apartment house, and according to the General Plan density there could be 6 units, but applicant
is only proposing 3. Mr. Fazekas explained that the proposed layout was chosen to save the oak
tree. He illustrated the location of the proposed 5 foot sidewalk and park strip, and said that the
arborist is concerned about the proximity of the concrete to the oak tree. He noted that there were
also two pepper trees to the rear to be saved and two large walnut trees. Mr. Fazekas reviewed the
design issues relative to the proposed townhouses, the FAR/lot sizes and the tree protection. He
stated that the FAR was .49 as a whble, and because of the small size of the lots, it excused the
FAR. The homes are 1,500 sq. ff. starter homes. He said he felt the neighbors would favor the
single family homes rather than an apartment house, which would decrease the adjoining home
values. Mr. Fazekns welcomed Planning Commission input and input from the public on the
proposed project.
Planning Commission Minutes 18 July 8, 1996
A discussion ensued regarding the FARs wherein Ms. Bjurman explained that the common lot was
excluded in the calculations, and pointed out that staff considered Summerhill, Citation, City Center
and Blaney Avenue in the same manner as Cupertino Road. Mr. Cowan clarified that the private
and common driveways are excluded from the other calculations ns well. Ms. Bjurman clarified that
relative to the General Plan land use rap, she is inaccurately calling the site out as 20-35 dwelling
units per acre, when it is 10-20.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment.
Ms. Judith Agulian, 22340 Cupertino Road, provided a history of the property. She said that she
has lived in the area since 1964, at which time there was only one home on the property and orchard
existed where Sunnyview Manor now is. When the property was rezoned to R3 it was done from
Salem Avenue, not Cupertino Road, and the residents were not notified of the rezoning of the
property and did not have the opportunity to provide input. She requested that the property remain
zoned for RI-10, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and that they be permitted to
provide input as they were denied the opportunity in 1965 when it was rezone& In response to
Commissioners' questions, she stated that the Salem Avenue area was zoned for multi-family and
property B was appended onto later by the County at that time.
Ms. Susan Fujimoto, 22321 Cupertino Road, expressed concern about the high density of the
proposed plan. Referring to the table of the project characteristics, Ms. Fujimoto compared the
Cupertino Road setbacks to the developments shown, and noted that the other homes in the area
featured open space and trees, yet the proposed plan was three houses tightly packed together which
was not in character with the neighborhood. She said that an earlier comparison stated that it would
be a good transition for the neighborhood to the north and pointed out that the area north was not
considered part of the neighborhood. She questioned the reference in the staff report to the General
Plan density and the 6 unit apartments.
Mr. Mark Edwards, 22350 Cupertino Road, said that he had similar concerns expressed by his
neighbors, particularly density. He said he felt the density was not reasonable and not comparable to
the other developments which are more high density that the majority of the neighborhood. The only
difference between the neighborhood in the two different types of dwellings is the Sunnyview Manor
where the majority of the residents don't normally have cars. He said that the proposed plan is to
put 3 buildings on a small RI-10 lot. Referring to the project characteristics chart, he pointed out
the FAR and small rear yard area of the proposed units. Mr. Edwards said that he concurred with
staff that the residential cluster did not apply to the proposed units, and should not be used to claim
that the driveway is a type of amenity. He said that he took exception to Mr. Fazeka's earlier
statement that the neighborhood was going to 3,500 square foot lots, pointing out that that it was
Ri-10, with single houses on 10,000+ sq. R. lots. Chairman Roberts clarified that the reference was
to 3,500 square foot homes. Mr. Edwards said that the .49 FAR referred to by Mr. Fazekas should
not be considered, as the driveway is not living space, it is a necessity compelled by the fact that it is
a flag lot, and to get to the back and middle parcel, you have to drive on the driveway.
Ms. Bjurman clarified that if it was a flag lot, it would be considered a private street and would not
he included in the calculations.
Mr. Dearie Gardner, 22321 Cupertino Road, said that the neighborhood is comprised of 2,000-3,000
sq. ft. homes on 10,000-15,000 sq. f~. lot, and the proposed development was not in character with
Planning Commission Minutes 19 July 8, 1996
the remainder of the neighborhood. Referring to the comments made that the development was a
good transition from the Sunnyview Manor Homes and the apartment complex on the north side, the
apartment complex on the north side is a one story, low roof dwelling with good tree cover and not
highly visible from the street with low impact traffic. He said he appreciated the owner's concern
about not building an apar~nent complex, but said the proposed three townhouse development is not
conducive to the size of lot.
Ms. Gulsen Maloney, 22333 Cupertino Road, said that her property was adjacent to thc proposed
development, and sbe concurred with the concerns expressed by her neighbors as well as those
expressed in the letters sent to the Planning Commission. She said she opposed the development for
the additional reasons: (1) the proposed three small townhouses cut between her property and the
proposed property and the major windows are overlooking her front and rear yards and will invade
her privacy. She said she purchased the home a year ago because of the privacy factor and it would
be a shame to lose that; (2) serviceability of these homes; Los altos garbage company will be picking
up three containers for each unit, and will be providing a 4th container. There will now be 12
containers lined up; they won't have room to keep them. (3) concern with access for ambulance and
fire truck.
Mr. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road, referred to the zoning map and emphasized how
isolated the small area of zoning was within the neighborhood; it has been single family for a long
time and it is curious to have an isolated parcel zoned R3, and the only remaining non-single family
zoning is the Sunnyview Manor Home. The parcel which was an apartment house experienced
problems with litter, traffic and the problems were eliminated when it was adjoined to Sunnyview
Manor. He commented that Sunnyview Manor was not a high density unit as the residents don't
drive cars frequently and stay close to home. He noted that previously a proposed development for
the property next to his was rejected - this was originally proposed to break the RI-10 zone to have
one of the lots into one of the lots into an R1-175 due to an access problem and it was rejected
feeling that it should stay within the RI-10. He said he was not sure how the isolated island got into
thc General Plan; it might have been an error. He said as discussed earlier the movement to the
other zone really doesn't occur; the other zone is quite a distance away; it is not 1t3; it is essentially
commercial and should be pulled into RI-10.
Mr. lon Tester, 22334 Cupertino Road, questioned the meaning of private storm drainage
easement. He expressed concern that the parking calls for 13.5 spaces and it only has 9 spaces. He
agreed that the Smmyview Manor is low traffic. He also expressed concern about the many large
trees which would be dnsu'oyed on the properties.
In response to Mr. Tester's request for clarification on the private storm drainage easement, Ms.
Carman Lynaugh, Public Works, said that if referring to the one shown on the property next to it, it
means that it is not for public use. If the property wanted to dram to it, they would have to get an
easement fi'om that property; it is for that property or whoever it is granted to; its not granted to the
city for our use.
Ms. Audrey D'Urso, 22291 Cupertino Road, said that she concurred with her neighbors, that she
would like to see the property remain as a single residence.
_ Chairman Roberts closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Harm/ng Commission Minutes 20 July 8, 1996
Mr. Fazekas explained that the owners purchased the property based on the R3 zoning; they were
not aware that the City would want to down-zone the property to single family dwelling. Relative to
thc zoning map, he pointed out that this is still on thc BQ side of the long straight line that separates
the RI-10 from the R3 zone. He said there were many lots in town that house single family homes
that back up to commercial properties or back up to high density properties; it is not unusual; at
some place the city has to draw the line. Mr. Fazekas said he did not feel it was high density, and
that even with building 3 townhouses it would remain on the low end of the density scale. He
pointed out that part of the design concept was to provide 20 by 20 usable yard space which
accounts for the L shape design to the tuwnhouse; for the privacy issue, an attempt was made to
keep 50 feet between the secondary dwelling. He said a plan could be worked out for the driveways
to the apartments and the townhomes could be together and work out a scenario with the one and two
story elements that would provide a privacy buffer, perhaps having the windows face elsewhere
other than east. There would be one trash container for each unit, and the total of three would roll
out to the from of the property; the trash company would not back into the driveway. Mr. Fazekas
noted that the property was 139 feet deep which is less than the 150 feet required for the fire
department hoses. The ambulance would have easy access to the property. He noted that the PPS is
a private storm drain easement and the lots drain toward the street; there is no storm drain in the area
and there is no storm drain available to connect to behind the property from the Lutheran Church.
He said he was aware that the development to the lef~ does generate a lot of traffic and particularly
on weekends fills up the site and creates more congestion that the proposed project.
Com. Mahoney questioned if the zoning remained at R3, could thc apartments be built?
Ms. Bjurman responded that they could build 3 dwelling units under the apartment zoning and if they
could meet the setbacks would not have to go before the Planning Commission. She stated that the
maximum coverage would be 40% on the R3 and a conceptual plan would be required to be
reviewed at the Planning Commission level which would outline the architectural theme of the
development, the location of the private outdoor space, a grading plan, and vehicular circulation.
The 40% would be the net area as defined. Ms. Bjurman explained that the square footage would be
building coverage only, and no FAR for bulk of structures. She explained that the RI~C zoning
would require 4.5 spaces per dwelling unit for the first bedroom and one parking space for each
additional bedroom, therefore for three it would be significantly high. She said that RI-C would not
be appropriate for the site.
A discussion ensued regarding down-zoning, wherein Mr. Kilian explained that it could be done as
part of the General Plan process. He said that as long as the city allows a reasonable use of the
property, down-sizing is legal and whether or not it is fair or equitable is for the Planning
Commission to decide.
Chairman Roberts closed the public bearing.
Com. Harris said she was not in favor of the proposal for the site. She said that looking at the
project characteristics of the other properties which were small lot subdivisions the lots typically
were much larger, the backyard area was larger, the setbacks were larger and what was provided
with these small lot subdivisions were more habitable, mom comfortable areas. She stated that there
are 13 trees on the property and removing 9 of them would change the character of the neighborhood
and she was not in favor of doing that. She said that the density was too high, that there was too
much square footage on the site. Com. Harris reiterated for those reasons she would not approve of
the application.
Planning Commission Minutes 21 July ~, 1996
Com. Harris said that if the application was denied, she would recommend that the property be
reviewed for General Plan consideration because the property does not align with the properties to
the north and the other propegdes developed around it that are RI-10.
Com. Mahoney said that he concurred with Com. Harris.
Chair Roberts said that he also concurred with Com. Harris and with the additional argument that
the proposed development or a two story apartment development would not, contrary to the staff
report, be a suitable transition. He said he visited the site and found the units to the west are high
density, but low profile, and if the particular property were developed as proposed, it would be
giving impetus to developing the property adjacent to the west and north more densely and further
changing the character oftbe neighborhood.
Mr. Kilian clarified that two separate actions under CEQA are involved and that a determination
must first be made before a decision is made as to whether the project requires an EIR. Once the
decision is reached, the project can be either approved or denied as a whole.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve Application 11-EA-96
Com. Mahoney
Corns. Austin, Doyle
Passed 3-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to deny Application 2-A-96 based on items discussed
Com. Mahoney
Corns. Austin, Doyle
Passed 3-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to deny Applications 7-U-96 and 3-TM-96 based on findings
discussed
Com. Mahoney
Coms. Austin, Doyle
Passed 3-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to direct staffto notice the Public Hearing before the Planning
Commission on August 12, 1996, to initiate a General Plan change and to notify the
City Council
Com. Mahouey
Corns. Austin, Doyle
Passed 3-0-0
Com. Doyle returned to the meeting.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
8-U-96, 4-Z-79 (Mod.) and 12-EA-96
Sheena Chang
Same
10036 Peninsula Blvd.
Planning Commission Minutes 22 July 8, 1996
Use Permit to construct two single family residences in a proposed Planned Residential Zone.
Zoning to rezone a .17 acre parcel to Planned Residential or other appropriate zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 5, 1996
Staff vresentation: Referring to the overhead map, Ms. Bjurman reviewed the application to
construct 2 two-story single family homes on two parcels. She pointed out that the parcel is
currenfly zoned neighborhood commercial and is the last parcel zoned as such before going into the
single family residential with a density range of between 4.4 and 12 dwelling units per acre. She
reviewed the current General Plan policy as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Bjurman
discussed the zoning and issue of tree protection as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends
approval of the application.
Responding to Commissioners' questions, Ms. Bjurman discussed the density ranges of the units in
the surrounding parcels.
Ms. Lynaugh explained that Public Works was working with the owner to vacate the area to be
abandoned which would be a purchase. She said that at present it is public right of way and is to be
vacated, and would become private land.
Mr. Darrel Fazekas, architect, referred to the overhead of the site plan and discussed the proposal to
construct 2 single family homes on the existing two parcel site. He noted that there were other 25
foot lots in the area that have been built on, and illustrated on the site plan that the proposal was to
move the lot line into thc center. He said that Doc Brown's, Paul & Eddies, and the small real
estate building benefited from the city initiated abandonment and gained properties at no charge. He
illustrated the triangular piece of land proposed to be purchased from the city. Mr. Fazekas
indicated that the civil engineer contends that there are actually three lots; the city can find no record
of merger although there are other areas where mergers occurred and records exist. He said that
theoretically there exists three lots, but applicant is asking for only two.
Mr. Fazeka explained that the proposal is for two 1,800 sq. ft. homes with attached 2-car garages, at
8.1 units per acre. He pointed out the existing house on the site, and discussed the setbacks.
ChairrrAan Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present who wish to
speak on the issue.
In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Bjurman stated that individual R1 homes on R1 lots
existed on the street, in the 4.4 to 7.7 density range. Mr. Cowan clarified that in the commercial
zones there are no density regulations per se, and recalled that approximately five years ago there
was a retail building with apartment units on top. He said that the same density rules do not apply
west of the line shown on the map. Mr. Cowan stated that it would not be contrary to the General
Plan to approve the proposed density.
Com. Doyle questioned iftbe fact that there were no records oftbe merger was an issue. Mr. Cowan
explained that he pemonally merged the properties in the residential area in the mid 80s, but did not
merge properties in the commercial area as there was no reason to.
Planning Commission Minutes 23 3uly %, 1996
Ms. Bjurman indicated that the present zone was called planned development neighborhood
commercial and the request was to be zoned residential, and explained that it is limited by a view of
what is existing on adjoining properties.
Com. Doyle said that two houses was a reasonable usage, but expressed concern with the FAR being
high, and recommended staying in line with the .45 FAR.
Com. Mahoney said the rozoning was appropriate and was in favor of the FAR which resembles the
style of the Peninsula 7, as long as the homes remain small in scale on small lots. He said the
density was appropriate.
Com. Harris said she felt that a 2,200 sq. ft. house on a 3,700 sq. ft. lot was too high; the character
of the neighborhood is a density of 4.4 to 7.7 and 8.1 is beyond most of the other houses on the
street. She said it was important to maintain the character of the street and would be willing to go
.45 FAR but not higher than 7.7, with a preference between 4.4 and 7.7 density.
Mr. Kilian stated that there were two lots in question and wasn't sure if the two lots could be
merged.
Chair Roberts said he would prefer to see the two lots developed as proposed rather than try to build
on the 25 foot lot. Chair Roberts said he viewed it as a transition case; it has been zoned
commercial residential and felt that the higher density would be acceptable as a transition fi.om the
commercial to the residential zone. He said as long as the trees could be preserved and under
conditions imposed he favored the application, and would accept the FAR at .55 as presented in the
application.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the acceptable FAR. Com. Doyle pointed out that the proposal
for construction of two units .was different in many aspects from thc Peninsula 7 development and
should not be used as a comparison. Mr. Cowan commented that the numbers on the FAR should
not be the main consideration, but what the project looks like, questions such as how does it
function, is it architecturally compatible, are more important.
Com. Harris reiterated that she felt the two units were too large and not in chara~r with the
remainder of the neighborhood. Com. Doyle said he was concerned with the two story 11 foot
setback, on the unit to the left.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration for 12-EA-96
Com. Roberts
Com. Austin
Passed 4-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve 8-U-96 and 3-Z-96 with the exception of
changing the FAR to .50
Com. Roberts
Corns. Harris and Doyle
Com. Austin
Following a brief discussion wherein the applicant explained that in order for the homes to be
saleable .48 FAR would be acceptable, an amended motion was made.
Planning Commission ~.,flnutcs 24 July 8, 1996
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney presented an mended motion to approve 8-U-96 and 3-Z-96
with the FAR being changed to .48
Com. Doyle
Com. Austin
Passed 4-0-0
NEW BUSINESS
9. Item 9 was removed from the calendar earlier in the meeting.
10. Discussion of EIR for air cargo opportunities at Moffett Field.
Staff presentation: Ms. Bjurman reviewed the application for an EIS Review of Moffett Field air
cargo as outlined in the attached staff report. She explained that currently Moffett Field Air Station
is operating at a deficit of $3.5 million per year and as a result NASA is seeking new tenants to
supplement its operating deficit, and air cargo is one revenue generating operation being eoasidered.
She pointed out that the City of Cupertino has until July 18, 1996 to respond to the review of the
impacts identified in the draft environmental assessment, request additional information and discuss
those impacts. Four alternatives are outlined in the Executive Summary.
Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission is to recommend to the City Council that they
adopt a resolution that addresses three concerns: (1) That the current draft environmental assessment
does not delineate the flight paths over Cupertino, and staff would like to examine those. (2) The
existing noise analysis does a weighted average and does not provide staff with an individual decibel
level increments over the City of Cupertino, and staffwould like to know what that is. Currently the
dra~ environmental assessment does a comparison between existing air tra~c and the planes
currently used to the proposed, and the proposed are much quieter than the existing. (3) A 25%
increase of new vehicles is proposed as a result of air cargo traffic to and from the airport and they
are not analyzing impacts to local freeways, and staff is suggesting that they do that prior to
concluding that no significant environmental impacts are a result of allowing air cargo at Moffet
Field.
Ms. Bjurmun indicated that the correct hours of direct takeoffs and landings over the bay were
between 11:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to recommend that the Planning Commission request that the
current flight assessment delineate the flight paths over Cupertino; that the
number of flights per ~lay in the two time frames he delineated; that the weighted
average as well as the single event noises in the two different time frames be
considered, and address the ripple effects of traffic congestion to Highways 280
and 85; extend the contours out to 50; and inclusion of three categories: (1) the
day until Cupertino's night standard picks up; (2) Cupertino's night standard until
11:00 p.m. and (3) 11:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.
Com. Mahoney
Com. Austin
Passed 4-0-0
Planning Commission Minul~s 25 July 8, 1996
Mr. Cowan suggested that there be a simulation conducted.
OLD BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION: None
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
In response to Com. Harris' question about the appeal on the auto dealership siguage, Mr. Cow',m
reported that it is scheduled to be heard at the luly 15 City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT: The me~ing was adjourned at 12:17 a.m on July 9 to the regular Plaaning
Commission meeting on Monday, July 15, 1996.
Respectfully Submitted,
Elizab~h E1F~s
Recording Secretary
Minutes .dpproved.ds Presented: July 22, 1996