PC 03-10-80
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone (408) 252-4505
PC-3Z8
Page 1
~
*MINUTES MARCH 10, ~980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG:
7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner C1audy
Commissioner Koenitzer
Commissioner Blaine
Chairman Gatto
Absent: Commissioner Adams
Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan
Associate Planner Piasecki
City Engineer Whitten-
City Attorney Kilian
Assistant City Attorney Foley
APPROVAL MINUTES/FEBRUARY 25, 1980
Com. Koenitzer, page 6, par. 4, line 3, delete "very
pleasingly."
Com. Blaine, page 2, par. 3, line I, edit to read, "Com.
Blaine introduced a list of criteria that she felt mi~ht
reasonably be applied to the various areas for determinin~
densities."
Throughout the Minutes, change spelling of Mr. Dennis
Boghosian's name; and the name of Mrs. Ann Anger.
MOTION:
Com. Koenitzer, Approval.
PASSED:
Second: Com. Claudy
4-0
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Assistant Planning Director Cowan called attention to a
letter received and placed on the Commissioners' packets
just prior to the meeting -- letter in opposition to th~
Woolworth Application, Item #1, from Marilyn and Will Day.
~;
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING
(Com. Koenitzer announced that since he lived in the area
and was interested in the outcome of the issues on Item #1,
he wished to Abstain from participating in the deliberation .)
ITEM'#l, Applications 24-Z-79 and 27-TM-79 of WOOLWORTH
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: REZONING approximately 5.3 gross
acres from Rl-IO (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft.
* Due to lack of a taping system in the Chamber a Full
Digest of the meeting was requested.
PC-328
Page 2
minimum lot size) to Rl-7.5 (Residential, single-family
7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may
be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE
MAP to subdivide the subject property into 21 parcels
equaling a minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. each and ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the
granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is lo-
cated on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approx-
imately 100 ft. easterly of Phar Lap Drive. First Hearing
continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 7,
1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan called attention to the
mass of information generated on the application by both
the Staff and a very active homeowners' association.
Therefora, he suggested that rather than review the appli-
cation in detail, he would present only the new material.
Photographs were presented depicting Stevens Creek Boule-
vard and indic.ating.the scope of the traffic problems
raised by the sj,t,e, the association and uthe staff: .. .
(Photographs in file.) Anaer isl- photogra-p.I1,da ted 1975,
showed the property outlined by Stevens Creek Boulevard to
the south, homes adjacent to the west, Oakdell Tract #2
to the north, Oakleaf Drive terminating at the border of the
property, and county subdivision constructed sometime early
in the 60's (or 50's) and still under county jurisdiction.
The area to the east, was .shown as a tree-covered bluff
below thé Monta Vista Hardware property. Pictures were
shown of the tank house, which the City Council indicated
they wished to preserve; parkway street style (sidewalk
separated from street by curb and planting area) and
which style the City no longer approves for new develop-
ments because of the expensive upkeep càused by tree
'roots buckling curbs and sidewalks (residents were asking
for retention of the parkway style). Traffic alternatives
diagrams were posted on the board, and traffic count graphs
were posted for new access through a right turn in and out
maneuver as well as for the old access through Phar Lap
Drive.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewerl the applicant's
request for a General Plan-compatible 5.5 units/acre gross
density -- 21 lots with about 3.8 units/acre. It was
pointed out that reduction in lot sizes had taken place.
The original lots had been over 10,000 dq. ft, but the
present lot size being about 9,200 sq. ft. The proposed
development .(at_ 2.11,<>t.s)_,,0'!1dbe_a.b_out8,1,50 sq. ft..__:.:- .~~300 sq.
t. difference in average lot size for Oakdell Ranch, Paase III. Oakdell
owners objected to the change from 10,000 to 7,500 sq.
ft., which would permit additional units to be built in the
area. Traffic was seen as a major handicap. Installation
of additional ingress and egress street, provisionally
extending Oakdel1 Place, would require dangerous right
turn in and out patterns for moving traffic onto Stevens
Creek Boulevard. (For details se~ Staff Report, Robert
Cowan, March 10, 1980). Traffic Exhibits "A" and "B"
~
ì
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 3
were posted on the board and the traffic movement patterns
on the proposed new entrance and on Phar Lap Drive were ex-
plained.
CRR. GATTO asked if the lots bordering on the creek were
measured from the center of the creek. Mr. Cowan advised
that those lots were measured to the property line"which was n t
at the centerline of the creek bnt at the top of the bank.
The traffic figures on the exhibits were said to represent
existing peak hour trips. Changes in inbound and outbound
were noted during the period between 5 PM and 8 PM on Tuesday
March 4, 1980. The change in volumes were not felt to be
significant in terms of typical times and volumes on resi-
dential streets. Because of emotional factors, the Staff re-
viewed other factors to determine acceptable levels of traffi
on the street. It represented a judgment that the right turn
in and out was feasible with an island controlling the flow
of the traffic. However, it was judged that the Phar Lap
in~ersection was the much sa!er intersection.
COM. CLAUDY asked City Engineer Whitten if construction of a traffic
island and the proposed new entrance still allowed two lanes westbound
on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He was told ~hat it shouldn't change, the
acceleration lane was to extend the island. It could be widened in
modifying the boulevard in order to assure sufficient right-of-way.
CHR. GATTO said he assumed the option of right turn in and ou ,
with island, was reviewed in conjunction with other relief
Exhibit A, to make Phar Lap a left turn going easterly and
that anyone wanting to go westbound would have to go out Phar
Lap. He said he assumed, too, that those motorists coming
from Foothill would also have to turn on Phar Lap -- a 50/50
split.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan introduced a matrix compile
by the Staff to show values related to traffic relative to
the two systems. (Staff Report, Robert Cowan, March 10, 1980
page 6)~ and, the conclusions drawn were explained.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the Staff reco -
mended the subdivision for 21 lots of Planned Development zon
with guidelines as outlined in the Staff Report. Privacy con
troIs would be necessary for homes on Phar Lap because of the
topograp'hy. Privacy controls were also recommended for the
property lines for homes of Oakde11 Place. Possibly three-
story structures could be placed on the old historical flood-
plain bank. The Bass Homes development was mentioned as an
example of such structures having been successful in the use
of stair-step design.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the appli-
cant had requested permission for demolition of the tank hous
but that City Council had felt it would be important to main-
tain it as an historically significant monument; and, the Cit
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 RE~ULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 4
Council had instructed that the tank house should be .moved
to an appropriate, larger site on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
No instruction for responsibility of maintenance had been
given; however, the option of using the tank house as an
accessory building or a rental unit had been discussed.
The applicant, Mr. Woolworth, had requested a demolition
permit for the bui1din~ and surrounding sheds, but with the
new development was taking a neutral attitude as to the use
of the tank house. Staff advised against using the tank
house for a dwelling and asked for the Planning Commission
to submit their own recommendations on the issue.
COM. CLAUDY said he understood that taere was no longer a
tank underneath the roof of the tank house.
~r. Wayne Levenfeld, 10120 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino,
representing a cross-section of opinion in Oakdel1 neigh-
borhood. He stated that he was assuming that all the re-
ports, letters and petitions had been read by the Staff and
members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Levenfe1d asserted
that it was the obligations of the developer and the City
to control development of the project in a manner
to minimize negative impacts on the existing strong and
cohesive neighborhood. Referring to the Matrix (Staff Re-
port, March 10, 1980, page 6), he reviewed each category
and commented: 1) Redesign subdivision to provide direct
right turn in and out access to Stevens Creek Boulevard at
an extension of Oakde11 Place. 2) Another access to the
area would simplify problems of emergency vehicle access.
3) On traffic, and social interaction, the deadend street
was utilized by children from surrounding areas as a safe
play area (there being no parks or access to parks). He
said he realized this practice would be terminated because
the traffic volume would increase from a car every 5 to 6
minutes to a car every l~ minutes; a very difficult ~it-
uation in terms of impact of traffic and safety factors.
4) Traffic at peak hours (and any hours) on Stevens Creek
Boulevard was a hazard in the stackup lanes -- rearenders
happening, and frequent incursion into other lanes for the
purpose of getting around standing traffic. 5) The school
bus pickup was located at the end of Phar Lap Drive, and
increased traffic represented an important potential dan-
ger to children. 6) The going from traffic every 5 to 6
minutes to traffic every l~ minutes would cause important
changes in the nature of the entire neighborhood. 7) It
was felt that whatever was being created in the new develop
ment could be chosen by the residents deciding to live
there but that the new development was being thrust upon
the old neighborhood without sufficient choice being avail-
able to them. 8) The right turn in and out would impact the
neighborhood and would generate a circular traftl£_ pattern.
9) Mr. Levenfeld d~sagreed with Staff that o~e___
access access approaches would be better than two 10) Re-
turning to the emergency service problem, he said he felt
the concern over deadends was over dramatized -- the street
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
pc-ns
Page 5
with three sharp curves. 11) Last, and possibly the great-
est stumbling block was the traffic safety on Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Having spent considerable time walking and
driving up and down the area, and certainly being familiar
with traffic on that street in that area, he was convinced
that a right turn in and out could be done; and, he noted
that Staff agreed with his conclusion that it was feasible
and far less dangerous than all of the traffic using Phar Lap
Drive intersection--- an intersection further impacted during
summer months by the golf course and restaurant, 12) He had
observed that at the bottom of the hill, at Phar Lap, the
traffic was usually going about 50 mph or faster. Merging int
Stevens Creek at that point meant mergiag pretty fast. On
turning right there was an abutment of the bridge followed by
the steep rise of the road. 13) If there was a policy
against further access to Stevens Creek Boulevard, as he said
he had heard, then he'd be glad to point out development
where just such access had been put in.
CHR. GATTO asked Mr. Levenfe1d if his association had reviewe
the figures on Exhibit "B" and was satisfied that that per-
centage of traffic would be generated.
Mr. Levenfeld said it seemed reasonahle -- the trip generatio
Any difference he said he felt would be minor. The argument
might be made, he posited, that the new neighborhood might
generate more trips than the older neighborhood because the
homes might be bigger.
CHR. GATTO noted that the plan showed the traffic as going
out of the neighborhood at a SO/50 ratio of right and left.
Mr. Levenfe1d stated that he felt there would be little in-
terest from the existing neighborhood people for using a new
access, and he concluded that he felt the assignment of the
numbers was reasonable.
Mr. Milo Torrber, 21959 Oakdell Place, Cupertino, advised the
commissioners that he had polled the Oakde1l homeowners durin
December of 1979 on the issue of the density of the proposed
new housing and on the zoning issue. The poll showed that it
was felt the change from Rl-10 zoning went right to the heart
of the General Plan and specifically to the objectives of the
General Plan for preservation of the quality of the existing
residential neighborhoods. He pointed out that the entire
area sUTrounding them was R1-10. The 21 homes proposed would
result in lot sizes of 8,860 sq. ft. (assuming that the tank
house would not be additional housing). With the tank house
used as a residence, the area would be of 8,460 sq. ft.
average. In contrast, he said the Oakde11 developments were
in excess of 9,600 sq. ft. per 10t__ave1:'age_and the _1,000 !iq.
ft. difference did change--the- charãcter of the neighbor-
hood. The Oakde11 homes, having been build 15 years
iously, were about 2,000 sq. ft. plus in floor area.
present ratio of house to lot area seemed to be 5 to
prev-
The
1.
PC-328
Page 6
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Since Mr. Woolworth was planning to build homes substantially
larger, the ratio of house to lot would be substantially
different. Referring to the exhibit on the board, Mr.
Torrber noted that houses on hillsides would probably stay
the same, but houses on larger lots would accommodate larger
hòusesthan 2,000 sq. ft. because of the lay of the land
and because of the cul-de-sac. He asked that the develop-
ment be reduced in size from 21 homes to 17 homes -- the
reduction to substantially enhance the quality of the de-
velopment and make it more like the present Oakdell area.
In addition, he added, it would be in accordance with the
General Plan and would reduce traffic.
Mr. R. D. Koenitzer, 10060 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino,
mentioned three major concerns: 1) houses on the lots
backing to Phar Lap Drive homes, and Oakde11 Place homes.
2) Concern for swimming pools and the possibility of
swimming pools. 3) Concern for traffic problems at the
proprosed exit. He pointed out Lot #8, with the only
two-story, 2,400 sq. ft. house on Phar Lap Drive; all
other homes being 2,100 sq. ft., single-story homes.
The topography at Stevens Creek Boulevard was fairly level,
but he traced out a ridge to the rear of the Phar Lap
Drive properties that dropped off in elevation quite
rapidly and then flattened out in back of Phar Lap Drive.
The other area of concern was traced out as going down
more slowly until there was a 2 to 3 ft. difference only.
The old stream bed, he stated, was prominent and 6 ft.
steep with 35 to 45 degree banks which flattened out,
after passing the shed and barns, to produce a gentle
and rolling look. Because of the topography, he said the
land in the area was 8 to 10 ft. higher than the homes
on Phar Lap Drive. Therefore, he asked for restriction
of the homes to 2,000 sq. ft. and one-story construction
from level grade. Locating the barn on the property, as
shown on the exhibit on the board, Mr. Koenitzer asked that
the setback be no greater than that of the barn presently
on the property, which he said was prominent and could be
seen from his yard and adjoining yards. As for swimming
pools, he noted that where the bank was fairly steep and
with many trees, installation of a swimming pool in the
flat area, 4 to 6 ft. below the residence, would cer-
tainly create hazards to the roots of trees worth pre-
serving. His reservation was about the trees only and he
stated that he had no reservation about use of pool areas
or n~ise generated by such use. In looking at the traffic
slides, he felt concern for the present traffic problem.
The right turn in and out traffic divider would probably
be utilized by drivers turning left around the end of
it. Recalling that there had been considerable hazard
in turning into Phar Lap Drive (having to stop in the
main traffic lane) prior to the installation of the stack-
up turn lane, and realizing that ~rivers are not always
alert, he recommended concentrating on one intersection
instead of two intersections opening onto Stevens Creek
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 7
Mr. Al Woolworth. Woolworth Construction, Applicant, said he
had discussed access to the area through a cul-de-sac, but
the city preferred not to pursue the idea. Basically, he
said, 10,000 sq. ft. or 7,500 sq. ft. were much the same in
compatibility in the neighborhood. He noted that some of
the Phar Lap Drive lots were larger and longer along the
creek. And, he volunteered to work with the City. Mr.
Scothorn, traffic engineer for Mr. Woolworth, was introduced
to answer any questions.
Mr. Gene Scothorn, Novack & Associates, traffiè engineer,
127 2nd Street, Los Altos, said he had heard lucid point in
favor of both methods of access into the area. The close-
ness of a new access, he felt, could create real conflict
with the intersection at Phar Lap Drive. Calling attention
to the posted map of the area, he said he found it difficult
to believe that the residents on Greenleaf -- the way it
dead ended -- did not expect the street to be extended at
some time. Children playing in the streets because of lack
of parks gained his sympathy, but he felt that was a very
unnatural arrangement.
Mr. Levenfeld returned to the podium to state that a review
of older maps for development of the area all showed an
additional access to Stevens Creek. He mentioned that the
golf course created some heavy traffic and congestion during
peak traffic hours because of the restaurant. He maintained
that the sight1ine would be important for traffic.
Mrs. Nancv Cavlan, 10090 Phar Lap Drive,~upertino, informed
the commissioners that she was the owner of the two-story
house on Phar Lap Drive and that she agreed that protecting
the privacy of the established homes should be regarded very
strongly. Depending on the lay of the land, the homes.shoul
be designed to maintain the privacy of everybody.
Mrs. Margaret Betebart, 10485 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino,
said she'd like to know, from Mr. Woolworth, what size home
were planned for the subdivision (the square footage).
(Mr. Woolworth explained that the plans had not reached that
stage of design.)
Mrs. Betebart demanded that the point be clarified because
of the tendency in California to build homes entirely too
1arge.for building sites. She asked for delay in resolving
the problem until a ratio was established at 5-1, 4-1, or
3-1, so that they would understand what they were dealing
with. Secondly, relative to the tank house and its preser-
vation or removal to a better site, she commended the City
Council for the decision for preservation of the historical
edifice. She asked that the missing tank be replaced in
order to make it more authentic. Mrs. Betebart volunteered
to work with the City of Cupertino on methods of maintaining
the tank house. She stated she felt the tank house should
PC-328
Page 8
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
be maintained as an accessory building on the rear of one
of the larger new properties. In conclusion she asked the
Staff to define Planned Development vs. single-family
Residential Development.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that Mr. Wool-
worth had asked for Planned Development as a compromise
to aid in the questions of privacy for Phar Lap Drive homes
and for other homes needing such privacy. The particular
zoning provides that the City had more control over the
design of the homes than over conventional single-family
dwellings (where the City does not really control the ratio
of building to land in residential zonings). He explained
that Planned Development would be a very wide open zone
based on design. In this instance activity of the zon1ng
had been restricted and recognized that future development
of the property had to be single-family detached. minimum
lot size, average of 8,800 sq. ft. -- the same plan Mr.
Woolworth was proposing but with extra design controls
exercise~.
I
COM. BLAINE stated that one of the important controls ex-
ercised by the City was setbacks of the buildings a
specified number of feet from lot lines.
Mrs. Anne Robertson, president of Oakde11 Homeowners'
Association, said she had talked with many people and was
very familiar with the sentiments in the neighborhood.
On the issue of density, zoning from 10,000 sq. ft. to
7,500 sq. ft. would be a difference of two or three homes.
She felt the difference would be four homes. A poll of
the neighborhood showed 92% of the responders (repre-
senting 102 families) very strongly felt that the four
homes mattered to them. Mrs. Robertson referred to a
letter previously submitted to the Planning Commission re-
garding retention of the Parkway style of strips for the
new streets; and she asked that the City continue and
extend the style into the new area. She said it was felt
that the request was ~easonable in order to maintain and
enhance the attractiveness of the community. The problem
of damage from tree roots buckling curbs and sidewalks
could be controlled by low-growing, slow-growing plantings.
She asked that the developer work with the community on
that problem. She asked that the community be consulted
on frontage land on Stevens Creek Boulevard to tie into
the e~thetics of the entryway to the area.
CHR. GATTO told Mr. Woolworth that the matter before them
was a zoning matter. Since a fourth member of the
Planning Commission was not available, he asked Mr.
Woolworth if he wished to speak to continuing the matter
or if he wished for a decision.
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGU~AR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 9
COM. CLAUDY'S understand~ng. he sa~d. was that the tank
house had no tank and was a collection of sheds that needed
to be gotten rid of. The purpose to make the tank house
into a tank house and preserve it was laudable. For the
residents of Oakdell, he said that it was a fact that Oak-
dell was no longer a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot zone, but
was actually a 7,500, sq. ft. lot zone -- an average of
3.6%. The zoning in the area, he advised, had been -inherite
from the County and was not something that the City of Cuper
tino had sponsored. He verbally calculated the impact of
20 houses with average lot size of 9,292 sq. ft.; Having
looked at the sight1ine and the line crossing Phar Lap,
going into the property, he felt there-was only a 10-12 ft.
rise (not as steep as had been indicated earlier).
Of course, he agreed, the houses on Phar Lap certainly neede
limitations on structures to the rear of them, as did the
other homes adjoining the new development. As for swimming
pools, he said that was something over which ~hey-had no
control. Since Oakleaf Place was clearly designed and des-
tined for extension, he felt it should be extended but with-
out an extension going through to Stevens Creek Boulevard
and creating traffic problems. The computed increase in
traffic was not out of line for residential streets. As for
the children playing in the streets.
-
Streets were not built to double as playgrounds. He felt
the long term safety aspects called for a cul-de-sac with
traffic exiting the area at Phar Lap Drive.
COM. BLAINE said she was rather surprised that residents
were asking for another through street. Usually it goes the
other way. She felt they would be installing a very danger-
out intersection; therefore, she backed the cul-de-sac. The
additional access would permit strangers to turn into the
neighborhood for cutting through and it would generate more
traffic than had been expected. As for the tank house,
although she was pleas~that an historical monument was
being preserved (even in its changed state), she felt it
needed fixing up and then it should be used as an accessory
building rather than a rental unit. She recommended removin
the sheds from the tank house and then moving the tank house
onto one of the larger lots -- as far as possible from ad-
joining lots. She inquired as to ~hy Lot #15 had been
selected and noted the large number of trees that would have
to be sacrificed. Complimenting the mix of lot sizes, she
said she· felt the zoning proposed did maintain the character
of the neighborhood which she did not consider to be rural
at all. As for the zoning, Com. Blaine wished to go to
Planned Development with a density around 7.5 because the City would have
overall more control of the development -- placement of houses, height of
houses.
PC-328
Page 10
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. GATTO asked City Attorney Kilian what restrictions
could be placed on height limitations with Rl-10 and
Rl-7.5.
City Attorney Kilian advised that there was not presently
an ordinance to place restrictions; however, he advised
that the City had the right, through process, to establish
limitations. He said the City was working with certain
situations, with respect to new zoning and height limi-
tations, which might be adopted by the City Council (being
in the First Reading) and if that became effective it
would be possible to regulate with respect to height
limitations in Rl-7.5 zones.
COM. GATTO inquired of the City Attorney as to whether
the city would control what happened to the tank house
after it was moved to an appropriate site, and was being
used as an accessory building within a zoning district.
In other words, would the city or the owner control the
building.
City Attorney Kilian stated that if the tank house was
in private ownership it could be maintained with
Building Permit control for remodeling, which would
provide some ability to control. Absent that consid-
eration, he said the City would not be able to control
the use.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that he had
asked Staff to investigate a deed restriction imposed on
the tank house and site to guarantee preservation.
City Attorney Kilian stated that he felt there was no
provision in the Subdivision Map Act that would allow
for conditions on historical preservation on deed re-
strictions. He felt that ~ Planned Development with
Condition to a Use Permit would be more appropriate.
He noted that they were talking about use of buildings
rather than use of lands.
CHR. GATTO said he felt that basically the City would
lose ability to maintain an historical building.
City Attorney Kilian recommended the possibility of a
deed restriction binding on the City and the property
owner. as well -- the City enforcing the deed restriction.
It would need to be a very detailed regulation. It had
not been tested in court, to his knowledge; but absent
the deed restriction on the building/property, it would
be very difficult to enforce once the property was in
private ownership.
CHR. GATTO asked if Planned Development restrictions
MINUTES MÅRC~ 10, 19QO RECUtÄR PtÄNNINC COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 11
could be placed on the developer in terms of maintaining a
property of historical significance.
City Attorney Kilian maintained the developer would cease to
own the property after subdivision and selling. A deed re-
striction could prohibit tearing down of the structure, but
it would be hard to put in affirmative obligation via a
deed restriction -- very difficult. A property owner could
not do anything detrimental, but if the structure were de-
1apidated it would be very difficult for the City to enforce
provisions. .
CRR. GATTO asked a question about maintenaJ;lce.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that the City would
not be directly involved in the maintenance. They were
talking about Planned Development being the best way. If it
becomes an accessory building, then they would be asked --
the purchaser would be asked -- to have the structure main-
tained out-of-pocket, without any benefit, and the purchaser
would know that going into the purchase of the property.
COM. BLAINE asked if the City could not regulate to some
extent.
City Attorney Kilian responded that he wÅs thinking m terms
of the property owner allowing the historical monument to be
come de1apidated. The City could establish the right to do
the work. But, he said he was not familiar with an ordinanc
to allow that to be done. Certainly the City could keep the
owner from tearing the building down, keep him from doing
negative things, but it was hard to imagine the City putting
a negative burden, absent the City entering the premises and
charging the property owner back for repairs and upkeep. He
said it would be a very unusual type of ordinance.
COM. CLAUDY said it seemed to him to be analogous to land-
scaping, where landscaping was required to be installed,
and the City was not to do anything to maintain it but --
CHR. GATTO brought up the question of density and traffic.
He said he felt the right turn in and out movement came abou
as a result of attempting to find some way to move the
traffic from the existing neighborhood. Looking at the
proper~y, he said it was level on the easterly side and
dropped off to existing homes. Comparing the homes in the
westerly direction, he mted that there was unlimited space
behind them. Taking the nature of the property and applying
a straight zoning of 7.5 (or even at R1-10) considering the
uniqueness of the topography, an attempt should be made to
see how the various sizes of houses could be arranged. He
saw the major problem as being the number of homes generatin
traffic and the tr~ffic finding a way out of the area. The
right turn in and out, in years to come, he predicted,
would be a mistake. He recommended reducing the problem by
reducing the density. And, he suggested that the City look
PC-328
Page 12
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
severely at the tank house. If the City wished to retain
and maintain, he said the City should put some money in
and be willing to do something -- purchasing it and/or
moving it.
COM. CLAUDY figured that even at 10,000 sq. ft. they'd
still have 18 or 19 units.
COM. GATTO called attention to a slope starting at the
foothills and felt that the sloped area gave a much
different category. He said that the bank that comes down
Stevens Creek, and the drop off on the Phar Lap side were
conditions that had to be looked at.
COM. CLAUDY reminded the Commissioners of some houses on
Phar Lap Drive, up higher, that were on steep slopes.
COM. GATTO felt that basically they were along the street
and tucked in behind existing developments.
COM. BLAINE said they seemed to have reached consensus
as far as Planned Development Zoning was concerned, but
they needed to have direction for the zoning to take
place. Condition #16, for instance, spoke about --
COM. CLAUDY wondered about the wisdom or continuing to
Ispend time in the absence of being able to decide on
Planned Development without a Use Permit and more specific
information about the tank house.
r. Woolworth came to the podium to remind them that he
as already delayed 90 days and that unless they made a
ecision he would be back to square one and zero. He re-
inded them that the tank house, by City Council decision,
as to be placed where it was shown on the map on the
board because it was visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard.
e said the Council felt it was a place where it could be
seen without creating more traffic through the neighbor-
ood. The suggestion10r using the tank house was not
is idea. As for the trees, he said they were old pepper
trees that would have to be removed. Mr. Woolworth said
e'd be willing to continue the matter over to Wednesday,
arch 12, 1979; but aside from that he wished a decision.
COM. CLAUDY pointed out that with a 2-1 vote it would be
enied.
ssistant Planning Director Cowan asked Chr. Gatto to
omment on the kinds of things he'd like to see.
CHR. GATTO replied that he'd like resolution from the
City Council, or a definition on their part, as to how
MINUTES MARCR 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 13
they plan to maintain the tank house in private ownership.
Or, as an alternative, he asked that they commit the City to
doing something about it. He'd like to have a clear under-
standing of what was going to happen to Stevens Creek fron-
tage and how it was going to be treated. Height control a-
long the houses along Phar Lap had to be addressed. The
topography of the land and what it could carry should be
addressed. The numbers projected for traffic going back
into the neighborhood, with an increase in units, should be
reviewed to split the difference. Concern had. to be taken
for character of the neighborhood. He said there was a poin
where 5 or 10 cars may not make a difference, but 100 cars
would make a difference.
COM. BLAINE said it should be in keeping with the neighbor-
hood character and density of the rest of the development.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked if they wanted to
limit the development to single story.
COM. BLAINE said single story behind existing homes on Phar Lap
Drive and Oakùell Place would eliminate a great many problems.
COM. CLAUDY agreed to single story but suggested a variety 0
housing of essentially one-story style with differnt roof
arrangements designed to provide privacy, and could even
allow for additional space under the roof. He said he was
talking about no windows -- a shallow shed roof with a
frontage of two stories. He was against a new access to
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Mrs. Robin KwonR. 2158 Oakdell Place, Cupertino, asked for
height limitations along Phar Lap Drive and along the rear
of Oakde11 Place property.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy
PASSED: (Com. Koenitzer abstained from ùellberations on Item ill) 3-0
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Blaine, Continue Item #1, 24-Z-79 and 27-TM-79
to the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 198
Com. Claudy
MOTION:
3-0
City Attorney Kilian advised that in order for Commissioner
Adams to vote on the matter at the April 14, 1979 meeting,
it wou1d be manditory that he read the transcript of the
present meeting.
The members of the Planning Commission discussed the length
of the meeting and decided to conclude the meeting with
Item #5 of the Agenda. Items 6 th~ough 9 were continued to
the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 24, 1980
COMMI S S IONER CLAUDY, -due--EoÚlnes-s~C'ÒM:--CiAUDY excused himself
._-. ..----- - -- ---.-.-.- -_.- ----_.__.~
from the meeting.
-_.~- ---
PC- 328
Page 14
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM U2, Application 6-U-73 of VALLCO PARK, LTD.: AMENDMENT
OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT to amend Condition 30 per-
taining to truck barricades along the westerly portion of
the Va1lco Fashion Park site and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The
project was previously asses~ed hence no action is required.
First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing
date - March 17, 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the decision of
the October 22, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, which
enabled Va1lco to institute a four-month trial period to
test a signing program to prohibit truck traffic. This ~as
relative to Condition U30, which required barricades for
controlling truck traffic.
Mr. Walter Ward, business manager of Va1lco Park, asked
that the wording of Conditions #30 be changed to read,
"in lieu of barricades, signs shall be posted and
utilized." He felt that would eliminate and clarify the
lack of the barricades and the use of the signs.
Mr. Robert Fair, 10226 Tennyson Avenue, Cupertino, resi-
dent bordering against the roadway being used by trucks,
presented a multi-paged tabulated record of incidents
of truck use of the raod. The calendar-like tabulations
noted times, number of violations, and license numbers of
some vehicles.
Mr. Walter Ward said he was not aware of the problem
and, in addition to offering to track down license numbers,
he also volunteered to mount a hard effort to patrol the
area, give warnings, and issue citations through the
Sheriff's office.
CHR. GATTO asked if a member of Staff had gone out to mon-
itor the situation and determine the success or failure of
the signing system.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that shortage of
staff and the expensive use of time lapse equipment for
proper monitoring had prevented monitoring.
The members of the Planning Commission agreed that Va1lco
should be more aware of the value of monitoring the problem,
and that trucks using the road early on Sunday morning
(6:0Q p.m.) should be discouraged. It was also agreed that
the complaint number to Vallco (open 24 hours a day) should
be posted (255-5660) so that residents could call the office.
COM. BLAINE said that if there was a continuing problem and
Va11co was not enforcing restrictions of~the Use Permit
Condition U30, that the matter should be opened up for re-
view at the appropriate time.
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 15
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Koen~tzer, Approva1 of Amendment of Use
Permit 6-U-73, Condition #30, to read,
"Commercial vehicles exceeding three tons shall
be prohibited." As noted on Figure #1 of this
Resolution, "in lieu of barricades, signs shall
be posted announcing this position." Further,
if applicant decides to exempt this portion of the
road ftomtraffic ertfbrcement by the Sheriff's
jurisdiction, then barricades may again be re-
quired. N.B. that Figure HI modified reflects
that truck access to Bullocks' loading dock is
permitted.
Com. Blaine
Commissioners Blaine, Koenitzer, Gatto 3-0
Absent: Commissioners Adams and Claudy
ITEM #3, Application 9-TM-78 (Revised) of LAMBERT, NEWMAN
AND DOUGLAS (c/o RICHARD CHILDRESS): Approval of modifi-
cation of Condition #30 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1840. Said condition relates to building height re-
strictions on certain lots within an approved subdivision
located at the westerly terminus of Lindy Land and ENVIRON-
MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recom-
mends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearin
continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - March 17,
1980
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the issue
involved lots 09, #11, 012, & 013 -- limited to single-
story structures to minimize the silhouetting of the struc-
tures on the ridge as viewed from the valley floor. He
pointed out that Condition #30 in the subdivision was
approved in connection with the hillside zone, where there
was a mechanism to control heights of buildings under the
hillside. A building limited to single story, as per the
original existing condition of approval, technically could
overhant a ridge top.
COM. BLAINE questioned the 20 ft. high one-story height.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that was not un-
usual depending on the pitch of the roof. A major concern
was how much roof stuck up over the ridge; the one Etory
did limit the height. He noted that the RHS (sic) (Hill-
side Residential Zoning District) dictated the height limit
Mr. Richárd Chi¡dress; 32025 Regnart Road, Cupertino, repre
senting the applicant, pointed out that the concern was not
for going up but for going down. He said they precipi-
tated the question of a house design that had a daylight
basement. He asked if the ßpace underneath was considered
a second story. There was no question of going up higher
on the ridge, but they did wish to come in under the house
with a floor level and still maintain the 20 ft. He said
PC-328
Page 16
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
they could do a compact, one-step-down-the-hill house and
make it a better house.
Mrs. Jo Ann Gholson, 22125 Regnart Road, Cupertino, said her
major concern was that houses had been put in up and down
the hills; and, she stated that 8 to 10 years previously,
it had been decided that houses were not to go on fue ridges.
Mentioning several examples of development she objected to,
she concluded by stating that she was not sure but that
they would be building on stilts hidden within basements.
In addition, she advised discretion for people moving into
the hills -- especially during the rainy seasons.
The Commissioners discussed the application request to de-
termine that they understood what was being sought.
Second:
PASSED:
Absent:
Com. Blaine, Recommend approval of Negative
Declaration.
Com. Koenitzer
MOTION:
3-0
Commissioners Adams and C1audy
MOTION:
Com. Blaine, Recommend Approval of Mofidications
of Condition #30, 9-TM-78 as per Staff Report.
Com. 'Koenitzer
econd:
ASSED:
bsent:
3-0
Commissioners Adams and C1audy
ITEM #4, Applications 5-Z-80 and l-U-80 of SAN JOSE TYPE-
WRITER COMPANY, INC.: REZONING approximately .3 of an acre f
from CG (General Commercial) to P (Planned Development with
General Commercial intent) zone or whatever zone may be
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT
to construct a 3,400 sq. ft. commercial building. Said
property is located on the southeast corner of Orange
Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the
granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing.
Tentative City Council hearing date - April 7, 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the Staff
was recommending that the Use Permit phase of the appli-
cation be continued for one month to allow the applicant
time·to precisely locate the centerline of Stevens Creek
Boulevard to thereby accommodate a bus turnout. The Use
Permit was contingent on the bus turnout being made less
tight. And, too, the General Plan for Old Monta Vista
would not be influenced.
Mr. David Smith, Association of Design Professionals, for
the applicant, offerred to answer questions.
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 RE~ULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 17
Mr. Wes Williams, 10067 Byrne Avenue, Cupertino, felt it
was time to look at the Stevens Creek Bonlevard planline
study and identify areas where street modifications would
be necessary. Overall, having reviewed the plans, the
building and the character of the project appealed to him
as being a continuation of the Monta Vista business dis-
trict.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained the purpose of
the planline as being to make sure there was adequate road-
way for four lanes; and he said that this was one of the
few cases where there would be abandonment with accrual of
the abandoned land to the owner. Knowing that they had
enough space, he said they had let the line go. However,
adjustment had become necessary through the present appli-
cation and property on sections of the p1an1ine going up
to the crest of the hill on the west side. The whole plan-
line was expected to be finished within a couple of weeks.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:
PASSED: '"
Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Koenitze
3-0
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Koenitzer, Reconunend approval of Negative
Declaration.
Com. Blaine
'" 3-0
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Koenitzer, Approval for 5-Z-80,
Conditions #1 through #14; #15 & #16
Staff Memo dated March 5, 1980.
Com. Blaine
'"
Standard
as per
MOTION:
3-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS REOPENED: Com. Blaine.
PASSED: '"
Second: Com. Koenitzer
3-0
Second:
PASSED:
Com. Koenitzer, to Continue Item #4, 1-U-80
over to the first meeting in April.
Com. Blaine
'" 3-0
MOTION:
'" (For each of the foregoing motions and votes
on Item #4, ABSENT from the meeting:
Commissioners Adams and C1audy.)
A member of the audience suggested that Item #5 be contin-
ued to the Agenda of March 24, 1980. CHR. GATTO advised
that although the hour was late, since they had indicated
they'd attempt to complete Item #5, they would go forward
with the meeting with that intent.
ITEM #5, Applications 8-Z-80 and 2-U-80 of PARK PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT: REZONING approximately 5.3 gross acres from
CG (General Commercial) to P (Planned Developmept with
PC-328
Page 18
,
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Associate Planner Piasecki described the exhibits on the
board and called attention to the major aspects of the
changes in plans from previously submitted plans. He
noted that 102 units were located in fourteen buildings
spread around a water course motif on 5.3 acres with a
density of 19.25 units/acre. The density of the subject
property was felt to be consistent with properties in the
city and with the General Plan (a review of the General
Plan being in progress). The 19.25 units/acre represented
slightly less than the minimum permitted by the General
Plan. Functional, technical, and esthetic aspects of the
development were reviewed. And, it was stated that the
developer expected to attract "empty-nester" households
and young families. Nearby parks were pointed out --
Wilson Park and Portal Park being within 500 f~ and
1,000 ft. away, respectively). Privacy for surrounding
residential areas was provided through buildings being
oriented toward the water course, buildin~ of two-
story héight, two bui1din~of two and a' hå1f-story
height with underground parking (raising the pad 4 ft.
and the height of the roof to 37 ft.. All units were
noted to be 60 ft. away from the southerly property line
with carports around the outside perimeter of the project.
Privacy of buildings (40-50 ft. or 60-70 ft. setbacks).
The project was characterized as an ideal cluster-type
development that represented an opportunity for the City
to bring in housing at an affordable price. Landscape
for access of emergency vehicles was discussed and the
applicant indicated his intention to work with the fire
department to accomplish adequate access and turning
space.
Units were described as having 235 parking spaces -- 44
at 20% for compact size cars to be spread throughout the
available parking; or 2.3 parking spaces/dwelling.
Although the City had asked for 2.5 parking spaces, the
requirement was varied because 30% of the units were one
bedroom, small and surrounded by a public street that
would not impact adj~ning neighborhoods. Although this
finding was tenuous, the Staff suggested 2 parking spaces
for one bedroom units (215 spaces) and 247 parking spaces
(12 spaces above and beyond the plans exhibited. Extra
spaces could actually be provided by by elevating one of
the buildings sufficiently to acquire 16 spaces and a drive-
way ~long the easterly side of the access could provide
5 to 6 spaces.
As for noise, the applicant provided a noise review
analyzing the impact of traffic noise on Stevens Creek and
surrounding the buildings. The interior noise control
could be attained through materials, ventilation and
configurations of the driveway system (car door slamming
and engine starting would be low with respect to the
ambiant level of traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard. A
wall was recommended to replace the wood fence along the
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 19
southerly border of the property, and posting of signs was
suggested to prevent loitering or prolonged car repair
work. The conditions on noise, in the report, was said
to be soft; and Associate Planner Piasecki suggested the
Commissioners might wish to tighten up on the regulations.
Conditions for solar heating accouterments were provided
except for one unit, which being overshadowed by another
unit, would be serviced by piping water from an auxiliary
system located atop the taller building. A1~ buildings
had southern exposure of roof sections and western facing
shed roof elements.
The last aspect of the Staff review was that of the 102
units, 10 units would accrue to the City as BMR units.
And, appended to the statements of the review was the
assurance that the project was calculated to be 1 in 3
trips which complied with the General Plan goals.
COM. KOENITZER asked if Staff had made provision for the
distribution of the BMR units and the mix of the units.
Associate Planner Piasecki stated that it was based on the
proportion of the mix and was not something the Planning
Commission was involved in deciding.
Mr. Jason Chartier, 21060 Homestead Road, Cupertino,
applicant, explained that after talking with staff and
dealing with the fire department, it had been decided to
eliminate one 2~-story building. Therefore, instead of
six large units, there would be an increase in one bedroom
units, and that that would give 22 of the smaller units
with parking on grade. By more rearranging they could pick
up five more spaces and add parking on both sides of the
road going into the project. The total of units would be
22 one-bedroom and 78 two-bedroom units with the required
number of parking spaces.
COM. KOENITZER noted that they were talking about families
with small children, and he said he was apprehensive about
the water in the landscaping. He asked if fencing would
surround and separate the water courses.
Mr. Jason Chartier said there was a depth restriction on
the water strips and that each patio would have a low
rai1iñg around it to prevent access to the area. The
building inspectors had indicated a depth of 16-18 inches
was needed to require fencing. The proposed plan was com-
pared to the Biltmore water project.
COM. BLAINE stated that small children could drown in such
water depth. As for extending carports, she said it was
felt that if the area was used for guest parking it would
generate less activity noise. She wished to know if the
spaces were assigned to units.
PC-328
Page 20
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Jason Chartier noted that 24 gallon landscaping would
be in place. As for plantings behind the carport, along
the property line, he felt there would be a problem with
maintaining the plantings because of difficulty in getting
behind the carports.
CHR. GATTO called attention to a difference of labeling
between one bedroom units and studio units. Mr. Chartier
explained that, depending on the floor plan, the units
could be arranged to be either. He also said. he was not
considering any restrictions of adult only in the project
or assignment of units.
COM. BLAINE asked if there were any restrictioĊand was
told that there were none.
Mr. Jim Jo , 19811 Price Street, Cupertino, a cmre-area
resident, addressed some specific questions and recom-
mendations for the conditions that would be placed on the
development. 1. He did not understand that there would be
restrictions on any age group, and asked that it be con-
sidered in terms of any kinds of restrictions because of
the City acquiring BMR units within the development.
2. In terms of monthly fees required of homeowners in
the development, he suggested that the conditions set for
approval should be very strict in directing that the de-
eloper should be committed to making monthly payments on
any units not haveing gone through close of escrow. It
should be required that the developer would perform until
all units are completely turned over to owners through
escrow. 3. Mr. Joy said he felt this was particularly im-
portant in taking people of lower income and placing them
in with people of much higher income. The BMR program of
upertino reflecting 25% of income not to be exceeded for
ousing expense, he said he thought to qualify it was
inevitable that the ten families would have less real
ollars left from their incomes to meet unexpected ex-
enses than the average owner of the project. Therefore,
ny requirement to fo~e them to make up any deficits in
he homeowner association, because the units had not been
10sed, should be the responsibility of the developer before
nd after he finished the project.
HR. GATTO inquired of the City Attorney as to what capacity
he City had to impose such a requirement.
ity Attorney Kilian responded that the City reviews all
.C & R's (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), which
re not prepared with that particular concern, but are
repared with respect to planning. He said it was the nor-
a1 practice that the developer continue to pay until the
ouses or units were sold. In other words, until sold
hey were still under ownership of the developer.
r. Jason Chartier stated that the Department of Real Estate
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGVLAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 21
and a bond was required to be
assessments for the project.
dition would not be unusual.
posted by the developer for
He said that kind of con-
City Attorney Kilian said that he presumed that with re-
spect to all those units, the developer would pick up the
obligation and that condition to that effect would be re-
dundant. He stated that one couldn't close until the condo
miniums were closed in any event.
CHR. GATTO asked if the owner was relieved of the respon-
sibility after the point of closure.
Mr. Jason Chartier stated that the owner was never relieved
either developer or individual. The units would be subject
to lien and foreclosure by the C.C. & R's.
Mr. Jim JOY's next point related to rules of the homeowner
association. He asked that the rules and regulations be
presented to the Planning Commissio~ for review by a Staff
member administering the BMR units, in order to assure that
the rules and regulations specifically addressed and com-
plied with the established standards.
City Attorney Kilian advised Mr. Joy that specific C.C. &
R's were filed with BMR's. He said they involved volum-
inous attempts to deal with all provisions relating to
BMR units; and, he added, those points were in addition to
the regular C.C. & R's.
Mr. Jim Joy asked if the homeowner association set up by
the May Investment Company would be represented to the City
during the procedure.
City Attorney Kilian advised that they are printed in two
sets of C.C. & R's, and those drafted by the City apply to
all BMR owners with respect to the normal C.C~ & R's. They
were handled routinely by the City Attorney but it was up t
the Council to make certain that the C.C. & R's were in
compliance with the conditions and were consistent with
those conditions. It was stated that copies of all documen s
were available to all parties.
Mr. Jim Joy asked about the gate off Portal Avenue, which
was described, by Mr. Piasecki, as a closed driveway with
raised curb. The height of the buildings were reviewed at
his request because he compared the buildings to the Novem-
ber plans for 20-35 units/acre. By virtue of eliminating
some units there was reduction in total units. He asked
about the 10ft windows tucked in under the peak of the
roof, or essentially a loft-type bedroom on a third floor.
Mr. Joy said he felt there was a tremendous improvement
and he appreciated the recessing of the third story to re--
duce privacy invasion. He felt the City was learning what
it meant to look at 5-10, 10-20, 20-35 unit/acres develop-
PC-328
Page 22
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
menta. The point was then made that ~f carports were in-
stalled it would mean they would have to forego adequate
tree plantings. He didn't have an answer to that, he
claimed. But, he said that he was ready to buy the carports
along the southerly fence. He could appreciate the devel-
opers opinion that they would increase the amount of the
parking. However he'd like to see the fence raised along
the southerly boundry. Also, the carport roofs, whether
pitched or flat, he felt should have some sound absorbent
material to help reduce automobile noise emanating from
under the carports. He felt the carports on the westerly
side could be moved to the fence, particularly carports
at unit #6.
Mr. Jim Joy referred to the Procedural Manual for the City
of Cupertino Below Market Rate Housing Program. A general
discussion ensued between Mr. Joy, Staff members, Commission
members, and Mr. Chartier as to what was being considered
in the sale of BMR units. Developers obligation, respon-
sibility of sa1e-price-setting agency, inspection, quality
of equipment (manual referred to "spartan" fittings), the
possibility of switches or changes between the time the
final map is recorded, during the lag time prior to approval
and recordation, were subjects discussed and explained in
some detail. From page 2 of the manual, density was dis-
cussed along with the land-use limit of the General Plan.
The assumption was made that the developer, upon finding
it was impossible to comply with a 10-20 unit (or what-
ever) density, could go back to ask for increased density.
Mr. Joy stated that he'd like to agree that the distri-
bution of City BMR units would be specified in the con-
ditions for the development. He'd like to agree that they
were talking about a total of 18.87 units/acre and that the
developer was clear in his mind that he would not need a
density bonus of 20% over the unit yield. As for the
quality of equipment, and the elimination of luxury equip-
ment in the BMR units, he felt the equipment should be a
part of the conditions set forth. The size of the units
should be determined ~o be identical to all other units in
the development. Mr. Joy stated that he felt the BMR units
should be specifically addressed in the conditions for
approval and that distribution should be set and clear.
CHR. GATTO stated that the number of units and the size of
the units was delineated.
Mr. Jason Chartier told Mr. Joy that the project would be
made up of 1/2 the total being 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom units.
Mr. Joy said he wished to make it very clear that he ob-
jected to the BMR units being grouped together. He wished
to be certain that they were to be scattered throughout
the development. He then asked about the 1.6 negative trips
alluded to in the manual.
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 23
CHR. GATTO described the mathematical formula for 16 trip/
acre; or, the acerage multiplied by 16 giving the allow-
able number of trips. There is then an assignment of X
number of trips/dwelling unit.
Mr. Joy asked about the real impact of 100 units on the
traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
City Engineer Whitten advised that the City had dropped
design level to all the intersections to "D" instead of
"B", and the line of traffic from the develop~ent probably
wouldn't be noticed and anticipated to bring any
appreciable traffic through Portal-Price Avenues. The trip
constraints indicated there would be 75 trips during the
5-7 PM period.
Mr. Joy asked about funds to underwrite land or inside im-
pro.vements.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said that HUD and the
County had changed the ground rules on the use of block
grant funds and that there was more control at the County
level. HUD, he said, was also concerned about the ability
of the City to control the priority of the buyer. Funds
used within the community might be used for discrimination.
He doubted that HCDA could be gotten, but they'd like to
explore the possibility even though the picture was bleak.
Mr. Joy said he felt it should be stated up front that they
were working with a developer that wanted to get approved;
and, he was surprised, but he'd found that fees were being
waived.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan responded that HCFA was
for working with the developer over a certain percentage.
He said it was agreed that fees increased and that that
could be $2 thousand in terms of units on which the City
would waive -- a theoretical loss of revenue for those
units.
Mr. Maurice O'Shea, 20367 Clay Street, Cupertino, reminded
the assembly that this was their fourth meeting. After in-
vesting all the energy to attend the meetings, he felt they
had accomplished very little. He recalled that at the last
meeting, in the closing moments, they had thought 15 units/
acre"net was the goal to be looked at. Reviewing the re-
cordings would clarify the matter. Now, this evening, he
said they were talking about 21.3 units (less with the
elimination of some units); talking about parking; fire-
equipment department requirements; two-story plus building
He said that the real thing that had to be looked at was
the units/acre times the number of acres, times the number
of parking places/unit. The parking spaces was the bar-
ometer. And the fact that the fire department couldn't ge
the truck around was another indication of problems.
PC-328
Page 24
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Basical1y~ he said. it came down to the density being still
too high -- not by 10%, but by 30%. He recommended getting
down to two stories about ground level and lower than 30 ft..
He stated that they did not want density in the central
area. Although he felt the builder had done a beautiful
job of cleaning up the project and keeping the density down,
he had failed to get to the concerns of the center of the
town. He said, "We don't want density:"
Mrs. Joan Johnson, 19831 Price Avenue, Cupertino, reminded
the Commissioners that in November a petition with 2,000
signatures in opposition to the high density and high rise
had been turned over to the Commissioners. She said it
was recommended that the property be made commercial with
light usage services -- banks, insurance company offices,
savings and loans. Mr. O'Shea's recommendation of 12
units/acre, two stories without underground parking re-
flected the sentiment of the citizens on the housing issue.
As for traffic, the very significant 104 trips a day from
the project would create congestion on Stevens Creek. She
asserted that the City Council had asked for 12 units/acre.
Mr. Paul Hardman, 10223 Parish Place, Cupertino, said he
was there to talk about the legacy the builder left behind.
In another development litigation had been in progress
for some years. To avoid such contingency in other devel-
opments, he said he'd like to make sure that the C.C. & R's.
were spelled Ont as to contribution of the builder to the
homeowner association, the time table in which those are
made, the guarantees on equipment. He felt the Planning
Commission and the City Council should consider the track
record of developer before approving a project. Documen-
tation of how various obligations are to be dispensed with
should be written out in order to avoid litigation in the
future.
Mr. Richard Tomm1v, 10203 Parish Place, Cupertino, said he
wished to state that he agreed with Hardman. After many
years, he said he fin~lly owned his first home; but he
said that because of problems he wished never to be a mem-
ber of a homeowner association again. He recommended that
if the City had any way by which it could help in pre-
venting similar problems, the City would be contributing
to domestic and community harmony by invoking their clout.
Mr~ L~iese Wilke, 10189 Parish Place, Cupertino, said she
lived in a development Mr. Chartier built and she shared
some of the problems they had had.
Mrs. Jo Ann Gholson, 22125 Regnart Road, Cupertino was con-
cerned about what would happen to the BMR units twenty
years down the road. She asked what happened to the people
in the BMR units who could not supply the needs commensurate
with neighbors. What happens to deficits.
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 25
Assistant Planning Director Cowan outlined the procedure
for qualifying applicants for the units -- initial costs
and long-terms costs associated with occupancy. He said
that people buying into the condominiums might have higher
equity built up, but the incomes could be comparable to
those in BMR units.
COM. BLAINE said she was concerned about some of the points
just raised, and she asked the city attorney if there were
conditions that could be imposed for control of such situ-
ations.
City Attorney Kilian advised that when the C.C. & R's.
got to his office he reviewed the conditions placed by the
City. He said he did not look for area of litigation that
might develop. If the City wished that type of review or
analysis, then they ought to change procedures for the
review. If more conditions were to be placed on the proper y
owners or developers, (the latter being required to post
bond to guarantee completion of the work) then those con-
ditions should go in.
COM. BLAINE said that there was a need to know what had
been happening in various complexes -- situations that the
City should be aware of that possibly should be conditioned
CHR. GATTO reminded them that earlier they had been told th t
the developer was responsible for paying. He allowed that
evidently the developer didn't pay all charges.
Mr. Jason Chartier stated that it was in litigation. In
all of the factors under discussion, the DRE (Real Estate
Board) did cover them.
City Attorney Kilian said he was not rendering a decision
or an opinion. He said he didn't know for a fact that that
was correct.
CHR. GATTO asked City Attorney Kilian to review the issue.
COM. BLAINE said she thought this was a good example of
what happens when parking is put at street level rather
than under buildings. When parking goes under buildings,
it means three stories, which she knew caused other
problems. She wondered if perhaps some of the density
wou1a be lessened, or the feeling of density would be
lessened, if the water was eliminated and green open space
was incorporated to be used and walked upon. She admonishe
that the development was within the density of the rezoning
on the parcel, and that was within the zoning of the Genera
Plan Amendments. She said they are supposed to be two
story. The feeling seemed to be that by lowering the
buildings there would be less density. As for noise, she
felt the carports would help alleviate some noise. The
carports coming down th~ fence, as was recommended by the
PC-328
Page 26
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 RECULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Staff, should be treated in a manner that whatever was re-
quired to prevent noise of engines along the back of the
houses should be implemented. If that meant raising the
height of the fence, or bringing the side of the carport
down, it needed to be done. A solid wall probably would
be the best solution in her estimation. Housing was needed.
And housing of this type was particularly needed. She felt
there would not be a lot of children in the development --
especially with the water. By pulling the carports around,
she felt privacy impacts would be eliminated. She wondered
about the acequacy of the parking.
COM. KOENITZER said that Com. Blaine had expressed his
sentiments about the water. As for overall density, he
said he didn't really know what the Council was looking for.
He recalled that an approved commercial zone had been turned
down. They had approved 20-35 units/acre and had turned it
down with only 27 units/acre. He said he was not going to
predict what they were going to do. He noted that the
General Plan objective was to increase the housing stock on
the valley floor. The design looked acceptable to him in
terms of height (25-30 ft.) and two-story buildings. He
recommended sending it on to the City Council and seeing
whether or not they wanted it.
CHR. GATTO said he was having trouble with what's been
happening during the last three or four months with the
hearings on the General Plan. The General Plan being the
document that provided direction for the City was just
not being supported by the people. Dicisions and directions
had been made for the General Plan (for Cupertino), either
through community input or without enough recognition of
community input. Or, he said it had been done hastily to
solve problems. Each time, in trying to review applications,
it was almost on a reaction without some signs of consensus.
He would like to feel that information contained in the
General Plan was supported by the community. The concern
for what it meant and what it would do for them came up and
there was lack of support. The jobs-housing question was
a serious one. That issue was not fully understood, and he
said there needed to be a new perspective and revelation
to the community so the community could agree that they
were participating. Although these kinds of discussions
were fruitful, he said the basic direction for the General
Plan should have derived from community input and support.
The instant reaction of "What's happening next door and
what's it mean to me?" should not be a standard reaction
when these types of developments came up. He knew, he said,
that Cupertino was a two-story, fairly low density city.
Unless the community can think otherwise, he said he felt
that they had a problem. He'd like to go for more housing.
But, he'd not heard that the community would like to go for
more housing. It continued to bother him to come in and
find no agreement between what the city proposed and what
the community viewed as what should be proposed. That, in
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
his opinion, was not good or healthy. Although he didn't
know what they should do, he did know that there would have
to be consensus on the part of the community and the City
as to where they were going. As for the present proposed
development, he noted that the coverage, the size of the
units helped -- a lot of small units -- the plan relieved
impacts; and, although he felt it was satisfactory, it was
evident that the community did not feel so. Numbers is a
funny game to play on units/acre. There had to be directio
and he felt the community did not believe that there was a
job-housing imbalance requiring the City to increase the
density to overcome the problem. Until a consensus was
gotten, he said they were accomplishißg exactly nothing.
The General Plan indicated that surely density could be
raised. The other side of the coin was that the public
didn't want the density on the o~her side of their fences.
He commented that it would have been nice to have realized
the situation two years previously. Under the circum-
stances he recommended that he'd like to hold off action
until they could get overall direction from the City
Council -- some kind of a document that at least had enough
public input that the citizens would support it.
COM. BLAINE reminded the Commissioners that City Council ha
approved the General Plan at 20-35 units/acre. She reminde
them that each application was judged on its own merit --
the way it is and how it relates to the General Plan along
with whatever other standards applied. The evidence was
that the other plan was turned down because City Council
didn't like a lot of things about it. Now, with this plan,
based on the General Plan and on the Planning Commission's
feeling about it, a decision should be made. She said,
"Send it on." They may not like it.
CHR. GATTO said he felt the trouble with sending it on was
that the General Plan was a document that didn't have the
validity to weight the project.
COM. BLAINE asserted that the project could not be turned
down because they didn't feel they were getting direction
from the General Plan. She said they had to act on it and
send it on to the City Council.
Mrs. Mary Hall, 10050 Wolfe Road, Cupertino recommended
that time taken to understand the various density figures
and impacts and trip ends might provide a little respect
and help from the community in terms of evaluating the
various projects.
Mr. Jason Chartier, speaking to the audience, informed
them that much time and money had been spent on the plans
for the project. He volunteered to provide the report to
anyone wishing to read the final report. He said they kne
what they had because of the study that had gone into the
plans.
PC-328
Page 27
PC-328
Page 28
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Vic Mills, Dick Finegins Office, 3238 McKinney Drive,
Cupertino, addressing Chr. Gatto's concerns about the
validity of the General Plan, said that at the time they'd
been turned down on the 144 unit project, about 200 people
had turned up and asked that the project come up for
general review. Quite a few of those people were not in the
present meeting. He asked that the City back up what they
thought was the proper way for the City to develop.
Mr. Maurice O'Shea, 20367 Clay Street, Cupert~no, proposed
that they needed to keep in mind that it was government
"of/ the people, by the people, and for the people." He
said the people had spoken. They don't want this density.
Two thousand people had signed a petition. If that was not
enough signatures, then they would go out and get more.
But he promised that the citizens were not going to give up.
said that the commissioners who were concerned with
providing homes two years ago, when it was first brought
to their attention that there was a housing imbalance, had
had chances to address the issue by rezoning industrial
lands. They had turned that down. Instead, they had
aken a few plots into which they wished to fit all of the
ousing.5He said that putting high density in one or just
a few areas was discriminatory. ~e suggested the members
of the commission get their act together.
4~O
1- ¿,Þ;f
Q~
CRR. GATTO asked Mr. Jason Chartier
them to take action on the matter.
action and going to City Council.
whether or not he wished
Mr. Chartier opted for
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:
PASSED
Com. Koenitzer.
Second: Com. Blaine.
3-0
COM. BLAINE, addressing herself to City Attorney Kilian,
asked if there was some method for conditioning the
problem of paying off the amenities in the development and
having them conditioned so that everything would be paid on
time, on schedule, by the developer. She said she was asking
for a way in which the conditions would be added before the
issue went to City Council. Starting and finishing the
project and paying for the common-area improvements and
maintenance was her objective.
City Attorney Kilian advised Com. Blaine that the guar-
antee of payments by the developer would be included in
the C.C. & R's. as part of the Use Permit and would be
left in general terms. He said there was a condition of
the Use Permit with respect to common-area improvements, and
there would be agreement for joint participation, financial
participation in making certain those improvements were
completed and paid for. He recommended a stipulation that
the agreement should be approved by the City Attorney.
MINUTES MARCH 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-328
Page 29
MOTION:
Second:
PASSED:
Absent:
Com. Koenitzer, Approval of Negative Declaration.
Com. Blaine
3-0
Commissioners C1audy and Adams
MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, Approval 8-Z-80, Standard
Conditions #1 through #14; #15 as given in the
Staff Memo of March 7, 1980.
Second: Com. Blaine
VOTE: DENIED 2-1
NO: Com. Gatto
Absent: Commissioners Claudy and Adams
The Zoning having been denied, there ~as not action to be
taken on the Use Permit.
.-,..
City Attorney Kilian suggested that the Use Permit be re-
advertised or held in abeyance pending a possible reversal
by the City Council. At that point, he .advised, the
Planning Commission should consider the Use Permit"request.
If the zoning ¿enia1 was upheld, then the Use Permit would
die. He stated that they could not approve a Use Permit
without zoning having been approved first.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Second:
PASSED
Com. Blaine, to Extend ITEM 010, 21-TM-78, for a
period of one (1) year, until April 17, 1981.
Com. Koenitzer
~IOTION :
3-0
REPORTS OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR and
REPORTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION were put over to the
meeting of March 24, 1980.
ADJOURNEMENT
12:45 p.m.
N.B. This Full Digest of the foregoing meeting was
requested because the taping system was down.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
~,~
elius
Gat:o err-