PC 10-26-04
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Conunission meeting of October 26, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi
Saadati.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Gileefl WSlIg Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the October 11, 2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer:
· Page 10, bottom of page, Com. Giefer, second line: Delete "of what there is"
. Page 12, Com. Giefer, second bullet, second line: Change "during" to "through".
Vice Chair Wong:
· Page 11, Vice Chair Wong, first bullet, second line: Change "a master bedroom, a
bathroom and" to read "like a master bedroom suite, a bathroom in the hallway and"
· Page 12: Change "Motion by Com. Miller" to read: "Motion by Com. Chen"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to approve the October
11,2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
Planning Commission Minutes
2
October 26, 2004
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
1.
Dffi-2004-06
David Perng (Tian-
Hui Temple)
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of an approval of a Director's minor modification
for minor additions to an existing church. Continued
from September 13, 2004 Planning Commission
Meeting. Request continuance to November 9, 2004
Planning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to postpone Application
DIR-2004-06 to the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
2.
~2004-02, TM-2004-06
EA-2004-1S, Tiep
Nguyen; 22570 San
Juan Road
Rezoning of a 1.31 acre parcel from RHS (Residential
Hillside) to RHS-21 (Residential Hillside Minimum Lot
Size 21,000 square feet). Tentative map to subdivide a
1.31 acre parcel into two parcels of .54 and. 77
Acres respectively. Postponed from September 27,
2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City
Council date: November 16. 2004.
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, presented the staff report:
· Application is to subdivide an existing 1.31 acre parcel into two parcels; existing home with
detached secondary unit will remain; proposal is for two lots, 21,300 square feet and 31,500
square feet and proposed zoning ofRHS-21.
· Illustrated a topographical map showing the location of the property, subdivision proposal with
a flag lot to serve the 31,500 square foot parcel. He noted that flag lots were not uncommon in
the area.
· Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, Tentative Map and rezoning, III
accordance with the model resolutions.
M. Nelson, Nelson Engineering:
· Said they considered the option of a driveway near the intersection of San Juan Road and
Stevens Canyon Road; there is a road there now; however, it is outside of the property line, in
the city right-of-way.
· It was felt it would not be desirable to have the driveway parallel to Stevens Canyon Road in
that area since it was beyond the client's property line.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that there was a question of proximity to that intersection, the better place being further
away and up the hill, to get it away from the intersection.
Com. Miller:
· Said it was fine if the tradeoffs were considered, if put out front, it would be less of a flag lot.
Planning Commission Minutes
3
October 26, 2004
Mr. Nelson:
· Said the grade would be about 18% to 19% in order to get up to a garage; and they would have
to build retaining walls 3 to 4 feet high in order to do that.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Ann Dor, Balboa Road:
· Illustrated a photo of the lot.
· In favor of the project.
· Noted that the driveway was higher than the residence and cars would not be driving directly
by their residence; screening would create privacy.
· Proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood setup; suggested 3 lots since it was a dense area.
· Asked the engineer to address the location of the sewer hookups.
Mr. Nelson:
· Said that the existing house is connected to the sewer, and they would work with the Cupertino
Sanitary District regarding the location of the connection for the proposed home.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner:
· Noted that the Cupertino Sanitary District is part of the pre-application review process; they
and the staff would hear early on in the process if there were any issues with sanitary.
Dean Sayre, Stevens Canyon Road:
· Asked for clarification on number of houses.
· Asked what the sewer situation was on the second smaller home.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There would be three houses; subdivide the lot into two lots, retain the existing home and the
second unit; and build a second major home; there will still be a second dwelling unit.
· Does not have the answer at this time regarding the sewer situation for the smaller home. The
applicant's engineer indicated they need to contact the Cupertino Sanitary District to find out
if they need to make the appropriate connections.
Bruce Biser, San Juan Road:
· Said he would not like to see the lot subdivided if they continue disintegration of the hillside
feel of that end of town; if the lots continue to be chopped up, it will eventually end up looking
like Monta Vista.
· Expressed concem about water pressure service up the hill; his water pressure is already
diminished; if more residences below are added, there will be more problems up on the hill.
· Also concerned about traffic increase, especially having small children.
Bruce Lee Cheong, San Juan Road:
· Concerned about the access road since he has small children.
· Prefer the access road to come from Stevens Canyon.
· Also had concem about the water pressure.
· Said he purchased his property six years ago because the lots were large and it was lower
density housing; now lots are smaller and more homes are being built, which has impacted his
privacy.
Plann~ng COnn:nlssion Minutes
4
October 26, 2004
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it might be helpful for the residents to have a broader understanding of how the hillside
zoning works.
· The General Plan controls the density; the density has been set for about 20 years relative to
how many units can be yielded /Tom any lot in the hillsides.
· When the hillside rezoning was done about 7 or 8 years ago, there were a handful of lots that
did not have a minimum parcel size because the only way to know the minimum parcel size is
to do a slope density analysis to see what the yield is. This lot was zoned hillside, but it did
not have a minimum parcel size such as 21,000 square feet. The fact that it is getting rezoned
isn't giving it something that it didn't already have through the General Plan; the General Plan
already said based on slope density there would be so many lots. They did a slope density
analysis which tells how many lots they get, which is two; and then the lot size is put on that
accordingly; the city unless something radical happens, will not be going through the hillsides
and rezoning parcels unless just a handful have not been rezoned to match the General Plan.
Chair Saadati:
· Questioned the likelihood of someone coming back and wanting to subdivide the lot that is
going to be divided into two.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The zoning attachment of 21,000 square feet, would indicate that you could not ask for
anything denser than one-half acre; in this case you couldn't subdivide either of the two lots
being proposed in this subdivision. Anyone can ask for anything at any time, but in this case
the General Plan already locks in a very low density housing for the hillside areas. It breaks at
San Juan Road; they would have to change the General Plan, zoning, and would be a major
transaction to make that request.
· This is also constrained by some of the other things people have talked about, such as the
slopes, the sewers, and the water pressure.
· It is not likely, but the plans have been in the city for a long time to keep this a low density
area, and these would be much larger lots than most of those surrounding it.
Com. Miller:
· Some of the comments indicated that water pressure hasn't been addressed; how is that
mitigated?
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it likely was not identified through the Plan review process; it does have to go to City
Council because of the rezoning, and can be looked at before it goes to Council.
Mr. Nelson:
· Said the water pressure problem was likely more a function of topography and height than it is
the number of dwelling units hooked onto the water main.
· Proceeding up San Juan Hill, the elevation is increased to the point where some of the
residents at the top of the hill have to have booster pumps; because the tank that feeds that area
is at a certain elevation and once at that elevation, there is no water pressure. For the Nguyen
property, water pressure should not be a problem and connecting to the water main should not
diminish his neighbor's water pressure because it is regulated more by the height relative to
the tank, than by the number of units attached to it.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
October 26, 2004
Com. Giefer:
· Want to confIrm with staff that the subdivision keeps in tact all the screening and other
requirements of the RHS zoning, such as visibility, and if there are retaining walls put in, the
visibility of those walls.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the RHS does not have the privacy protection screening that RI has.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the new home must go through a site and architectural review, and at that time the other
factors will be looked at.
Com. Chen:
· Sees no problems with the project; all the issues will be addressed or are related to the
development of the parcel, and the subdivision will increase the inventory of city housing.
· Supports the project.
Com. Miller:
· Supports the project.
· Said there were no problems that couldn't be addressed; the water pressure is not an issue in
terms of the additional capacity that will be required. The house is at the corner of Stevens
Canyon and San Juan Road; the issues of children playing and the addition of one house
should not severely impact the neighborhood in terms of safety.
Com. Giefer:
· Supports the proj ect.
· All the necessary controls to ensure that it is an appropriate division and the hillside
protections are kept in tact are available.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports the project.
Chair Saadati:
· Supports the proj ect.
· It is consistent with the General Plan.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
EA-2004-1S, Z-2004-02, and TM-2004-06. (Vote: 5-0-0)
3.
TR-2004-08
James Welsh
21275 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Tree removal of four oak trees (Oaks Shopping Center)
and replanting of replacement trees.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application to remove five specimen size live oaks in the Oaks Shopping Center,
as outlined in the staff report.
· lllustrated a location map and reviewed the condition of each tree.
· Staffrecommends removal of three of the oak trees, Nos. 5, 16 and 26; No.5 was a dead tree
and has already been removed; No. 16 is a dead tree and will need to be removed; No. 26 has
Planning Conunission Minutes
6
October 26, 2004
been recommended by the arborists to be removed. It is recommended that tree Nos. 1 and 86
be retained, but that the applicant's arborist be al10wed to reduce the branch end weight to
reduce the stress on the tree.
· Staff recommends replacement trees; at some future point the mature Oak trees of the Oaks
Shopping Center will end their natural life span in an urban setting. If one goal is to retain as
much tree canopy as possible that fronts on Stevens Creek Boulevard along Mary Avenue,
replacement trees of significant size need to be planted in the area so that when the other trees
Nos. I and 86 do need to come out there will be some replacement canopy trees in close
proximity.
. Staff recommends one 48" box Coast Live Oak, east of tree No. I; and a 48" box Coast Live
Oak in the lawn area adjacent tree No. 86; and a 36" box Coast Live Oak in the landscape area
north of tree No. 16.
· Answered questions about the relocation of the trees, and the placement of the new trees.
· After discussing the possibility of trinuning back tree No. 16, Mr. Piasecki verified that tree
No. 16 was dead and must be removed.
· Noted that the arborist felt that the location of tree No. 16 was not a good location for
replanting an Oak tree.
Com. Giefer:
. Referred to tree No. 86 and the parking spaces between the tree and the entrance to the Oaks
Center. Said the tree was not in a good location as she has seen people run their cars into the
tree.
· Said she would prefer to see that portion of the parking lot eliminated to accommodate a large
tree to replace No. 86 when it meets its demise, since it interrupts the traffic flow because of
people parked at Jamba Juice and Coffee Society.
Mr. Jung:
· Said that the applicant was being given the opportunity to remove the dead tree, make the
circulation work better, which would allow left turns into the driveway, resulting in increasing
the size of the island, and giving the replacement oak tree more room to grow.
Com. Chen:
· Since we planned the new trees in preparation for the potential demise of Nos. I and 86; if
they don't die within the 5 to 10 years, are we going to remove them or will it negatively
impact the growth of the young tree?
Mr. Jung:
· They are planted far enough away where the young tree is going to continue to grow, except
the location is at the edge of the canopy of the tree itself, it is going to be partially shaded but
it is also going to be in the sun itself and there is going to be enough room there. Barry Coates
felt certain that the Planning Conunission is going to have to revisit the issue in 5 or 10 years
because of the structural problems.
Com. Miller:
· Questioned if there would still be a safety risk in leaving the trees up, if the structural
problems with the tree are known and would get worse even with pruning them back.
Planning Commission Minutes
7
October 26, 2004
Mr. Jung:
· Said the arborist feels the trees will last for another 5 to 10 years, and the owners will have to
monitor them to make sure they do not get significantly worse.
· Part of the attraction of the Oaks Center is its canopy of mature trees. Staff is interested in
keeping them around as long as possible. You don't have to wait for them to die in order to
replace them, but as long as it doesn't impose a significant risk, and they are still reasonably
healthy, staff is interested in keeping them.
· Said he relied on the city arborist's opinion relative to what poses a significant risk.
· Recommends a condition be added that the pruning of the trees No. I and 86 be conducted
under the supervision of a licensed arborist.
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that the tree ordinance states trinuning more than 25% of a tree is considered removal;
they would not be able to exceed that without it being considered removal.
Chuck Marsh, General Manager, The Oaks Center:
· Reported that the city arborist and applicant's arborist met at the site and concurred about the
location ofthe replacement trees.
· Clarified that tree No. I is a huge, beautiful oak tree; unfortunately it has decay lower in the
trunk and five cavities; and the amount of the circumference that is decayed exceeds 40% of
the circumference ofthe tree. The applicant's arborist statement verified that the tree should be
removed.
· Tree No. 86 has a satisfactory amount of in tact wood; the arborist's concem is that it has
disproportionate distribution of weight that cannot be corrected. The specimen tree should be
removed because the risk of structural failure is substantial.
· The city arborist took a different point of view, stating that both trees have serious structural
defects which will require their removal within the foreseeable future. With the removal of
significant amounts of branch and weight they can be preserved in the short term.
· It was not known how long they could save the trees if only 25% were trimmed; and it was not
clear how fast they will decay; but they would prefer to keep them and trim them and get a
second opinion. If limited to 25% they are taking a greater chance that the trees will blow
down in the future.
· The concern is to have healthy trees; No. 14 lost a branch last winter and totaled a car that was
parked nearby. The goal is to do what is right for the public.
· Concur with the idea of picking replacement locations near those trees which clearly have a
limited lifespan remaining; and concur that Nos. I and 86 are a good choice.
· Tree No. 16 is clearly dead; the city arborist made the point that it started dying when they
built the shopping center in 1974, and his opinion was it never should have been left there
surrounded by pavement.
· Feel that tree No. 26 will not last since it has a big wound where half the tree blew off last
winter and is unprotected. Neither of the arborists recommend planting an oak tree there.
· The Oaks Center is for sale; the city might be better served to not ask that a tree be put in there
now to give a new owner more flexibility as to how that theater and long vacant adjoining
restaurant might be redeveloped. Putting a tree there in what is now an open area may not be
the appropriate thing to do.
· The city should encourage some kind of development that would meet the city's criteria and
generate sales tax.
· Relative to tree No. 16, they have been deep feeding the trees that were threatened and the
ones in poor locations; having an arborist's annual review and doing the best to keep them.
The intent is to take them down under the supervision of an arborist.
Planning Commission Minutes
8
October 26, 2004
. Have reviewed the impact of putting in a 48 inch box tree as opposed to a 36 inch box tree
because they are 5 times the cost, and a crane would be needed to unload a 3,000 to 5,000
pound 48 inch box tree.
Com. MiUer:
· Asked for comment on Com. Giefer's suggestion of taking a parking space away to increase
the area for tree No. 86.
Mr. Marsh:
· Said when the Oaks sought approval for something of significance, Public Works has said to
straighten out the entrance in the townhouse plan. One of its assets was it had a better
circulation plan on one end of the center, and he asked that the requirement not be made as a
fixed requirement.
· Suggested giving the owner some flexibility to try to improve the circulation at that entrance
as staff suggested, but putting a tree there may not be the best way to do that.
· Said developing a way to make left turns successful toward Coffee Society from Stevens
Creek Boulevard without going way back to Mary Avenue would be very ideal, once the tree
is gone.
Com. Miller:
· Said he was referring to No. 86, not No. 16.
Mr. Marsh:
· Said that the circulation solution that could be developed with the removal of No. 16 may
conflict with what is being done with the parking.
· Suggested providing the flexibility to rethink the entrance and not require a tree to be put in
that specific spot. The landscaping along the street is going to continue.
Com. Miller:
· Questioned if the concept was to replace or keep No. 86 with a replacement tree growing
under it but not increase the parking at this time until the new owners came in.
Mr. Jung:
· Clarified that one of the suggestions by the arborist as well as staff is to plant a replacement
tree next to No. 86.
· Com. Giefer's concern was the strip is not as wide and it may be better for a new replacement
tree to lose a parking space to give greater room for the tree to grow in.
Mr. Marsh:
· Said he felt there was an adequate spot to put a replacement tree in the grass there when No.
86 has to come out; put another tree back toward the other way, perhaps take the parking spot
where the auto is shown on the right and put another tree there. The circulation will have been
solved and they are not foreclosing the opportunity to solve that problem.
· Showed on a map what he was suggesting.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
October 26, 20D4
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Said it was distressing to see that there is a potential need to remove the oaks from the Oaks
Shopping Center, but hoped that everything will be done to preserve the oaks; as it is a
signature location in Cupertino.
· Said that she understood when the oaks age, they may need to be removed. It is a good idea to
have replacement trees planted adjacent or in a location near the other trees, as has been done
along Highway 280. Groups plant oak trees to replace mature trees that may be coming down
in a number of years.
· The trees are close to 150 years old, everyone is exhibiting sensitivity toward them; it is an
emotional issue.
· Suggested if trees are put in, there not be lawn areas around them in order to keep people away
from the trees.
Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Com. Miller:
· Addressed tree Nos. I and 86.
· Expressed concern for safety in a shopping center; said that if they need to reevaluate based on
the information from the applicant, particularly to tree No. I, that more than 40% of the
circumference is already dead, it would seem that would pose a serious safety risk if not to
people, certainly to the building next door.
· If that is in good condition it seems like staff's strategy of putting a replacement tree and
cutting it back is a good one in that particular location. The area around No. 86 seems a lot
more restricted and there are some issues with putting a replacement tree there in terms of how
well either tree will do in a short run and also again the risk of that is where people park and
walk into Jamba Juice and other places in the center.
· Said he was inclined to take one out and put in a large replacement tree and perhaps take up
that parking space to the west to improve the tree's chances for survival and use a deep root
feeding or other available technology so that the tree would grow as fast as possible.
· Concurred with other recommendations.
Com. Chen:
· Supports staff recommendation.
· Prefer to choose to keep the trees as it is important how the Oaks Center looks from Stevens
Creek which is a public street.
· Relative to tree No. 86, the location of the replacement tree, would rather leave the circulation
issues to resolve in the future; feels the potential replacement for tree No. 26 is not a big issue
because it is in the middle of the shopping center and looking from Mary Avenue, tree No. 25
is there. Tree No.5 can be removed without replacement, since there is tree No.6 next to it.
· Said it was a good idea to remove tree No. 16 with replacement behind it; it would improve the
circulation and allows more space for the new tree to grow.
· Supports staff recommendation.
Com. Giefer:
· Concurs with Coms. Miller and Chen with some exceptions.
· Would stipulate that the future replacement tree for tree No. 86 be planted under the canopy;
suggested a small 6 foot mowing strip for a tree that is potentially going to have a tree trunk
size of 6 feet. It should be required that the replacement tree be planted in what is currently
parking on either the east or the west side whichever the applicant would prefer.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
October 26, 2004
· There needs to be room for the tree because it will be large and hopefully will last for the next
150 years, even though tree No. 86 will not be there.
· Would prefer to find someplace else in the center to replace tree No. 16 with a sizable tree than
have it there in 16 or in the planting box behind what is currently 16. Said she was sensitive to
the circulation and would like to give them the flexibility to create the necessary circulation
needed in the center.
· Would like to allow the trees to grow to be large and lovely trees in the long term.
· In favor of the concept of replacing trees for the future today because it allows the very
graceful trees to be retired.
Vice Chair Wong:
· No one likes to remove oak trees, especially because it is a signature for the shopping center.
· Supports Corns. Miller and Chen's suggestions of staffs recommendations.
· Said he understood why they should allow flexibility by not planting another tree between the
two buildings on No. 26, but for the entrance of the Oaks Center, it is important to have some
oak trees in the prominent area.
· Feels it is important that if tree No. 16 has to be removed, that it be planted on the island as
staff suggested. A future purchaser can develop a plan to keep the tree alive.
· He recalled that ten to twenty years ago the circulation went around tree No. 16 and later on it
was going down; making a left turn may have caused a backup of cars.
· Said that circulation wouldn't be the best even if tree No. 16 was removed.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the circulation still would not be ideal, and there would not be adequate queuing area for
vehicles.
· In most large shopping centers, the major driveways have driveway aisles where there is no
parking close to the driveway at the throat of the driveway aisle; there are actual driveway
lanes where there is no parking so vehicles can drive on the site and stack at least four or five
deep before you get into a stall. That unfortunately never happened with the design of the
center.
· The circulation was likely sacrificed to keep the oak trees.
Chair Saadati:
· Concurs with staff report that tree No. 16 needs to be removed.
· In order to improve the circulation; the circulation of the parking lot is not very good and
eventually foresee some restriping and the layout being changed. It is good to have some
flexibility provided; in the future it would allow a better parking lot that will help the
circulation, and as such the replacement of tree for No. 86 should be located per the advice of
the arborist; and sufficient space to be provided under the guidance of the arborist to allow it to
grow to maturity and hopefully for the next 50 to 100 years.
· Concur with the other conunissioners on the other recommendation on the other trees.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve Application
TR-2004-08 as amended, to trim tree No.1 and 86 done under the supervision
of a licensed arborist.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she thought there was concurrence to have more space made for the replacement tree
adjacent to No. 86; asked if it needed to be stipulated how that space is made.
Planning Commission Minutes
II
October 26, 2004
Mr. Marsh:
. Said they were not proposing to remove tree No. 86 now; will return at another time and apply
for another tree removal permit to remove that; suggested at that time require the owner to
expand that planter to the left or right to make a wider area and plant the new tree.
Com. Giefer:
· Isn't staffs recommendation to move ahead on the replacement trees now and not wait until
tree removal.
· Staffs recommendation is to plant a replacement tree under the canopy now.
Com. Chen:
· Said she understood they would address the space issue at the time that No. 86 is removed,
perhaps take one parking space and restore another parking space or redo the circulation.
Chair Saadati:
. Said it could be addressed at the time.
Vote: (5-0-0)
4.
EXC-2004-1S, U-2004-01,
ASA-2004-02, EA-2004-02
pjnß Brothers, 20128
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a
5-10 foot side yard setback. Use permit for a mixed-use
retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units)
development and the demolition of an abandoned
Restaurant building. Architectural and site approval
For a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and
Residential (29 units) development.
Tentative City Council date: November 16, 2004
Mr. Jung presented the staff report:
· Application is for a use permit, architectural and site approval and exception to the Heart of
the City for a mixed use retail and residential development, 2,000 square feet of retail, 29
residential apartment units, in a two story structure.
· Reviewed the project data as outlined in the staff report.
· Discussed parking; applicant is providing the full complement of 66 parking spaces, not asking
for shared parking or a parking exception.
· Reviewed the traffic report, site design, garage plan, and architectural design as outlined in the
staff report.
· There was a condition of approval on the prior proposal of a hotel that at some future point the
adjacent property owner would be agreeable to constructing a gate to allow his tenants to have
access to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
· As part of the conditions of approval they would request a pedestrian easement from the back
of the property to Stevens Creek Boulevard in keeping with City Council directions to
establish connections and walkability within the community.
· Applicant has proposed two design alternatives for the arbor, Option A and Option B. Staff
prefers Option A which is visually more interesting.
· The request for Heart of the City side yard setback exception is for 5 feet for the parking
podium wall and a minimum of 10 feet for the building. Staff points out that the lot is
unusually narrow for a commercial size lot and if underground parking was done, it would
need a side yard exception in order to put a reasonably circulated parking lot underground.
Planning Commission Minutes
12
October 26, 2004
· Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, and approval of the Use Pennit and
Heart of the City side setback exception in accordance with the model resolution.
· He illustrated the location of various side setbacks; and noted corrections to the side setbacks
listed on page 4-4 of the staff report.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to address the circulation plan in the parking lot; it is just one way, no turnaround.
· The retail is 2,000 square feet; what kind of retail could go in there and with 6 parking spaces
at grade level, two of them handicapped, there is only 4 parking spaces. What would be viable
in terms of parking for the retail portion. Could it support the retail?
Mr. Jung:
· The applicant can address the retail.
· The retailing that the developers talk about is similar to what is in Trevina; cell phone stores,
beauty salons, personal service shops, which are an active and growing area of the retail
market.
· There is also parking available in the garage.
· The permanent dwellers will have open parking.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Expressed concern about the trash area, garbage trucks coming in and out; and their plan for
people moving in and out since it is a very limited driveway for moving vans going in and out.
· When the garbage trucks come in the morning, it is the only driveway going in and out for the
parking lot; there will be a slight inconvenience which is reason to question the circulation
plan
Mr. Jung:
· Architect can address the concern about moving vans.
· Said the circulation for the garbage trucks has always been a challenging area; the garbage
truck cannot be driven into the parking lot itself; it has to be a surface parking lot, and that was
one of the significant design challenges for the site; how do you provide for necessary garbage
services. It is all done outside of the parking garage itself. When a truck is parked there, it
would limit the driveway to a one way driveway vs. what is shown as a two way.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to explain the footprint of the podium parking, it is 5 feet ITom the property line;
the average is 22.5 feet, but Planning Conunission is not looking at the podium parking, the
footprints.
· Explain how Heart of the City came up with 17.5 for their side setbacks.
Com. Miller:
· Concerned about retail parking; underground parking is available, however, not as many
spaces, and it is inconvenient to park in the Semantics parking lot to drop into a store for a
something small.
· Expressed concem that they may be doing the same thing to these folks here unless we do a
better job with the parking for the retail and perhaps the applicant can address what is going to
go there and whether they need more parking or not.
Planning Conunission Minutes
13
October 26, 2004
Mr. Jung:
· Referring to the first floor plan, lower diagram, on the east side of the building there is a five
foot setback, and the setback is to the podium wall itself which is 4 feet tall, over a good
portion of its length; the building itself sits on top of the podium and that distance, it varies in
some respects but that distance is at least 20 feet.
· Clarified that the podium wall on the east side is set back 5 feet from the property line; the
building line which sits on top of the podium varies, but for the most part, is set back, roughly
20 feet.
· According to the architect's drawings, the podium projects above ground are no more than 4
feet tall.
· The setback on the back of the other buildings is 20 feet; the building to the rear has a greater
setback because there is a double loaded driveway to the rear.
Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers:
· Reviewed that a 77 room hotel was approved several years ago, but because the hotel market
decreased, they were unable to get financing. Several different renditions of a proposal have
been submitted.
· Discussed location of handicapped parking spaces, garage parking and apartment unit parking.
Com. Miller:
· Said it was not convenient to go into an underground garage and then have to take an elevator
to the retail stores.
Mr. Pinn:
· Indicated available spaces on the drawing.
· The types ofretail that come in here will have to determine if they can be successful with this
type of situation and if not, they will look elsewhere.
Com. Giefer:
· How will the trash trucks access the trash enclosures; would they have to back into the site off
Stevens Creek or back out from the site onto Stevens Creek. It doesn't appear there is enough
space for them to tum around.
· Relative to moving trucks and people moving in and out, where do you propose they park,
unload and load.
Mr. Pinn:
· Said the plan was reviewed by the trash company.
· Illustrated the location the trucks would load and unload when residents are moving. There is
adequate space and room to the elevator; flat area in front of where the trash truck goes, and
does allow access down through the other lane, down and up to the garage.
· Said the management company would set the times for people to move in and out; parking,
policing, noise, barking dogs, etc.
· Said the units would be "for rent" units.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked what kind of retail would occupy the units.
· Uncomfortable about having a food or coffee shop there because of the traffic it would
generate.
· Regarding the podium parking, has consideration been given to underground parking?
Planning Commission Minutes
14
October 26, 2004
Mr. Pion:
· Said their desire was to have one tenant in the retail space; a coffee house, with one sign; staff
could address it; and deal with code enforcement.
Knrt Anderson, Anderson Architects:
· Referred to the drawing and discussed the architectural elements and proj ect design.
Vice Chair Wong:
· There is a community exercise area in between the retail area and the housing; was a corridor
ever considered where the staircase is on the other side so that when people don't want to take
an elevator they could walk up the staircase.
· It would provide easier access to the retail, there would be a smaller community room.
Mr. Anderson:
· Said he and Mr. Pinn were discussing it, and are still developing the intemal circulation
pattern, but it is their intent to have users of the garage to be able to either go up the elevator or
the stairs to get to that space. He said they would accommodate that pattern.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Suggested having a corridor in that area to provide better circulation; the parking is really
challenging and not ideal.
· There is overflow parking at Trevina going out into the next office complex, which is a
problern.
Mr. Anderson:
· Said Mr. Pinn stressed earlier that the people working in the retail space would be assigned
parking in the garage which leaves all the parking adjacent to that space available for users
coming in and out.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Said he was concerned that there be a good circulation plan for the people coming from the
garage going up.
Com. Giefer:
· Relative to the design of the east elevation, said they have done a good job of articulating the
direction of the building and not having a long corridor style building, but she was concerned
about the articulation specifically on the east elevation.
· It looks monotonous from one angle and it will be facing a monster white wall of Chicago
Title. Are there other things to do to break up the architecture of the side?
· Said that Chicago Title may not be there at some future time, and there may be another mixed
use or other project; it has the look of a hotel rather than a home.
Mr. Anderson:
· Another way to address it is to look at the landscape plan. There are raised planters with trees
on top of the podium adjacent to the podium at grade we have a circulation pattern of
walkway, so with the addition of the landscape, the raised planter areas, we have columns with
wrought iron for screening and security; there are a lot of things going on between here and the
building that are going to help break that mass up.
Planning Commission Minutes
15
October 26, 2004
· In response to Com. Giefer's questions about architectural details. he indicated there were
wrought iron handrails on all the patios in addition to the stucco; some trellising coming out;
corbels on some of the window elements, again Chicago Title is taking up about one half of
this elevation. We would be happy to add some additional elements of the window treatments
on the back portion of the building.
Com. Giefer:
. Suggested painting some sections different shades to avoid the monotony.
. Said it should be broken up more.
Mr. Anderson:
· Said they would address that issue.
Mr. Jung:
· Relative to Com. Chen's question, he reviewed the setbacks.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Robert Levy, Wilkinson Avenue:
· Said that most of the residents in the units are two income families which would result in two
cars per apartment.
· Expressed concern about mixed developments, where there is housing and retail or other
businesses, all of the people will clear out in the morning and the spaces will be available for
the incoming people to use who are coming into use the businesses; and all those people will
be gone when the residents return to their homes.
· Said it was not a valid assumption that there would be outflow of cars in the moming and
inflow after 5 p.m. In some cases two people will have two cars, one for work and one for
errands.
Chair Saadati closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Com. Miller:
· Sensitive to the parking issue; depending on the type of retail establishment that goes in there,
the applicant is permitted two parking spaces per residential unit, according to the formula in
terms of 8 spaces per 2,000 square feet at one parking space per 250 square feet of retail,
following the formula the city has been using, not short cutting the parking based on the
formula, but if they have a successful retail application, the formulas will go out the window.
· The assumption is that some of those 2 spaces per residential unit would be freed up during the
business day, when people go to work, if only 10 or 15 cars disappear and allow for
commercial use. Said from his point of view it seems to work reasonably well from that
standpoint; the commercial just isn't large enough to overwhelm the residential parking
· It is a tight space and the applicant did as well as he could under the circumstances. Expressed
concerns about the circulation in the garage; noted that on the north side of the building that
hammerhead works well; , there isn't a real hammerhead on the south side of the building
· It appears that it allows only one space for a car to pull into and back out and then go back out
on its way; that is tight and if someone doesn't see all that well, they will back into the wall.
· Com. Giefer raised some concems about the elevation on the east side. He concurred that there
wasn't much interest and said that it was not very visible. It would be more important on the
Planning Commission Minutes
16
October 26, 2004
front elevation where there is articulation and on the west elevation which faces the podium
where there is a considerable amount of articulation.
· Supports the project with some reservations.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports the project with some reservations.
· Overall the articulation is very good, the applicant worked very well with the staff; it is not an
easy project; the lot is narrow; it would have been outstanding to have a hotel there to bring
sales tax and hotels tax dollars, but the market changed.
· Said he was pleased they were addressing meeting the parking regulations, getting all the
spaces.
· Asked staff to make sure there is adequate space to get out of spaces 71, 45, and 52.
· If for some reason the parking lot fills up at IÙght, it is difficult for people to back up, even
with the driveway coming down it is hard for people to make that turn as well too.
· Agrees with Com. Giefer that the east elevation needs more work.
· Said he felt strongly that relative to the community room, there should be a corridor so that
people can walk up to the retail space if they don't want to take the elevator. It may cut down
on some of the community room space, but the walking circulation is just as important as the
parking circulation.
· The applicant was wise to offer many one bedroom units as well as some extras for two and
three bedroom units.
· Said he was in favor of the idea of getting five spaces above vs. having two handicapped
spaces.
· Said he was not in favor of giving exceptions for Heart of the City; but would do so with
strong reservations.
Mr. Jung:
· Said relative to the options proposed for the arbors, staff preferred Option A, the one shown in
the rendering.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports staff recommendation.
Com. Miller:
· Supports staff recommendation.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if there were other businesses on Stevens Creek where the waste disposal trucks have to
back onto Stevens Creek.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said he was not aware of any, but they show it to Los Altos Garbage Company; the problem
on this site arises rrom its narrowness, it has limited options. With a single building in the
middle of a parcel, the trucks still would not be able to circulate around it.
· He said it was a function of the narrowness of the parcel they were dealing with, and not so
much the applicant's plan.
Com. Giefer:
· Said a major concern was the trash pickup time in the morning. Said the commute hour was
not the most optimal situation" and it would slow things down.
Planning Commission Minutes
17
October 26, 2004
· The 30 second trash pickup could be extenuated depending on the light signals. and in tenns of
their ability to back out.
· Another concern is the improvements to the east elevation; the architecture in general of this
site, because of the challenges it has being a deep and narrow lot.
· Complimented the work done by the developer, architect and staff because it is a good mixed
use solution for this site.
· Agree with Vice Chair Wong to have stairs coming up from the parking garage to the business
area to improve circulation.
· Concur with staff's recommendation on Arbor A, and would hope to see improvements to the
east side design before the Council meeting.
· Supports the project, with the reservations that have been shared, as well as her concem about
the trash trucks.
Com. Chen:
· Supports the project with reservation.
· Hesitant to give the site back; but is partial to the west side design, the open design, which is a
good solution to the problem; and given the location of the site, it is the best solution.
· Strongly supports Com. Giefer's suggestion to dress up the east side and hopeful that if the
Chicago Title site gets developed, that site could be opened up also. It is a good plan to dress
it up and significantly improve the look of the elevation on the other side.
· Concurred with Vice Chair Wong about the circulation around the elevator area; said she
supported that also; it is just as important as the car circulation.
· Expressed concern about the car circulation in the back, the turnaround place that Com. Miller
had brought up is also a safety concern for the residents in the area; and I would like to see if
there is an opportunity to improve that as well.
· Support staff's recommendation for Arbor A.
· Supports the project, and expressed appreciation for all the good work done.
Chair Saadati:
· This is a challenging site; the plans are subject to revision and room for improvement.
· Likes the variety of the units.
· More effort needs to go into improved circulation; further evaluation needs to be done before it
goes to the City Council to try to address any area that could be improved because the entry
with the sharp radius could potentially cause many accidents.
· Improvement to the east elevation would help; said he liked the rendering that shows the front.
· Not very concerned about surface parking and number in front for the retail.
· Support staff's recommendation for Arbor No. I.
· Supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve
Application EA-2004-02. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
U-2004-01, with the following conditions: (1) Staff look into dressing up the
east elevation to improve it; (2) Better circulation from the staircase, perhaps
removing the community room so that there is better circulation going to the
retail area; (3) Consider improvements in the circulation and usability of the
underground garage, specifically certain parking stalls, and agree with the
applicant to see if there are adequate handicapped spaces, if they can have 5
Planning Commission Minutes
18
October 26, 2004
spaces vs. 3 spaces or relocate the handicapped spaces below to support retail
area above. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
ASA-2004-02, with Arbor A (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
EXC-2004-15. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Saadati declared a short recess.
NOTE: THE REMAINDER OF THE TAPE 2 WAS BLANK FOLLOWING THE RECESS;
TAPE NO.3 WAS ALSO COMPLETELY BLANK.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the November 9, 2004 regular Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
a,~
Approved as amended: January 11, 2005