PC 09-13-76
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: 252-4505
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CUPERTINO,
CALIFORNIA
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. with the
Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Comm. present:
Carom. absent:
Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams
None
Staff present:
Director of Planning and Development Sisk
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
Assistant City Attorney Kilian
Assistant to Assistant City Attorney Foster
Assistant City Enginineer Whitten
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of August 23, ~976
Page 6, paragraph 6, change 250' to 2500'.
~oved by Corom. Koenitzer, seconded by Carom. Gatto, to approve Minutes
of August 23, 1976 as corrected.
Motion carried, 4-0
Minutes of August 30, 1976
Moved by Comm. Gatto, seconded by Corom. Koenitzer, to approve Minutes
of August 30, 1976 as presented.
Motion carried, 4-0
POSTPONEMENTS:
Item 2 _ Application 2-V-76 - FEELEY - withdrawn by applicant
Moved by Carom. Woodward, seconded by Carom. Koenitzer, to allow
Application 2-V-76 to be withdrawn.
Motion carried, 4-0
PC-236
Page 1
Minutes of
8/23176
approved as
corrected
Minutes of
8/30176
approved as
submitted
2-V-76
Withdrawn at
reques t of
appli cant
PC-236
Page 2
lS-U-76
SARATOGA
FOOTHILLS
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.
Application lS-U-76 of SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:
USE PERMIT to allow construction of 34 single-family residential
homes in a planned development zone. Said property is located
westerly of and adjacent to Bandley Drive approximately SOO ft.
northerly of the intersection of Bandley Drive and Alves Drive.
First hearing continued.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan located site on map. He referred to
concept of trying to gain better interface between this development and
Garden Gate neighborhood. It was staff's feeling that it appeared to be
practical to re-evaluate the question of pedestrian access to Bandley
Drive at a later date as the property to the north develops.
Mr. Cowan pointed out initial staff recommendation to enlarge the pool
and recreation area as well as provide a logical pedestrian entrance
to the project. In reviewing the new site plan, staff had revised its
position and is now recommending that if only two units are to be
eliminated that Lots 26 and 27 be deleted and the former Units No. 34
and 21 on Bandley Drive be replaced.
Mr. Cowan said there would not be fenced in 3 ft. side yards as appeared
to be on site plan.
Comm. Gatto raised the question of a previous use permit issued to Dr.
Brown for a Planned Development conceptual plan showing industrial on
this block. Mr. Cowan explained the De Anza Boulevard conceptual plan
superseded any previous conceptual plans.
Comm. Gatto pointed out residential had never been designated for this
property and that the whole planned development area would be affected,
not just this portion. He felt this would ne gate all previous concept ual
plans.
A lengthy discussion was held on this situation. Mr. Cowan reported
that ERC had directed staff to bring to Planning Commission's attention
the unacceptability of having residential and industrial intermixed (hop-scotched)
on west side of Bandley Drive.
Dr. Brown's conceptual plan as approved was displayed. Staff member Cowan
read Condition 2 of North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan.
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-236
Page 3
Mr. Kilian explained the conditions of the use permit remained valid.
The Brown parcels were singled out in the De Anza conceptual plan to
remain and it was legal to do so, but was not clear from the map
standpoint.
It was questioned whether one part of the conceptual plan could be
changed without changing the entire plan as submitted by Dr. Brown.
Comm. Woodward said a new conceptual plan would be needed even if it
was only for parcel A.
Comm. Gatto said the zoning would have to be modified to consider
residential or the conceptual plan completely discarded and parcel A
looked at as a separate application. This would still require a
conceptual plan and use permit.
Mr. Sisk suggested if the commission felt it was valid, they should
amend City's conceptual plan and take out 2-Z-75.
Comm. Gatto pointed out the original applicant has a valid conceptual
plan and a valid use permit. He has two options. He can either
modify 2-Z-75 or discard completely and come in with a conceptual
plan-use permit plan for area A and give up all previous rights to
the applications of 2-Z-75.
Comm. Woodward said he felt it would be more consistent to negate
2-Z-75. After discussion, he suggested havin'g a re-zoning hearing
just on this piece of property rather than on the De Anza conceptual
plan. It was noted the other two zoning applications covered in
condition 2 of De Anza conceptual plan had been implemented.
Comm. Gatto explained to Dr. Brown that 2-Z-75 was conceptual zoning
granted before the De Anza Conceptual Plan became an ordinance. The
residential use conflicts with the zoning application. Mr. Sisk
answered Dr. Brown they would have to advertise hearing and amend
City's conceptual plan by removing 2-Z-75 exemption.
The Assistant City Attorney advised the hearing could be opened for
just this detail to amend this particular section.
After Chairman Adams asked the applicant what he desired, Comm. Gatto
moved to continue Application l5-U-76 to October 11, 1976. Seconded
by Comm. Woodward.
Comm. Koenitzer referred to question of pedestrian access someplace to
the north, other than Val~ey Green Drive. He felt a pedestrian access
was needed from this project to the Garden Gate area, if only for the
schools. An access would also encourage a community feeling. He felt
strongly that a pedestrian access should be available and that they
should not commit future developments to the north to provide the
access.
PC-236
Page 4
lS-U-76
continued to
lO/1l/76
2-V-76
FEELEY
withdrawn
R3 Ordinance
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER l3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Director of Planning and Development Sisk said he thought it would be
difficult to have pedestrian access and continue this concept. Possible
placements of pedestrian access waS discussed.
Chairman Adams said he had reservations about pedestrian access through
the area.
Using the public utilities easement as an access was suggested.
Planning Director Sisk sunnnarized the hearing would be to amend zoning
of Dr. Brown's parcel and pedestrian access from Bandley Drive to the
west. He suggested also discussing whether lawn or ground cover would
be used on De Anza Boulevard's east side. Perhaps guideline could be
worded to allow broader interpretation. Comm. Gatto said he would not
want to tie the two together. The other commission members agreed with
Comm. Gatto.
Vote on the motion to continue lS-U-76 was then taken.
AYES:
NOES:
Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams
None
Motion carried, 4-Q
Connn. Woodward moved to set a hearing on October 11, 1976 for review
of conceptual plan for west side of De Anza Boulevard. Seconded by
Connn. Gatto.
Motion carried, 4-Q
2.
Application 2-V-76 of BARRY J. AND NO&~ R. FEELEY: VARIANCE
request
Withdrawn by applicant
3.
CITY OF CUPERTINO: Hearing to consider establishing a new R3
high density, multiple-family residential zone relating to
density, setbacks, permitted uses and other development
standards; and the repealing of existing R3-2.2 and R3-2.7
multiple-family residential zones. First hearing continued.
Assistant Planning Director answered Chairman Adams that the Assistant
City Attorney had reviewed the ordinance.
Mr. Cowan referred to Section 6.12 pertaining to pets. Pets seemed to
be the biggest problem. He noted the Rl ordinance has two definitions
of pets. The second definition should also be included in R3 (Section S .20) .
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Carom. Koenitzer noted definitions in Rl and R3 are almost identical.
He felt both definitions should be consistent and where practical,
should be the same. The other commission members were in favor of
this also.
Cómm. Koenitzer pointed out Rl speaks to corner triangles and possible
sight problems. The same problems should apply to the R3 ordinance.
Page 4, Section 6.14: Last line, change "access" to "excess".
Page 5, Section 6.21: Line six should read".. .structural modifica-
tions which would add....."
Page 6, Section 8.l: Line seven should read "....Council in conjunc-
tion with zoning...."
Page 7, Section 9.l: Next to last line, delete the words "at least".
Page 8, item (3) third line should read". .boundary and to ensure...."
Comm. Koenitzer thought the definition of garage as shown in Rl should
be included in R3.
Chairman Adams opened the meeting for public comment. There were none.
Comm. Gatto moved, seconded by Carom. Woodward, to close Public Hear-
ings .
Motion carried, 4-0
Carom. Woodward moved to recommend approval to City Council of Third
Draft of R3 Ordinance as amended. Seconded by Carom. Koenitzer.
AYES:
NOES:
Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams
None
Motion carried, 4-0
4.
CITY OF CUPERTINO: Hearing to consider establishing a new Rl
single-family residential zone relating to density, setbacks,
permitted uses and other development standards; and the
repealing of the existing single-family residential zone,
Ordinance No. 220(n). First hearing continued.
PC-236
Page 5
Public Hear-
ing closed
Third Draft
R3 Ordinance
approved
City of
Cupertino:
Rl Ordinance
PC-236
Page 6
Public Hear-
ings closed
Rl Ordinance
approved
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Staff member Cowan advised that the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed
this ordinance briefly.
Page 4, Section 7.2: Second line should read "...or greater, an applica-
tion may be submitted by the property owner to the ArchitecturaL...."
Section 8.2: Assistant City Attorney instigated a discussion
wording that would avoid having a deed restriction recorded.
cussion it was agreed to change the second sentence to read,
subdi vision map restriction shall be. . . ."
on a possible
After dis-
"A suitable
Page 5, Section 11.1: Line 5 should read, "potential appliances) over an
internal area of nineteen (l9) feet by....".
Page 6, Section 12.3: Delete
Chairman Adams then opened the hearing to public comments.
M8. O'Patti Bisco, Russellhurst, said when older subdivisions are resubdivided
the problem is getting smaller lots with extra pieces left over. How can
the public be protected. The older structures should be protected.
There should be assurance that its privacy will be protected. She
enumerated several problems she has encountered in this regard and said
she hoped these could be avoided through this document.
There being no further comments, Carom. Gatto moved to close Public
Hearings, seconded by Comm. Woodward.
Motion carried, 4-0
Carom. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of the Rl Ordinance to
the City Council as revised tonight. Seconded by Comm. Gatto.
AYES:
NOES:
Gatto, Koenitzer, Woodward, Chairman Adams
None
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Woodward referred to his view regarding privacy intrusion
incoporation into the Rl Ordinance. He had said he would vote for
this as long as a minority report was submitted to Council. He
felt the same privacy intrusion factors should be included in Rl
as R3 Ordinance. Information to this effect is to be forwarded to
City Council.
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
5.
CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to review proposed Tree
Ordinance provided regulations for care and removal of
trees on private property, providing for a system of grant-
ing permits for removal of specimen trees, and providing
for protection of all trees during construction operations.
First hearing continued.
The Assistant City Attorney referred to proposed elimination of
certain types of zoning districts from the ordinance. He said the
reasons for doing it should be included in the ordinance. It is
legal to exclude certain districts but findings should be passed
on and listed in purpose section.
A discussion was held on which zones should be exempt.
Chairman Adams said he felt it waS an invasion of a man's privacy
to tell him he could not remove a tree from his yard.
Corom. Koenitzer felt a tree deserved protection in undeveloped as
well as developed areas.
Comm. Gatto sàid he did not see why they had this ordinance at all;
he saw no demonstrated need for it.
Comm. Woodward noted the need for setting st~dards for protection of
trees during construction.
Chairman Adams suggested continuing this item until the new commission
member was appointed.
Carom. Woodward suggested sending it to City Council and letting them
supply the rationale since they had initiated it.
Assistant City Attorney Kilian pointed out the ordinance had been
referred to them for fact finding and changes. If the Planning
Commission members found no factual basis for exempting these
particular zoning districts, on advise of City Attorney, they could
report that the distinction is arbitrary and unreasonable because
there is no basis of finding for it.
Comm. Koenitzer referred to page 5, Section 9.2; Line 9 should read
".... tree protection plan both where the construction activity is
determined to be minor in nature (e. g. minor building or....." This
was acceptable to the other commission members.
PC-236
Page 7
City of
Cupe rtino:
Tree Ordinan<
PC-236
Page 8
Public Hear-
ings closed
Public Hear-
ings reopened
Tree Ordinanc
con tinued
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER l3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The hearing was then opened to the public.
Ms. O'Patti'Brisco, Russellhurst, said some trees tie in property marks to
different pieces of property. If these are lost, many problems may
result.
Comm. Koenitzer moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Comm.
Woodward.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Woodward suggested a finding that owner occupied properties
are less in need of regulations. City Attorney Kilian suggested
this could be included as (h) under Section 2.1, to read "Owner
occupied premises, both single family and duplex, are not in need
of this type of regulation since the owners who live on the premises
tend to be more concerned about the trees."
Comm. Koenitzer said he felt this negated what was being said in
(a) through (g).
Comm. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval to City Council with the
deletion of paragraph 6.l (e). The motion died for a lack of a second.
Comm. Woodward moved for recommending approval to the City Council
the tree ordinance as amended on page 5, Section 9.2 and page 1,
Section 2.1 (h). Seconded by Comm. Gatto.
AYES:
NOES:
Woodward, Chairman Adams
Gatto, Koenitzer
Motion failed, 2-2
Comm. Koenitzer moved to reopen public hearings, seconded by Comm.
Woodward.
Motion carried, 4-0
Comm. Koenitzer moved, to continue until November 8, 1976 to allow
inclusion of fifth Commission member. Seconded by Comm. Woodward.
Motion carried, 4-0
At 10:00 p.m. a recess was taken, The meeting reconvened at lO:l5 p.m.
with Vice-Chairman Woodward taking the chair, Chairman Adams having left.
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
6.
Application 20-Z-76 of HOWARD E. & CONSTANCE M. HOWELL:
REZONING approximately 0.33 acres from Santa Clara County
Rl-6 (Residential, single-family, 6,000 sq. ft. per dwelling
unit) to City of Cupertino Rl-7.S (Residential, single-family,
7,SOO sq. ft. per dwelling unit) or whatever zone may be
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Said property
is located adjacent to and northerly of McClellan Road
approximately 175 ft. westerly of the intersection of
McClellan Road and Orange Ave. First Hearing.
The Director of Planning and Development referred to staff report on
said subject. He said purpose of the request is annexation to the
City and construction of a single family residence.
Mr. Sikes answered Comm. Koenitzer that there would be dedication
required for widening of McClellan Road and bonding for future
improvements.
The applicant was not present.
The hearing was opened to the public. There were no comments.
Comm. Gatto moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Comm. Koenitze
Motion carried, 3-0
Comm. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of Application 20-Z-76
to the City Council. Seconded by Comm. Gatto.
Motion carried, 3-0
Vice-Chairman Woodward advised this would be heard by the City Council
at its November 4, 1976 meeting.
7.
Application l6-U-76 of TERRANOMICS DEVELOPMENT CORP.: USE
PERMIT to allow construction of 90,000 sq. ft. of commercial
space. Said property is located at the southeast corner of
the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Portal Ave.
First Hearing.
The Director of Planning and Development referred to revised site plan
and architectural drawings of the complex as exhibited on board.
He pointed out additional condition pertaining to refuse pick-up.
Comm. Gatto said he would participate in discussion, but would abstain
from voting.
PC-236
Page 9
20 -Z-76
HOWELL,
Howard &
Cons tance
Public Hear-
ings closed
l6 -U-76
TERRANOMICS
Development
Corp.
~~~
Page lO
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Barnard Johnson, l430 Franklin Street, Oakland, described changes
made and explained acoustical treatment being planned for the dock
area along Portal Avenue. He explained drawings, noting a roof
structure would be built over most of the dock area. He referred
to a cross section of roof canopy over drugstore section and drawings
of kiosk pavilions. A drawing of treatment for screening air condition-
ing equipment was exhibited.
Mr. Johnson answered Comm. Gatto there was 30 ft. between rear property
line and building. He also said the loading was depressed with an
opening for light and air.
The trellis at the corner triangle was discussed. Mr. Johnson said they
were hoping to relate it to adjoining space. Comm. Koenitzer felt Some
focal point would be well for this area.
Comm. Gatto pointed out the continuous unbroken line of building along
rear property line which needed attention.
Comm. Koenitzer spoke to east and west driveways. He did not want two
curb cuts but did not know what the solution should be. Mr. Johnson
said these were necessary for traffic circulation.
Mr. Johnson answered Comm. Gatto that fire access lane was required by
the Fire Marshal's office..
Mr. Sisk answered
requirement for a
special condition
concern was noise
and corner wall.
minimal.
Vice-Chairman Woodward thaf there would not be a
masonry wall along east boundary line unless a
were attached. Vice-Chairman Woodward said his
penetration through gap between Brentwood building
Mr. Johnson said deliveries at this point would be
The hearing was then opened for comments.
Mr. Merritt Sher, 280 Battery, San Francisco, said they had tried to
address themselves to concerns expressed at last meeting. He was
pleased with project being submitted.
Public Hear-
ing closed
Comm. Koenitzer moved to close Public Hearings, seconded by Carom. Gatto.
Motion carried, 3-0
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Comm. Koenitzer moved to recommend approval of 16-U-76 to the City
Council with the 14 standard conditions and conditions IS through 22
as presented in staff memo of September 9, 1976. Seconded by Comm.
Gatto.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Koenitzer,
None
Gatto
Vice-Chairman Woodward
Motion carried, 2-o-l
Vice-Chairman Woodward announced this would be heard by the City
Council on September 20, 1976.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
8.
Application 7-TM-76 - Edmund F. Schneiders, - Requesting
approval for phasing development.
Director of Planning and Development Sisk referred to exhibited map
showing proposed phasing of development. Mr. Sisk proposed an addition
to condition l7 that all roadway dedication and improvements within
Phase I and Phase III, which represents entire frontage of both North
De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road, be installed as part of Phase I.
Also, the Engineering Department wanted a statement that any utilities
that cannot be phased as determined by the City Engineer shall be
installed as part of Phase I.
After a brief discussion, Comm. Gatto moved for tentative map amend-
ment to 7-TM-76 as outlined in staff memO of September 10, 1976 and
the following additions:
17. That all of the common area outlined in Phase One and all
of the perimeter landscaping along North De Anza Boulevard,
Homestead Road and the northern property line, shall be
installed with Phase One of the development. All roadway
dedications and improvements within Phase One and Phase
Three shall be provided as a part of Phase One.
l8. The City Engineer shall determine phasing of utilities in
order to properly service the site.
Seconded by Comm. Koenitzer.
AYES:
NOES:
Koenitzer, Gatto, Vice-Chairman Woodward
None
Motion carried, 3-0
PC-236
Page II
16-U-76
approved wi
conditions
7-TM-76
SCHNEIDERS,
Edmund F.
7-TM-76
Amendment
approved
:-236
,ge l2
Lendment to
,neral Plan
,blic Hear-
19 10/25/76
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER l3, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NEW BUSL'lESS
9.
Consideration of amendment to land use element of General Plan.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan referred to map denoting specific
properties or groups of properties which are involved in requests for
general plan amendment. It was recommended that the Planning Commission
direct the staff to schedule a public hearing to consider a general plan
land use element revision with specific emphasis on the properties listed
in staff report of September lO, 1976.
The format for these hearings was discussed. Vice-Chairman Woodward
asked if notices would be sent out and if specific areas would be
defined. Mr. Sisk answered these could both be done. It was agreed
that at least most immediate neighbors to the areas should be notified.
Comm. Gatto moved to direct staff to schedule public hearings to
consider the items listed in September lO, 1976 memo and any other
items that might be brought to their attention before that notice is
published. Meeting to be set for October 25, 1976. Seconded by
Comm. Koenitzer.
AYES:
NOES:
Gatto, Koenitzer, Vice-Chairman Woodward
None
Motion carried, 3-0
Mr. Sisk assured Comm. Koenitzer that all adjacent residents to these
areas would be notified.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Sisk referred to trip to San Diego which a1:1 members
would be attending.
ADJOURNMENT
At lO:55 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next meetong on
September 27, 1976 at 7:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
, City Clerk