Loading...
PC 05-12-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-332 Page 1 MINUTES/MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commis~ioner C1audy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Chairman Koenitzer Commissioner Johnson, (New Member) Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Attorney Foley ELECTION OFFICERS/CHAIRMAN and VICE CHAIRMAN Commissioner Adams nominated Commissioner Koenitzer for chair man; Second by Commissioner Blaine. Nominations closed; second by Commissioner Blaine. Both votes PASSED 5-0 Commissioner Blaine nominated Commissioner John C1audy for vice chairman. Second by Commissioner Adams. Nominations closed by Commissioner Adams. Second by Commissioner Blaine. Both votes PASSED 4-0 ABSTAINED: Commissioner Philip Johnson CHR. KOENITZER asked for a member of the Planning Commission able to attend the Environmental Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Blaine volunteered and was accepted unanimously by the members of the Planning Commission as their represent- ative. CHR. KOENITZER introduced the newly appointed member of the Planning Commission, Mr. Philip Johnson, and welcomed him in joining them. He noted that three (3) of the members of the sitting commission had been reappointed by the new City Council. APPROVAL/MINUTES APRIL 28, 19ffXPC-33l). Com. Claudy, page 2, par. 3, line 2, change to "completed..," (delete clause down to) "....introduced the Staff.....etc." Page 2. par.3, line 6, change last word in sentence to "slide.." rather than screen. Page 4. par. 3, line 8, change word cut to "shut."(or closed) Page 7A. par. 6, line 5, change text to read, "...the only PC-332 Page 2 MINUTES/MAY 5, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING property zoned industrial in the city was owned by Vallco." Page 7B, par. 6 line 8, delete unit and insert "site." Com. Adams, page 7C, par. 7, change to read, "COM. ADAMS commented that the original idea on the zoning and ranges was that once you fix a density it gives the Council and the Planning Commission latitude to look at the overall in- fluence of the proposed project to the surrounding neighbor- hood. Once you fix the density at the one limit, that's what you have to buy. You don'g have the flexibility of innovative design concept. He stated that he'd rather stay with the ranges. Com. Blaine, page 3, par. 2, line 3, change text to read: "...pointed out that the City has an approved General Plan and an approved set of goals." Page 3, par. 2, 1 ine 5. change text to read: "However, she pointed out that since there seemed to be some diffi- culty between the Council and Commission in interpreting and implementing the approved General Plan, she asked that a Workshop with the City Council be scheduled. The pur- pose of the meeting would be to clarify the Council's position on the goals and policies of the General Plan, and also to seek direction for the Planning Commission. Page 7B, par 3, line 5, change to read, "convenience shopping and neighborhood commercial." Strike the rest of the paragraph. Com. Koenitzer, page 2, par 5 line 7, delete "Rainbow Drive." Insert "Homestead Road." (substitution). MOTION: Com. Adams, to Accept Minutes as Amended. SECOND: Com. C1audy VOTE PASSED 4-0 ABSTAINED: Com. Johnson POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that a tele- phone request had asked that ITEM #12 on the Agenda be continued. Only the Westwood Homeowners' Association had been advised of the change because there had been a lack of time to notify others individually. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to Continue, Item #12, to the 1st meeting in June, June 9, Com. Claudy PASSED 23-TM-78, 1980. SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter had been received from Thomas and Emily Martin concerning the Woolworth development, ITEM 11, PC-332. Also, a letter was on file, received from Mr. Laird Huntsman, a copy of which was in the Commissioner's packets, pertaining to ITEM #2, 6-U-80, PC-332. MINUTES/MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-332 Page 3 A letter from City of Cupertino Staff to Mr. Laird Hunts- man concerning ITEM 12 (PC-332). A newsletter had been received from the Creston Improvement Association concerning ITEM #3 (PC-332). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CHR. KOENITZER explained to the large audience that it was the usual custom for the Commissioners to have a review of the Agenda Item and Staff Report on it. The applicant was then given a chance to comment; and, thereafter, the public was invited to comment. Since each of the items 11 through #5 had recently been on the Planning Commission Agendas, he requested that only new material be presented. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1, Applications 27-TM-79 and ll-U-80 of WOOLWORTH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approxi- mately 5.3 gross acres into 18 parcels equaling a minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. each; Use Permit to construct 18 single-family detached dwelling units within a P (Planned Development) zone and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approximately 100 ft. easterly of Phar Lap Drive. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date ~ May 19, 1980. CHR. KOENITZER announced that he wished to turn the Chair over to Vice Chairman C1audy because of an interest in the application, and he wished to abstain from deliberations. COM. JOHNSON abstained from voting because he was not familiar with previous records, on the matter. \, COM. CLAUDY questioned Com. Johnson as to why he was ab- staining and was reminded that there was a conflict. City Attorney Kilian advised that it was not strictly necessary but that Mr. Johnson could abstain if he wished to do so. It depended on whether there were background in- formation and facts that had not as yet been considered. At this point he did feel that it was best that Mr. Johnson abstain. COM. CLAUDY advised the audience that Mr. Johnson, who was taking his seat on the commission for the first time, had not been present for previous discussions on Item #1 and would not be taking part in the discussions. PC-332 Page 4 MINUTES/MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the conclusions of the April meeting: Planned Development Zone, 18-lot sub- division, minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft., the Circu- lation system precluding new access to Stevens Creek Boule- vard from the community. Conditions of approval included an historical structure, provision of flexibility for homes on the floodplain bank (to enable a designer to avoid trees and provision that there should be privacy protection be- tween existing homes and new homes). The points for dis- cussion, he said, included recommendation that the second story windows be prohibited from overlooking existing rear yards; landscaping and grading along Stevens Creek Boulevard setback and widening of the setback (one ad- ditional foot and elevation. New conditions were not added for the pump house (tank house), except that a proposal had been developed by the City Attorney and Staff guaranteeing perpetual maintenance by the homeowner of Lot H13, where the City Council decided it should be located in order that it would be visible from Stevens Creek and appreciated to the fullest, by the public, as an historical structure. Lot H13 had been designated as the location of the pump house, by the City Council; however, Mr. Cowan pointed out that the commission had the option of designating another location (Lots H3, H4, and H9, #10 being the historical floodplain slope. Conditions of approval allow greater flexibility to permit three-story structures for the pur- pose of compressing the building envelope and enabling the applicant to build on the flatter portions of the slope and avoid removing or damaging trees. Cut and fill slopes were indicated on the exhibit and were explained as being a provision for future widening of Stevens Creek Boulevard. A condition was recommended to condition the applicant to grade the roadbed to conform to the P1an1ine formulas -- not to construct utilities and asphalt, but to a reasonable guarantee that they wouldn't be disrupted sometime in the future. COM. BLAINE asked for the distance from the tank house to the property line. Assistant Planning Director Cowan measured a 20 ft. setback to the adjoining single family home and approximately a 15 ft. setback to the future street line of Stevens Creek Boulevard As requested by COM. BLAINE, Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the City Council's recommendation of Lot H13 for the location of the tank house. Although he said he had not attended the meeting, he had been filled in on the subject by the City Planning Director who had been present. The decision was in part a result of consultation with interested groups of the public; in part a desire to locate the tank house visually from Stevens Creek Boulevard; and, of course, an interest in retaining and maintaining the historical structure for the City. MINUTES MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-332 Page 5 Mr. Al Woolworth, developer, commented on the increasing involvement with the tank house issue and advised that Lot #13 was his lot upon which he'd prefer not to have anything to do with the tank house, either for providing space or use and fixing up. If citizens of Cuper- tino wished to look ~. it, fine. Also, He stated that his original impression was that Stevens Creek Boulevard was just to be landscaped in a natural state. It came as a surprise to him that he'd be responsible for widening and filling. Mrs. Ann Robertson, Oakdell Homeowners' Association, reported 1) that a neighborhood committee meeting with the historical society had authen ticated the tank house; 2) leaving the structure on the present site would take advantage of ground of proven stability during earthquakes (the structure having survived a few); 3) a published book, dated in 1975, showed a drawing of the tank house as an historical marker; 4) use of the tank house for attachment to new building or as a dwelling be prohibited. Mrs. Robertson questioned City Attorney Kilian and the Commissioners as to whether or not 1) Condition #17 (written by the City Attorney) would permanently prohibit illegal uses; 2) questioned the kind of fencing, material of fencing, and height of fencing to be used on Stevens Creek Boulevard; 3) asked that Oakdell Homeowners' Association be sent notice of the Architecture & Site Review Committee meeting time and place so that they could send a representative to the meeting; 4) asked that the sidewalk plant strip in the neighborhood be continued into the new development for esthetic reasons and for safety reasons in providing more protection for children. Continuation of the trees was one of their major concerns. City Attorney Kilian said that Condition #17 had been written. But, he said Conditions could always be changed. In the event of request for change, he said notices would be sent to neighbors to advise them of the rezoning. Not being able to speak for future Councils, he said he felt it would be an unusual situation. COM. CLAUDY pointed out uses of the tank house that, as an accessory or storage building, or entertainment center, could not be prohibited. City Engineer Whitten outlined the present City policy of planting trees onto the lawn area (rather than in a strip area) and it was a- greed that similar-tree selection could be exercised for the continu- ation of the street. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 3-0-2-0 ABSTAINED: Com. Koenitzer and Com. Johnson 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 20ft. setback. PC-332 Page 6 MINUTES MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: Com. Blaine. Approval granting a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 3-0-2-0 ABSTAINED: Com. Koenitzer and Com. Johnson MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval 27-TM-79, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 & #17 as per Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report. SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 3-0-2-0 ABSTAINED: Com. Koenitzer and Com. Johnson MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval ll-U-80, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 & #16 as per Staff Report; #17 - strike reference to "...may physically be attached to the main building." Condition 1118 & 1119 as per Staff Report. Condition 1120 amended to read, ".. . landscaping shall be reviewed and fencing shall be reviewed by the Archi- tecture and Site Review Committee." Also include in #20 - "...trees used in the development will be the same type tree as used on Oakdell Place in order to provide for continuity of Oakleaf Lane, leadinR into the new project, as is possible under the City policy of planting trees in the lawn area (rather than in planter strips). SECOND: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 3-0-2-0 ABSTAINED: Com. Koenitzer and Com. Johnson ITEM #2, Application 6-U-80 of O. LAIRD HUNTSMAN: USE PERMIT to re- duce the required side yard setback and required distance between the main building and an accessory building to accommodate solar equipment and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. Said property is located at 22333 Bahl Street which ison the northside of Bah1 Street approxi- mately midb10ck between Vista Knoll Boulevard and Ainsworth Drive in an Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 19, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki reminded the Commissioners that the issue was back before them to permit the applicant to present some alternate location suggestions for a solar water tank, pool pump, filter equipment, and heater unit. The excess height of the gazebo was an issue, he said. COM. ADAMS called attention to a letter (in the file) sent to Mr. Huntsman on April 7. He wished to know if there had been a reply specifying the details asked for by Mr. Angelo Lieber. Mr. O. Laird Huntsman, applicant, introduced Mr. Jay Hammond and Mr. David Wald, Santa Clara Solar Research Institute, both of whom spoke to their expertise on the system being installed at Mr. Huntsman home. Mr. Huntsman said he was presenting the experts as an answer to the letter of April 7, 1980 from Mr. Lieber. MINUTES MAY 12, 1930 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-332 Page 7 Mr. David Wald~ consultant, said that his organization was attempting to educate the public as to possibilities of solar energy. He said he was impressed with Mr. Huntsman's layout as it was shown on the drawing, the layout being to him the most efficient for proper use of the system. Mr. Jay Hammond, consultant, provided information about the storage tank and recommended it be left in its present location by burying it suf- ficiently to equalize the stress vertically and horizontally at the top of the 45 degree slope. He said the seismic factor was .12 for the tank .166 for the house; the safety factor was 5-1 against overturning (the common factor for sliding of a retaining wall against clay or earth was .35 to .4. COM. ADAMS questioned Mr. Wald, Mr. Hammond, and Mr. Huntsman as to the manufacturer's guarantee on structure and material of the tank. A brochure was available. No guarantee of buckling on the fiberglass tank structure could be given by Mr. Hammond. Mr. Ray Gabler, neighbor, 22323 Bahl Street, Cupertino, whose property is below the 45 degree slope on which the tank was installed, said he was impressed by the pertinent questions being posed by the member of the commission. He noted that when the water tank was full it would be equal to around four (4) tons of water on the slope above his yro~erty. It was of considerable concern to him. Although he said he understood the justification of the system from an economic point of view, he said he felt it should not remain in the present location (storage tank) and be a threat to his property. COM. CLAUDY felt the layout needed to be amended even though Mr. Hunts- man maintained the work was covered by proper permits from the City of Cupertino. The area at the end of the house, he proposed, was an ex- cellent area for burying the tank. CHR. KOENITZER said they had heard that solar tanks do fail. He recom- mended the area between the gazebo and the house as being a better lo- cation for the tank. He suggested it might be a better system alto- gether if it were moved to the patio side õf the house and property. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that one option for Mr. Huntsman was to agree to move the solar water tank to the back of the building. That might eliminate the need for him to return to the Planning Com- mission with revised plan. Mrs. Gabler asked about Mr. Huntsman's liability for fence removal (with out notification of neighbor) when the tank was installed. City Attorney Kilian stated that whether or not the removal was legal, it was a question to be settled between property owners. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. PASSED Second: Com. Blaine 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, to Continue 6-U-80 to the Regular Commission Meeting of May 27, 1980. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 MOTION: PC-332 Page 8 MINUTES MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEMS #3, #4, #5, were considered together and Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the three items. The commissioners then discussed each item, requested input from the public and then voted on each item. RECESS: 10:00 p.m. RECONVENED: 10:15 p.m. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to consider Items #3 through #5. Reconvene the Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday Evening, 7:30 p.m., May 14, 1980, in an attempt to com- plete Agenda PC-332. Com. Adams PASSED UNAIMOUSLY 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM #3, Application l3-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (CRESTON SUB- DIVISION): PREZONING approximately 55 gross acres from Santa Clara County Rl-lO (one family residence lO,OOO sq. ft. minimum lot area) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-lO (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmenta; Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property consists of that unin- corporated area commonly referred to as the Creston Subdivision located in the southeast quadrant of Highway 280 and Foothill Boulevard. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. ITEM #4, Application 14-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (BARRANCA SUB- DIVISION): PREZONING approximately 29+ 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. 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. Said property is generally located in the southwest quadrant of Homestead Road and Highway 85 and encompasses those unincorporated parcels fronting on Barranca Drive, Hibiscus Court, Wallace Drive, Peninsular Avenue, Caroline Drive and Maxine Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. ITEM #5, Application 15-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (HUNTER HILL/CAROLYN GARDENS SUBDIVISION): PRE ZONING approximately 27.8 acres from Santa Clara County Rl-lO (one family residence, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone plus .4+ acres from Santa Clara County R2 (two-family residence - duplex) to City of Cupertino Rl-lO (Residential, Single- family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone; and .3+ acres from Santa Clara County CN (Neighborhood commercial) to City of Cupertino CG (General Commercial) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro- priate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Nega- tive Declaration. Said property is generally located in the south- west quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard and northerly of Stevens Creek Boulevard between California Oak Way and Foothill Boulevard. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. MINUTES MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-332 Page 9 Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the prezoning was man- dated under MORGA* and LAFCO* and that the City of Cupertino was obli- gated to prezone all areas within its sphere of influence that met the qualifications of the legislation. He emphasized that the only issue before the Planning Commission was prezoning -- annexation not being of interest under the present applications. CHR. KOENITZER requested that public speakers be brief, speak to the issue and avoid repetitious statements. He repeated the admonitions that Mr. Cowan had made and further stated that in most instances the zoning requirements for San Jose and Cupertino were very similar. Assistant Planning Director Cowan related that the actions on prezoning came about because of very disasterous annexation "wars" that took place during the 1950's. Because of the wars , which left pockets of unannexed property in the city, under MORGA legislation and LAFCO guidelines, the City of Cupertino was prezoning and defining where urban services should occur. The present applications would bring the properties (subdivisions) into conformance with the General Plan. City Attorney Kilian advised that there was a time limit under MORGA for prezoning and actual annexation, but he said efforts were being made, in Sacramento, to extend the expiration date beyond January 1, 1981. THE FOLLOWING SPEAKERS AGREED ON TWO POINTS: 1. They did not want the areas (subdivisions) pre zoned. 2. They objected to annexation. Mr. Frank DupponR, 10664 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos, president,Creston Homeowners' Association, an organization of about 148 homes within about 55 acres, said the members and residents of the area wished to maintain the present rural atmosphere. Mr. Marsh Gluder, 10586 Creston Drive, Los Altos, said that Mr. (whose letter was published in the'Cupertino Courier, did not rep- resent his area because Mr. Sabo lived in the City of Cupertino and was not affected by the issue of prezoning or annexation. Mr. AI Hockley, 22472 Ainsworth Drive, Los Altos, CA, wished to be in- troduced to the Staff. He was advised that the Staff was available throughout the week to provide help and to answer questions or to dis- cuss problems about City government. Mrs. Becky Edwards, 22367 Creston Drive, Los Altos, she felt that if Cupertino grabbed them, they stood property value in making the switch from Los Altos. City planned noise studies of traffic on Route 280. Mrs. Lea Ann Hernander, 10594 Creston Drive, Los Altos, CA, asked to be advised as to what recourse was open to them because they objected to prezoning and annexation. Mr. Chuck Younger, 10710 Groveland Drive, Los Altos, CA, said he wished to preserve the most generous lot sizes possible -- the prezoning size being too small. And, he wished to prevent the building-out to the limits of the property problem. Mr. Steve Lewis, 22312 Starling Drive, Los Altos, CA, asked if they could be annexed without prezoning. Mr. W. A. Starnes. 10640 Ainsworth Drive, Los Altos, CA, 20-year resi- dent of the Creston Area, requested that the City drop the effort for CA, stated that to lose a lot of She asked if the PC-332 Page 10 MINUTES MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING any action. He stated LAFCO was considering changing boundaries. CHR. KOENITZER, answering the concerns of the various speakers, said that l) accommodation could be discussed as applications for devel- opment came in to preserve the rural atmosphere of the neighborhoods; and, 2) to appeal the prezoning, they could contact Mr. Coito, 10606 Creston Drive, Los Altos, CA 94022, or Mr. Seegar, director of the Local Formation I Commission, Santa Clara County, 'phone 299-3242 3) it was explained that the decision of the Planning Commission was ratified by the City Council, and he also stated that of the five commissioners sitting on the Planning Commission, two had recently been reappointed and one was newly appointed and sitting for his first !meeting . COM. 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 preparing. ~UBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. Second: Com. Blaine ~ASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: Com. C1audy, recommend granting Negative Declaration for Creston Subdivision Prezoning. Com. Blaine PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, recommend Approval of Rezoning 13-Z-80. Com. Blaine PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ITEM #4 (BARRANCA DRIVE SUBDIVISION) Mr. Charles Powell, 10795 Peninsular Avenue, asked that the area be re- ferred to by its proper name, HOMESTEAD VILLA. Although he'd not had time to contact everyone in the area, but they agreed with the speakers from Creston Subdivision -- no prezoning and no annexation. Mr. Tasfavh. 22059 Caroline Drive, pointed out that Cupertino did realize business and taxes from their area. He felt that garbage rates were comparatively good. He asked for the long-range view " Mr. J. M. Noe, 22057 Wallace Drive, asked that the name of the area be officially changed from Barranca to Homestead Villa (as it was noted on all their Deeds). He said the people attending the meeting were under the impression that the issue was annexation. Mr. Edward Bloom, 22150 Wallace Drive, Cupertino, supported previous speakers. Mr. Mike ~!ansch, 10775 Peninsula Avenue, Cupertino, asked that his name and address be placed on the mailing list for receiving information pertinent to Homestead Villa subdivision. Mr. Howard E. Wri2hts, 10220 Dubon, supported the opinions of the previous speakers. CHR. KOENITZER, in response to a request that Minutes of the meeting be made available for an appeal to LAFCO, advised that tapes of the meeting were available to anyone wishing to call the City and request that they be made available. He explained that LAFCO was made up of two members of the Board of Supervisors and two rotating members from , . MINUTES MAY 12, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC- 332 Page 11 each of the fifteen cities in the jurisdiction. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Claudy. 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ITEM 05 Com. Blaine, Approval Negative Declaration on l4-Z-80. Com. C1audy PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Com. Blaine, recommend Approval l4-Z-80 as per Staff Report and changing name of subdivision from Barranca to HOMESTEAD VILLA SUBDIVISION. Prezoning designation to Rl-lO. Com. Claudy PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 (HUNTER HILL/CAROLYN GARDENS SUBDIVISION) Mrs. Catherine Graham, 10016 Spanish Oak Drive, Cupertino, complimented the City on the prezoning and she said that only good could accrue from the action in her opinion. = There being no other speakers, the PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED. on a MOTION by Com. Blaine and Second by Com. Claudy. PASSED 5-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Claudy, recommend Granting of Negative Declaration l5-Z-80 Com. Adams PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Com. Claudy, recommend Approval 15-Z-80 as per Staff Report. Com. Adams PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 CHR. KOENITZER, in accordance with an earlier agreement, during the meeting, recessed Regular Planning Commission Meeting PC-332 until Wednesday evening, May 14, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. .:\pPROVED: ATTEST: ~æ4." City Clerk M~Á~~~ Chairman CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 MINUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980 (PC-332). CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki City Engineer Whitten City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Attorney Foley POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter was received from Richard H. Samar on l8-Z-80, Item #8, which will become a part of the file on Item #8. Items #1 through #5 having been completed during the May 12, 1980 meetin , CHR. KOENITZER continued the Agenda. ITEM #6, Application l6-Z-80 and 4-U-80 of CUPERTINO SENIOR DAY SERVICES (ST. JUDE EPISCOPAL CHURCH): REZONING approximately 3 acres from Rl-lO (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), Al-43 (Agricultural; Residential 43,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) and Rl-10 ag (Residential, Single-fa~ily agricultural use allowed, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to BQ (Quasi-Publid Building) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to conduct religious activities including a church and school, and allow a day care program for elderly persons and ENVIRONMENTAL REVI~~: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the southeast corner of Mc- Clelland Road and Stelling Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki explained board exhibits (an aerial location of the day center) and told the Commissioners that while the zoning on the property presently was old zoning, it had been the practice of the City to wait until some issue presented an opportunity for them to put on a zoning in conformance with Ordinances and the General Plan. He said that on the present application, the use of the property was to be the same; however, further expansion would require returning to the Planning Commission. PC-332 Page 1 (12) PC- 332 Page 2 MINUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980. ;) Mr. S d Jacobsin, junior warden, St. Jude's Church, CupertinPcon- firmed that the church had been used for many programs in the past and he introduced the director of the senior center activity. Mrs. Pietie Vremar, director, St. Jude's Episcopal Church, ex- plained that there would be ultimately a staff of five for a full- week schedule. Clients would be from Board and Care Homes, from the homes of relatives, from convalescent or nursing homes. She said discussions were in progress for determining transportation opportunities within surrounding areas. Mr. Austin Silvester, 836 S. Stelling, Cupertino, complimented the church and the church programs as being good neighborhood pursuits. Mrs. Vremar stated, in response to questioning, that the Cupertino Senior Day Services was a private non-profit corporation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. PASSED UNANUIOUSLY MOTION: COM. Adams, Granting Negative Declaration MOTION: Com: Adams, Approve l6-Z-80 Second: Com. Claudy 5~O Second: Com, Claudy 5;0 Second: Com. Claudy 5-0 ITEM #7, Applications l7-Z-80 and 10-U-80 of MONTA VISTA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: PREZONING approximately 1.25 gross acres from Santa Clara County R3-4 (low density multiple dwellings, 10 units per net acre) zone to City of Cupertino P (Planned Development with Residential, Single-family cluster intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct 14 single-family cluster homes and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ- mental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located in the Monta Vista neighborhood on the south side of Olive Avenue approximately 135 ft. westerly of Imperial Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki showed the site plan, elevation exhibits, and two renderings of the vicinity map showing the relationship to the outer area of the property to be developed. Under the Monta Vista Specific Plan, it was noted that the development conformed to the zoning of the General Plan. The design had been pared down to 13 units in- stead of the allowed 14 units. The south-easterly-most unit had been eliminated in favor of 10,000 sq. ft. of open area for recreation and additional parking. The center lane, he pointed out, was grass in a metal grid concept, which would be the first such installation in the City aside from a small patch in the City parking lot. The terminus of Olive Avenue being a cul-de-sac, parking was available on the street, and parking was available at each unit and near the open space (26 enclosed spaces and 11 guest spaces throughout the project), or 2.85 spaces/unit. The project was solar compatible with hot water assist. One-story units would require additional paneling because of the winter slant of the sun. One (1) BMR (Below Market Rate) unit would be credited to the City. Staff recommended that because of elements of the design, the project could qualify for a zoning of Rl-C. If Rl-C was MINUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980 PC-33~ Page 3 selected, then it would be unnecessary to do anything about the Use Permit . C' . ~ Mr. George Cody, Monta Vista Development, 216 High Street, Palo Alto, CA explained the rationale for the staggered one-story and two-story units; the private open space allocated to each unit; and the enthusiasm for the central-lane grass planting on a concrete grass grid.. Slides were shown of the areas surrounding the proDosen r1pu~Iopment. The members of the Planning Commission discussed the various elements of the project. Concrete was suggested for the parking areas, but they were pleased that the central-lane grass driveway concept would be teste in the City. They asked that the large oak tree be preserved. Mr. Wes Williams, 10067 Byrne Avenue, Cupertino, said that past exper- ience with one of Mr. Cody's development had been agreeable in that he felt Mr. Cody was amenable and cooperative in doing something for Cuper- tino to improve the quality of the area. He suggested that an effort be made to provide for school children not having to go through the in- dustrial area to and from school: and, it was his suggestion that some design on the cul-de-sac might accomplish that purpose. Mr. Williams wa concerned about the price level of the units and warned the Planning Commission against becoming involved in BMR units within such a small area. He advised BMR units should be picked up from larger developments PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Claudy. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 COM. CLAUDY expressed concern for the possibility of residents parking on the street (rather than in their garages): or, he said there could be hazard because of parking in the fire equipment turn-around space. City Engineer Whitten said that the center lane could be placed under th vehicle code, and that would provide for cars to be towed away. MOTION: Com. Adams, Approval of Negative Declaration SECOND: Com. Blaine PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 CHR. KOEN1TZER asked the applicant if he would object to Rl-C zoning, as discussed and outlined in the Staff Report, rather than the R1-D zoning. Mr. Cody stated that he had no objection as he understood the zoning designation. COM. ADAMS charged the Staff with being certain that Exhibit A-2, repre- senting the way the presentation was made on the parking and open space, be followed. MOTION: ,; Com. Blaine, Approval l7-z-80 to Rl-C zoning: Standard Conditions 01 through 014; 015 amended to read, "... the de- velopment to consist of thirteen (13) units." Conditions 1/16 through 026 as per Staff Report of May 8, 1980, and in accor- dance with Exhibit A-2 as per Staff Review of application. Com. Claudy PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: PC-332 Page 4 15) MINUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980. ITEM US, Applications 18-Z-80 and 8-TM-76 (Revised) of L & L PROPERTIES, INC.: REZONING approximately 13,53 acres from Rl-25 (Residential, Single-family, 25,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone; 2.20 acres from Rl-50 (Residential, Single-family, 50,000 dq. ft. per dwelling unit zone; 4.75 acres from Al-70 (Agricultural, Resi- dential Single-fa;i1y, 70,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone; 6.44 acres from Al-100 (Agricultural, Residential, Single-family, 100,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) zone, consisting of a total of approxi- tely 27+ gross acres, to RHS (Residential, Hillside Slope Density Formula) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to amend conditions of approval re- lating to easements, driveway access, grading, house type, size and location for a previously approved 21 lot subdivision and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property, commonly known as the "Rainbows End Subdivision," is generally located southerly of and at the wes- terly terminus of Rainbow Drive approximately 400 ft. westerly of Bubb Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. ssistant Planning Director Cowan exhibited maps of the area and ex- plained that the matter was back before the Planning Commission for changes in the location of the building envelopes for the proposed homes to be build. He reminded the Commissioners that the City had not had Hillside Residential Zone designation or guidelines at the timp the original developer had applied for zoning and tentative map approval. The present developer was in the process of selling lots to individual purchasers, and each of them had a slightly different plan in mind than had been approved in 1976. The developer and the owners were asked to consider a change in the zoning to reflect the appropriate zoning district and to resubmit application to change the Tentative Map Con- ditions (Exhibit B, 3rd Revision). Regulations of hillside zone would apply. The requests did not change the subdivision in terms of lot design or number of units. Rededication of easement for subdivision owners to gain access to the Open Space Preserve was required. And, location of the water tower supplying the area was a consideration. Slides were presented showing the various areas of the site. Mrs. Elena Doratz, 2430 Villanueva Way, Mountain View, CA, owner of Lot Hl1, said it was her understanding that the lot would not come under restrictions because it was under the crest of the hill (ridge). Mr. Bill Henr , Gareth & Henry, Morgan Hills, CA, provided background for the project and complimented the Staff for their help and coop- eration. He explained that the problems that had disturbed residents were being solved, and he appreciated the tolerance of the residents. The location of the drain into Regnart Creek was traced, and the 1976 Tentative Map (8-TM-76), which þrovided for specific location of homes, was reviewed; and, he said there was a desire for different house patterns in different locations. He pointed out the areas on which vegetation had returned to cuts made for grading and did not feel vegetation would be a serious problem. Mr. Chuck O'Dell, construction management specialist, representinR L & L Properties, Inc., Gilroy, CA, identified the water tank location, which he advised was fixed behind the hill and tucked into a 8-10 ft. cut. Elevation was determined by pressure required to service the homes. MINUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980. Mr. Dave Phipps, owner, 10163 Riedel Place, Cupertino, noted that the portion of the lot they were discussing was not a fault area. He intro- duced his architect to explain preliminary work. Mr. Stephen Clark, architect, 11411 Pierce Road, Saratoga, CA, explained Mr. Phipp's desire to have a common drive use to utilize the same cut fo driveway down on the lower section. The direction of the cut to be kept low on the knoll as close to the contour of the land as possible. A re- taining wall would be used on the 2nd level with grading on back. He said there would be 20-ft. setbacks on all sides. Geologists were in the process of bidding on research on the site. In response to CHR. KOENITZER, Mr. Clark explained that the major difference in the building would be the shifting of the envelope and creating a linear house. Also he responded with elevation numbeIS -- the north to south view -- and stated the house would not interfere with the ridge line. The object was to blend the house into the landscape. Mr. Paul Sonnenblich, 11525 Upland Way, Cupertino, stated that the 560 line was a critical line. He said that considerable landscaping was needed. Mr. Scott Epperson, 11411 Bubb Road, Cupertino, said his house was to the north, looking into the complex to the south. Although the devel- opers were going to cover it as best they could, he felt it would be obvious and they had to accept that the development was going to be in that area. He asked about the access to the Open Space Preserve. The access presently being used was located -- an existing trail (one-person wide walking trail. He asked that the trail and access be guaranteed to residents in the area. Mr. Paul Sonnenblich, 11525 Upland Way, Cupertino, asked that the trail not be limited to the residents of the subdivision only. He referred the commissioners to Ordinance #1581, March 19, 1976, approved by Victor K. Adams, which stated that the developer would dedicate and improve an equestrian trail, etc. He noted the absence of such instruction in the present application. He did wish for the City to make a trespasser out of him and others who would like to use the open space with access guaranteed. (Mr. Cowan explained the open space access policy prevail in .) Referring to the sliding of fill in the area, he called attention to the Worksheet, page 3, under C (Physical Impact), item D asking if the project would result in significant erosion. And he asked if the site (subdivision) contained a fault, and stated that he expected there would be geologists' impact reports for assessment of net changes from old rule to new rules. Erosion and drainage would be a problem if drainage lines were installed upon or near a fault line. Noting that his copy of the previous plans called for six (6) off-street parking spaces be provided on each lot, he asked why the requirement had been reduced. COM. CLAUDY responded to access to open space by pointing out that Conditions #17 clearly stated that public access without limitation was available. The Tentative Map, under Conditions #22 and #19, stated that the developer of the subdivision shall dedicate and improve, and that it shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation. It would have to go before the Planning Commission for abandonment and dedication. PC-332 Page 5 (16) PC-332- Page 6 MINUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINC CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980 17) CHR. KOENITZER stated that they'd had no input on the subject and were not talking about abandonment. COM. BLAINE asked that Condition #20 be struck in favor of Cordition #18B. Condition #23 was required by ordinance -- the actual hillside zoning ordinance. Condition #24 was also covered by the hillside ordinance, she said. r. Ed. Freitas called attention to the road being directly above his residence and creating the possibility of objects or vehicles leaving the road and plowing into his home. He asked for warning to be posted and guardrails to be installed. r. Dick Randall, 1825 De 1a Cruz Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA, ex- plained the reasons he was askmgfor relocation of his home. He said the changes would meet City requirement. Because of interest rates and a winter deadline on work, he'd like to get started in a reasonably quick fashion. (Re: ITEM #15 continuance.) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. C1audy. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Blaine 5-0 City Engineer Whitten told Mr. Freitas that as soon as the road was built it would be inspected and decisions would be made to provide protection with signing and guardrails. OTION: Com. Adams, Continue Item #15 to the Regular Planning Com- mission Meeting Recessed from May 14, 1980. to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting continued to May 27, 1980. Com. Blaine PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 SECOND: OTE: RECESS 10:00 p.m. 10:10 p.m. Each issue raised by the speakers was clarified and discussed. The commissioners agreed that they were concerned with 1) expanding the building envelopes of Lots #9 through #14 on the ridge; and Lot #3, by moving up the ridge, would create silhouetting against the skyline and would be apparent from the valley. COM. ADAMS asked for change of wording on Condition #17 to, "...all building permit applications for sites which vary more than 20 ft. in any direction..." Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that Condition U18 talked to general grading concepts in accordance with hillside development that provided flexibility. COM. JOHNSON suggested clarifying of complex points and asked that the matter be returned to the Planning Commission, but not a public hearing. Going through the Tentative Map on the board, it was agreed: Lot Ul through #4 and U16 offered no problem. Lot #5 was large, and Lot #6 should be looked at again because of the water tank problem. Lot #1 through U14 were judged to be side-slope conditions and possibly visible from the valley floor. Lots U17 through #21 and Lots US. #16, #17 were of major concern. Lot #7 could be moved. MINUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: PC-332 Page 7 Com. Adams, recommend Approval Hegative Declaration Com. Blaine PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 (18) Com. Adams, recommend Approval, l8-Z-80 Com. Blaine PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Com. Adams, recommend Approval 8-TK-76, Revised, with Standard Conditions 1/1 through 1116; 1117 modified to state, "Lots 1/5 through 117, and Lots 1117 through 1121, shall submit building per mit applications for review by the Planning Commission to be re viewed as Unfinished Business if the building sites vary more than 20 ft. from the originally approved site, in any direction Condition 1I18A, B. & C. changed to insert in line 1, "...sub- division applicant and subsequent building applicant shall re- tain all original trees that are over 6 in. in diameter, and shall retain a registered landscape architect to review the grading plans. Delete Condition 1120. Com. Claudy PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ITEM 119, Application 5-U-80 of DAVID C. THIMGAN: USE PERMIT to construc an office building equaling approximately 3,000 sq. ft. and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property equals approxi mately .5 of a gross acre located on the north side of Valley Green Drive approximately 150 ft. westerly of North De Anza Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with industrial, commercial, residential (4-10 dwelling units per gross acre) intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 19, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the issues raised in the Staff Report with regard to orientation of parking, and stated that the Staff felt it should be possible to interrelate the areas through an access if the need should come up in the future. Mr. David Thimgan, project architect, 3350 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, explained his reasons as to why the parking lot should remain as de- signed and shown in their application. CHR. KOENITZER explained that many times the members of the Planning Commission, in retrospect, regretted having failed to impose re- strictions that would have made things much easier a few years down the road. Therefore, he said, they wished to provide for and guarantee, in as many instances as possible, for ingress and egress easements to be recorded. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: Com. Adams, recommend Approval NeRative Declaration. Com. Blaine PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Com. Claudy, recommend Approval 5-U-80 subject to the Findings and Subconc1usions of Staff RepQrt. Standard Conditions III through 1114 -- approvals based on Exhibits l5A and A-I; 1117 as per Staff Report. Condition 1118 -- deleted. Conditions #19 become Condition 1118. PC-332 Page 8 INUTES MAY 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1980 (19) SECOND: Com. Adams OTE: PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ITEM #10, Application 9-U-80 of WAHIB COSTADI: USE PERMIT to construct 7,500 ± sq. ft. commercial building in the existing Homestead Lanes Shopping Center and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously ssessed, hence no action is required. Said property is located on the outheast corner of Homestead Road and Stelling Road in a P (Planned evelopment with Recreation, Entertainment, and limited Commercial intent) oning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - y 19, 1980. xhibits reflected the applicant's proposal and approved Use Permit, ich conformed with the building location and parking location. It as stated by Assistant Planning Director Cowan that the applicant ould be back before the Planning Commission on each and every use of he building in order to show that the uses were approved. OM. CLAUDY asked if the multi-tenanted building had a main door acing Homestead (rather than a solid wall). OM. BLAINE, recalling discussion about employee parking behind the uilding to the south, asked if there had been any problem with that. ssociate Planner Piasecki stated that the Staff was not aware of any omplaints. The parking to the south was optional employee parking. n response to COM. ADAMS, Mr. Piasecki said that the Alley did not o through but terminated at a walkway between the two buildings. r. Wahib Costandi, 21590 Fitzgerald Drive, Cupertino, said he would ike to thank the Staff for help in understanding the concept of de- e10pment on the property. He said they wished to go ahead and de- elop very quickly. Although they did not have firm leases, they planned n using the list of permitted uses. UBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy. ASSED UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Blaine 5-0 Com. Blaine, Approve 9-U-80 as per Staff Report. Standard Conditions #1 through #14, #15 & #16. Com. Claudy PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 HR. KOENITZER ADJOURNED the meeting until Monday, May 19, 1980, in the Conference Room, City Hall, City of Cupertino, CA, to meet at 7:30 p.m. for completion of Planning Commission Agenda PC-332. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk f!)1~~ CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-332 Page 1 MINUTES MAY 19, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, & 14, 1980 -- CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL (20) CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Koenitzer (Chairman) Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki City Engineer Whitten ITEM #11, Application 25-TM-77 (Revised) of FABIO PRINCIPI: TENTATIVE MAP to modify the approved building site for a proposed single-family home and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is lo- cated on the west side of Regnart Road at the beginning of what is com- monly known as Regnart Canyon, approximately 700 ft. southwesterly of Linda Lane in an Rl-120 (Residential, Single-family, 120,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that Mr. Principi was in the process of purchasing Lot #4, the smallest of the lots exhibited on the map on the board. The lot was going to be sewered and was immediately contiguous to the Candy Rock. The request was to allow the building site to be rel9cated further up the slope and to set the general extent of the grading. He said there was concern on the lack of information on grading; A compromise had come about that a 20% driveway could be con- structed to work up to a retaining wall, and space would be provided for fire equipment turn-around. (A map exhibited the proposed changes.) He stated that there were now no major concerns. However, an addendum to the geological report would be essential. On Condition #15, he felt it should be made clear that the approval reflects the new plan. Overall Conditions for the subdivision take precedence relating to geological reporting. Landscaping plans and screening control would be asked for t provide masking of the cut. The plan originally called for two houses with one lane leading in at the south. Mr. Principi. owner of the property, said they did not wish to be close to Regnart Canyon Road and he said the slope became more gentle as one went up. He said the house was a split level with the back part being ten (10) feet high, finished grade at 530. (natural grade of 520) with a retaining wall. The garage was in a bowl, cut out and masked by the house itself. PC-332. Page 2 MINUTES MAY 19, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12 & 14, 1980 CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL (21) The members of the Planning Commission and the Staff discussed the elevations and appearance and effect of the cuts on the slope. Then, landscaping was discussed. It was agreed that not very much was being taken off the hill (cross-sectioA drawing used for reference). Proper restoration and vegetation would be important. COM. CLAUDY pointed out the hazard of cutting down to subsoil that was not rich. Terracing should be done half way up the slope. He said the best solution was to grade with a bulldozer by cutting many little terraces a foot wide or so to provide dirt and water retention. City Engineer Whitten advised that the original subdivision had approved slopes of 3/4 to 1 and he said that some of them existed in the area. COM. JOHNSON asked if the finished plans were gone over by Staff. He was advised that Site Control had looked at them initially, but now the Staff goes over plans with policy guidelines on grading and re- quirements on erosion control. City Engineer Whitten said that most landscaping engineers would use a hydra-mulch, then native plantings Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked that if the plans were approved, that if the cut is made this summer, then erosion control should be on this summer or early fall so it is in place before the rainy season. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy, Second Com. Johnson Abstain: Com. Adams 4-0-1-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, granting Approval Negative Declaration. Com. Claudy PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, Approval 25-TM-77 (Revised), Standard Conditions 81 through 814; 815 modified to read, "...approval is based upon Exhibit A, 1st Revision; 816 through 818 as per Staff Report; 819 to be added: "Hydra-mulch will be added to all graded slopes areas prior to November I, 1980, and as per Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report. Com. Claudy PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MOTION: ITEM 812, Application 23-TM-78 (Revised) of B.A.S. HOMES, INC.: TENTATIVE MAP to amend the exhibits and conditions of approval which limit building height to one-story in the previously approved B.A.S. Homes residential development (Tract 6551) for lots which back up to the existing Westridge Village condominium development and ENVIRON- mental review: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. Said property is located on the west side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 200 ft. northerly of Silver Oak Way. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 16, 1980. (Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 9, 1980). ITEM 813, Application 8-U-80 of ITSUO UENAKA (GREEN GATE BUILDING): USE PERMIT to construct an industrial building consisting of approxi- mately 32,000 sq. ft. and ENVIRO~IENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property equals approximately 2.2 acres located on the west PC-332 Page 3 MINUTES MAY 19, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM MAY 12 & 14, 1980 -- CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL (22) side of Bandley Drive approximately 200 ft. southerly of Mariani Avenue in a P (Planned Development with industrial, commercial, residential (4-10 dwelling units per gross acre) intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki placed exhibits on the board and advised that the Commissioners had received a vicinity map in their packets showing the location of the property. The site represented the last site on the west side of Bandley to go into the industrial land use designation of the area. The utility company was expected to be using their site for- ever. He said the applicant needed an additional six (6) trips to make the building size work. trips from the already developed are~ that he wished to transfer to this area. He said the conceptual plan was con sistent with the De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan. He suggested that agreement on easements be required and be recorded. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED 4-0 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECONU: VOTE: Com. Johnson, approval granting of Negative Declaration. Com. Claudy PASSED 4-0 Com. Johnson, recommend Approval 8-U-80 as per Findings and Subconclusions as will be put in by the Staff. Standard Conditions #1 through #14 and #15 through #18 as per Staff Report. Conditions #20 through #22 to be renumbered #19 through 1121. Condition 1120 (new) modified to read, "The appli- cant shall record a Covenant describing a joint ingress and eRresses, to be entered into with the adjacent property to the south. #21 condition to read as per Staff Report. Com. Blaine PASSED 4-0 CHR. KOENITZER turned the meeting over to VICE CHR. CLAUDY in order that he could monitor a matter before the City Council. ITEM #14, Application 7-TM-80 of CIVIL & CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS (SAN JOSE TYPEWRITER COMPANY, INC.): TENTATIVE MAP TO consolidate five par- cels consisting of a total of approximately .3 of an acre into one par- cel and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no action is required. Said property is located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with commercial intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 2, 1980. It was reported that an abandonment matter on the Item #14 was before the City Council to find that abandonment was consistent with the General Plan. PC-332 Page 4 MINUTES MAY 19, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM ~~y 12 & 14, 1980 -- CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL -~3) COM. JOHNSON asked if the matter had been seen before. Backup infor- mation had not been provided for' him, but it was explained that zoning and use permit approval had been received. The matter before the Com- mission was limited to the Tentative Map issue to consolidate five (5) parcels of land. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson. PASSED Second: Com. Blaine 4-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine, recommend Approval 7-TM-80, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 and #16 as per Staff Report and Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report; and, the subdivision to be consistent with the Old Monta Vista Plan. Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0 MOTION: Second: VOTE: Com. Blaine to find that abandonment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino and Old Monta Vista. Com. Johnson PASSED 4-0 MOTION: UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Blaine asked if the Mayor had held any meetings. ADJOURNEMENT ATTEST: APPROVED: ,æ~ r:ZL ~ ~/~ airman ~ *