PC 10-22-79
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
l03aO Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone (408) 252-4505
PC.:-320
P ag e 1
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI G
SALUTE TO THE FLAG:
7:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners P!esent:
Chairman Gatto
Commissioner Claudy
Commissioner Adams
Commissioner Koenitzer
Commissioner Blaine
Staff Present:
Planning Director Sisk
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
Associate Planner Piasecki
Assistant City Attorney Kilian
Assistant City Engineer Whitten
(:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 1979
Commissioner Koenitzer:
Page 4, linel, change to "2,.600 to about 2,400 sq. ft. for
a total reduction of 600 sq·. ft...."
Page 5, line 7. insert after record .. "not served by ex-
isting,. ..'1 etc.
Page 7, par. 2, line 4, ".. .determining who would receive
mail and from whicll Post Office...11
Page 7, par. J, line 2, correct to "Creston would be ex-
pected to come into Cupertino... It
C(]mmissioner Claudy:
?,'lge 6, line 43, strike IItwo 5,700 sq. ft."
page 7, par. 5, lines 44-46, Strike (sentence).
Puge 16, par J, change to read ..."Com. Claudy suggested
continuing the matter in order to provide some direction to
the applicant for what the Commissioners would like."
Page 16, par. 3, Strike 2nd sentence. Add to 3rd sentence,
oo."for the shopping center."
Commissioner Gatto:
Page 12, par. 5, change vote to Yes for Commissioner Gatto.
Change total vote to 5-0
Page 12, line 23, change to read: "CHR. GATTO pointed out to
the residents that the project was in conformance with the
General Plan, and if they felt the density was too high
they could so indicate to the Council for possible future
General Plan action."
MOTION TO APPROVE AS CORRECTED:
PASSED:
Com. Koenitzer
Second: Com. Claudy
5-0
PC-320
Page 2
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENT/AGENDA ITEMS
ITEM #1, Application 17-U-79 of Eldon R. Hoffman (Any Mountain,
Ltd.) - Withdrawn from Calendar per Applicant's Request.
CHR. GATTO asked for motions to set the Public Hearing on the
question of parking associated with Item #1 to November 13, 1979.
¡lOTIONS:
Item #1, Com. Claudy, postponement.
Public Hearing, Com. Claudy, set November 13, 1979. _
Second: Com. Adams
PASSED - UNANI'lOUSLY 5-0
VOTE:
ITEM #2, Application 24-Z-77, of CITY OF CUPERTINO (TOWN CENTER):
REZONINC -- reauest by Staff to continue to November 13, 1979.
r·~OTI0~¡ :
Com. AdaIns, to contin\lc.
~~econd: Com. Claudy
PASSED - I¡NA:{I~10USLY
5-01
VOT". :
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
AGENDA ITEMS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #3, Applications 17-Z-79, 20-U-79 and 20-TM-79 of PARK
PLAZA DEVELOPMENT (IIAYCO CONSTRUCTION): REZONING approximately
five gross acres from CG (General Commercial) to P (Planned
Development with residential intent) zone or whatever zone may
be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT
to construct 12 three-story buildings with underground parking
to accommodate 144 residential condominium units; TENTATIVE
MAP to create one parcel consisting of 144 air space condo-
miniums and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The Environmental Review
Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration.
Said property is located on the southwest corner of Portal
Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. First hearing continued.
Tentative City Council hearing date - November 19, 1979.
Associate Planner Piasecki explained the reason for the con-
tinuance from the meeting of September 10 -,- to work out de-
sign related problems or concerns. On the exhibit, he pointed
out access routes for fire-fighting equipment, both to the
center of the development and to the underground parking areas.
He noted that the clearance would require 10 ft. 6 inches
and would necessitate a lowering of the garage floor. Emer-
gency equipment and medical aid equipment would also be avail-
able to all of the building and throughout the garage area.
COHo CLAUDY advised that he'd wish to use break-away gates on
access lanes in order to prevent public drive-through routes·
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN
PC-320
Page 3
Associate Planner Piasecki took up the direction of the
Commissioners that the parking should be 2.5 parking -spaces
per dwelling and advised that the project provided for 2.62
spaces per dwelling. The heights of the various buildings
were given and compared to the three-story Va11co park
building and Sears building. The noise concern, he pointed
out, was covered in the applicant's report with specific
recommendations. The final issue reviewed concerned the
privacy question. Photographs (supplied by the applicant)
were exhibited and the relative sight lines of vision be-
tween the proposed structures and the adjacent resident
homes were pointed out. It was explained that difficulty
in assessing the total impact of visual invasion of pri-
vacy prior to construction prompted the develop'er to reques
that the Commissioner's approve a later inspection at a
date and time coinciding with the stage of construction tha
would permit actual building height to be utilized to
measure impacts of privacy intrusion.
COM. KOENITZER expressed concern that the largest and
heav~est fire fighting equipment have access to aliI:, areas
of the proposed structures -- above ground and below ground
level; and, he was told, in response to his inquiry, that
the concrete slab had been lowered and strengthened suf-
ficiently to satisfy his concern. Mr. Piasecki added that
the fire district had reviewed the proposed changes. Fur-
ther, he continued, the underground area was secured from
public intrusion through the use of gates and higher walls.
COM. BLAINE asked i[ the appropriate policing agency had
reviewed the plans, and she also wis}led to know if contact
with Mountain View personnel llad elicited any comments on
the design of the buildings. Mr. Piasecki indicated that
the developer and the designer, having relied on ~ountain
View experience, WOllld he able to answer those questions.
COM. ADAMS expressed concern that the wing walls and other
methods of screening be used to the fullest extent, and
especially on the balcony areas.
CHR. GATTO wished to know whether there was good ventilatio
possible between the parking slab and grade of the building
Associate Planner Piasecki exhibited a rough sketch of the
air condominium inner walkways, stairwells, and entrances
to the units, explaining that in addition to end walls the
walkways and entrances would be landscaped for internal
privacy and would provide excellent ventilation. The stair
wells to the open corridors were located.
Mr. Jason Chartier, 21060 Homestead Road, Cupertino, de-
veloper and applicant, addressed the privacy issue, pointin
out that he realized there were quite a few areas requiring
screening. Although many methods of determining degree of
INUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
l'C-320
P ag e 4
screening for privacy had been pursued, he said it was just
impossible to arrive at definitive decisions as to what to use
in specific areas as far as style and design of devices for
high windows, greenhouse type windows, landscaping, screening,
etc. One could only speculate on the decisions made ahead of
time. However, he felt that if the decisions could be delayed
until some point in the construction phase of the development,
then it would be possible to test effectiveness of various
devices and select the device most certain to insure the
greatest privacy to adjacent areas and the condominium resi-
dents too.
In response to CHR. GATTO'S inquiry as to whether or not the
construction would be too far along to make changes, Mr.
Chartier said that some points of reference were fixed; yet,
he continued, the questions of how many windows or patios needed
t~e~t~ent would provide additional points of reference for de-
ter~ining final requirements for insuring privacy. He reminded
the Co~nissioners of t~e beauty of the structures with 1) wide
and c~)en 11~11rJaY3 with landscaping, 2) setbacks to accommodate
fire e~uj_0~ent (with strengthened subbase of access road~, 3)
the wrought {POD wor~ surrounding the whole area, 4) a gate
sY2te¡"1 for security at entry !'oints, 5) sufficient and elaborate
lan?~ca~inf as buffer zones, etc..
CO'·, ^D:,:·~:; asked why, using the discipline of engineet"ing,
it ;'as not possible to pin-point areas for special attention
prior to construction. Mr. Chartier responded that on the
'whole that was exactly what they were doing. But, he added,
knowing of the area needing attention and making the deter-
mination as to the device to use for treating the problem were
two different things; thus, the request for delayed inspection
3nd cooneration of building agencies after construction had
commenced.
ce::. 3L^I~E pointed out the uniqueness of the style of
architecture in Cupertino and the City Staff's lack of ex-
¿erience with height; and, she suggested delayed inspection
and approval might be a distinct and considerable advantage
at some point in time.
CHR. GATTO agreed that determinations could be made jointly
by the designer, by the builder, by the Architectural Site Committee,. and the Staf
Committee -- corrections or deviations brought back to the
Commission for relief.
Mr. Chartier said he wished to emphasize the point that he
and his organization were not trying to escape the concerns
bei"~ discussed. He asserted that their interest was to insure
cooperation and solutions to the concerns.
MR. Lon Mills, Dick Finigan's, designers of the project, said
h.e h.ad taken the photograph that had been exhibited from a
55 mm lens (wider angle could have gotten more), but each
slLot was taken at 20 ft. Cmínus 1 ft. for a 6-foot person).
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN
PC-320
Page 5
at a point intersecting the line of vision from the various
questionable areas of the proposed construction elevation.
He pointed out that, as designers, they had attempted to 10
cate ,walkways and stairs in positions to provide the most
privacy for adjacent property and residents of the condo-
miniums. Although some initial view into other sites might
be possible initially, it was possible the specified land-
scaping would eventually suffice for protection.
Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, Cupertino, noted that
he identified what seemed to him to be animosity toward the
fire department requirements. He hoped not: Noting the
slope of the concrete garage floor, he asked what relief
would be provided for flooding. (Associate Planner Piaseck'
explained that any drain below drainage level would be by-
passed by pumps.) On traffic access over the fire equip-
ment access road to the back of the property, he was assure
it was only for emergency use; recreational par~ing area
being accessible through the residential garages and buildi g
areas. He questioned lower income housing. (Mr. Cowan ex-
plained the BMR program adopted Oy the City Council.;) He
asked for consideration in waivin~ the trip-end faci6r that
the occupants of single family homes be considered. Re-
quested to do so, by Mr. Bierman, Hr. Lon Mills, Dick Fini-
gan, described the photograph-taking layout in detail.
Mr. Bierman concluded that he felt the applicant was not
ready. He agreed with Commissioner Adams that engineering
being an exact science, it should be possihle to make firm
assessments (if a cherrypicker was needed, get ~ cherry-
picker).
COM. CLADDY asked Mr. Bierman to identify his property,
which he did, explained that he had B pool in his yard, was
probably going to allow the trees on his property line to
die out in order to gain sunlight; and, he concluded that
the second story construction did not bother hiM. The thir_
story did bother him.
Mr. B. Norris, 10140 Mello Place, Cupertino, asked that the
buildings be limited to a two-story heizht (as a concerned
citizen he said he'd like to limit all construction to the
two-story height), and he presented the Co~missioners with
a petition from residents supporting that position.
Mr. Robert Fair, l0226 Denison Avenuc, Cupertinor said he
was not directly affected by this development, but he ad-
dressed the density and probability of 300 automobiles in
the development. (At CHR. GATTO'S request, Mr. Piasecki
gave the total of parking on the underground slab as 342.)
He was fearful that residents would park on public streets
rather than in the garages areas. He said he supported Mr.
B. Norris in asking for two-story limitation.
PC-320
Page 6
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. John Johnson, 19831 Price Avenue, Cupertino, a long-time
resident and home-owner, said he could not visualize this par-
ticular development -- the high-rise and the price -- within
the City of Cupertino; and, he was anticipating intense con-
gestion on city streets at peak hours. Parking on the streets
bothered him. Having moved to Cupertino because high-rise
building had not started, he hoped the Commissioners and the
Council would respect a two-story limit.
Mr. J.W. Jo , 19811 Price, Cupertino, located his property on
the wall map, and he then questioned the BMR schedule that
~r. Cowan had outlined. Mr. Joy felt that the proposed low
income housing would decrease the value of local property
and the proposed project.
CHR. GATTO explained the procedure for obtaining B~R units,
briefly indicated the restrictions on the purchasers, and
told ~r. Joy that the prices of th3 unita ~ould fluctuate
relative to the approved purchaser~s ahil~ty' to pay-_
Y~r. J. L. Carlson, 1:,):?()3 Portal Avenue., Cupertino~ expressed
fea:-. that occupant-o'tvne.rs, qual:!.fie.cl by ,1..'?;encies of ;,the.
government (city), 1vould proceed to destroy the]'1. biy'" stripping
the.~. (referring to some 'of the 'lower class' do have a tendency to strip
things).
COlI. CLAUDY explained that the City of Cupertino was not giving
away units of housing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy.
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY
Second:
Com. Koenitzer
5-0
COM. ADAMS suggesting wording for Condition #19, posed an
additional state!:1ent: "During final design detail docu-
mentation for construction, Staff review of privacy ·intrust'",!'!'
shall be completed and agreed to prior to rough framing com-
pletion." In other words, based on the unreliability of the
presently projected plans, he wished to insure review of the
total plan when final plans were completed.
COM. BLAINE cO!:1plimented the suggestioß However, she said,
she did not wish to rely on landscaping. Some landscaping
should be considered, but actual physical devices should be
incorporated into the building itself.
,COM. KOENITZER commented that the whole question of privacy
intrusion brought up two problems. One, while the builders of
new projects definitely owes something to existing residents,
the question was how much was owed. Second, responsibility
existed for the existing residence owners to provide some
privacy for themselves. Referring to the previously shown
photographs, he noted privacy-creating landscaping on some
homes and lack of privacy-creating landscaping on other
homes. On industrial building, the ratio of 4 to 1 pre-
vailed wiih no consideration such as was being discussed.
He felt the same 4 to 1 could be applied to this project.
MINUTES OCTOBER2~ 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-320
Page 7
Com. Koenitzer recommended that stairwell ends should be
solid, control between buildings, catwalks, and entrances
should be looked at as construction progressed; and, listing
the various buildings and the problems associated with them,
he said it was possible the problems could be worked out wit
H-Control.
COM. GATTO recalled the discussions of the Planning Com-
mission leading up to allocating this particular area of
Cupertino as suitable for higher density designation in the
General Plan. However, he said, that looking at the impact
on the areas surrounding the subject building site, hc felt
that raising the density was not doing anybody any good.
The street-scape along Stevens Creek could handle that type
of structure (there being no other structure similar in the
City except for the industrial area of Vallco Financial
Center); and, the City, being a low-lying community (not as
rural as desired), befn? the huh of fast--7rowinp rnetrop-
ola, did not seem to lend itself to such Jensity as pushing
single family resf.denceG into stacks and providing flore
housing in one area than was spread out alon? StevenG~Creek s
len~th. Pointing out that the ,tensity of the pro4ect'iwas
greatest where it abutted the sillgle-story residential, and
having spent considerable time discussing how to solve the
privacy intrusion and other project related problems, all
brought about by attempting to induce a density into an
area that did not seem to be rea~v for the density.
CO:·'. CLAUDY commented, But we've got .it and have got to do.some-
thing about it. He continued by saýing that most of what 'Commissioner
Koeuitzer had said was what' hEr wanted to say and he 'd.nat' repeat it. H
thought it ~.laG pass::"Sle to -:~educe i;l:!a;.:.t:; tn sor:eexteiii,
but he said he did not believe it could 02 elininated.
Agreed, he said, that it was not livab].e i7 windows ~ere
not per~!itted. Cu:ting off the third ;torv t~ould decrease
the project by forty-four units, whic~ would influence the
developer to say someone else should develop it. Parking,
fire access, police concerns, and agreeJ~cnt to work with th
City on privacy intrusion concerns had been addressed by the
developer. He concluded that Com. Adams' l)roposal was
realistic and inspection at the rough framing stages would
be reasonable. In his opinion, responsibility did devolve
onto adjacent property owners for protecting themselves to
every extent possible.
COM. BLAINE asked COM. ADAMS to repeat his proposal (motion)
or.suggestion for resolving the impasse.
CO~I. ADAMS said he wished 'to suggest, before acceding to
COM. BLAINE'S tequ9st, that it might be possible to cons ide
reducing the whole project to two-story units. Having
thrown that idea out, COM. ADAMS acceded to COM. BLAINE'S
request. (Statement was repeated -- cf. pg. 6, par. 7.)
PC-320
Page 8
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A general discussion of the proposal followed, and it was
decided that Architectural Site Control Committee Staff should
take a detailed look at the problem. A physical control of
height (identifying window location), was agreed upon.
MOTION:
VOTE:
HOTION:
VOTE:
'OTION:
VOTE:
MOTION:
VOTE:
Com. Adams, approval of Negative Declaration.
Second: Com. Blaine
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Com. Blaine, approval, l7-Z-79, Standard Conditions
#1 through #14, #15 as per Staff Report.
Second: Com. Koenitzer.
PASSED
AYES:
NO:
COIO'rs. Claudy,
Chr, Gatto.
Ada128,
Koenitzer, Blaine.
Com. Adams, ap~roval of 2n-~-70, St~n,Jard Con1iti.on3
#1 through #18; #19 with ¿etail~d review ~y Ct~ff
during rough framing (prior to, at tiM~ of a;pro~r~l
(If rough framing), and sellt.f~nc.Q :)egínning, "Adrlit::'on;:;ll/!'
should be itruck from the condition; ]20, 9tc;,
subject to Staff Report, etc. ..
Second: Com. Claudy, witil proviso of struck sentence.
PASSED
AYES:
NO:
Com'rs. Claudy, Adams, Koenitzer, Blaine.
Chr. Gatto.
Com. Adams, approvEl 20-T~-79, Standard Conditions,
#1 through #18, per Staff Findings and 0ubconclusions.
PASSED
AYES:
NO:
Com'rs. Claudy,
Chr. Gatto.
Adams, Koenitzer, Elaine.
RECESS: 9: 45 p.m.
RECONVENED:
9:50 p.m.
ITEM #4, Application 6-U-73 of VALLCO PARK, LTD.: AMENDMENT OF
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT to amend Condition 30 pertaining
to truck barricades along the westerly portion of the Vallco
Fashion Park site and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was
prav~ously assessed hence no action is required. First
Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date: November 5, 1979.
P1anni:ng Director Sisk reminded the· Commissioners that part
of th£ approval of the Regional Shopping Center (Vallco Park),
included Conditions requiring truck barricades alcng the per-
imeter along the border of residential property abutting the
commercial area. And, he reviewed the details of the request
that the barricades be installed. Bus transfer facilities
discussions had delayed implementing the requirement of
Condition #30 of 6-U-73. At this point, referring to a letter,
dated Sepiember 20, 1979, from Mr. Walter ~ard, General
Manager of Vallco Park, he advised the ComIOissioners that
Mr. Ward was requesting relief from complying with Condition
/;'30.
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
I
MEETINf
PC-320
Page 9
The Commissioners discussed volume and routes of traffic,
types of vehicles, incidences of complaints, businesses
using trucks for del.lveries, types of barricades, height of
barricades, barricades versus signing, accidents and pos-
sible injury to bys~anders, etc.
Mr. Walter Ward, General Manager, Vall co Park, reported
that he was not aware of complaints about truck traffic,
and he asked for relief from the requirements of installing
truck barricades citing the number of accidents that
occurred and possibility of injury to pedestrians. He said
that traffic counts for the County Transportation District
had cited no trucks on the day of testing. Yr. Ward re-
commended signs and vehicle enforcement.
Mr. Robert Fair, 10226 Denison Avenue, Cupertino, congrat-
ulated Mr. Ward and Vallco Park for being a great neighbor.
He stated that he had noticed trucks (~iesel trucks) drivin
into the shoppinf center on the perimeter road. This had
been part~cularly ann~ying because of fumes, and, of course
the fumes were particularly bad because it was summer time
and people were otltside more.
1t C0~I. BLAINE'S request, Mr. Ward traced the route o:~ the
truck services routes of each business in the Vallco Park,
concluding that most of the trucks used Stevens Creek.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED:
PAoSED:
Com. Adams.
TH1ANIMOUSLY
Second: Com. Clau~y
5-0
c·':'. CL.\TJ1)"{ said that it seemed to him that if they "er."
~~oin::; to "ut llIJ ì~"I.rt"~·.cade:) they i.;ould al~..¡o have to Iiost
signs for hËi~,:llt A.nil ·-··~.dth.
CO"¡.~. ADA~~S, based on the seilera! years of {)peràtion of the
center and their relia1Jility, said he ~Jished to ~ive the~
~ six-~'onth trial wj.th s:pns.
CFR. ·~~.TT'· asked :7r. t.:ard .(f the Vallc,-'1 Security Forces
would he able to handle such a test. ~e added that it woul I
be necessary to have the Sheriff's Department there for
citations, which would deplete the force elsewhere.
co~. KOE~IT=ER and CO}:. BLAINE discussed the actuality of
heading into a busy shopping season (truck deliveries going
to and fron the cenier in increasing volumes. The three
months might be of questionable value, they concluded.
CRR. GATTO questioned the ease of fire equipment getting i
through 12 ft. 6 in. barricades; and, he said he felt that
Valleo management, having been made aware of the problem,
should advise and warn truck drivers, trucking companies,
and local business of the restrictions.
COK. ADA~& said he agreed with putting everybody in the
Vallco Park on notice as to the truck problem and giving
up a four-month test period, continuing the Amendment to
6-U-73 for that four-month period.
PC-320
Page 10
J1INUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING CO~;HISSION ~~EETING
MOTION:
Com. Koenitzer, to reopen Public He~ring, 6-U-73.
Second: Com. Adams
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
VOTE:
MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, to conitnue the limit for 6-U-73 to the lst Regular
Meeting of March 1980, to include discussion that Vallco would put up
truck signs, directional signs, along the side of the road and it would
be continued for four months and then it would be decided whether the
overhead signs were necessary or not.
VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
ITEH tl5, \T'Plícations 21-7.-7] and '2.7-Ti-7':1 of vA~_IT;S E. NEL:·~0.~J:
PRE ZONING Approximately .6 of a gro~;s 3cre from Santa Clara
C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to City of Cupertino pre a
(Planned Develop~ent with commercial and office intent)
zone or whatever zone ~ay be deened appr0ryriate by the
Pl~nnin~ Co~~~ission; u~~ ?PR!"IT t3 con~~rttct a (:()n~erci21
of-:':- C2 T;u-i.l,l ..n,:::: con~iLs;-j.!1.f of B.;?iJroxit'!'l.atcl=¡ 7 ,5(\~ ,;:(1. ~ f":.
,.'1"r:d -- - "'r! r:.,'" -'~E:C-"':.AL r~E1,?I-;"'·;: The,;~n"j_ rOTIT"en t a1 '~ev~.e~¡, /::0"":-
;,".iti..:ee 1'·9cor.mends the ?r.·l_ntin~ '0£ a ':e;.at:'~le Declaration.
)a~.d ryro?e-~ty is locat2d an the nnrthea3t corner of ~tevenn
C!:"~ek ·:':oulev~_l.·d. and 7':ai:"L'.~ ~,¡~:~lve. T'ir3t ~;~ear'~np; continued.
Tentn.t::"v,~ C~-.tJ C0unc::"l~-,:~?..r·in~~· -fate -~ JO";j·8ï'1~H'.·¡:- 19, 1'_:79.
CI~R. GATTO reviewed the basic issues (r¿3idual from the
T{earin;.-¡- o£ :1c.toher 8, 1)7:'1, l'C-",19ì, ,,~hlch included position
of the ~ui,J.2in~ on the s~,te, (v1sih~lity of tIle property
adjoining), ability of property to acquire easements from
the adjoining property and the effect of that merger.
Assistant Planninf Di~~ctor Cowan said that CHR. GA~TO had
just summarized the St~ff ~eport, and he only wished to
call attention to the ~c·~o propo3als submitted in tIle ~ta£f
Report. !{p axhihited a s~te nap and a diagram of the sight
expansion lines fratl a ?oint on Stevens Creek to the aJ-·
joining pro?erty fro~ the ri?ht hand lane. rlan A :'oul~ cut
out between t~e liGuor store and the harrlware store. Plan
B, with the building set back, would provide a greater angle
of sighting. ~r. Cowan notified the Commissioners that a re-
ciprocal parking arrangement had not been reached; therefore,
Mr. Nelson's property was isolated and would require an ad-
ditional curb cut. ?arking had been extended in a westerly
direction and a joint circulationg arrangement might be
possible.
Mr. Marius E. Nelsen, Applicant,l684 ~ewcastle Drive, Los
Altos, CA, exhibited new drawings and explained the changes
from the previous Hearing. He said that having reoriented the
building, the parking agreement became unnecessary for him.
greement was unnecessary. Having taken CHR. GATTO'S sug-
gestion for orienting the building on Mann Drive, they felt
it was a better plan, and also provided better exposure to
neighb~rs. If traffic cutting through became a problem he
said closing the curb cut on Mann would be no problem.
MINUTES OccfOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COlIMISSION MEETI G PC-320
Page II
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said he wished to make
it a part of the record that in similar cases of rec'iproca
easement, Mr. ~indell, if he expected to develop in the
future, could expect to have to agree to some type of re-
ciprocal easement. The applicant should agree to particip te;
Unidentified speaker,
Oeeupa,nt in adjoining shopping eenter, congratulated Mr.
Nelson on his reorientation of plans and his providing
more visual accessability to the shopping center. He was
unhappy about the lack of setback on the proposed building
Historically, he felt, streetfront buildings were unsuc-
cessful for businesses. He volunteered to discontinue his
complaints if the A Plan was accepted.
Mr.. Harold ¡{ind~)lc, 1106 El Camino Real, Sunnyvale,
pursued the statement, by Mr. Cowan, thdt Mr. Nelson would
be required to participate i[l easement upon future devel-
opment. He al~sured the Commi.ssioners tllat he would wish t
cooperate also; ~ it being to everyone~s advantage to agree
and also to annex to Cupertino. j
For CON. ADAHS, Er. ;·Ltn·Iell identif ied the names of the
businesses in the shopping center. Mr. Mindell was unable
to speculate, for himself or the merchants, what percentag
of business was projected to be lost because of lack of
vLsibility. Impulse shoppers might be handicapped in lo-
cating the businesses.
CON. KO}~::~IT~·E~'-~ said that vis~_1)ilíty 'lIas possible for some
12 s2.cond::..; plus, angleJ into tlle Ghopping cent(~r, an0 he
felt the 0To~osed huildin~ did not o~8truct se~~_ously.
Mr. ~Tes qill;.dms, 10007 Byrne Avenue, loc2'l resident of
Cupertino, a:ld rres1dent of the local hoĊeotJner associatio
He expressed plea8l1YE~ th;:¡t ~nlilc1ing ':Ja.c-: going :in that
v!ould benefit the a:~:c~¡qo ;:(~ noted JHi1ger at the point
Lann Drive r1et Stl~vens C~{eek =',Qulevard and the crossing
of Orange to get to Mann was dangerous. Walking across
was also dangerous. He asked that attention be given to
the problem before the implementation of the MantA Viste
Plan Line.
Mr. Jim Shaw, holder of a lease on eastern end of Monte
Vista Shopping Center, expressed concern that the parking
would be filled up with workers in the proposed building
and the parking problem would then spillover into adjacen-
available parking. He asked that the City consider con-
trolling tenants and parking requirements.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan said the Staff recommend tion
was for 1 parking space/230 sq. ft. of gross floor area,
which reflected results of a six month old test and seemed
to be reliable as a ratio.for parking requirement.
PC-320
Page 12
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy.
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY
Second:
Com. Blaine
5-0
COM. CLAUDY reminded the Commissioners that the reason for
the continuance was to allow the owners of the shopping
center to work out agreements with Mr. Nelson. That not
having come about, evidently through reluctance on the part
of the shopping center owners, he said he preferred Plan C
because the parking was back and away from the street.
COM. GATTO said he interpreted the partial working agree-
ment between the two major-interest parties to be that Plan
A was the best and satisfied provision, somewhat, of the
Planline and parking.
CO}f. Y(Jf.HITZER was conc2rned that th~ par1c"_ng lot '.~ould be
used by through traffic on ~ann and he felt it w~s too b~d
that reciprocals were not possible. ?ointing out t~at the
com?letelt shopping canter ~ould br~ng into focus many th:ngs
t~lHt were not present_ there to be evaluated, he said he
felt t:1e plan TD.ost adé1.7;ted to fut,ure planning, Plan C~,_. would.
"be the best plan. '
CO~I. BLAIN~ asked that ~taff identify the streets involved
and the routes. A discussion of traffic flow, curb cuts,
signals, etc. ensued on Plan A and Plan C - particularly
relative to the driveways, curb cuts, or closings of access.
HOTION:
VOTE:
Corn. Koenitzer, to support Negative Declaration.
Second: Corn. Blaine
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
HOTION:
Com. Koenitzer, approval 21-2-79,
Conditions #1 through #14; #15 as
Configuration C of the Conceptual
#17 as per Staff Memo.
Second: Com. Claudy
AYES: Com. Claudy, Adams, Koenitzer
NOES: Com. Blaine and Chr. Gatto
PASSED
Standard
per Exhibit A,
Plan; 1/16 and
VOTE:
3-2
CHR. GATTO wished to enter into the Record that he was not
opposed to the Zoning, but that he had recommended Con-
figuration A. COM. BLAINE concurred in the Minority Report.
RESOLUTION TO CITY COUNCIL: RESOLVED that, we find for aban-
donment of a segment of Mann Drive, as defined in the Zoning
Application 21-A-79, as consistent with the General Plan
MOTION: Chr. Gatto. Second: Com. Adams
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEET I G PC-320
Page 13
VOTE:
Corn. Koenitzer, recommend approval of 27-U-79,
Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 through
#19 as per Staff Memo with the Findings and sub-
conclusions presented therein.
Second: Com. Adams
AYES: Com. Claudy, Adams, Koenitzer, Blaine
NO: Chr. Gatto
MOTION:
CRR. GATTO wished the Record show that his "¡¡o" vote was
simply a preference for Configuration A instead of C.
MINUTE ORDER TO COUNCIL:Request that the abandoned portion
of Mann Drive have the pavement removed, old curb cuts be
taken out and new curb cuts be installed.
MOTION: Com. Koenitzer. Second: Com. Adams
VOTE: AYES: Com. Adams, Gatto, Koenitzer, Baine.
NO: Corn. C laudy
CO~1. CLADDY stated that his "Nö" vote reflected his opj_n:to
that property owners should not be required to make off-site
improvements.
ITEV #6, CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to cl~r~fy Ian
use policies contained within the Old Monta Vista General
Plan, particularly with respect to the practice of per-
mitting on-street parking to satisfy off-street parkin~
needs and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously
assessed hence no action is required. First Eearin7,.
Tentative City Council hearing date - November 19, 1979.
Assistant Planning Director Co~an re~inde~ the C0'~Dlis~~~~e!
tY'_1.t t~1._e . :onta ~."'~,'Jté1. Plan. h.2.0. ,),:'.2.!1 decided as ,Eerpendi.cula
parkin3 treat~ent for a s~~ti0n of Imperial ana P2sadena
Ave.n.ues fa!:" some fragmen.t.c~.,;. lots; the intensity of the
parking having increased the traffic-bearing capacity of
the streets. Referencing the Staff Report of October 19,
he reminded the Commissioners that credit to individual
property owners was suggested as one alternative; and
increase of allocation on on-the-street parking spaces
was another alternative. The ratio of allocation needed
settling, whichever alternative was adopted. The right-of
way width needed to be determined, and the mode of parking
(angled, straight, or curb side) needed to be settled.
He outlined, brief ly, the problems connected with each of
the modes of parking. He said the Staff felt the owners
at the front should receive allocation of parking, and
additional parking be allocated on the basis of acerage,
(13 spaces would be available/acre of land). A further
recommendation was that a local assessment district arrang -
ment might be worthwhile developing. Otherwise, the parkin
would be installed on an incremental basis, or on a de-
ferred development-agreement basis. The ownership pattern
being highly fragmented, with little hope of consolidation
it appeared to be that a series of curb cuts had to occur
on the street otherwise.
PC-320 HI"UTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 14
A general discussion of all the problems, as outlined in
the October 19, 1979 Memo from Staff, were explored and the
Commissioners gave their opinions on the various sophisti-
cations available for development of the 70 ft. wide indus-
trial street.
COHo CLAUDY appreciated the beauty of what was envisioned;
however, he said he was fearful that one or so key properties
might disrupt progress before completion.
COM. GATTO asked if 35% was not applied in this instance as
was applied in the rest of the City. Assistant Planning
Director Cowan said it could go as low as 30% with merger for
curb cuts, etc.. He traced the traffic routes for the area.
COM. GATTO suggested giving bonuses to entice property owners
to develop more quickly and with higher intensity.
COM. BLAINE said she saw no problem with giving or allocating
spaces and developing parking, but she wished tbe parking to
be angled because of safety. As for allocations and curb cuts,
she ~ould see the difficulty of spotty developmen~, but felt
that the Planning Commission ahd Council should locate the
parking and the curb cuts.
COM. GATTO advised that he felt the two basic questions for
determination, immediately, was 1) should there be a type of
credit (within a defined area) for parking on the street, 2)
what basic configuration should the parking take. Curb cuts
could be determined later on.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Mr. William Carman, 464 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, thought his
understanding of what the discussion was about was congruent,
but he said he had an interest in the southeast corner of
Pasadena and Granada (which he located on the map) He said
he'd like consideration of Pasadena (with a 70 ft. right-of-
way). He quoted Policy #4 of the Plan and asked what was
going to happen to the full lenth of Pasadena. He asked for
perpendicular or angled parking. He presented sketches for
proposed developments with street parking and on-site parking.
Ms. Irene Tolbert, property owner, (property at Imperial and
Stevens Creek since 1962), said she did not see a need for
the plan. She said she saw no traffic problem. Two questions
she posed were 1) how much parking would she gain by the plan,
and 2) how much would it cost.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan identified her property as
the taproom and said that it was a particular problem because
the grade crossing plan for Stevens Creek would involve her
property and a net trade-off in parking stalls on Pasadena.
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI G PC-320
Page 15
Assistant City Engineer Whitten pointed out that the exist ng
parking on the specific property in question was already 0
the right-of-way.
Mr. Michael Lynch, developer, who wished to
iately, said that regarding the parking, he
perpendicular because it was possible to turn either
develop immed-
preferred the
way.
Due to the complexity of the problem, the Commissioners
felt they could not make definitive decisions with re-
liability and felt the matter should .be continued pending
receiving more specific information.
COM. GATTO felt that the chances of development through
combined effort was small, and he felt a development would
occur ~pottily as need for use arose. He suggested they
concentrate on establishing a thread as a unifying theme
for the area.
~
COM. CLAUDY offered the option of giving a bonus to any
property owner putting together. package of specif'£ size
$10,000 or 20,000 sq. ft. by consolidating - they'd get the
credit. Thus, consolidation of properties could be en-
couraged and fragmentation could to some extent be avoided
CHR. GATTO asked
information back
be reasonable
Staff if they would be
and it was agreed that
November 13, 1979.
able to get spec if c
three weeks would
MOTION:
Com. Adams, to continue ITEM #6 to November 13, I 9.
Second: Com. Claudy
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
VOTE:
ITEM #7, Applications 20-Z-79 and 24-U-79 of ALLEN DEGRANG
REZONING approximately .3 of a gross acre from ML (Light
Industrial) to P (Planned Development with commercial and
industrial intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed
appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to con-
struct a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial and industrial building
and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com-
mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration.
Said property is located on the east side of Imperial
Avenue approximately l20 ft. southerly of Stevens Creek
Boulevard. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Counc 1
hearing date - November 19, 1979.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan concluded a review of th
Staff Report by asking that the approval of rezoning and
use permit be granted. He said the basic issue was the
store-front commercial related to back-of-site industrial
activity. In this case -- back site used for plumbing
supply materials. Site plans were exhibited and the var-
ious problems located.
Mr. Allen DeGrange, architect representing Mr. Lynch, said
Mr. Lynch's being forced out of his present location made
time very important and a decision was needed.
PC-320
Page 16
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In response to CHR. GATTO, Mr. DeGrange said they felt they
had room for a twelve foot driveway to get to the back, and
he felt that could be widened if needed.
Mr. Robert E. Talbert, property owner on the corner where the
taproom was located. He aaid his problem was an existing
building and a fence presently encroaching on his property.
CUR. GATTO said he could not aee the Commissioners taking up
that problem. He recognized that property lines were difficult
to locate in Monta Vista.
Unidentified Speaker, with property in area involved,
locating perpendicular parking area he was talking about,
he asked about turning movements into properties. Double
trailer trucks could be a problem, and he insinuated that
he felt that that delivery problem was causing them to have
to move. He asked if those trucks were consistent with the
parking and able to negotiate the turning into properties.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten pointed out that wigp a re-
ciprocal parking and driveway arrangement, and a semi- in
the back, it would be impossible to turn the truck. It
would have to be backed out.
Mr. Lynch, owner, said that they did have large trucks coming
in and small trucks going out. Backing in would solve the
problem; and, he pointed out that large trucks used Imperial
for its length.
As for commercial, COM. BLAINE said she felt it was in keeping
with the business of the pest control.
COM. CLAUDY pointed out that the exhibit showed 3,300 sq. ft.
area of space for industrial, but it actually occupied con-
siderably more -- 4 racks, 3 bins, plus 2 racks in the parking
lot as non-used space likely to be uncovered storage. Trucks
and forklifts parking made the site intense. He suggested an
industrial site without commercial.
Bill Hershey, with Cupertino Supply,
business was done over the counter.
less of the yard would be used.
indicated 60% of the
He felt that less and
CHR. GATTO asked if it was felt wholesale plumbing fell into
commercial-industrial, or was it retail. Assistant Planning
Director Cowan pointed out that the zoning was for commercial
and/or industrial. It was agreed that Cupertino was set up for
commercial meaning retail. CHR. GATTO said he had no par-
ticular quarrel with Mr. Lynch's request for commercial, if
that was what he wanted.
MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI G PC-320
Page l7
CHR. GATTO pointed out that the latene$ of the hour was
obstructing progress and suggested a continuance.
VOTE:
Com. Adams, to continue ITEM #7 to the Regular
Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 1979.
Second: Com. Claudy
PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
MOTION:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ITEM #8, AMENDMENT OF CONDITION #16 OF APPLICATION l-U-79:
CUPERTINO KNOLLS regarding protection of solar rights.
COM. CLAUDY advised the Commissioners that since he was
buying a house from the same developer he felt he was
in conflict and wished to abstain from the decision on
I t em 118.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan outlined the landscape
problem of the east-facing slope, which seemed to violate
solar rights of adjoining neighbors.
Diagrams, on the board, illustrated the sun shadow on
June 22, - 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon and December 22, -
2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. De Anza Oaks development was
particularly bothered during the summer months. Two basic
alternatives were suggested for Planning Commission con-
sideration on Condition #16 of PC Resolution No. 1911.
Ridge line and shadow line identified, crude measurements
were taken to the house top, and it was concluded the
tree was important for summer, but possibly a problem for
winter.
Mr. Walt Hitchcoc~, vice president and member of the board
of De Anza Oaks Homeowner Association, posted a map on the
board and explained its import.
After discussion of the relativity of tree shadow to sun
pattern, he explained the major interest in the problem wa
addressing solar heating of homes in the future. He asked
for planting of bushes rather than trees. He had concern
for retaining walls and proper drainage.
MOTION:
Com. Koenitzer, approval of
Staff Report of October 19,
Second: Com. Blaine
PASSED
Abstaining:
Option #2 of the
1979, Condition #16
VOTE:
4-0
Com. Claudy (conflict as homeowner).
NEH BUSINESS
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
REPORT OF ,PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ADJOURNMENT