Loading...
PC 06-09-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-334 Page 1 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Attorney Foley APPROVAL / MINUTES MAY 12, 1980, MAY 14, 1980, MAY 19, 1980 and MAY 27, 1980 were TABLED until the end of the Agenda, PC-334; and, upon motion of Com. Adams, second by Com. Claudy, the motion passed. 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS Item #7, 26-Z-80, continued because of faulty advertising procedure -- interested parties did not receive notice. To be heard July 14, 1980. MOTION: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Blaine. Vote: Passed 5-0 Item #9, 8-~1-80 only, continued because Staff felt the application was incomplete. (Note: 22-Z-80 remains on the Agenda.) 26-Z-80 to be heard July 14, 1980. MOTION: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: Passed 5-0 Item #13, l7-U-78, Remove from Agenda. Misunderstanding about one-year approval expiration date between the City Clerk's office and the Officia Use Permit, and to continue item over to Agenda of October 13, 1980.* MOTION: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy. Vote: Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy. Vote: Passed 5-0 Item #16, 28-U-79, Continue/conversation of City Attorney KiliaTI with attorney representing owner of property adjoining Regnart Estates property. City Attorney Kilian explained that proper or adequate notice had not been received of the meeting, PC-334; and pursuant to procedure ~hen an issue comes up for amendment, in this instance the time elapsed was too long between the ori~inal application and the pro- posed modification. Therefore, it was asked that the matter be con tinued till the Meeting of June 23, 1980 (and be placed on the General Plan ~nenda) in order that less prejudice would be felt by the applicant, and also in order to still provide adequate notice to the adjoining property owner, who possibly wished to speak in oppostion in the matter. Mr. Kilian said he had a telephone mes- sage in with the attorney, but had not heard back that the agree- ment was confirmed. However, he said he felt that sufficient time wfuld have been given with the two-week's continuance. MOTION: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Blaine. . Vote: Passed 5-0 Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked that the flyer attached to the ARenda be noted, and notation of inserting Item #13A -- MAXINE DRUMMOND be/~ed on the Commissioner's agendas. PC-334 Page 2 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING CHR. KOENITZER asked for a motion to Postpone Items #12 through #16 to a meeting to be held Wednesday evening, June 11, 1980. Items #9 through #11, to be continued to the same meeting in the event they were not taken up during the present meeting. MOTION: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Adams. Vote: Passed 5-0 ITEM #1, Application 6-U-80 of O. LAIRD HUNTSMAN: USE PERMIT to reduce the required side yard setback and required distance, be- tween the main building and an accessory building to accommodate solar equipment and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is cate- gorically exempt, hence no action is required. Said property is located at 22333 Bahl Street which is on the north side of Bahl Street approximately mid-block between'Vista Knoll Boulevard and Ainsworth Drive in an Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing con- tinued. Tentative City Council hearing date - June ]b, 1980 Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the decisions of the previous meetings on this application and reminded the Commissioners that the issue was back to them for approval of change of location of a water storage tank from a sideyard setback area. Exhibits were placed on the board. Mr. Piasecki indicated the areas in which new information had been sought and pointed out the piers that were to carry the load of the tank down below the foundation. COM. ADAMS requested interpretation of the printing, "3" x 3/16" steel strap fastened to 3/4" machine bolts" for securing the storage tank. Associate Planner Piasecki said it was felt by Staff that all of . che unusual features of the plan could be brought ia under variance ruling to ordinances. But, the location of the water storage tank was a major consideration and he felt the Commissioners might wish to comment on the advisability of including the tank under the variances. The recommendation for the applicant to ~nclc~e the separate units of the installation was felt to .be costly and restrictive of upkeep and maintenance. !The C~mmissioners reviewed the various aspects of the proJect as 'it had been presented in past meetings and was being presented for the present meeting. Associate Planner Piasecki reported that Staff could find no direct hazard in the project based on engineering practices being followed. Noise of the compressor was discussed and it was con- cluded that the noise could not help but be heard. Mr. O. Laird Huntsman, Applicant, said he recognized that he was being Asked to present only new information. However, in view of the many misconceptions and misunderstandings' of the solar system, he said he wished to review it again. He complained that although he had requested an official transcript of the previous meetings, he'd not received copies. He added that he hoped he was dealing with MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS PC-334 an engineering problem and not a political problem with the solar tank. So, again, he explained that that was the reason he wished to provide some logic as to why his solar experts agreed that the tank need to be placed as shown on the drawings. Mr. Huntsman quoted from California State Assembly Bill No. 3250, Chapter 1154, September 25, 1978 and filed September 26, 1978, Section 801 and addition of Section 714, and 80.15 of Civil Code. City Attorney Kilian responded by saying that he understood that "No local ordinance shall have the effect of prohibiting or of unreasonably restricting the use of solar energy systems. other than for the preser- vation of the public health and safety." Mr. Kilian said that copies of the applicable laws were on file with his office. In response to COM. CLAUDY'S inquiry as to the meaning of the law not negating setbacks, City Attorney Kilian said it meant that if one im- posed a particular condition that was not part of any ordinance that that condition could not unreasonably or adversely affect solar energy systems. Violating a setback provision, he didn't expect, was a par- ticular provision of the solar law, nor was it intended to affect the City's right to protect the safety and health and welfare of citizens. Section 7, he said, applied to health and safety. COM JOHNSON asked Mr. Huntsman about the cost of the system. Mr. Huntsman said it was in the neighborhood of $20,000. COM. KOENITZER discussed the placement of the hot water heaters, the pool filter, etc, He suggested enclosing the whole area of component units and installing a door for access and servicing of equipment. Mr. Huntsman explained the placement of the units in the setback area and said that because of plumbing in 6" concrete, it would be expensive for him to move pumping equipment. COM. ADAMS asked for the consulting engineers to verify the structural integrity of the tank. Mr. Huntsman read into the record a letter from Northcoast (copy of which was reproduced and given to each Com- missioner and was placed in the file), and he said that Mr. Leiber of the City of Cupertino had talked to Northcoast by telephone and verifi d the tank had structural integrity exceeding federal specification of 4-8 times. tlr. Ray Gabler, 22223 Bahl Street, ~u?er:~..o, ..eighbor to ~r.Huntsman, repeated his concerns as stated in previous meetings for the safety of his property and he said his concerns were undiminished by engineeri g and Staff comments. He said, in addition to the information already available, he'd like to add that an existing sprinkler system thoroughl. soaks the steep incline where the tank was sitting and it caused puddle of water to appear at the bottom of the hill on his property. Mr. Gabler expressed appreciation of the questions that the Commissioners were asking. He said it appeared to him that they shared his concern for the safety in the installation. , PC-334 Page 4 .~- MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. ADAMS stated he'd like to make comments and to clarify the record. He said he appreciated Mr. Huntsman's Rreat expense, which he said would be reduced by tax' deduction considerations. Yet, he said, he felt any prudent man would look at the potential expenditure and decide whether it was worthwhile as a venture. He said he would not consider cost as a major factor becanse_half of it" was coming back to. Mr. Huntman. Being an engineer, Com. Adams said he appreciated efficiency on a complex system; and, he suggested the system should have been looked at on paper to assure approval prior to spending funds for in- stallations. Although somebody had goofed, he said it was water over the dam. Safety was his major concern. Being himself an engineer, he said Mr. Hammond couldn't tell him that the tank was structurally integral to with stan! earthquakes. Fiberglass was brittle as it was formed inside/outside of a mold, and it was light weight. He said he wished to set the record straight that he'd hot seen a tank burst, but had seen a tank that had endured in an earth~ quake in the Evergreen area and the buckle ~n the tank could be seem -- in the steel tanks. In this instance, with a fiberglass tank only buried about 18", pretty close to the San Andreas Fault (the tanks he'd seen had been close to the Hayward Fault), he asked himself if it was safe to put this tank above-groùnd in that location. Other than the one letter from the Northcoast Tank Company, he said he had not seen any technical data that would convince him that the tank would withstand an earthquake. He noted that precaution had been taken for strapping the tank, but he wondered what was to pre- vent the tank from bursting with over several G-forces resulting from an average eartnquake in the area:- . To address what the Commissioners should do as a Commission, he said he'd be inclined to accept variances -- the gazebo height, roof line, hot water tank, etc.. But, he said that he'd not seen anything, even the precautions taken to avoid the overturning of the tank, that could insure against the tank bursting. He called attention to the manufacturer's tank guarantee, which record said that the tank was "only good to hold water." Com. Adams said he could not buy the tank in that location. The fact that it was a beautiful and exotic solar system of high efficiency (as long as the tank was in one location) was not his problem. He had to be sold on the tank being safe, and he had not been sold. He stated that he was sorry, but he could not approve the application. Buying off the rest of it was fine with the condition that the tank was moved and buried half way up at least. i PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED 5-0 COM. BLAINE stated that although she was not an engineer, she was aware of state codes, and was interested in the results of earthquake activities in various parts of the City in relation to City and State Codes. She reminded them that the San Fernando earthquake of several years previously would not have caused such damage if adequate codes had been in force. During the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan, with Mr. Cotton, the City's consulting geologist, there had been discussic f things~hat would be added to the State Code as studies were completed. To date, she said several things have not been done. What had been done bv the City engineers to meet State Codes really didn~t satisfy her as to the safety of that tank located where it was, and she stated that she MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-334 Page 5 agreed with Com. Adam's comments. 'Enclosure for the rest of the equip- ment. Height of the gazebo for capturing more heat with height was fine. But, the tank had to be moved to a much safer location away from the side of the house atop that steep bank. COM. JOHNSON said he wished to comment that he was a strong advocate of solar power and enhancements that are proposed. He admired the appli- cants efforts and plans. However, he said he felt the problems generate during the last couple of weeks should have been anticipated in the cost factor and size of the project. He said he felt pressure by virtue of the tank not having been installed under ordinance and the plan was underway. The current location was not ideal (he stated) and the cost of installing additional pipes for the relocation of the tank was war- ranted due to the safety concerns. COM. CLAUDY expressed his sympathy for Mr. Huntsman's problem of a large investment; but, he said he was struck by the fact that if he'd contem- plated such an installation, he'd certainly have checked the codes very thoroughly and had some things re-designed because they would require various, albeit trivial, changes. He felt that had to be done. The setback between gazebo and the house on the property, height of the gazebo, the component parts and equipment ~nclosure -- the latter, if insulated, could be approveè and he could accept it. But, he said, "The tank is in the wrong place." Com. Claudy went on to explain that i his view, it should not have been put there even from an engineering point of view -- not from a solar heating or seismic geologic type of engineering, but simply because it was in the wrong place. He pointed out that that statement had been made for all of the meetings and that the applicant had been asked to move the solar water tank to another location. Thus,with full understanding of the monetary point of view, he said the Planning Commission was charged with making planning de- cisions and not political decisions. Com. Claudy said that if Mr. Hunts man could convince the City Council to make a political decision, then, that was another matter. He concluded by stating that he would have to vote against the application. CHR. KOENITZER agreed with the other Commissioners that given all of the other things in the plan are located where they are, and even though the present location might be the ideal location for the tank, he said he had to disagree with the 'givens." Everything seemed to have been put on one side (a little pool pump being one thing, but a 1,000 gallon tank and hot water heaters were different), and he was concerned with :~e items failing, as they would in time, and then the limited access ~Jlu oe a serious handicap. The limited access being further limited by the large solar water tank and everything else, he felt there were more appropriate locations. City Attorney Kilian advised that if the only concern of the majority was the existence of the tank it the sideyard setback location, one motion might be to consider approval of the Use Permit subject to the Condition that the tank be moved to another location. He noted that it was illegally within the setback at the present time; and, he said it const~utes a safety hazard to the surrounding neighborhood. He said that consideration could be made rather than denying the entire appli- cation. That way, he advised, the issue would be narrowed to the point where the Council, if subject to appeal, could decide that issue. PC-334 Page 6 INUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OTION: ECOND: aTE: Com. Adams, Approval of 6-U-80, subject to Conditions #1 through #16; #17 to request removal and relocation of the solar water tank from the easterly property line to a location to the rear of the house between the house and the pool; or, removal to the general patio location of the Plat Map, and that the subject 1,000 gallon tank be relocated and also be buried approximately half its depth. Variations of precise property lines should be shown and modifications or footings shall not encroach on adjacent property. STRIKE Conditions #3, #4, #6 & #7/ Findings and Subcon- clusions of Staff Report. ADD to Condition #17 that relocation be outside the boundary of the side and rear yard setback at least" sevèn (7) feet from the rear of the property line. Condition #18 as per Staff Memo Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 OM. BLAINE asked about the tank posing a safety problem, which should e included within the motion. OM. ADAMS said that the safety element was based upon the finding hat the applicant had not sifficiently convinced the motion-maker f the structural integrity of the tank to endure potential earthquake -forces, and also that the tank requires relocation to avoid public ea1th, and safety, and welfare hazards. OM. CLADDY said that since they were talking about a variance, the resent location would be illegal. The other illegally placed equip- ent within the setback line of the property on the east side is cceptable even though it too is outside the Code requirements. (The above three paragraphs, with proper wording, to become part of the motion.) TEM #2, Application 23-TM-78 (Revised) of B.A.S. HOMES, INC.: TENTA- IVE MAP to amend the exhibits and conditions of approval which limit uilding height to one-story in the previously annroved B.A.S. Homes esidential development (Tract 6551) for lots which back up to the xisting West ridge Village condominium development and ENVIRONMENTAL EVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is re- .uired. Said property is located on the west side of Foothill Boule- ard approximately 200 ft. northerly of Silver Oak Way. First Hearing ontinued. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 16, 1980. ¡ \ssociate Planner Piasecki explained the exhibit that reflected the ocation of the request to permit a two-story home ·on a lot restricted to one- tory homes. The Site Plan and Elevation Plan were on exhibit. He aid there would not be a second-story window. Staff felt that the Ian conformed to the existing neighborhood and the General Plan desig- ations. herry Campbell, 20823 Stevens Creek ßoulevard, Cupertino. apprised he Staff of the fact that the total height of the present and proposed tructuies would go 4~ foot higher (for a total of 20~ feet); and, she urther advised that the height of the single-story plan being used in he development went to a total of 22 feet. Condition #19 required nstallation of a strip of trees to afford better privacy. She said he trees would run along Lots #24, #25 and up the side of #25. MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-334 Page 7 Concern for the fact that the total height of the proposed structure would·'be 4~ ft. higher that present for a total of 20 ft. Pad level difference for Lot #24 and the Westridge Development measured about 2~ feet -- a minor change in a Tentative Map -- and the Condition would still be within the intent of the original condition to afford privacy between the two developments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Se~ond: Com. Johnson VOTE: PASSED MOTION: SECOND: YOTE: 5-0 Com. Claudy (noting that the request seemed to be within the spirit of protecting privacy rights and Com. Johnson agreeing, made a motion for APPROVAL 23-TM-78 (Revised) based on the Findings set forth and as contained in the Staff Report of May 9, 1980 and Standard Conditions #1 through #15 as outlined in the Staff Report. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 ITE}! #3, Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider an amendment to the City of Cupertino General Plan concerning land changes for Area E containing approximately 5.3 gross acres from Residential 20-35 dwelling units per acre to Residential lO-15 dwelling units per acre and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com- mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located at the southwest corner of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 16, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the approv~d recommendation in the General Plan for the subject property from Residential 20-35 density to Residential 10-15 units/acre density. The major point for discussion was whether or not a negative declaration was warranted and environmental review. It was felt that the decrease in density did not result in sig- nificant environmental impact. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy, Second: Com. Blaine. PASSED 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: YOTE: Com. Blaine, to Adopt a Resolution recommending amendment to the Land Designation Element of the General Plan, "Portal Avenue," Site E, to be 10-15 Residen~íal zoning density. Motion to include finding of a negative declaration as per Staff Report of June 5, 1980. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 IT~!S #4, #5. #6 heard together on review of Staff Reports with separate actions on each item. , . PC-334 Page 8 INUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HR. KOENITZER reviewed the stated reasons for bringing the appli- at ions before the Planning Commission. He emphasized that there as no consideration of annexation in the issues. He asked that the ublic be brief as possible in their remarks -- coming to the podium, tating their name and address and signing in for the record. oting that reports had been mailed to interested parties, he said he oped that some of the questions would have been resolved at home prior o the meeting. To avoid lack of understanding, he repeated that he Planning Commission would Prezone the parcels and only the City ouncil could go forward with annexation. ssistant Planning Director Cowan, on Application 19-Z-80, pointed ut the eleven (11) parcels under consideration -- all built. upon. lication 20-Z-80 comprised two separate small items or parcels or proposed.Rl-7.5 zoning, consistent with the surrounding property. lication 2l-Z-80 was described as four areas recently transferred o the City of Cupertino from the City of San Jose. Approximately hirty-two (32) acres with about one hundred fifty-five (155) lots ere involved, presently prezoned Rl-6 in the County and recommended o remain Rl-6. t was explained that there was very little difference between the ounty and the City rules and regulations. TEM #4, Application 19-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (POPPY DRIVE): REZONING ·approximately 3.0 gross acres from Santa Clara County Rl-lO Residential, Single family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to ity of Cupertino Rl-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. inimum lot size zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by he Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental eview Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. aid property encompasses eleven (11) existing single-family parcels ocated on the north and south side of Poppy Drive westerly of Foot- ill Boulevard. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - uly 7, 1980. T~~ #5, Application 20-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (LINDA VISTA DRIVE): REZONING approximately 6.5 acres from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (one amily residence, 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) and A1-1ac (Resi- ential and Agriculture, one acre minimum lot size) zone to City of upertino Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum ot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the lanning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental eview Committee recommends the granting of a ~¡egative Declaration. ~aid property is located on the south side of McClellan Road approxi- ately 170 ft. westerly of Linda Vista Drive and on the east and west ide of Madrid Road southerly of McClellan Road. First Hearing. entative City Council hearing date - July 7, 1980. TEM #6, Application 2l-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (BOLLINGER ROAD! LANEY AVENUE): PREZONING approximately 32 gross acres from Santa lara County Rl-6 (Residential, Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum ot size) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-6 (Residential, Single-family, ,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed ppropr!ate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The nvironmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative eclaration. Said property is located in the northeast quadrant of outh Blaney Avenue and Bollinger Road. The area encompasses those MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-334 Page 9 parcels bounded to the west by South Blaney Avenue; to the south by Bol- linger Road; to the east by the row of lots on the east side of Alder- brook Lane; and to the north by CalabazasCreek and the north side of Lindenbrook Lane and Brookwell Drive. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - July 7, 1980. There were no comments from the public on Item #4. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Blaine. Passed 5-0 MOTION: Second: VOTE: MOTION: Second: VOTE: Com. Claudy, recommend Approval of Negative Declaration on 19-Z-80 (Poppy Drive). Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy, recommend Approval of Prezoning on 19-Z-80 as per Staff Report. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 There were no comments from the public on Item #5. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy. Passed 5-0 MOTION: Second: VOTE: Com. Blaine, recommend Approval of Negative Declaration on 20-Z-80 (Linda Vista Drive). Com. C1audy PASSED 5-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine~ recommend Approval of Prezoning on 20-2-80 as per Staff Report. Second: Com. Claudy Public Comments on Item #6 follow: Mr. Scott Coomes, 10786 South Blaney Avenue, Cupertino, said he didn't really have any objections. He'd like to find out, he said, about the motivation. He said he had read the information of the 3rd and 6th of June, and he wished for background information in addition. He said he' heard that Santa Clara doesn't want to own residential areas. He sug- gested that a little history would be helpful. CHR. KOENITZER again explained the MORGA (Municipal Organization Asso- ciation), which authorized Prezoning on sites to bring them into the Cit :~t are~s under 100 acres without the vote of the residents. The legis- ~3t'on does require zoning or prezoning of all the land within its spher of influence, as defined by LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Organization). Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested Mr. Coomes call him and make an appointment for reading the material available on the subject of pre- zoning. Mr. John Weid, 10731 Brookwell Drive, Cupertino, asked if the new prezon ng included two-story places. He said the present housing was predomi- nently ¡ne-story housing. CHR. KOENITZER told Mr. Weid that the height of housing would not be changed under zoning. The possibility of residents wishing to add two- story additions to existing homes was possible in the County and the Cit Any owner was entitled to approach Staff with plans. PC-334 Page 10 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING y' Mr. Weid felt neighborhood. restricted to that he'd rather not have that COM. BLAINE reminded Mr. Weid one story by deed agreements. happening in this that housing might be Mr. Bob Baker, 10882 South Blaney Avenue, Cupertino, stated that he was definitely against going into the City because he'd rather stay in the County. Having lived in the area for 25 years, he couldn't see advantages to him in the change. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 MOTION: Second: VOTE: Com. Blaine, Grant Negative Declaration 2l-Z-80. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 MOTION: Second: VOTE: Com. Blaine, Approval 2l-Z-80 as per Staff Report Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 ITEM #7 (continued under Postponements due to faulty advertising practice) to be heard on July 14, 1980. ITE}! #8, Applications 24-Z-80 and l2-U-BO of CLEARLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: REZONING approximately 2.0 gross acres from R3 (Multiple family residential) and Rl-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to P (Planned Development with medium to high density residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to con- struct a 42-unit residential building over a depressed parking structure and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com- mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The sub- ject property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 100 ft. easterly of Randy Lane. First Hearing. '7~~tative City Council hearing date - July 7, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki showed the exhibits of the proposed 42- unit development, with depressed parking facilities, and the area was identified as being one of the areas under review in conjunction with General Plan discussions as to appropriate land use in the City. The proposed plan indicated one use. He said that after the failure of a ; ?~evious plan not having been brought back to the Commissioners, and ! because of concerns of neighbors, the density had been set at 10-20 , units/acre -- the motivation for the density being the need to increase housing opportunities in the City. He advised that the 1979 Compre- hensive General Plan reaffirmed the designation of density. The Commissioners discussed building heights, setbacks, traffic im- pacts (which information was contingent upon receiving additional infornlation from an in-progress traffic survey and report), trips/unit, the recessed parking and protection of such areas~ access roads, and fencing for privacy and noise buffering along the back fence at the recreation area of the development. Mr. William G. Irvine, 10560 Cast in Avenue, Cupertino, architect on the project, said he felt the staff had covered all of the concepts of MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-334 Page 11 the development, addressing neighborhood compatibility and privacy con- cerns. In response to COM. ADAMS, Mr. Irvine explained that the 3rd story (so-called) was actually a 2nd-story townhouse arrangement with th living on the 2nd floor and a 3-4 step-up to the bedroom area on the 3rd level. He said there were no balconies on the inner core. COM. JOHNSON was particularly interested in detail of security devices and lighting in the depressed garage area. Mr. Irvine described the plans and said the parking would be fitted with grill work through which ventilation was possible. COM. ADA}IS was told, in response to his question, that the City BMR unit would be located where the City placed them. Assistant Plannind Director Cowan stated that the City dispersed such units throughout the project; and, in this instance, the City would have one unit of each design (4 designs proposed). Mr. John Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, said that as he looke at the monstrosity on the exhibits, he was amazed that it was being recommended for installation just over his back fence. He asked about the probability of having to go to Highway 9 to make a U-Turn in order to leave the area in a left turn direction. Since the traffic in the area was already in a mess, he saw no reason for adding to the mess. Mr. Callahan asked for information about appointments to the Environ- mental Review Committee, the Planning Commission, etc.. Assistant Planning Director Cowan invited him to come in to City Hall and they could sit down and discuss procedures. Mr. Callahan asked how they should proceed to acquire an environmental impact report on all of the areas under consideration, including Town Center. Mrs. Rose Mary Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, said she had ;hree points: 1. resubmitting a petition (copy) which had originally been turned over at the April 27 meeting, the signers asking for one- story professional office structure design. 2. She said that she had copies of density reports and a copy of projects going on in Cupertino, and she said she failed to see density of 42 units on 2 acres. 3. On the matter of depressed parking, she said the fumes from the under- ground parking would be heavy. Mr. Tom Siron, 20064 Wheaton Drive. Cupertino, said he was two or so houses down from the east side vf the prJjecr; al1d he re?eated the 're- quest he had made in a 1969 letter to the City Councilor the Planning Commission, that a high density not be placed on the area. He said that crime, which the Staff Report mentioned on page 5, was directly pro- portionate to the number of people in a community -- referring to a city other than Cupertino, he thought. The Staff Report indicated that crime was related to income levels. In that event, he said, unemployment led to a lot of crime. He asked for the crime figures in Cupertino. --..,~.-.:.,,~- Mr. William Clark, 20054 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, said he'd like the Commis~ioners to understand how unhappy he was because of the high density. Not only crime, but also noise would lower propert" values in his area, and with the high buildings next to his home, he felt the residential property of lower height would not be wanted. PC- 334 Page 12 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In response tr Mr. Pepper Synder, Clear Lake Drive (1303 Lick Avenue) San Jose, CHR. KOENITZER explained that it was the in- tention of the Commissioners to' Continue Item #8 until such time as pertinent traffic reports were available. Mr. Snyder objected to the statement that they came into town to make a lot of profit without consideration for the citizens. He said they took pride in their projects, and they felt this project was a good land use. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to Continue Item #8, 24-Z-80 and 12-U-80, to the Regular Planning Committee Meeting of June 23, 1980, at which time a traffic report was expected. Second: VOTE: PASSED 5-0 CHR. KOENITZER announced the Planning Commission Meeting PC-334 was Continued till Wednesday Evening, June II, 1980, City Council Chambers. (Motion: page 10). ATTEST: APPROVE: ~0~'J City Clerk C¡¿tf!¿AÆAF~ CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-334 Page 1 (13) MINUTES JUNE 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 p.m "- '-. " ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Staff Present: Planning Director Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan City Attorney Kilian & Assistant Foley City Engineer Whitten Associate Planner Piasecki i POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Gregg Bunker, Item #15, 33-U-79, requests Continuance due to con- flict with another meeting. He asked for continuance to the July 14, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING CHR. KOENITZER announced that the meeting was Continued from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 9, 1980 and was picking up the Agend with Item 119. ITEM #9, Applications 22-Z-80 and 8-TM-80 of GERALD V. AND MARION L. ROOT: PREZONING approximately 1.6 + gross acres from Santa Clara County Rl-lO (one family residence,-10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-lO (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, TENTATIVE MAP to reconfigure four parcels consisti of approximately 1.6 + acres, and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ- mental Review Committ;e recommends the granting of a Negative Declaratio The map action does not request any increase in the number of parcels. Said property is located on the east side of Scenic Boulevard approxi- mately 325 ft. northerly of Palm Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date for prezoning - July 7, 1980. Tentative Map continued to Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki identified the four lots for rezoning as a joint application of two adjacent property owners. He asked that the Planning Commission use its perogative to change the zoning to Planned Development for the four lots. PC-334 Page 2 (14) ~!INUTES JUNE 11, 1980, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 The "paper street" known as Riviera Road was discussed at length. A quiet title action, 'filed by Attorney Jack Coward, would erase all aœess ,..ights to the street and place the area under the ownership of the adjacent property owners. It was noted that the Water District might have tentative interest in ownership of the street, which ran adjacent to Stevens Creek. COM. ADAMS asked if the floodplain requirements would be maintained, and Mr. Cowan said, "Yes." He further explained that Planned Development ment would clear up ownership responsibility and provide a clear picture of where the creek was. Since it was not necessary for the owners to have the road to the end of his property, the road could be terminated or shortened. COM. JOHNSON asked about the slope density of Lots #24 and #25. Mr. Cowan suggested that the setback and building regulations in the 1-5 units/acre be applied, and it was to be maintained. Building was suggested for the back corner away from the slope. COM. CLAUDY asked for clarification of the quiet title and dedlcation of right-of-way. He asked if that was not a conflict. Assistant Planning Cirector Cowan said it was on the surface, but proposals would be submitted and steps would be taken, with right-of-way dedicated to the city, for the purpose of protecting the nature of the environment of Stevens Creek. He reported that the Flood Control District is not committed to taking over the ownership because they wanted the City's Floodplain District. Their obligation for mainten- ance continues in force as needed. A paved <road would not be needed; however, the district might send in personnel. COM. JOHNSON, commenting that the Water District was not reaching out with open arms, asked how the City would approach the Water District ~ho~ld the water District not reach out with open arms. ' Ass1stant Planning Director Cowan said that a firm committment had not been frothcoming from the Water District, but talks with Mr. Carlson, their maintenance that was connected with the design part of the Dis- trict, it was felt they might be leaning towards not taking it. It was a question of the creek being in public ownership. Mr. John H. Coward, 20370 Town Center Lane, Suite 205, Cupertino, CA, attorney for the applicants, explained the situation and thrust of what his clients were asking. (Lot #29, Mr. & Mrs. Shaikle are not part of the application nor represented by Mr. Coward.) Lots #25, #26, #27, and #28 were parties to the quiet action to erase all access rights to Rieviera. On the exhibits, Mr. Coward traced out what his clients wished to do, and said his clients had no problems conveying anything the water district might wish to own. General discussion ensued concerning access roads to all of the properties. It was agreed that a public cul-de-sac would be provided to give access to the rear lots under Planned Development. MINUTES JUNE 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 PC- 334 Page 3 (15) Mr. Coward advised that owners of four other lots, represented by privat counsel, would be submitting a Tentative Map request to rearrange their property lines. He pointed out a portion of land at the top of the map that was owned by May Investment Company and said that might have to be dealt with. He also suggested that a method for getc.1ng rid of the quiet title action. In the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 748.5, which "creates a conclusive presumption" against the City and the County as far as the road was concerned. He felt there would be no problem of ownership of the road -- it being in a subdivision more than 25 years old and subject to reversion to the City or County. Mr. Richard Gallant, 10335 Scenic Boulevard, Cupertino, asked if there was going to be two accesses. COM. CLAUDY responded that the preference was that it be left the way it was, trying to encourage to the maximum extent the one access on the northern-most side of the Ledford property; which meant, he continued, that a decision was not possible until a plan was brought before them. That was the usual procedure, a public hearing and notification would be sent to Mr. Gallant. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Johnson. PASSED 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, Granting of Negative Declaration Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy, Approval 22-Z-80 Conceptual Zoning Plan with ex- ceptions or modifications as outlined in Exhibit A: No. 5 shall read .."forfeit all rights of access to Riviera Road with the exception of Lot No. 28." Delete rest of paragraph. Condition 1/7, line 2, (from line one) change to read "restricte to the flatter..." Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 ITEM #10, Application 23-Z-80 of EDWARD LOESWICK: REZONING approximate .16 acres from Rl (Residential, Single-family) holdover San Jose zoning district, to the City of Cupertino Rl-6 (Residential, Single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The map action does not request any increase in the numbe of parcels. Said property is located on the east side of Scenic Boule- vard approximately 325 ft. northerly of Palm Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date for pre zoning - July 7, 1980. Tentative Map continued to Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 1980. The applicant was not present and there being no public comment -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Blaina PASSED 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, Grant Approval of Negative Declaration Com. Adams PASSED Com. Adams, Approval 23-Z-80. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 5-0 PC-334 Page 4 (16) MINUTES JUNE ll, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 ITEM #11, Application 2-V-80 of RICHARD AND MARY SHERMAN: VARIANCE from Sections 8.3 (side yard setback) and 8.4 (rear yard setback of Ordinance 99l (Ordinance ~egulating single-family residential zones) to permit a 9 ft. side yard setback in lieu of 25 ft., as required by the above ordinance, for a two-story building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. The sub- ject property is located at 10595 Orange Tree Lane which is on the west side of Orange Tree Lane approximately 400 ft. northerly (six lots north) of Merritt Drive. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 16, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the application and advised that since the three items of criteria of uniqueness could not be met on the variance, it was suggested by Staff that the request for the variance be rejected. Mrs. Mary Sherman, 10595 Orange Tree Lane, Cupertino, property owner, said she had been advised by a member of the Plannir,g Department that they recommended a negative decision on her request. She said she felt that to be very unfair. Mrs. Sherman explained the reason for the request for expansion of her home. A map of the area was exhibited and the two areas of encroachmenmneeding variance were described. The configuration of the present structure was also outlined. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson. Second: Com. Blaine. PASSED 5-0 Jointly the Commissioners discussed the various problems with the application, agreeing unanimously that the request for variance did not meet the three criteria for uniquness and thereby failing the need for relief under a variance. Staff estimated that the guidelines that were being worked on for the Planning Commission would be available in about six months on the inside (considering the length of the present work schedule for Staff). PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Blaire. PASSED 5-0 Mrs. Sherman described the layout of her home in detail. She said she was not adding rooms but just expanding the upstairs rooms. The home to the rear of her property was 60 ft. from her back fence and was a 26-year-old home. COM. JOHNSON asked that they go through A, B, & C under Section 7.4. CHR. KOENITZER said it was rarely that they came up with anything on special conditions #1 and #2, and #3 under health and safety had very rarely been the subject of findings. The vagueness of the points was essential, and that was one reason why there were five (5) commission members to make decisions. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Johnson PASSED 5-0 COM. JOHNSON said the regidity of the ordinance was awkward and he MINUTES JUNE 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 felt that something like this application might be considered acceptable under a review of the ordinance, which was planned for four to eight months down the road. pc-:m Page 5 (17) COM. ADAMS asked if previous variances granted by City Council could be used to justify granting of the variances in this instance. City Attorney Kilian said that past issues were not criteria. The Com- mission had to consider only what was before them immediately. The standards must be read as they applied today, and granting this type of variance might be creating a policy precedence for the future. The strictness of the rules were meant to be strict and harsh. Changes to specific ordinances were not meant to be passed every day. COM. CLAUDY said he felt great sympathy, but that they were dealing with a quasi-legal or judicial matter. The property did not suffer sub- ~tantial loss. Other lots with the same configuration were located throughout the city. On the Point #2, the house was lived in and enjoye , and was saleable. Point #3 was no problem in that health and safety wer not in question. " MOTION: Com. Blaine, Recommend Denial 2-V-80 because requirements III and #3 were not sµtisfactory. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 5-0 ITEM #12, Application l6-U-78 (Revised) of TERRANOMICS DEVELOPMENT COR- PORATION: USE PER}IIT to amend the conditions of approval to allow limited access to the rear of the existing Orchard Valley Market Place Shopping Center and ENVIRONJ.1ENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue in a P (Planned Development with commercial use intent zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 16, 1980. Planning Director Sisk called attention to the written report and the study prepared by the noise consultant concerning the issue of use of an alley to the rear of the property and what effect the use would have on adjacent property owners. Because of concern upon first considerati of the Terranomics Development, it was noted that the alley was re- stricted from use except for trash carrying. Vehicles were excluded completely. The request for consideration for Ite~ #12 was to permit one occupant of the shopping center to run a catering truck down the alley very quietly once a day. Staff recommended that the original use conditions be maintained. Mr. Ralph L. Turner, Jr., Accoustical Engineer, 1235 Regency Place, San Jose, outlined the program that had been set up for metering noise im- pacts in the alley area. He said he had talked to nearby neighbors. As part of an effort to control noise from use in the area, he proposed the key to the gate be kept with a disinterested adjacent shop owner and only be available upon request. PC-334 Page 6 MINUTES JUNE 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COM}!ISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 (18) Mr. Merritt Sher, Terranomics Corporation president, confirmed the agree- ment with Mr. Turner for policing the Round Onion use of the alleyway. The height of the fence or wall along the rear of the property was dis- cussed at length -- the barrier (fence or wall or both) said to be at the five foot level on the neighborhood side and taller on the shopping center side. Mr. Arthur Fernandez, 19711 Bixby Drive, Cupertino Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, Cupertino Mr. Arthur Fernandez, 19711 Bixby Drive, Cupertino Mr. Smallcombe, 19741 Bixby Drive, Cupertino, neighbors to the rear of the property of the Round Onion, outlined the problems they had been enduring from the alleyway, and also from the proprietor of the Round Onion. They agreed that they were against granting the permission of use of a truck in the area. They all maintained that despite the re- striction of use on the alley, it was being used fairly regularly even though the gates were in place. Indeed, it was stated that the gates were not locked a good part of the time. They objected to Long's Drug having the key, as had been suggested by Mr. Sher and Mr. Turner, maintaining that the possibility existed that Long's might be tempted to uie the alley themselves. It was also stated that after the first time the Round Onion used the key, there would be two keys, which would take care of the pre- cautions so carefully being set up. It was related that Long's had been objecting to their female employees having to walk the long-way round to get to designated parking. Although cutting through the alley might not be the best or even a solution, it was felt that Long's would wish to try the use of the alley COM. BLAINE said she had a few problems with the Round Onion and access of the Round Onion vehicular traffic, which she pointed out was prohibited by conditions of the original application by Terronomics. She recalled that noise complications were considered and it was decided that there would be very restricted access -- for emergencies (as it came from H- Control). That's what it was to have been and the way it should be, she concluded. Each of the Commissioners agreed with Com. Blaine, stating more or less the same reasons for feeling that access should not be granted through the alleyway. It was felt that should this request be honored, it would lead to futher requests for access -- access certainly being attractive to any business establishment. CO~. ADAMS said he'd like to make one last comment. It was his under- standing, he said, that Mr. Sher was to have added an 8 ft. wall, not required by the Planning Commission, but agreed to by Mr. Sher and the Staff as being a solution to a lot of problems in the alley. He asked that Staff check into the status of the wall. CHR. KOENITZER stated that as one having made the Planning Commission decision on the original application, he was surprised that there was even pedestrian traffic using the alleyway that had been designated for emergency use only. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Johnson. PASSED 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, Disapproval l6-U-76 Revised; reasons stated above. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 PC- 3~4 Page 7 (19) MINUTES JUNE 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 ITEM #13, Application 17-U-78 of ROBERT ALTEVERS & COMPANY (HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT): RENEWAL OF USE PERMIT to continue to operate a Discotheque (including dance floor) in the existing Houlihan's Restaurant and ENVIR- ONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no action i required. The subject property is located in the Orcnard Valley Market Place Shopping Center located on the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue in a P (Planned Development with General Commercial use intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 16, 1980. Item #13, Application l7-U-78 was removed from the Agenda as per MOTION on page 1 of Agenda PC-334, June 9, 1980. ITEM #13-A,.Application 6-TM-80, MAXINE DRUMMOND: TENTATIVE MAP to sub- divide approximately 1 acre into 4 parcels equaling approximately 10,000 sq. ft. each and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subjec property is located on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Carmine Road in an R1-l0 (residential single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) district. Assistant Planning Director Cowan showed exhibits of the area in questio He said there were two structures on the site and two tax parcels. Another parcel was combined and a map approved approximately a year previously for two lots. The present proposal is to involve the ad- joining property owners and use the residual planned over the minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. to creat 4 parcels. He said there was a condition of approval that involved a lot line to accommodate a fire vehicle turn- around space as requested by the Central Fire District; and, there are conditions for reciprocal easement agreements and maintenance agree- ments, and condition that prohibits (as per the original Tentative Map) access to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The members of the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff ·Report. Mrs. Maxine Drummond, Applicant, said she did not know what to say, but she said she would be glad to answer any questions the commissioners might have. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson. Second: Com.. Blaine PASSED 4-0--1 ABSENT: Com. Claudy NOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Blaine, Recommend Approval of Negative Declaration. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0-0-1 Com. Claudy Com. Blaine, Recommend Approval 6-R}[-80, Standard Conditions #1 through #14, #15 through #19 as per Staff Report and Findings and Subconclusions as set forth in the MINUTES of the PLANNING COMMISSION NEETING of JUNE 9 (JUNE 11, 1980) PC-334, attached. Com. Adams PASSED 4-0-0-1 Com. Claudy PC-334 Page 8 (20) MINUTES JUNE 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CHR. KOENITZER announced that he wished to Item #14 because of conflict of interest. chairman pro tQill. withdraw from consideration on He appointed Com. Blaine as * ITEM #14, Applications 24-Z-79, 27-TM-79 and ll-U-80 of WOOLWORTH CON- See Page 22, STRUCTION COMPANY - Referred back to Planning Commission for a report. Par. 6. Planning Director Sisk referred the Staff Report as to why the City Council had sent the issue back. An exhibit was posted showing the latest variation of location for the Tank House -- elimination of one of the lots and creation of an emergency access passage with the Tank House located just inside the Stevens Creek Boulevard access gate. Another alternate, from a Planning Department perspective, was the moving of the Pump House off the property to a location across Stevens Creek Boulevard, a location which had been proffered by Mr. Terry Brown on property he owned on a sloping open space that was held in common by the homeowners in his development. Mr. Brown had volunteered to take ownership and maintain the structure in a prominent place next to the Blue Pheasant Restaurant on the flat property at the bottom of the hill. A plaque commemorating the structure could be in- stalled on the property and some type of public use could possibly be negotiated in the future through arrangements with the homeowners. COM. JOHNSON asked if City Council members were aware of the offer. Planning Director Sisk advised that they were individually aware of the offer, but not as a body or collectively. Planning Director Sisk called attention to an~ther exhibit which showed the Tank House off the property (onto Mr. Brown's location) but with an emergency access into the subdivision. He finished by saying that the Staff was not in favor of public ownership of the structure, whether it was a parcel containing the Tank House or emergency access to the sub- division. He stated that the City had closed more of them than had been opened in the community. He asked a recommendation back to City Council that the original eighteen (18) lots, from a density standpoint, is proposed. COM. Adams asked if the Pump House would still belong to the 18 property owners. Planning Director Sisk and City Attorney Kilian agreed that if the structure was moved to Mr. Brown's property, it would belong to Mr. Brown and eventually the homeowners of the specific area. A deed re- striction could be gone into to make certain it was maintained and not altered. Mr. Terrv Brown, said he did not have specific plans for the Tank House. He just thought it would be a good addition to his development -- persons he'd talked to indicating they liked the idea. Future use was open. In response to COM. BLAINE, Mr. Brown said he had no informatinn as to upkeep except that the upkeep would become a matter for the home- owner's association. COM. ADAMS noted that he did not have the conditions that were approved on the Woolworth application. He asked Mr. Brown if he was familiar with the conditions, and if they should be transferred to him, would he be willing to accept the obligation. MINUTES JUNE 11, 19BO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980. COM. BLAINE announced that although this was not a public hearing, she was inviting interested parties for their comments. PC- 334 Page 9 (21) Mrs. Anne Robertson, 21979 Oakdell Place, Cupertino, said she had been there several times on the Tank House. She said she had spoken personal y with Mr. Brown and certainly admire him for his wanting to preserve the structure. She was glad to see that house builders were exhibiting respect as was in Mr. Stockylmiers letter of December 13, 1979. At first, she said, she had felt that everybody's problem was solved and Mr. Woolworth would be relieved. But, she said she had personal concern about the vulnerability of the Tank House being behind the Blue Pheasant Restaurant from a standpoint of vandalism. Much had been made about pro tecting the house from vandalism. She wondered about the feeling of re- sponsibility mong the people who would be receiving the Tank House and how they would feel about liability and other questions, and also what would happen a few years from now if they turned to the City and said, "Thank you, you may have it back now." At that point, she said, the City would be back at START. (Mrs. Robertson read the balance of her letter into the record, which is available on tape through the City Clerk's office.) / Mr. Wayne Levenfeld, 10120 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino, said it was im- portant to point out that City Council had early on considered Staff's opinion against emergency access lanes. Now he said they'd like to have access lane, and he'd opposed Staff. Instead of going around in circles, he said some decisions should be accepted. That was what Council de- cided based on facts that came up throug~ ~~e process. He said he'd - like to see the access because it would gave the new residents access by walking to the stores located in the shopping center and would thusl divert traffic away from the streets. He felt the Tank House could be a reasonably attractive addition for an emergency access lane. Just removing one house was not going to do much to change the density of th area. He noted that the additional space was added to hillside lots, especially on Lot #10. Clearly, he said, the new proposal for removal of the Tank House had not been thought through very carefully. Mr. Woolworth, Woolworth Construction, said the thing had gone around so many times that everyone was tired of it. The Pump House, in the situation as shown was something that the City maintained it didn't want -- including the Council as they decided that the Pump House shoul be in the corner of Lot #13. One of the problems was ending up with a new Council. And he felt, he said, that the new Council was not aware of all of the things that have gone on about the Tank House with the prior Council. The Council had been concerned with hiding the structur down and over the hill. He didn't think they were concerned about moving the structure across the street. The suggestion that an area near the road would satisfy the Tank House and the Fire Department had caused the whole item to be sent back Ç"r further study. He said, "I don't want it. "Mr. Brown wants it. The City doesn't want it on City property." He noted that if they followed the plans of the other map, then they'd have a piece of property to maintain and have all the motor cycles, going through. PC-334 Page 10 (22) MINUTES JUNE 11, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980 Planning Director Sisk read his secretary's verbatim transcription of the page or so of comments made by the City Council members. COM. BLAINE asked if there was discussion as to whether or not the emergency access area would be open to traffic. Plannint Director Sisk said that if there was emergency access, it would be fenced and locked similar to other fenced and locked emergency access areas, and it would have no pedestrian access. There had been a lot of problems with such areas and they w~ec1osed as fast as they are opened, he said. COM. JOHNSON asked if the area would be open for a normal citizen. COM. BLAINE said they would come around to the other way in on the public street. She concluded that that should be part of their report. The discussion continued with brief mention of types of gates to close off such areas (some of which have arrangements for one person to walk past). Again, Com. Blaine called attention to the fact that they were not in a Public Hearing. COM. JOHNSON said he wished to make one point on the proposal 4~ that there was not ordinances to cover it, and he said he thought it was a viable alternate that private ownership was a way for the City to main- tain historic places. He said he didn't feel the proposal was negated, especially in terms of financial restraints. Possibly the City would be reaching out for more such arrangements for funds in the future. COM. ADAMS and COM. BLAINE said they wished to stay with the original proposal they had sent to City Council. COM. KOENITZER, BECAUSE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAD WITHDRAWN HIMSELF FROM CONSIDERATION OF ITEM #15. COM. BLAINE called attention to the fact that the Tank House was not being kept on the original site -- it was being moved to Lot #13~ Yet, it was on the Oakdell property where it served its purpose. NO MOTION WAS REQUIRED. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT A STAFF REPORT BE MADE back to the City Council of the decisions and discussion of the meeting. that the original approval be retained and no changes be made to that issue. COM. JOHNSON concurred. COM. KOENITZER abstained. .\PPROVAL: 3-0-1-0 ITEX #15, Application 33-U-79 of GREGG C. BUNKER was moved tinued to the 1st meeting of July, July 14, 1980. Second: VOTE: PASSED ABSENT: Com. Claudy to be con- Com. Blaine. 4-0-0-1 City Attorney Kilian advised that Mr. Bunker has existing orders to stop work and he is taking all the liberties he can to delay the pro- ceedings. COM. BLAINE said that on the 14th of July they should hear the issue whether or not Mr. Bunker was present. It was to be put on the Agenda as Item #1. MINUTES JUNE II, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1980. PC-334 Page 11 (23) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 12, MAY 14, and MAY 27, 1980. Com. Johnson, page 1, (election of chairperson) delete abstension and change vote to 5-0 - PASSED. Page 3, par. 6, change to read that CO~I. JOHNSON abstained from voting because he was not familiar with previous records on the matter. Com. Adams, page 7, par. 2, add sentence to end of paragraph: "No guar- antee of buckling on the fiberglass tank structure could be given by Mr. Hammond." Page 7, par. 3, change "4000 tons" to "four (4) tons" Com. Blaine, page 5, par 6, change to read: "COM. BLAINE reported that the Parks and Recreation Department meeting had found, after discussion, that two tank houses was sufficient for McClelland Park. She pointed out that the Tank House, on its present site, had no setback. It was suggested that if it was moved to Lot #13, it should have a 20 ft. setback. II Com. Koenitzer, page 5, and page 6, shall be changed so that votes will reflect 3-0-2-0. Page 9, par. 6. line 5, correct spelling: Mr. Szabo (lines 5 & 7). Page 9, last name on page, correct spelling: Mr. Starnes. Page 10, par. 2, line 6, change information to Formation. Page 10, par. 2, point 4: Delete reference to ~!ORGA. Com. Blaine, page 10, par.3, reword to read: Commissioner Blaine asked that the issue of preserving rural atmosphere in areas that might be annexed, be added to the review of the Rl Ordinance that Staff was pre- paring. MOTION: Approve Minutes as Amended, Com. Blaine. Second: PASSED Com. Adams 4-0 MAY 14, 1980, Page 2, under Public Hearing Closed, insert: Motion: Granting Negative Declaration. Motion by Com. Adams, Second: Com. Claud Page 2, insert Motion to approve 16-2-80. by Com. Adams. Second: Com. Claudy. Both motion were approved by a vote of 5-0 Page 3, par. 2, line 4, delete metal grid. Insert "concrete grass grid. ' Page 5, Mr. Paul Sonnenblich made the statement, in line 6, that he did not wish for the City to, etc. MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approve Minutes as Amended. VOTE: (Commissioner Claudy Absent) Second: Com. Adams. 4-0-0-1 MAY 19, 1980, page 2, above Approval Negative Declaration, insert:. Public Hearing Closed: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Johnson. 4-0-1-0 (Com. Adams abstained because he was absent from the meeting. MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approve Minutes as Amended: Second: Com. Johnso PASSED (Com. Adams abstaining.) 3-0-1-0 MAY 27, 1980, Page 4, par. 5, change to read "COM. ADAMS asked for clarification of the last paragraph...." Page 9, par. 4, line 2, change to read ... "20% requirement was... II Page 11, par. 2, line 5, change to read ...'~sked that future guide- lines reinforce the buffer zone requirement between single family and higher density development." Com. Johnson, page 3, par. 6, delete first two sentences. MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval Mj~{ . ".----'