PC 07-14-86' • CITY OF a.JP.ERI'mO I b"TATE OF CALIFORNIA lOJOO Tor.re Avenue CUpe.rtino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-4505 -
MINU1'ES OF 'lliE RfilJI.AR MEEI'ING OF '!HE PI.ANNING <X'MfiSSION HEtD QN JL"!Jl 14, 1986
Meetirq Held in the Couroil 01.a.\'Clber.s of CUpert.ino City Hall
~LL CAIL:
Ccmn.i.ssioners Pre..c;ent: Cha.irman Szabo Vice Ctla.iman Mackenzie canmissianer Maras Ccmnissianer c.laudy
7:30 P.M.
Staff Present: Robert CO.Vdrl, Di.-cector: of Planninq & Developnent
Steve Piasecki, Assistant Plann:in",f Director Glen Grigg, Traffic Enginaer C'la.rlea Kilian, City Attomiay
M:n"ION: can. Claudy, to approve the M.i.r:n.ltes of the Re';Jular Meetirq of
Juna 23, 1986, as sub:nitted.
SECDND: Olr. Szabo
VOI'E: Pd.SSE!d, can. Adams absent for th.is vote 2-0 cam. Mackenzie abGtaining.
EOSTPONEMEN'IS OR m.w AGENM ITEMS:
-ITEl1 4, Application 17-U-86, Robert H. Lee an:l Associat...ea (Mobil Oil corporation). Applicant request corrtinuance; staff t"eCO'l:\'TtOOl"rls one month.
MJITON: can. Claudy m::ived to cont...inue ITEM 4 to the Augw:.'t 11, 1986 meetirq.
SECX>ND: can. Ma.ck.e.n;-;ie
VOI'E: Passed, ccm. Adarls absent for this vote 3-0
ITEMS TAKEN OFF CAI.ENDAR:
-I'I'EM 5, Application 10-'IM-86, Reynaldo Perez. Withdrawn per applicant's req,uest.
MJI'ION:
SECOND:
VO'IE:
cam. claooy m::Ned to withdraw ITEM 5 from calerrlar.
Com. Mackenzie
Passed, can. Adams abstaining
-1-
PI.ANNnl'.; a:::HtISSIQf M!NUI'E9 Re'JUlar Meatirq Of JUly 14, 1986
PAGE 2
FC -497
WRITI'EN a:HIJN.ICATIOOS
-Mr. a:iwan ackncMlEdg'ed a letter frcm Mr. Jaaon Chartier, EHR
S\l.boamdttee O'laixman, relating to I'I'f.M3 9, 10, 11 Of tiWl ~·
ORAL a:HIJNICATICNS
-Nai&
··Application 4-U-83, Carl N. StilenSOn. Raqt.lest ~ for a minor
~ to nalify the architectural plan far a four story buildin;J.
1mICN: o:m. Claudy moved to adopt Consent Cttle.ndar as S'i..ll:mittod.
SEXX!ID: O::m. Mackenzie
VOI'E: l?!assed 4-0
J:rnMS mMJVED FBCM a::NSEm' CAI..ENDAR -·Nana
J:UBLIC BEARilG<3:
l'm<f 2
Application No(s) Afplicant:
P.rq-Jerty owner: IJ.x:a.tion:
Parcel Area (Acres)
USE PERMlT (ll-U-86)
To oonst:ruct a 2,400 sq. ft. addition to an existirg retail
l:cll.dirg.
FIRST HE1\roNG CX:Nl'INUED
ENVIlUlMENTAL ~CN: Categorically Exe.rrpt
'm1rATIVE err.!. a:xJNC'IL HFJ\RIOO DATE: JU.ly 21, 1986
stat:f Presentation; Mr. Piasecki stated that this Application was
contirru.ed frcm the June 23, 1986 meet.in;J to allow the followin; issue,s to
be resolved:
1) Dedicatioo of th~ turn-out: A letter fran the property owner has
been recei VOO. statirq thr:lt they are not inbi>..rested in p1"'0Vid.in;r the d.00.i.cation of th.a rus turn-cut. 'Ihe A[.plicant is requestin; that this
req..ti.rement be el iln.inate-:i. Should the Plannirq canmissior. not do so I
the Awlicant inte..n:ls to ai:peal thio dfi..cision to the council.
,,
,,;
1;_
/ '·.
PIANNIOO o:HnSSION MINUrES .
Regular ~ o! J\.lly 14, 1986
PAGE 3
PC -497
Staff Presentation; (Cont'd)
2) ~151:,~la Encl~: 'Ihi.s has new been incorporated into the proposed. plan.
3) structural Anal,vsis ot the Root:: A report fr.an Lloyd M:::Vickar an::l Associates, Inc. has been sul::mitted, confirming that the roof is structurally soun:l with the present VJ"eight loads; however, the roof
cannot bear additional weight. 'lbe City En:;Ji..l"'ISer concurs with this report.
&112licant's Prf>.sentation; Mr. Scott Hetz, Architect, Wm. Glass an:l
Assoo., stated that the service yard will acc::x:m:noC\ate the pallets required for the bales of cardboard.
Rsgard.irq the Analysip, for the Roof screen, Engi.neern for this project estimate that in order to suppo!t the new screen, 38 new st.nictural ·
colU!lU'lS would be I"'.:!C.{Uired in the sto-i:a. 'Ihis 'WO.lld necessitate ~k bein:]
done on an overtime basis; it. is difficult to estimate the possible damage to merchandise in the store while this work is being done. Estimates are ~tely $135,000 to reinforce the roof to aco::xnm:date
the roof screen.
Consideration was also given to raisin:] the parapet walls, creating the equipnent screen at the cutsioo edgs of the roof which would place the weight of this screen on the walls of the structure rather than pla.d.J'):J the weight on the roof; this is also eatiruated at a cost of $135,00C.
'Iha Applicant is willin;J to upgrade the roof screen c:.:un:ently in use, work with the rVM caiq?'Y' for an upgraded look an:i iqirove tl10 landscaping on this site. ·
Can. Adc'lIUS requested additional information regardin;1 the structural analysL-; of the roof. 'Iha Applicant was unable to provide the infonnation at that time.
cam. Mackenzie clarified the three cptions un::le.r considaration, namely:
1) Replace the current screen of ply•'10Cd r.ith a louvered metal screen; this can be done witha..rt structural modification of the Wildin;. 2) Raise the parapet wall on the edge of the l:ciJ.ding.
2) Provide continucu.s setback scree""'.irq, placin:;j the v..'eight of the screen
on the roof of the l::uilclli-g structure.
In resp:mse to can. Adams 1 question, Mr. Hetz stated that the s:.-:ree.n
curre.rtly bein:;J p~ is a met.al lruvered screen. 'Iha canmissioner stated that as a professional ell9'ineer, he is C'Once.rned regardi.ng-the
de.sign safety maxgin. He asked for a comparison of ·weight of the old structure an::i the proposed !l&N structure; this in.fo.nnation is "."'"lt available immediately.
PLANNING a:HiISSICN Z.IDm'ES
.Rsgul.ar Maetirq Of J\lly 14 / 1986
Pl\GE 4
l?C -497
ITEM 2 ( O::lrtt Id)
can. Claucly stated that he is pleased with the Ar:plicant's proposal. ragardinq the Trash/recyclable Enc.l.oaures. ae suggested a Coniltion
4.
statinq that storage areas be subject to review sir.aa they are not readily aca"'.SSible to the trucks ~ the trash. f
can. Claudy stated that he favors the re.quired dedication of the bus turn-alt.
Clu:'. Szabo asked" for the CX8t df the total rencivation; Mr. nvin Clear,
Pµrjec:t Engineer r Gruta>, estimated th.a cost to be $1 1 032, 000; az::prax.imately 60% of th.is coat is for the ~tion of tl'..e interior of·
the stol."'8.
'.:be speaker s""...ated that the lessse is in a ve:cy difficult pcsitian with
the lanilozd, regatd.irq the ~t t.o decile.ate the blS turn-art. 'Ihe,
lessor receiVD!!I no oocn:xn.ic gain from such a oonces.sian. I11 es.~. th.is requ.i.rlas renegotiation Of the lt?W»l.
Mr. Adrian Varlott.a 1"'6Viewad the d.Gsign st.rucb.u:'e for the O::rtrmission. He
stated that the original design v.ias 17. 7 lbs. per squara foot on the rcx>f
st:J:ucture; tbs exist.1.rq design is awi"O.Jd.muuy is lbs. per square foot. Weight baarin:;J loads ill'8 ~ when st.J:uc:t:ures are placed beyond the t:t'i.rutary area ("Well areas) around existing equipment; only the tributacy areas 'Were designad to bear the i!lddi tionaJ. weight Of screening equip:t~.
can. Clau:fy ~ a canprard.so: the bloo area (as shown on the
~) be raised am the present plywood boxes ba replaced with netal lc::.\M'>xed screens. 'Ihis approach wculd block th.a equi.pnent. from view alorq Stevems creek Blvd.
Mr. cowan suggested the }?OSSilile prccedu.ral solution of creating a Con:lltian that requires a review by a o::munittee of Cormuissianers and Staff
to verify the structural re.quiremant.s of tha b..rl.lc:li.rq. 'Th.is will not,
hc1Never / inprove the Viau.al aspects Of the p:rcposal,
Can. .'\dams favors replacing e.xist.in:J screened areas with metal loovered screens arrl raising the parapet wall along Stavens creek Blvd. cam.
Mackenzie favors upgrading the parapet wall; he expressed concern for neighboring a,rp...as that wiJ.l not renefit from upgrading the front area of
the store ard cautioned that tlw ccmrunity will have to view this store for many years.
'Ihe Rlblic Heari.rg was then opened. 'lh.P...re were no speakers.
:tmrON: c.an. Ji.dairs m:rved to clooe the Public Hearirq.
SEOJND: can. Mack.E'..nzie
VOTE: Passed
. "
4-0
PI.ANNIN:; cx:M{!SS!CN MINtJTE.S
Regular Meotin:J of July 14, 1986
PAGE 5 PC -497
ITEM 2 (Cont'd)
\ .. l ~.-;
',·.,:·1
can. Adams stated that the dedication of a bus tum-out is a :r.equirement needed by tl).B City. Camnissioners Mackenzie arrl Claudy cxn::ur that a b..1S
tum-a.it is neoessa.cy.
can. Adams requested that tile recom reflect the oor..t:ect. site davelo.i;:m:ent statistics: Parcel Area 10.1 N:::res; GFA 108,500; FAR .25; Puild O::>verage
.25%; Height 28 feet; Park.in;J Required, 542 spaces; Parkirq Provida::i, 557 spac.es.
Can. Adams accepts the installation of metal louvered SCJ:'eanS with the raisin;-"· of the front parapet wall, and suggested an addition to a::n:lition 7.
Consensus was then reached on the requirement for dEidication of tlliS bus turn-out.
M'JI'Ic:E: can. Mackenzie moved to rea::mmen.i a.wroval of Application 11-U..;.86 subject to the fin::tin;s of tbs Staff Report; Conditior.15 1 -3; · Corx:litian 4 runended to add. Exhibit A-1, tl'le Trash Er..cloaure
~it; Ccniltions 5, 6; O::indition 7 no:tified to requ.1.re either raisin:J tbs parapet wall surroun:lir:q the entire l:Alildin!] or raising the parapet wall on the can:::py on the south side ot the OOllding and provici.IDJ louvered mt.al sc::ree.n a:rcurd each of t..he four equiµoont clusters located Olil the roof. 'n'le.height of the
screens on the parapet walls, within the intent of the design, to
be subject to at.aft ~~ with the goal of screening the equipoont fran the center of Stevens creek Blvd. an ·ec-,!Ua]. distance aro.mi the equipnent; Co.n:litions 8 -12.
SEOJND: c.c..:m. Marus
VOI'E: Passe:! 4-0
ITEM 3
At;plication No(s) Applicant:
Property OWner: Location:
15-U-86
USE PERMIT (15-U-86)
To ope.rate a 2,100 sq. ft. Chinese Restaurant servin3' beer and wine.
FIRST HEARING CONr::tNUED
ENVIRONMENTAL DEI'ERMINATION: categorically Exeirpl.:
TENI'.ATIVE CITY OXJ.NCIL HEARING Ill\.TE: July 21, 1986
Si;;g_ff Presentation: Mr. Piasecki stata:i that this application was continued. frcm June 9, 1986 meeti.r:g. 'Iha applicant was aslood to evaluate options for relievin:;J the deficits in parkin;f both in the center as a whole and within their i:mmed!ate parking area. 'Ihe ar:pli.cant has discusses solutions with other property owne:ra but was unable to r-each any finn agreements in the time available.
PI.ANNnG a:::MMIS.SICN MINt:Y.I'ES Re:]U1ar Meeting of J\.lly 14, 1986
P}J:;E 6
PC -497
ITEM 3 (Cont'd)
'lhe appliecmt estimates that 20 parkirq spaces could be ac:x:p.i.rE.d by restripin; ti~ oon'tr.tr, with. an aadit.i.cinal 12 parking spaces~ in
the 'lhornwood porticn; st.aft can see cruy IS ackli.tianal parldrq ~ in th.is area when city standatds are applioo, ~. niese 6 park.in; spaoas will help; staff is inta.nlsted in minimizin:J ~deficits wen if a
full balance cannot be ~ • .Parkin; daficits are the result of:
1) aian:;re in the City Ord.:i.narx;ia for parkirg at bowlinJ alleys frail. l parkirq space for 200 aqua.tll feet (CXlll100rCial requirement) to 7 spaces
per bowlinq lane. '!his requixed app.roximateJ.1· 100 additional. park:i.ng spaces.
2) '!be increase of :restau.ranto which has intensified the parld.n:J situation. Mr. Piasecki no-too tlie poaaibility that the Pizza Peddler may reduoa. their seating from 72 to 16.
staff wishes to mcxilfy soma the o:niltians of this Application; in the.
seocni ~' .Altt.horized Usa, in the Reaolutic:n, delete 1'Ma:>c.iJmlm. eq>loyees per shift shall not e>o::iee:l 6'°.
In :respalS6 to can. Adaios ~en, Mr. Pi.asecki stated that the Applicants haw requested sewraJ. ~ t.o bawl tbs limited recreatia"!al. designation exparded; it has beel1 m::difiEd to allow up to. 25"' ncn-rea.-sational · use. ~ ru."0 vierwed as canpiitible with recreational activity.
staff suggests settirq :maxiJann limit on the number of seats in this portiau of the o::n:ter; this approach will not allow for mainta~ the Pizza Peddler as it curmntly existe and pre.si..nnes approval of their modified Use Per.nit.
~cant's PresentatiQ!l.i Mr. Ten-.f Kent, Agent, 'Ib.orr~JOOd Associations, a.ske:i the Plannirq O:::amnir,.sion for tee flexibility to lease to tOO rui
family to open this restaurant despite t.he fact that all reqµi.reoonts for parking have ~ been mat.
'Iha canstarrli propsrty ha.a the bulk 1.,,l the parking problen. On the
'Ihornwood property, with the planned d:lange in the seatin:J at the Pizza Peddler, the 211..llllOOr of t'l3Staurant seats is bein:;J rer.-ll:iced. In addi tian,
the A.Wlicants propose restripirg of the parking areas which will increase parking by 12 stalls. The city estimates only 6 stalls in this space.
Mr. Kent reviewed for the Ccmn.isaion other chall3'es in·tha center which haves reduced park.in1 can:jestian. '!he Applicant found numerous parkin;J spaces when he surveyed the park.in:J area; the percentages ~ in the 50 percentile. :rurthel:'nm'e, the proposed exchar)'Je of parking derived from
the charrJe in use at the Pizza Peddler will 11P-1p. ~
In resr...onse to Com. Adams qu.:astian, Mr. Kent state:l 1;hat there has been difficul:cy in coordiratirq the a·iangc in usa pennit for the Pizza Peddler
arrl abtainirg the use permit for Mr. Lui. 'llis .Af.plicant a.skied that Mr. Lui not be delayed f\L.~ in his pe.nnit q;~licaticm.
:![.
.PI.ANNn¥.; o::.H«SSial MINIJl'ES
Regular Meet.irq Of J\.ll.y 14 f 1986
PAGE 7
R: -497
I'I'EN 3 (Cont Id)
rt was noted that the cha.rqa of Pizza Ped:ller will free up 6 puking spaces if the 1600 square feet of unlea.."'led area is leasro commercial ard
not as rest:aur.mt ooc:upancy. 'Ilw Applicant is o::..llmitt.00. to not usirq this
space for restaurant USO.
'Iha Public Hearirq was then opemd.
Ms. O:lerie Withy, 20684 Celeste a::iurt., OJpertino, represe.ntin:J Mt-. I.ui,
presented a series of pictures showing parkirq lot vac:uncy. She states that the.r9 is not a prc:t>lem :in park.in;J in this center. 'Iha existen.."'e of
take-cut focd establishments has eliminated pravioo.sly ~parking problems. 'lhe site un::Jer consideration ha.a the lOClSt abun:iant parking.
In regard to the proposed restaurant, this is a family business ard family members who a.t'G Ellll'lployed will be car pooli.rq. 'Thus six en:ployeea will
require only two cars.
mr:rar: cam. Mackenzie moved to close the Public Hear.i.rq.
SECQID: o:m. Adam
\JOl'E ! Passed 4-0 '
can. Mackenzie restated his conoa.rn at O%Itinued awrovaJ. Of a:wlications
that canoot provide ad.equate parking. 'Ilw Ccmnissione.r suggested c.:han'Jirg in section III, part 4 of the Resolut:lon, the word ''may" to "Public access
~ be provided." He a::mnented on the ~JOSBibility of having the entire
parki.D;J lot restriped ani favors public :..o:::ess to the restaurant thrcogh a rear entrance.
Can. Claudy co.rcxrs with can. Mackenzie stati."¥;1 that this application comes under the non-colU:onni.ng USIS ordinan::::e; he fID39'ested a limit of 91 restaurant seats in that portion of the ~in; center. This number m:ty ·
not be increased.
MJI'ION: can. Mackenzie n"OVed to recamrend awroval of Applicatiou 15-U-86 subject to the findirqs in the Staff Report., con:lition l; Con:lition 2 m:dified to read 11 75 diners" in the first paragraph.
In the secon:l paragra!;il, deletirq ''Maxinn.nn employees per shift
shall not e:x.oeed 6, an:l" • Cl1an:Je the followin;; sentence to read, '''Ihe maximum l1Ul11ber of restaurant seats within the ''Ihorrr...-ood' portion of tbs Hanestead Lanes O?.rrt:er may not exceed Jl. " ; Con:lition 3 : .. ccnditJ.on 4 chalige the ~rd ''may" to "shall"; carrlition 5; Corrlitian 6 correct the sentence to read, "'Ihe
restrip~ plan is subject to staff awroval prior to release of
buildirg permits for interior modifications." sEOJND: cam. Claudy
VOTE: Passed 4-0
~BREAK: 8:50 -9:00 P.M.
P!ANNl1G a:fftfISSicti }(INtJI?:.S
Regular Moetirq of JW.~· 14, 1986
PAGE 8
PC -497
IT.EM 6 AWJ.icaticn No (s) Applicant:
Prcpn:ty O'~: Location:
.U:'m-86
Qarlt K, ~---------~.~~~~~~~~~~----~~~
~ g;mw,: qt_ D9....Anm ~yvd WQ l=tiCJ,ellilll ~
TENmTIVE MAP { ll-'IM-66)
To redivide 4 paroeJ.s into 2 paxoels with lot sizes ranqinq fran 17,000 sq. tt. to 35,000 sq. ft.
il'1RST Hl!'ARING
~rAL ~ct{: catsqorically Ex.ampt ***P!ANNING a::MrrSSICN AC:n.ai FINAL UNIESS Al?PF.AIEO***
~ Mr. CcMu'l stat.ad that this Application is n request to o::mbine ft:Air parcels of propm:ty into two pro:ceJ.a am to separate tile.
parkinq areas between the two rt~ of the &Nel.opnent.
In respaise to o:m. Uack!l1nzie 1 11 qusstiai, Mr. Cowan stated that. there was a US4.l Permit Condition requir.in:J reciprix:al parkinq ~.
'!here weo:n oo presentation by the Applicant.
'lhe l?Ublic Hearing was then opened. 'n1tat"e ww:a oo ~.
MJI'l".CN: com. Claudy ~to close the PUblic Hearirlq@
SEa:>ND: can. 1ldruns
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
MJl'ION: o:m. Clau:iy Iocwed to appri:1J'18 A;plication l.l-'I.M-86 subject to the
Staff Report findin;fs, with o::n:C.tiOT'IS l -13.
~= can. Ada:ws vom: Passed 4-0
air. Szabo stated that I'llM:l 7 am a will be lieaz:d concur:t..-ently.
ITEM 7
Application No(s) ~19~...P __ -~86.._ _____________ _
Applicant: StQne®n ~ogoont~,,,_,ra=t=ion="---
~~~ ~~l--~-~~~---
Property owner: ~----~~~~~--·~-----~---~~ Location: ~ {'.§)W,l;:. norj:h~~o'""'"'f __
~1?,gyl~. ~PY Mary
~gffi=@~Y~§~5~~~--~--~~ USE PEFMIT \19-U-86)
To c:pa..--ate a 3,400 sq_. ft., 14o+-seat restaurant.
FIRST HEARING CXlN:rINUE.D
EH~rAL DETERMlNATICN: categorically Exempt
TENTATIVE CITY' caJNCIL HEARING DATE: J\lly 21, 1986
PI.AltNI.~ a:MC'.SSIOO MINCJ!'ES
~a.r Meet.in; of J\lly l~, 1Y86
PAGE 9 PC -497
ITEMS 7 a.rd a c cont 1 d)
ITEM 8
Application No(s) Applicant:
P.t"q;?erty owner: Location:
USE~ (20-U-86)
Master use pennit to allow two ~ restaurants of a:i:-:pn1Ki.mately
3,500 and 9,500 sq. ft. in additioo to 40,000 sq. ft. of existing o::moorcial space, 7,500 sq. ft. of exist.irq restaurants, ard 9,000
sq. ft. of ex.ist.i.rq theaters.
FIRST HEMUOO
~ DET.E'RMINATICN~ Neigative Declaration
TENrATIVE CITY CXXJNCIL HEARnK; DM'E: July 21, 1966
~ Presentatign; Mr. Piasacld stated that the ~lie.ant had filed Application 20-U-86, a Master Use Pwl:mit, an the advica of staff. Upon review of Application 19-U-86, the staff disc::ove.rod significant difficencies from City parkirq standards; in addition, -:"..eficiencies in control of uses ware f~.
When this shoppin;J center was awroved, there was a 93 space deficiency built in. With the exception of recall of the Use Pennit by the Commission if parkirq becrona a problem, there \olere no other con::titions placed on the original Use Permit.
'Ihe secon:l Ag>lication (19-U-86) is bein;J with:irawn at the suggestion of
the Staff; the Master Uoo Permit covers t..ha esserx:e of 19-U-86.
Mr. Piasecki presented the Exhibit entitled "Parkirq Car1',1:m.rison." 'l'he Applicant has si.iggested ~ to relieve the parking deficit which
include: - A n>..striping plan - A possible restriction on tha operat:ir~ hoors of up to 5, 000 feet of canurercial use within the center. 'Ihis approach 'Wt:JUJ.d J::elieve the critical evenirr;; hours since the maximum everiin3' time available to be
open woold be 7 P.M.
In subsequent discussions the Applicant has asked that the above suggested :measures not be inp::Ged at this tilne. With tru · . .irrent vacan::ie.."il, parkirq
is not a prc:blem OJ.rre.ntly. 'Il;,e parkin:J survt!}' prepared by Traffk Data
Service was presented.
PIANNIN:; a:M1ISSIOO' MINUI'ES
Regular Maet:.irg Of July 14, 1986
PAGE 10
PC -497
ITEMS 7 and 8 (Cont'd)
. .-... . . '
Mr. Piasecki stated that in terms of the corrlitions, staff feals the City coold be flexible en 'WheJ1 the restr1pirq could be done; Sta.tr 'WOU.ld like to see the rest.riping caii>letad before the fonnoo: ~ipar Restaurant is recpened.
SGoon::lly, :regardirq the Use lbnitation for the square footage, st~f fe8.l.s that the wording needs to be ~. '11w 10,000 square feet of
un:iccupied space wwld allow the Applicant to pt1Stpa'l8 tOO restrictions in
the tenants 1 leases until full oo::upancy was i~.
'Iha rema.inin;J mitlgation :measures in COn:iitian 5 are acoeptable to Staff.
C'X:m. Clau:ly o:::m:nented that historically, this center has never filled its ccmne.rcial spaces; with this in mini1 he asked What the pa.rkirg demard will be relative to available parking supply. Mr. Pi.asecJd stated at
current ratios, there will be available parking. Chr. Szabo stated that
the newly added park..f.m spaces an Mary Ave:rJl.le will be used by pa.trans of the Gaks ce.nte.r.
Applicant's Prese:ntat;ig:u. Mr. J.im Jackson, 10401 SUmtU"Set Court,
OJpertino, stat«l that ms:tc:bants a.'l'Jd other p:rofessionals ~to the
oaks Shcg>in; Cent.er ware ~t the hearirq. A petition was preeentOO in favor of ti.lil Iq:plication.
Mr. Jac.ksan stated that W.s canoarn in sul:mitt.i.n:J this application for a Mast.er Use Permit . ,is that the resµ]. t will ba restrictions and additional ccniltians placed on the entire shot:Pir.g center; these restrictions may be unacceptable and may be countetproctuctve to the Center and the City. 'Iha
oaks Shopping amt.er is probably tile only center that· has night time
shc:J!:ping.
'Iha prd'Jlem, as Mr. Jackson sees it, is a Flint Center Parking problem rather then a Oalm Shq::ping center problem. 'lliere .US a difference of
viewpoint with the City as to what is the mrodJWm rn.nnber of parkin] spaces required• 'Iha prOOlem is the concept Of 11 sh.a.rad UMge°' ; this :t-equires t:aJd.n:1 two reductions, namely:
-Uses in the Cent.er have various peak parking times. Eartan-Asdlman Asscciates, Dx::. , has factora:l this reduction in o:::rnpleting. their report. -captured Trips. 'Iha ~"t, ascertains th.at awroximat:.eJ.y 10\ Of patrons
of one hlsiness will also use the services of another tusi.ness while in
the Center.
'Iha Barton-Aschman reiuction was 25 park.irq spaces for adjustment of pea.'<:
parlc.in] ti:mes an::i 60 parkirq spaces for captured trips; their figure is 598 parkin"J spaces required. 'Ihis study has been provided for the Cornmissione.r'B' review.
"~ .:
"
'i;
,.
j
PIANNnG a::Ml'ISSial mNl/TES
Regular Msotin:J ot J\ll.y 14, 1986
PAGE 11
FC -'497
ITEMS 7 and 8 (Cont'd)
. -\,• \').
Mr. Jackson cx:xnt.inued with . the theo1~i~.l d..~ign max.bm.mt, statll'q that since this may occur only'a ffM days in C\'yea:r, it need nOt be. pla.nn9d for on a regular basis. With thesa oo.i-iaide:mticna, the Center is 96 par.kirq spaces short of the 598 sp4'\08S required in theory. . .
'Ihe Awlicant is in agremnant with restrippiil':J to gain 35 pn'k:irq stalls. 'lhis will be done in the sprin:J of 1987 or when tbs Sandpiper~' whichever occurs first. 'Ille .Applicant ~that th6 Ccn:titia'l be
worda:i thus. 'lhis brirgs t.he tot.al to 538 park.in; spaces.
He noted· that users of Flint Center are parkirq in the oaks Shopping Center an:l requested 'ctlat the canm.:i.ssion not place restrictions on· the
hours of ~ti.on of the Center at a time ~.en a.dditiooa.l tenant.s are
bein;r ~t.
Options the .Applicant is agreeable to are: -restripe the par~ area. 'Ihis 'WCW.d requ.il."0 island reo..rt:ting, loss of lar.dscapin;J and loos of soma of the eenter 0 s oak trefils. -limit hcurs of operation if naa:led. -require e:i!ployeeG to park off-site
No.ighbo:rhoc:d spill-over effect i.!l not a problem in this a:nplex. It is the control of Flint Center parki.rq that is the p.rc::blem for the oaks ~in';J center.
Mr. Jd:lnson sugg~ the followirXJ c11an:Jes to the proposed Conditions:
-On Restripirq: the chan:Je as already noted above.
-On Use Limitation: delete the first bNo sentences. '.the awlicants are willirq to accept a ~ that future leasas contain a clause lim.iti.rq the hours of operation. since this shopping OW'lter is isolat&:i fran neighborin:J areas, the hours of cperation of presa.nt tar.ants does
not interfere with adjacent areas.
-On Future Park.irq Pro.ble.ms: unacceptable lan:;ruage "the ai:plicant hereey agrees to implement any or all of the followin3' measures or other
measures as deemed necessary to mitigate said problem: 11 M.eab'"1.lr'eS si.1.Ch ·as employee car pooling arrl irnplementirg a system to police the parking
lot are drastic arrl probably not feasible. 'Ihe merchants of this center will bear the cost of such conditions.
'Ihe AH;>licants are agreeable to reasonable ~ arrl currently use measures to enforce non-pat.ran park:irq. Flint center has incorporate:i a
variety of rreasures to rel~eve_ the park:irq p:n.-i::llems.
In response to Com. Adams 1 question, the applicant stated that leases
currently are written an 5 year intervals. can. Claudy asked fol;' .information regardirq the parking lot that Flint center blocks. off during events; no information was available on this topic.
j l-
PI.ANNnC a::Mol.I$ION MrnUl'ES Reqular Meetin;i ot July 14, 1986
PAGE 12
~ -497
I'ffM 7 a.rd 8 (cont Id)
o:m. Mackenzie statai that ha favors the st.aft ~tian rega:rdirxJ mitigatim measures. 'lbe cammissic.mer feels that it is appropriate tO ask
the Applicant to oontrol h.i.s parking area 1 Flint canter belaTJS to the state ot califomia a.rd the carmissian has ro authority ~ it.
can. Claudy favors thi.fJ ~Hcation and c~ with tlw applicartt•s
~ re.qeu."'din; tile restriping either befON May of 1987 or wtimle'rer
the sa.oopiper Restaunmt is oo=upied. 'llla camn:isioner ru;:cepts the Bartan-Aschman oonoept of captured t.ri:ps; thus the acb.ml demard is lea
than tl'w theoretical c:lemard far parking.
nie o:mnis!siooer acoapts putt.in:; a clause in f'ub.1nli 1~ t.o limit hours of q:Jeraticn. On .F\lture Parkir.q PrOblams, tll& Condition Ghould read, that
up::ri reaching 90% oocupancy, the Afplicants lmJSt dc!nanstrate that parking
will be adequately providad for. .
etm. ~ ccn.::urs with other a:mnissic:nn"S viGM •. HG noted that othG:r
shoppirq c-;-nters am ~ sit.as U&'l a trigqerirlq ~ to reviJSW ways t.o relieve pcrt.entia.l prd:>lama. ·
Chr. Szabo o:n.::urred with other camnissioners.
'!be Public~ was then cperll9d.
Ms. P. Dooley, ~' Gifts unique, stated that i.f the oaks Shqping center cannot attrc\Ct restaurants, shq;.s will have t.o close.
Mr. ~ otto, owner, men's clothing store stated t..hat oo would n:rt: open for l:usiness oo a nightly basis. other tenants of these speciality stores, probably wo.lld not be~ every evening eithar. The D.lai.nesses
in this shopping center suffer frcm the lack of traffic1 the addition of
the proposed restaurants will attract patrons a."Xl other ~iality stores
to oc:me to the oaks.
In response to can. Mackenzie's question, Mr. otto stated that he would
like to be open 'llulrsd.ay to satw:day everdnjs.
Mr. Bruce Detweilw.·, Property Managl>.'t', st~tid that the oaks has 15,400
squa:t.'"e feet of I7rt:ail e.hopp.in:J spa~ q::ien in t.he aveninq. 10, 200 square. feet of space is ~·Monday t:hrOl.lgh Friday arrl. 5,200 square feet of space ia open on 'Ihu.rsday and Friday only. He favors placing no restrictions an retailers that wish to remain open dt:i:'ing the aven:i.n;; hCAlrS run pref ars not to write leases with restrictive clauses.
eonsideration has been given requir~ applicants in th.a future to develop a system that prohibits patl."'OOS of other activities from parJd.nj' in the
oaks; th.ts is viewed as unacceptable for good bu,gine:,os rGJ.ationships with
customers. Neither should the Oaks have to bear tho coot ol. other fC'r.:ilities' parkin;J problems. Steps are taken to control averfloti parking problems with minimal success.
. ;
PU\NNilC <DMMISSICN Ml:NtJl'ES
Regular Meeting of July 14, 1986
PAGE 13
PC -497
:rrEM3 7 and a (Cont'd)
Mr. Piasecki stated that the Staff has tria:l to develop a mechanism to
deal with the par.kin; deficit. In ad::lition, the Staff approached this Use Pennit assum:ln;J that full ~ wcul.d be allowed; only if park.in;J was
a prcblem WO.lld this AWlicant have to consider the ~ans written in
the Ccinditians. An aut.anl\tic :i::sviw at 90% OCC"UpanCy would solve the.
cx:n:::e..">T.s that staff has a.rd al.lOl>I the camrl.ssion t..o review the situation.
M:7I'ICN: can. Macks.nde moved to close the PUblic Hearing.
SEO:IID: can. Claudy
VOI'E: Passed 4-0
air. Szabo stated that centers such as the oaks are self regulatincJ in regam to parkirYJi park.big spill-over into neighborin;J areas will not occur.
can. Mackenzie favors the :r:estriping, remove the 7 P.M. limit on hoors of cperatian, leave Con:iltion 5 since this condition will not be triggered if. parking is not a px:tilem at this center as the Applicant states. A Public. Hearin; would be required to inplement any of these conditions.
can. Claudy con:::urs with the above.
MJI'ICN: can. .Mackenzii& m::rnid. Application 20-U-86
SECX::ND: can. Claudy
V01'E: Passed
to grant !l Negative Declaration on
4-0
MYI'ION: Cam. Mackenzie moved to reo::mneni ai;::proval of Application 20-U-86 with the fin:li.ngs ln the Staff Report and Cordi.tian l; Con.titian
2 to require restripir.q of the park:1.n3' area loaforo the eai·lier of
tJie two: oo::upancy of the Sarrlpiper Restaurant or May 1987 ; Con::lition 3 m:dified. to delete the sentence "5,000 square feet of the commercial space shall be l~ted in its hcµrs of ~tion to a naxinn.mt Of 7 P .M. 11 az'Xl the se.cord sent.enoe to ~ to
"'Ihe remainbig 33, ooo square foot is limited to the ho.u-s of. 6 A.M. to 12 P.M. • • 11 ; Coniltion 4; Corrlition 5 to requirla a· P1.1blic Heari.ng to determine the measul.'eS to mitigate peu-ki.rq problems a.rd addirg a measure g. to restrict tl1e hDurs of operation of fUture leases; Conditions 6 am. 7;
SECDND: cam. Claudy
VOTE: Passed 4-0
I
PIANN'.!lG cx:ffi!SSICN MINCJTES Rsgular Meetirq of J\JJ.y 14, 1986
PAGE 14
PC -497
I'.I'.EX'S 9, 10 arrl 11 will be heard c::xmc::u.t::l.tly.
ITFl-1 9
l\R)licatian No (s) AR:>J.icant: Property OWl'l&r: Location:
MJOllY an existing use Permit (12-U·-84) and Tontative Map ("l...IJ.M-84) . to ponnit the payment of a fee in lieu of p:rov"ir:lirq belowi-market rate units.
rnlS'l.' IiE'AR:mG
~ DS.l'EFMINATICN: cat.ggorically Exempt TENrM'IVE CIT'l a:xJNCIL H.EARllC DATE: J'uly 21, 1986
l.Tl:.'f 10
AW.lic.atian No(s) Applicant:
Property ownar: IJ:x::ation:
lS=U-84 -------------Q,mertino Citt~--
§woo -
~ CQpier of St.~
~\lev~LBoulwan\
IDDIPY an e.xisting Use Permit (18-U-fM) to per.m.:l.t the paymant of a fee in lieu of providirq balow-market rate un;!."t.$.
FIRS!' HEARmG
~ DETERMINATICN: categorically Exetpt
TENrATIVE CIT'i al!NCIL HF.ARlNC:i DATE: J\J.ly 21, 1986
rl'ffi n
Awlicant: Property owner: Location:
M:>DllY an exi..qting Use Perm.it (17-U-83 Revised) / Tentative Map
(20....IJM-83 Revised) and Zoning {27-Z-81) to permit the payment of a fee in lieu of providing '>el.cw-mark.et rdt.e units.
FIRST HE'.AR.IlKi ENVIR00MENrAL DEl"'ERMINATICN: C'd.tegork..ally Exenpt
TENI'ATIVE CITY ro.JNCIL HEARING DA'.I'E: July 21, 1986
e
~ <.:x:Htl'.SSICN MINUI'ES
Regulai.· Miaeti.n; ot JW.y 14, 1986
PJ\GE l!5
PC -497
I'fE}iS 9, 10 an:i 11 (OOnt'd)
. '•''• ...-·,. ..... ,_ ~· . :
Staff Presentation; Mr. Cowan st.ated the one of the issues invo:tvsd in
tile davelqment of th& new am. program is the problem of i-eliewin:J developers of the obligations aoqu.i.rei un:ier the old am program arxi
expan:i.irq the dsveJ.oper's rarqe of opt.ions to :meet these obligatioos. 'Iha
pw:pose of tatlght' s hearing of this issue i.c:s to consider amend.irq tl1e
conditions of~·
'Ihe Cam::il stated that tha EMR obligation C'.an be replaced by an 11 in-lieu" fee which translates into one-half of the Woodspring formula. 'IM Staff Report provides the rn.nnbera used and an anal:yuis.
'lbere are sane issues still unresolved by the Council: namely, tha ~
value issue which affects the rental units. 'Iba agreement for the rental
units was as follows: t.he sponsors of these units we.N to give tile City 10% of the units aver a 10 year period of ti.ma. 'llw rental rate would be· disco.mted an:i the benefits repaid CJ'VQr this ;period ot ti.ma. '!he p:ropcinents o! these projects say that the City nust use the present Wlu.a analysis foi:• these projects; the ap,plicants also~ that the City require that fees be paid up frcnt. ·
'n1S OJunc:il did not deal with the value level directly; they used the Woodsprin;s approach arrl ratl.n:ned the issue to this a:mnissian. Proj oot sponsors are here to advocate this approach.
Mr. Cowan stated that t_~ are many variables in the Woo:Jsprirq formulas.
'Ihese variable.q fail to 'taka into con$idaration the · c.harqe in the at:Preciated value of the apart:ments, ani do not account far inflation or
cha.rqe in rental rates during this period of tine..
'IJ.1e other issue to be discussei is discount.in; the fee. for the senior
project; the rent-up ti.ma is l~ for tlla seniors project than the other projects. 'Ihu.s there see.ms to be sans ju.stificatioo for a discount factor.
'Ibere are sevmi separate rasolutiana and a M.inute order that a.'3ks the c:o.nx::il to o:msider e.xerrptian to the park dedication fee for fonner BMR units.
'!he Public Hear.i.rq was then opo..ned.
Ms. Hilda won;, Developer of the Vhita View Town Har.P..s, statro that she agrees to pay the "in-lieu" fee ot $_..2, 700 a~:d feel.a that this is an equitable way to relieve tt..e develr~r of. +be mR unit. She stated that
the B1R units are in limbo due to the charqt:-:i beirq contemplated; prospective buyers are turned away. In addition, she nust continue to pay
interest an the constJ.i.l.Ction loans. Ms, WOn';J ~-tad tilooly action on this matter, arrl tbar.J<ed the Camnission for their a:msideration. ct Mr. Mark Kroll, aipertino City Center Associates, asked several quegtions of the Staff, Ha SUCJgested that th.A 91/2 % disa::m± rate is inaccurate.
In this year the actl!.al difference ~1 the fair market value and the .
EMR value is decrea.'3ir:g because market rents are &"table.
" '
' f;-
!
f '
PI.ANNmG c::xltiISSICN MINUl'ES Regular Maetirq of July 14, 1.986 PAGE 16
l:c ~ 497
IT.EliS 9, 10 and. 11 (o:int'd)
" In :respaise to o:m. Mackenzie's question, Mr. Cowan stat«\ t...hat the Resolutim iB establi.shin; a methOOology for staff' t.o uoo with deVel~.
Mr. Jam Vidovich stated, in response to Cbm. Claudy's que·"'.iorr., the Mr. Jasen Olarti.er has a minor financial interest in th.a elde:t .. _ · project arx't
has a far greater ~ in the rest of Town Center, especially tho
cx:n3auinium ).:Ort.ion. Can. Cla\Xly stata::l his conoam t.hat Mr. 01artier is Olainmm of the IMR SUba:ln:mi ttee m'Xl 'Wl."Ot..e a lat:te.r advocat.irq a chan:]e without nentionin; that the charqe he advocates is to his direct financial benefit. 'Ihe o::mn.i.asiC01r ~ that the letter should have bean. written as an interested lan::l awnar rather than as Cha.i.rman ot the am SUbcxmnittea.
Mr. Vidovich revi.o=wad the staff Report, tak:lng each of the applications and. figuring the fees raqu.i..red. He pointed out the relative CQlPlrisal
between tho fees for the e.ld.srly arxi :mark.at rate nmtal units •. He
expressed his c::c.n::imn that the fees for the el&lrly axe greater th.an fees· for t.ha others in apart.1Dents.
Mr. Vidovich urx:1.m:stood that the ca.rrx::il agreed to SQ1"ld to the c.anmi.ssion each application separately, to be oonf3idered separately since there may
be differences in these projects. He stated tha unique elements of this elderly project which merits a separate fee s~:
-Elderly projects have unique costs -It takes a 24 t.o 36 m:mth lapse in time t.o fill t.00 projects
- A full staff ImJSt be maintained free the tiioo of opmtlng the project. -'lbese projects are vary difficult to finance
He stz.'_eici that it TM:W.d be awrq:>riata for the COmroission to consider a fee belcw the am:.unts proposed. other d.ties have speciaJ. allocatiT.!3 for elderly projects. Hl:!t reaffil-med his caamitment. to build this project
disp.Ite the difficulty in financirg arr..1 inqJOSition of the Ef.m obligation. He requested that the dollar annmts be written into the Resolution rather
then the foDm.llas. Payment according to occuparcy was also requesterl.
IDrION: can. Mackenzie lrOVad to clos.e th.a Public Hearing.
SECOND: Can. Claudy
VOTE: Passed 4-0
MJI'ION: can. Madcenzia l!oVed to reo::mrien::l approval of amerx:hnent to AJ::plicatioo 12-U-84
SEO."!ID: can. Clau-dy
vorE: Passed 4-.o
IDI'ION: cam. Ma.ckenzie IOOViad to recommero ar;.proval of amen::lioo.nt to ARJlication 7·-U-84
SECOND: cam. claudy
\IOI'E: Passed 4-0
-
PIANN'.m:. a:utrSSICN MINiJI'ES
Regular M9otirg ot JUly 14, 1986
PAGE 17
PC -497
rI'E2-1S 9, 10 arrl 11 (Cont'd)
.::,.
M:YrICN: can. Mackenzie m:ive:i to recam:nerxl approval of. amemmant to At;plication 18-U-84
SECnID: can. Claudy
VUTE: Passed 4-0
M:7l'Ict~: can. MackenZie m:ived to reo::::m:nend appt"OVal of ~ to AWlication 17-U-83 (Revised)
SEO:!ID: can. Clau:fy
VOI'E: ~ 4-0
MJI'ICN:
SF.C.nm:
VO'l'E:
M:YI'ICN:
SECX:lID:
\UI'E:
M::II'IOO:
SECttID:
VOI'E::
MJI'ION:
c:nn. Mackenzie iroved to ~ apprcr-.rl'I~ of: amandmant to AE:Plication 20~-83 (RevisOO) can. Claudy
Passed 4-0
can. '1acke.nzie :movro to ~..n:l awrovaJ. .of amerldmant to Applic:ati1'Xl 27-Z-81 o:m. Claudy
Passed 4-0'
can. Claudy llXMi!d to serd a Mirn.rte oroer to Ca.mcil ~ that these units not ba subject to the Park Dad.icatioo Fee. can. Mackenzie
Passed 4-0
can. Mackenzie 1l10Ved to send a Minute Order to Council suggesting
they consider a minimal present value discamt for the 11 in-lie1.1.11
fee for Ef1R units arrl secandly that they may wish to consider pe:rnti.tin3' pa~tt. of the fee for the senior retirement project in
annual increments over a :period of ti;...u or th.res years.
SECDND: can. Claudy
V01'E: Passed 4-0
OLD WSINESS
-No:ia
NEW BUSINESS
ITEl1 12
-AJ;plication 4-U-86 -CUpe.rt.in::> City center Office Buildirg c.anq;y -Minor ~ to coniltions of Approval.
Mr. cowan e:xplained that the proposed canopy WdS seen previously by the
camrnission during consideration of Planned Development zoniz.q exhibits for the camph?X. '111.e applicants are seeJdng Commission approval to
install the canopy at theh:· opt.ion sho..lld they w1 sh to include this
feature at a later date.
PI.JINNJN3 Cll1MI:SSIOO' MINt1I'E3
Regular ~ of J\lly, 14,. 1986
PAGE 18 · ...... .
PC -497
ITEM 12: (COnt'd)
Mark Kroll, applicant, displaym slides i.llustratin:;J this design ccmc.apt.
In response to questicn by camnissionera klruns and Clau::l:y, he ooq?lained that the trianqular spaces bet:wee.n the ed.Je of the canopy an:i b.tildirq indicata::l in the slid.a will be e.rci.osed as well, subject to derivation of a~iate design detailB. More structural ~ will be required than a~ in the clrawi.rq, as a.scertainad by <::all. Claucty.
M:1I'ION: can. Mama to approve a Minute Order approving" installation of an arched glass cancw between the two eight-story office t.owera, as a nrl.nor amen.:lmrrt t.o the davelq_::ment plan; said canopy may be .installed at the developer's option.
SEC:a-lD: can. Claudy
VOl'E: Passed 4-0
13. Tree Raooval Permit -Request to remove a ~, diseased tree
lcx::at.ed at 10191 Toni court.
staff ilmcate:i that the prc:p::6Eld tree removal issue will have no effect upon the existin:J haoo. at this add.:ress.
Mr. Fred Ri tC'hie, owner of the lot, :raviewed the tree ~"'g'eon' s ::i::eport conce.rnirxJ t.he pepper tree. rt concludes that the tree i:s d.an:rerous an:! likely to collapse. He stated also that he plans to provide: replacement trees in the vicinity folla;..ring removal of the pepper.
Ms. Mary Egan, area resident, spoke on behalf of two families in opposition to re.moval of the tt"OO. Sha noted that the tree provides saoo protection fran off site visual privacy impacts. A letter was
read from Ms. F.gan's neighbor advocating the troo 1 s retf>..ntion.
ctir. Szabo responded by not:i.rg that the Commission is unlikely to allCM rem::Nal of a healthy specimen tree. Can. Claudy noted th.at a
specimen tree is a valuable a....ciset to a site, and th.at a property
~mer is not likely ,to reIOCJVe it tn1fess safety issuf>...s so rv?qu.ire.
M:n'ION: Can. Mackenzie to ser.d a Minute Order to staff approving
renx:rval of the subject tree pe.rrlirg receipt of a concurring repmt frcm a City-se.lecta.i tree surgeon that removal is
essential due Clan:]er of collapse.
SECOND: cam. C.laudy
wrE: Passed 4-0
REFORI' OF PI.ANNING o:MMISSION -None
REPCIR1' OF PI.ANNING DIRECTOR
-Written Report submitted.
PIANNm:; a:na.ssic.w MINtJms
Regular Me:titirlq Qf! J\.lly 14 I 1986 PAGE l9
PC -497
~ CIARIFICM'Iell
st.a.ff roquested a fonnal motioo to wit.hdraw Application 19-U-86 fran the calendar.
MJI'.IOO': o:m. Clatx\y to t"al1lCMll Application 19-U-86 fran ca.1.erx.iar. S&nID: can. Mackenzie
VOIE: Pwwed 4-0
ATTEST:
Havfn3 cxincl\Xled its b.Jsinees, the Planning catmi.asion adjournad at. ;11:50 P.M. to, the next ReguJ.a.r Meetirq of J\Jly 28, 1986 at 7:30 P.M.
APPROVED: ijcJk 1? oJ\1-
Chairperson