PC 03-24-80
~."
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone (408) 252-4505
PC-329
Page 1
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG
7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present:
Commissioner Claudy
Commissioner Adams
Commissioner Koenitzer
-Commissioner Blaine
Chairman Gatto
Staff Present: Planning Director Sisk
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
City Engineer Whitten
City Attorney Kilian
Assistant City Attorney Foley
APPROVAL/MINUTES, MARCH 10, 1980
Com. Claudy, page 2, par. 2, line 8, delete "applicant" and
substitute "site."
Page 2, par. 3, line 8, add to sentence, ..."for Oakdell
Ranch, Phase III."
Page 3, par. 4, line 1, add, "...if construction of a
traffic island and the proposed neW entrance still..."
Page 3, par. 5, line 6, Kap Foothill.
Page 4, par. 3, line 37, delete "two," and add "one," and
line 38, delete "one," and add "two."
Page 5, par. 6, line 15, delete "not."
Page 9, par. 1, line 2, edit to read, "...no tank and that
a collection of sheds that had been added needed to be..."
Page 9, par. 1, line 7, change figure to 7,500 sq. ft. and
difference to average.
Page 9, par. 1, line 14, delete "to Alpine."
Page 9, par. I, lines 24 & 25, insert period after streets.
Delete starting with "he said..." and all of line 25.
Page l2, par. 7, line 2, delete "waste" and substitute
spend."
Page 13, par. 11, line 1, edit to read, "...due to illness
COM. CLAUDY excused himself from the meeting.
Com. Blaine, page 9, par 2, line 19, edit to read, "wished
to go Planned Development with a density around 7.5."
Page 13, par. 4, line 1, insert after story, "behind ex-
isting homes on Phar Lap Drive and Oakde11 Place would..."
Page 13, Public Hearing Closed: Change to Second by Com.
Claudy. (Com. Koenitzer abstained from deliberations on
Item Ill.
CHR. GATTO, Page 3, par. 2, line 3, Continue paragraph:
...,"which was not at the centerline of the creek but at
the top of the bank."
Page 11, par. 3, change to read, ..."asked a question abou
maintenance. II
Page 8, par. 5, line 1, substitute Mr. Woolworth for Mrs.
Robertson.
Page 17, par 4, line I, delete "to accept the centerline."
~~;~ ~:~t~a~~. 2, Motion: Com's. B1:in~,~. K~,:nit:erAye & L
PC-329
Page 2
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APPROVAL OF MINUTES by Com. Blaine. Second by Com.
PASSED by Commissioners Gatto, Koenitzer & Blaine.
Claudy approved Item #1 only. Com. Adams abstained
from meeting.
Koenitzer.
Com.
-- absent
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 11, Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC
HEARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cuper-
tino General Plan including, but not limited to (1) land use
changes for a number of individual properties located
throughout the community; (2) an evaluation of alternative
land use types and development intensities for property lo-
cated within the s~uthwe~t corner of Portal Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard; (3) a refinement of the City's Cir-
culation Plan including a plan to provide a long-term fin-
ancing of major transportation improvements. First Hearing
continued. Tentative City Council hearing date -- April 21,
1980.
Assistant Planning Director reviewed the process of re-
evaluation on thirteen (13) properties or groups of properties
of the February 25, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
at which a consensus vote on Areas A, B, C, D, E, K, and L,
had been decided. The Environmental Review Committee, having
considered the Planning Commission's recommendations, recom-
mended the granting of a Negative Declaration.
Area A (northwesterly part of town at Homestead Road);
Area B (corner northeast of Foothill and Stevens Creek Blvd.);
Area C <adjacent to Bubb Road near Mira Vista);
Area D (pair of lots on either side of Granada and Mira Vista
in Old Monta Vista); Area E (deleted from present con~
sideration and continued to the April 28, 1980 Regular Plan-
ning Commission Meeting); Area K (series of lots on Orange
Avenue in Old Monta Vista; and Area L (a one-acre site on
Almaden)~ (Staff Report, March 20. 1980.)
Mr. Dareon L. Matteson, 525 University Avenue, Suite 22,
Palo A1t~--94301, exhibited slides of Area A, panning along
Homestead Road (from approximately the center of the site).
It was Mr. Matteson's hope that a density of 15-30 units/acre
could be established in order that planners would have more
transition leeway in the project. They wished to come back
with plans in the range of 15, 25, or even 35; two-story front
and three-story back to back with the existing~artments --
his feeling being that the balance was critical. The units
would be in the range of 770 sq. ·ft., 910 sq. ft., and 1,025
sq. ft., not including patios and balcony spaces.
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-3Z9
Page 3
The Commissioners felt that traffic was the most formid-
able problem. The surrounding areas, being a mix of con-
struction styles in Los Altos, tbe County, and Cupertino,
and considering the single-family homes in the area, might
be too high a density at 20 units/acre.
COM. BLAINE introduced her list of criteria (first pre-
sented to the Commissioners at a meeting a month earlier).
and she said that the site in question, compared to her
list, lacked convenience to employment and schools. The
availability of transportation and shopping was on the plus
side; and, although she' favored higher densities in other
sections of the city, in this instance, she did not feel
the site could accept high density.
CRR. GATTO reminded the Commissioners of the senior citizen
units included in the project. Re recommended some kind of
an inner-living environment being designed into the plans.
The parking allowance on Mr. Matteson's proposed project
was indicated as being 2 for 1 in most cases, (senior
citizens' seventy-two (72) units having one-car parking).
One third of the units were designated as senior citizen
units.
Mr. William J. Clark, 20054 Wheaton Drive, Cupertino, who
wished to discuss Area ~ was advised that Area G was to be
on the Agenda, tentatively, for April,28, 1980.
COM. CLAUDY related his experience with some resident of
Countrywood believing that COMmercial zoning was being dis-
cussed for the area. He emphatically stated that there
need not be fear because the only zoning discussed had been
for residential zoning of the area.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked if some one of the audience
would provide a contact name and address for the mailings of Staff
Reports from the City of Cupertino to the Countrywood residents. Mrs.
William Brower, 20567 Cedarbrook (president of the homeowners' associa
tion) and Mrs. Helen Bonelli, 11119 Flowering Pear Drive, U120A (vice
president of the homeowners' association) volunteered to receive the
mail and to keep in touch with the planning staff.
COM. BLAINE explained that the sewage capacity for the area
had to be dealt with and included in consideration of final
density for the area.
CHR. GATTO asked that the Area, Area E, be pulled out of ~
consideration for the evening pending receipt of additiona
traffic information germane to Stevens Creek properties.
BY CONSENSUS, Area E was removed from discussion; and,
COM. KOENITZER added that if, in the end, the Council de-
nied the application of 18 or so units/acre on the land,
then he'd wish to go back to the General Plan for further
study.
--'---..------
PC-329
Page 4
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PtANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. BLAINE requested that the Staff ask tha Council, in the
event the application was denied, that they provide very
specific statements for their action and suggestions for
further consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine.
PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY
Second: Com. Adams,
5-0
At CHR. GATTO'S request, Assistant Planning Director Cowan
again re~iewed the areas being considered, excluding Area E.
(See Page 2, par. 4~above.)
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED~
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Blaine, Approval of Negative Declaration.
Com. Adams.
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Com. Blaine, to recommend Approval of recommen-
dationson Areas A, B, C, D, K. & L.
Com. Koenitzer.
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Com. Blaine, to Continue Hearing of 1-GPA-80 to the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1980.
Com. Adams
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
ITEM #2, Application 25-U-79 of HAWLEY & PETERSON: USE PER-
MIT to construct an office building consisting of approximately
94,000 sq. ft. and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental
Review Committee reccommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration. Said property is located on the northwest cor-
ner of Mariani Avenue and North De Anza Boulevard in a P
(Planned Development with industrial, commercial and resi-
dential (4-10 dwelling units per gross acre) intent) zoning
district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council
hearing date -- April 7, 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report.
The zoning complied with the General Plan and existing
zoning on the property. Curb Cuts for the property were
outlined and it was pointed out that the Central Fire Dis-
trict had.indicated their requirements for access to the
property tor emergency purposes. Mr. Cowan noted the higher
height of the building, stated that it conformed to the
Four-Phas~JLilding, and labeled the applicant's building as
forming a "gateway to l:tre community." The distance from the
BAS homes was noted (376 ft.), and a parking space ratio of
1 space/250 sq. ft./gross floor area was planned -- a ratio
consistent with zoning and a four-story administrative office
building located across De Anza Boulevard. Of 374 parking
spaces, 155 were designed for compact cars -- 40 to 60 being
not unusual for commercial projects. Corrections to Condition
816 were given to the Commissioners, the corrections being
based on the same information except for trips allocation of
5.294. (See revised Condition #16, March 24, 1980, in file.)
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNINC COMMISSION MEETING
PC-329
Page 5
In response to COM. KOENITZER, City Attorney Kilian advised
that if they wished to retain the reciprocal access, then
they woulð need to enter into an agreement for such.
The Commissioners discussed distance between the ·wo
buildings (46 ft.); setback from the street (50 ft.); maxi-
mum elevation (60 to 61 ft. and as opposed to height); or
12 to 14 ft./floor. (The latter stated by Chr. Gatto.).
Condition #26 being handled through Public Works was ex-
plained by City Engineer Whitten as having come about by
the use of meandering sidewalks. The responsibility was
to be shared with H Control.
COM. KOENITZER called attention to Condition #24 duplicatin
Condition #16. Condition #24 was deleted. Also, noting
that the block from Valley Green Drive to Mariani Drive is
a short block, and there being no other street between
Lazaneo, Mariani, and the Freeway. he said he didn't really
favor a De Anza Boulevard entrance because of the problems
that would arise.
CHR. GATTO and COM. BLAINE suggested the entrance to the
site be on Mariani.
Mr. C. D. Peterson, 3000 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 9430 ,
representing the Mariani family, responded to questions
from the Commissioners. He advised that the Four-Phase
project had been used for patterning their plans. As for
sidewalks, he said it was felt the sidewalk along De Anza
would be in the spirit of landscaping concepts. Other
sidewalks would be restricted to the street right-of-ways
along Mariani and Bandley. He pointed out that they did
not have room for a sidewalk and a birm, and he suggested
that the Architectural Site Review Committee might have a
position on the subject. There was 50 ft. to the top of
the building and 50 ft. back from the center core area.
He reported that the fire department had agreed to a lower-
ing of the birm area, a reduction of the curb in order that
they might go through the landscaped area for emergency
access. The curb cut would need to be marked and main-
tained for the purpose, and he said it would be the only
curb cut between Valley Green Drive and Mariani.
COM. CLAUDY and COM. KOENITZER agreed that a Minute Order
to H Control might be necessary to insure a well disguised
air conditioning system.
Mr. Toni Randazzo, representing the Mariani family, ob-
jected to Condition #19, which he read into the record from
the Staff Report, (March 7, 1980, page 2 of Resolution,
par. 3.)
PC-329
Page 6
MINUTES MARCR 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Staff and Commissioners discussed and named a number of
businesses in the City accepting and agreeing to the con-
dition (#19) and feeling it was not an imposition, an hard-
ship, or of negative quality for single or multi-tenanted
buildings: I
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Koenitzer. Second: Com. Adams
PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
COM. ADAMS requested the addition of a phrase to Condition
#19: ·...the City of Cupertino may impose appropriate
constraints on this site and other adjacent sites as and
when deemed necessary." .
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Koen:itzer, Approval,·of Negative;Declaration.
Com. Blaine.
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
COM. KOENITZER asked that provision be made for preserving
access through easement on the north side of the property.
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Koenitzer, Approval 25-U-79, Standard
Conditions #1 through #15; #16 as revised by
Staff Report of March 24, 1980; #17 and #18 as
per Staff Report; #19 modified to indicate that
any constraints imposed will be part of the
General Plan Rezoning constraints for the North
De Anza Boulevard area; #20 through #25 as per
Staff Report; #26 modified to indicate sidewalk
review by the Director of Public Works and/or
Architectural Site Control/Approval Committee;
#27 changed in first sentence to indicate, ...
"open a driveway off Mariani as per agreement
with the Fire Department requirements.
Com. Adams.
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
ITEM #3 and ITEM #4, by CONSENSUS -- considered together.
ITEM #3, Application 7-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (THREE OAKS
PARK SITE): REZONING approximately 3.8 acres from R1-B6
(Single-family, Residential, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
to PR (Parks and Recreation) zone or whatever zone may be
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRON-
MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recom-
mends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property
is located so~_h,~ly of Moltzen Drive between Candlelight
Way and Ru~l Place. First Hearing continued. Tentative
City Council hearing date-- April 21, 1980
ITEM #4, Applications 9-Z-80 and 2-TM-80 of CITY OF CUPER-
TINO (THREE OAKS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT): REZONING approxi-
mately one acre from R1-B6 (Single-family, Residential, 6,000
sq. ft~ minimum lot size) zone which is the holdover San
Jose zoning district, to the City of Cupertino Rl-6 (Sing1e-
family, Residential, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or
whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning
Commission; TENTATIVE MAP TO subdivide the unimproved Three
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-329
Paga 7
Oaks Park site consisting of approximately five acres into
seven residential parcels equaling approximately 6,000 sq.
ft. each and one additional parcel ccnsisting of approxi-
mately 3.å acres to accommodate the remainder of the Three
Oaks Park site and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental
Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration. Said property is located southerly of Moltzen
Drive between Candlelight Way and Ruppell Place. First
Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date --
April 21; 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commission
that the General Plan, adopted in July of 1979, had first
addressed the need to detail park neeès based on population
At that time, too, the City first considered sale of a
portion of Three Oaks Park to underwrite improvement of the
remaining area of the park, the additional funds to be used
to purchase lands in the San Jose transfer area. The area
was traced on the board map. On the property for sale,
he said the City was asking for single-story height
limitation -- honoring a covenant with surrounding owners.
CHR. GATTO asked if the end lot, #7, frontage would be con-
sidered from the cul-de-sac; and, he asked where the City
property line fell.
City Engineer Whitten advised that everything northerly of
the lot lines was under City ownership. He said that after
discussion, the sidewalk would extend easterly to the cul-
de-sac, and they would prefer to leave the matter of the
frontage on Lot #7 open as an option to the future owner.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:
PASSED:
Com. C1audy.
UNANIMOUSLY
Second: Com. Blaine
5-0
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Adams, Recommend Negative Declaration, 7-Z-80.
Com. Blaine
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Com. Adams, Recommend Approval 7-Z-80 as per
Staff Report.
Com. Koenitzer
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Com. Adams, Recommend Degative Declaration 9-Z-80.
Com. Blaine
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Com. Adams, Recommend change 9-Z-80, from Rl-6B to
Rl-6BR.
Com. Koenitzer
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
PC-329
Page 8
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION:
Com. Claudy, Approval 2-TM-80, Standard Conditions
#1 through #14; #15, #16, #17, as outlined in the
Resolution and subject to the Findings and Subcon-
~lusions of Staff Report of March 6, 1980
Com. Koenitzer .
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Second:
PASSED:
ITEM #5 Deing an item in which Commissioner Koenitzer had a
personal interest, he abstained from deliberations.
ITEM 15, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AN ORDINANCE regulating use of
property within areas o( special flood hazards as defined
by the Flood Insurance Administration in accordance with
the National Flood Insurance Program. Said areas are lo-
cated in the Stevens Creek and Ca1abazas Creek areas of the
City. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date,
April 21, 1980.
Planning Director Slsk explained that the issue was the
"
addition of an ordinanc~ -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ADDING CRAPTER 16.48 TO THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL
CODE TO BE ENTITLED '''PREVENTION OF FLOOD DAMAGE""
A lengthy discussion covered the aspects of the pro-
posed ordinance that needed clarification.
City Attorney Kilian commented that the references were
pretty general. One example, he said, was the 1st sentence
of Article II, Administration, which should be modified
to read, "...a development permit shall be obtained before
substantial construct~on or new development..."
Mr. Mark Senesi, 973 Bellows Avenue, Sunnyvale, asked if
one wished to repair one's home (roof repair, for instance),
what would one have to do to bring one's home into com-
pliance with the flood control requirements.
Mr. R. D. Koenitzer. 10060 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino, called
at tent ion to page 3, 1·'Substant ia1 improvement" means any
repair, reconstruction, or improvement, "" He said he
concluded that a burn.d out building, if replaced, would re-
quire floodproofing. Termites moving out with the property
would mean real trouble. His major concern was the ex-
cessive number of homes on Phar Lap Drive and on Creston
Place that"w.re in the defined floodplain. Floodproofing
might mean raising structures from 1 ft. to 6 ft.; and,
he felt th~ilrfèr~nce in appearance and cost needed
strengthening-Co indl~Gt~-variances would be granted and
not only to structures damaged by flooding.
In response to COM. CLAUDY'S question, P.lanning Director
Sisk stated that the condition of the insurance was necess-
ary prior to approval of any insurance. The ordinance
represented the kinds of things the government wished them
to adopt.
Mr. Alan Stocklmeir, 10110 Adelheid Court, Cupertino,
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-329
Page 9
asked for the defin1tion of habitable core, as referred to
on page 2 of the ordinance. And, he also asked about the
status of the Stevens Creek Dam Study and what it would
have to d~ with the ordinance.
It was agreed, in response to the 1st question, that core
area sho~ld be defined as "living area" within a house.
The 2nd question was answered by City Engineer Whitten who
advised that the study was still incomplete, and also that
in any event it should have no effect upon the floodplain.
Mr. John EnnIs (phonetic) 10481 Florence Drive, Cupertino,
came forward to report that during a Water District Public
Hearing the chief engineer had described the water catch-
ment basin of the area as extremely large and the reservoir
as relatively small. The 100-year event would make no
difference as to whether the dam was empty or full. The
volume would/P~at great and the flood level would be infini
tesimal. Mr. Enn1s advised that he'd extended his house,
about three years previously, three (3) feet above the
water line. As for procuring insurance, Planning Director
Sisk advised Mr. EnnIs to contact his insurance agent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. Blaine.
PASSED: Commissioners Claudy, Adams,
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Koenitzer
Second: Com. Adams
Gatto & Blaine 4-0
Second:
PASSED:
ABSTAIN:
Com. Blaine, Recommend Ordinance, Chapter 16.48, t
the Cupertino Municipal Code as per recommendation
for several clarifications (as summarized by
Planning Director Sisk) and that Ordinance, Chapte
16.48 be adopted as clarified and amended.
Com. Adams
Commissioners C1audy, Adams, Gatto & Blaine 4-0
Commissioner Koenitzer
MOTION:
ITEM 86, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AMENDMENT TO VARIOUS PRO-
VISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE to ensure compliance
with the General Plan and State Subdivision Map Act and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee
recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First
Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date --
April 21, 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the necessity
for realignment of population and household-size figures,
acerage to number of units thereon, and market value deter-
mining fees for the developer. Several other consideration
such as playground equipment, solar energy, lot-line ad-
justments, and lot consolidations and reconfigurations
needed to be outlined by the Staff. In an effort to stream
line government, Mr. Cowan said they were asking for
direction to prepare Staff Reports for future consideration
PC-329
Page 10
MINUTES MARCH 24, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out the require-
ment that would enable the City to enforce lot mergers if
lots were less than adequate to meet City zoning require-
ments. This latter provision, he stated, came under the
State Subdivision Map Act. Under the new ordinance, the
entire town would have to be reviewed.
MOTION:
Com.' Blaine, to Continue Item 16, to Regular
Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1980
Com. Koenitzer
UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Second:
PASSED:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
....-_...
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
ADJOURNEMENT
10:27 p.m.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
1/.
~~
City Clerk tf