PC 05-26-81
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
,10300 Torre Ayenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014
Telephone: (1.,08) 252-1.,505
PC-357
Page 1
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG
7 : 30 P. M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Com. Adams
Com. Binneweg
Com. Blaine
Com. Koenitzer
Chr. Claudy
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Hinutes of the Regular Meeting of May 11, 1981 were approved after the
followingcörrection:
Page 2, line 2, before the words "square footage" the words "currently
approved" ,tocbe added, to read: "that the currently approved square
footage on the entire property would not changelf.
MOTION: Com. Blaine, that the Minutes be approved as corrected
SECOND: CDffi. Adams
VOTE: PASSED 4-1 abs t.
(Com. Koenitzer abstaining, since he was not present).
POSTPONE}ŒNTS!NEW AGENDA ITEMS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
CHR. CLAUDYmentioned some written communications in regard to ITEH III to
be read into the records at the appropriate time.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLICHEÂRINGS :
ITEM Ill, Application 8-U-8l of CANADA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: USE PERMIT to
constructrtine attached residential dwelling units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration. Said property is located at the northeast quadrant of
Blaney Avenue and Beekman Place. First Hearing continued. Tentative
City CountH'hearing date - June 1, 1981.
AssociateiPlànner Piasecki explained that the application had been before
the Commi~s~~n, two weeks ago, when the applicant had asked for a continuan e
to work on"design-related concerns, and that Staff still had some concerns.
It wasf~ft fhat the applicant had been fairly successful in minimizing
the appear'anle- of some two storey structures, but that more could have
been done through utilization of single storey, shedding up to two storey
elements. Rkgarding the relationship of the two storey units along the
northerly property line to property further north, it was felt that the
PC-3s7
Page 2
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Slladow patterns that would be cast would be a problem in winter. Regardif\g
a further concern, voiced in a letter, of yet another exit onto Blaney, the
traffic engineer had researched records for the past six years and had
found no endence of accidents at the intersection immediately to the northwest.
Another concern voiced by letter was that the visibility might be obscured,
but the traffic engineer aad advised that he would check and that shrubs would
be cut, if that was found to be the case.
He advised that there had been a letter from the property owner to the north
to ask whether the segment of public street on their property could be abandoned
in the same manner that this applicant was requesting, but that as Staff was
insistent on restricting access at this point, it would not be satisfactory to
return it to private ownership, leaving the present applicant with easement
rigats only to a public street.
He showed the applicant's revised plan and compared it to the original plan
and summed up that Staff's main concerns related to the two storey elements
which had been significantly improved, but it was felt that the applicant
could redraw and design single storey elèments along the southerly property
line, more in keeping with the adjacent Beekman Place homes, and also redesign
the units along the northern property line to shift the two storey elements
into the center with one storeys around the perimeter, thereby minimizing shadows.
COM. BINNEWEG questioned how the square footage in the conceptual design Staff
had in mind compared with the square footage the applicant wanted.
As~sociate Planner Piasecki advised that one unit and perhaps two would be
lost, and the size of the remaining units might have to be reduced.
COM. BLAINE asked Assistant City Engineer Whitten whether thought had been
given to a right turn onto Blaney, rather than a left, with special circulation
to go south.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that as the accident chart showed
nothing here for six years it would not be done, as it required some type of
accident history.
COM. BLAINE wondered whetner it was possible for traffic to turn right and
go all the way around, next to the freeway and under the overpass.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten said that it was, and that there was no plan
at City level to cut off that access.
COM. KOENITZER wanted to know whether the 6/15 ft. of landscaping was in addition
to Beekman Place landscaping.
Associate Planner Piasecki confirmed that it was, and added that there was
a grade difference between the two sites of 1/2 ft.
CHR. CLAUDY pointed out that some of the landscaping on Exhibit A, first
revision was internal to lots.
Roger Griffin, representing Canada Development Company, said they had addressed
concerns voiced at the last Meeting and had redesigned so that the units were
not as high, being only 23 ft. from grade to ridge. Fencing and a rise in terrain
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-357
Page 3
tended to rninimise the height aspect of the masonry wall, and there was~a
much greater setback distance for the structures rising up from the grade, so
that the end result was a much reduced impact, especially from the south.
He illustrated the physical separation between the development and Beekman
Place, dèscribed trees and landscaping to be added by the developer at the
back of Unit #7 and pointed out that there was now a maximum amount of
privacy due to window treatments. Against Beekman Place, three units had
been reduced to two, he advised, and turned so they had a side element again t
Beekman, leaving a distance of 35 ft. from the Blaney Avenue right of way.
He acknowledged the problem of shadowing, but felt they had done the best
possible, and asked for questions from the Commission, hoping for approval
of the project.
COM. BLAINE inquired whether thought had been given to the northerly portion
being one storey with a two storey element in the front that would face on
to the street.
Mr. Griffin replied that this had been given a certain amount of consideratio
but that it had been decided to focus the two storey element in the center
in order that there would not be a continuous element of two storey along
the back.
CHR. CLAUDY wondered how high the masonry wall would be on the inside.
Mr. Griffin advised it would be 6 ft. with a 2 ft. berm along it.
CIIR. CLADDY observed that it would therefore be effectively a 4 ft. wall
on the outside, and could be looked over from the adjacent public street.
Mr. Griffin thought it could be a foot or so higher, and that the point,
which had not occurred to them, had to be addressed.
At this point, CHR. CLAUDY listed the written communications received from
Marie E. Lawrence, representing Clara M. Geraci, Frank and Dorothy Zesytel,
and another, anonymous, Blaney Avenue resident. He asked for audience input;
nobody came forward.
COM. BLAINE liked the solution facing Beekman Place, and though she was not
thrilled with the solution regarding the five units facing north, it might
alleviate the problem. She felt there should be an alternative traffic
pattern for those concerned with making a left turn out onto Blaney.
COM. ADAMS, looking at the concerns he had raised at the last Meeting, i.e.,
the structure on the corner of Beekman and Blaney and the one in the east
corner, confirmed they had been addressed to his satisfaction.
COM. KOENITZER'S major concern was that the development would be mostly
two storey and 15 ft. from the property line, as the parcel to the north was
already surrounded on two sides by two storey buildings and the proposed
development would really close it in.With the additional aspect of solar
shading, he felt there were serious questions, as there were with the access
as the corner was certainly not the best, and would not be improved by
adding another access.
PC-357
Page 4
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. BINNEWEG observed that the feeling on Blaney Avenue was one of
large two storey structures close to the sidewalk, Beekman Place
being tucked away, so that the complex in question would not be out of
keeping, though she was wondering about the long-term use of the adjoining
property, which would have the same problems. She could not see how
the project could be redesigned to have single storey units along the north
as Staff had suggested, but would support it if necessary, she said.
COM. KOENITZER expressed his ongoing concern of large units on small lots,
and questioned whether tlley fitted in Cupertino.
Mr. Griffin pointed out that the units on Beekman were partially two storey
as they had a loft treatment, totalling approximately 400 sq. ft.
CHR. CLAUDY did not see any feasible way of redesigning the units and said
it was one of the smaller ownership projects seen recently. He had liked
the previous design for the north better, but felt it to be a reasonable plan
as a whole, surmizing that Mrs. Geraci's property would be developed in due
_course, probably with an access drive along the north side of the property.
He was concerned, however, regarding the berming adjacent to the wall.
COM. BLAINE suggested sending a Minute Order to H. Control.
Luis Pina, an architect, commenting on the size of the units, said that
people could not afford to buy more land, so that architects were faced
ith putting more units on the land so that people could buy. He complimented
the Commission on the interest they had taken to come up with a final solution.
HOT ION :
SECOND:
VOTE:
Corn. Blaine, to close Public Hearings.
Com. Adams
PASSED
5-0
COM. ADAHS supported the project on the basis that it was in keeping with
the density transition in the area and yet provided a single-ownership project.
Associate Planner Piasecki commented that any refinements required should
be addressed to Staff, who would be responsible for implementing them, as
the project had already been to H. Control.
A discussion on the berming ensued) and it was felt that the impact of berming
as dependent upon landscaping treatment) so that the Commission felt it
should be left out.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine, to recommend the Negativé Úeclaration of the
Environmental Review Committee.
Com. Binneweg
PASSED
5-0
Com. Blaine, to recommend approval of Applic&~ion 8-U-8l,
subject to Conditions 1-20 as in the Staff Report, with
findings and subconclusions as in the Staff Report.
Com. B inneweg
PASSED
5-0
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-357
Page 5
ITEM #2, Application 6-TM-8l of DIRK REED (SILVER OAKS WEST): TENTATIVE
~uæ to subdivide one parcel consisting of approximately 1.74 acres into~
17 airspace office condominium units and ENVIRON~ŒNTAL REVIEW: The
project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. Said
property is located at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Foothill Boulevard in a P (Planned Development with Single-family
Cluster, Multiple Residential and General Commercial Intent) zoning
district. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date -
June 1, 1981.
Associate Planner Piasecki explained that as this was a continued item,
there was nothing to add to the Staff Report, but that the applicant had
indicated his willingness to lease or sell the units for commercial, in
addition to office, uses, and was presently in contact with some
commercial tenants, which addressed one concern that the Commission had
voiced. Regarding another concern, Assistant City Engineer Whitten
would give a status report on residential street improvementcdiscussions
with the applicant.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that Mr. Reed, the applicant, had
indicated to him that he would not be willing to submit additional
guarantees to complete improvements. on the residential p"rtion of the
project, though he thought Mr. Reed would like to comment on the matter.
Mr. Dirk Reed explained that his absence at the prior Meeting had been
due to confusion, as he had not realized there was a Planning Commission
Meeting after Architectural Committee Meeting, and he thought he had
obtained approval at that meeting. He reported that he had signed
leases with a hairdressing and a delicatessen business, and that he.had
just recently begun to advertise the property for lease or sale, offering
it for commercial or office use with units of between 770 and 1500 sq. ft
CHR. CLAUDY pointed out to the applicant that on the original Use Permit
there had been a convenience store in units 5 and 6.
Mr. Reed thought that a convenience store would attract undesirables,
and advised that though the property had been completed for eighteen
months, the only two leases were the ones mentioned
With regard to the street improvements, he felt it unfair that he should
have to make improvements on the residential when he was buying the
commercial only, and stated that he had already contributed $2,500 for
the upgrading of the residential landscaping.
He apprised the Commission of a change of name for the center, and that
he had received permi;;sion from Architectural and Site Control to
open up the development by putting some windows along Foothill Express-
way, subject to a sound study, to give more natural light and more
identity to the corners.
COM. KOENITZER observed that Mr. Reed had bought the problems on the
parcel, but not on the adjacent, residential, one.
PC-357
Page 6
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Assistant City Engineer Whitten added that bonds still existed, and could
be used as a last resort.
CHR. CLAUDY questioned whether the bonds were separate and distinct for
the commercial and residential.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that there were three bonds, for
the public streets, private streets and grading, but not separating the
commercial from the residential.
CHR. CLAUDY in the absence of legal counsel, asked Mr. Whitten,in his
opinion, if the parking lot consituted a part of the private street.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten confirmed that it would be covered by a bond.
The applicant thought the parking lot would be covered by the bond on
grading.
.CHR. CLAUDY questioned Mr. Reed on the matter of whether he had accepted
an exclusion and taken total responsibility for the work the bonds would
have covered.
Mr. Reed stated that he had not done that. He referred to the Staff
Conditions, that 1-14 were satisfactory to him, that his attorney had been
in contact with the City Attorney regarding Condition 16, to discuss
completion of the association document, which he thought would be ready
by the middle of the next week, and that he had already commenced with
completion of the landscaping, as in Condition 18, as he was eager to finish
the project, for the neighbors and himself.
COM. ADAMS, on the subject of the convenience store, said there was a
great need for it in the area.
COM. BLAINE added that the semi-convenience store existing attracted customers
that the senior citizens from the development acroSs the street did not want
to encounter, so that tlœy had been looking forward to it.
Mr. Reed established that a convenience store with the right connotation
would not be offensive, and that the fact the delicatessen intended having
some convenience items would help.
Mr. Ron Percy representing Silver Oaks West, San Jose, remarked to City
Engineer Whitten that they now had a list of improvements to be made to
the streets which they had been waiting some time for. It was a fact they
had not finished the streets and landscaping to the exact satisfaction of
the homeowners, and that there was a lawsuit pending, but they had done
everything in the plans and spec'ifications, and had filed a countersuit,
he advised. They had done everything asked of them by the City, but if
there was more, they would do it; they were not deadbeats, he said, and
were definitely still doing business in the County.
He was in favor of Mr. Reed changing the concept a little, though he
personally wanted to see a convenience store for the benefit of the home-
owners acêOSS the street who had spoken on his behalf , but his original
intention was commercial and office use, and he and Mr. Reed did not want
that changed.
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-357
Page 7
CHR. CLAUDY thanked Mr. Percy, and said it was not the intention to im~ly
anything detrimental or otherwise, that the concern was merely with the
lack or progress 9n the site, and that Mr. Percy's word would be accepted
that ·he would take care of any problems that existed.
COM. BLAINE asked Mr. Reed if he had an idea of the percentage of commercial
to office use.
Mr. Reed replied that it was early to say, as he had only had a two-day sign
up so far, and had not been involved with an office building before,
but a number of commercial retail projects, so that this was different.
However, he had been a broker with a commercial/industrial real estate firm
for several years and had a high reputation in the industry, so that he
felt the brokerage response would be very high, though these were some stran e
economic times.
CHR. CLAUDY said he would be disturbed to see the concept changed from a
neighborhood retail commercial center to one of office use, but he felt
. . there was not the population base to support a doctor or dentist, which he
felt would be more desirable.
Mr. Reed felt that with the new housing developments in the area, he would
probably be successful in getting one or both, and reiterated that if a
convenience center approached him, he would not be hostile.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Koènitzer, to close the Public Hearing.
Com. Blaine
PASSED
5-0
COM. ADAMS appreciated the comment that the convenience capability be re-
tained, but felt it could not be dictated.
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Koenitzer, to recommend approval of Application 6-TM-8l
to the City Council, with Standard Conditions, and Conditions
15-18 as per the Staff Report.
Com. Blaine
PASSED 5-0
MOTION:
ITEM #3, CITY OF CUPERTINO: Public Hearing to consider amendment of
Ordinance 2l4(a) pertaining to excavations, grading and retaining walls.
First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - June 15,1981.
Assistant City Engineer IIhitten explained that the first draft had been
presented to the Planning Commission earlier in the year, and that from that
Meeting, mailings to developers and soil engineers and audience input,
comments had been incorporated, together with ABAG's~ecommendations in
regard to erosion and sédiment control, to c~me up with the latest draft
which was not polished and had not been reviewed by the City Attorney,
but with which Staff was comfortable in regard to the general layout of
sections and the technical portions.
He listed some major changes, that clearing a property would now require a
permit, though there were exceptions which went along with exceptions in
the existing grading ordinance; that there was an attempt to exercise
better control over grading operations in winter months, but not to prohibi
it; that the provisions for slope planting and maintenance had been rewritte
and expanded.
PC- 35 7
þge 8
MINUTES,MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. BLAINE had several questions, and firstly referred to page 3 at the
bottom where it said: "This chapter shall be applicable to work performed
within the private property lines, and shall not be construed to regulate
work encompassed in public property". She wondered why it should not.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten said he would have to ask legal counsel,
but rema~ked that the City followed the same procedures required of a
private developer.
CHR. CLAUDY cOTmnented that this was not always so, and quoted the example
of the Corporation Yard landscaping.
COM. BLAINE, referring to the top of page 4, asked whether one criterion
under both A and B had to be met.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten confirmed that this was so, and commented
that Staff members had asked if there was some way it could be simplified.
COM. KOENITZER suggested that a table would help with the clarification of
wording and conditions.
COM. BLAINE, referring to page 4, (A-4) regarding cemeteries, inquired
if the building of hills on a property could be exempt because it was a
cemetery.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten said he would check on that point, which
was a good one.
CHR. CLAUDY had noticed that an interesting method was being used in a
neighboring cemetery, one which involved a tremendous amount of grading and
excavation.
COM. BLAINE, referring to page 5 line 4; "Following an emergency, plans
must be submitted to the Director within 30 days" wondered if it was an
emergency, whether it should not be handled immediately.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten explained the intent was that if it was an
emergency it would be exempt from the Ordinance, but once the emergency was
over, plans had to be submitted to correct aûything done in violation of the
Ordinance. He observed that perhaps this needed clarification.
COM. BLAINE, referring to page 5, letter E regarding mines and quarries,
questioned whether anything already established was exempt.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten thought it should cover new or existing
quarries and advised that new quarries required Use Permits also.
CHR. CLAUDY felt the wording was misleading and should be rewritten, as it
could presently be interpretted that a quarry had to get a permit for every
layer of rock removed.
COM. BLAINE, referring to the secqnd page 8 D:"For bonding purposes, an estimate
of the cost of implementing and maintaining all interim erosion and sedQment
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-357
Page 9
control measures must be submitted in a form acceptable to the Directop'
said to her that meant that bonding would be for interim erosion and
sediment control, but on the next page, in 16.08.150, bonds sufficient
to cover the costs of the project were mentioned. These were two differen
things, she thought.
CHR. CLAUDY thought the Section on page 8 was more concerned with an
estimate of cost from which the bond would be established.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten confirmed this, but thought perhaps the
bonding part should come out of that paragraph.
COM. BLAINE questioned whether the bonding to be required was for the
total cost of the project.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten confirmed that it would cover any work
on site that required a permit.
COM. KOENITZER felt this point was not clear, in that the first paragraph
only mentioned the cost of the project including both grading and
corrective work, and did not say anything about erosion control work.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten assured him that it would be corrected,
and that erosion control and section 150 on bonds would be added.
COM. BLAINE inquired about the cost of grading on a normal hillside
dwelling, or the cost of the bond.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that the bond cost was affected
by the applicant's standing with the bonding company, and also his
financial status, and that a large company could probably get a bond for
1% of the face value per annum.
COM. BLAINE wondered how much grading would cost on an average on two
hillside acres.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that the figure varied with the
type of house and land.
COM. BLAINE asked that an average figure be prepared for the City Council.
CHR. CLAUDY, surmizing that the whole amount of a bond would not normally
have to be used for any repair work involved, wondered about the purpose.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten, acknowledging that the use of the full
amount of a bond would be rare, said that in extreme cases it would be
necessary, and that had to be considered..
COM. BLAINE, referring to Page 14, number 4, asked why drainage across lot
lines was prohibited, as a developer might be working on several lots,
and taking water to a storm drain might necessitate going across a lot.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten replied that an easement would be provided
for storm drain puproses, and agreed that the section would be reworded.
PC-357
P3,lge 10
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COM. BLAINE wanted an explanation of page 15, no. 3; why a side and rear
yard were not required to construct storm drain gutters.
Assistant City Engineer Whtten said this had originated because there
~y were many planters constructed on single family lots that fell under retaining
walls, though they were technically not so, and that type of 'thing did not
generally require a storm drain, etc.
COM. BLAINE clarified that walls which were not retaining walls in side and
rear yards did not require storm drains.
CHR. CLAUDY referred to page 15, no. s. a. "Walls less than three feet in
height, any material allowed within this' code can be used." But below that,
no. 1 said: "Walls which are less than eight feet in height, the vertical
posts shall be made of material other than wood," He observed that walls
less than three feet in height were also less than eight feet in height.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten stated that something was obviously missing;
it would be checked out and the numbering also straightened out.
COM. BLAINE reported that she had received a telephone call from a developer
who was concerned about the use of benching, rather than sloping, in that
it involved a gre~t deal of earth movement.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten thought that page 13, section 5 regarding
drainage was the portion being objected to here, and advised that the amount
of water coming off a 30/40 ft. slope could be excessive.
COM. BLAINE thought the developer's point was that he could drain it off
from the top.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten was not concerned with the top of the slope,
but the run-off all the way down, which had to be picked up every 25 ft.
and channeled.
COM. ADAMS had a couple of minor changes only, understanding that the legal
staff would be examining it. He wanted the 'i...¡ord "written" to be inserted
on page 2, item 4 to read: II A writ ten set of measures desîgned to control'! ete..,
as he felt a plan should be written; on page 7, M. he wanted the word "timelt
to be added, to read: "Proposed sequence -ànd time schedule of excavation" etc.
He questioned whether the design standards on Page 12 had been taken from
somewhere else.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten said they had been a combination of the existing
Ordinance and Staff, ABAG and outside ideas.
COM. ADAMS asked if the minimum standard of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical in
regard to slope was the one presently used, and was told bY Mr. Whitten that
it was.
COM. BINNEWEG wanted some clarification on the timing to be used in lieu
of prohibition during winter months.
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-357
Page 11
Assistant City Engineer clarified that permit holders were being asked to
submit a time schedule to the City, and that Staff would be examining
projects around August 15 and September 15th when the first rainfall was
expected to see that schedules were being observed and to correct any
deficiencies before the rain.
COM. BINNEWEG wondered if there was a cut-off date in the spring.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten said there was a triggering date only.
COM. BLAINE thought the inspection to take place five days after the first
heavy rain was reasonable.
COM. ADAMS, in regard to the work schedule on page 9, felt there was another
area to addressed, if a project was started and then, due to delay in
financing or unavailability of a subcontractor, etc., it was halted,and thou h
it was scheduled to be finished before the rains came it was not, creating
an emergency.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten referred to the section on conditions of
approval (suspension and revocation of permit) as addressing this matter,
using suspensions, delay, or revocation of permit, etc., the best Staff
could do, short of prohibition. He felt the penalty section was the key,
and if it was kept high enough, it could work.
COM. BLAINE observed that right
carried a maximuffl fine of $50.
meanor, which carried a fine of
now the penalty was termed an infraction whi h
The n~w ordinance termed the penalty a Misde
$500. per day.
Assistant City Engineer Whitten expressed his wish to send the draft to the
City Attorney's Office and on to City Council, if the Commission was in
agreement, once it was in a polished form.
~roTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine, to close the Public Hearing.
Com. Binneweg
PASSED
5-0
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Blaine, to send a Minute Order to City Council, to the
effect that the Ordinance as currently written met the basic
concerns that the Planning Commission had with the revisions
suggested taken care of.
Com. Koenitzer
PASSED 5-0
MOTION:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #4, Application HC-sl,546.l - Antonio Reyes: Requesting the Planning
Commissionts approval of a reduced front yard distance, in accordance with
Section 118.1 of the ~~ (Light Industrial) Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
is proposing to construct a 3,600 sq. ft. industrial building to be located
at the northwest corner of Imperial Avenue and Lomita Avenue in a ML
zoning district.
PC- 35 7
P~ge 12
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Associate Planner Piasecki reported that there had been letters from twb
adjoining property owner's as well as from Ann Anger, Honta Vista resident
regarding this application, and that some of them were in the audience.
He pointed out an error on the map, the correct location being Lomita and
Imperial.
He explained that the applicant I s plan showed a 10 ft. setback on Imperial
and 10 ft. also from the future dedication on Lomita, and remark~d that
the Commission had never had an industrial setback modification request
before, though the Ordinance, which required 25 ft. from any front property
line, gave the Commission the authority for it.He described the two-parcel site as
being surrounded by residential uses which were also general planned for light
industrial eventually.
He turned to the plan on the board which he confirmed had been before the
Architectural and Site Approval Committee.· They had voted to approve it,
subject to Planning Commission approval of the 10 ft. setbacks, he said.
·He went on to explain the contention that Staff had, that the arrangement
as shown, with the zero lot line concept and parking and storage in the front.
was not appropriate with the reduced front setback, and they felt the buil-
ding should be laid out along the frontage. The applicant had expressed
concern with this idea, in that he would lose approximately 500 sq. ft. by
doing this, and had told Staff that if he was allowed to go up to 23 ft. in
height, the difference would make up for it, but though the building shown
was 23 ft. in height, the Architectural and Site Approval Committee had
limited it to 20 fL in accordance with the Conditions of Approval.
He advised that the architectural scheme was not under the decision powers
of the Planning Commission at this time, but the Commissioners could certainly
express opinions.
COM. ADAMS established that the only issue was a variation in the front yard
setback.
CHR. CLAUDY noted that if the Commission chose, they could disapprove the
setback, but could not modify the building, for example, to rotate it 180°,
though they could send a Minute Order to City Council,whether or not they approved it.
Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that if the Commission approved the
variance it would not have to go to City Council, though the plans would,
and advised that the Commission should make a finding that the approval
of the setback variation promoted the overall excellence of the site design.
COM. BLAINE requested information on how the building would function for the
applicant, to better understand the placement and the need for a reduced
setback.
Associate Planner Piasecki believed the applicant had two bays on the front,
which were permitted under ML, to be closed off and used for storage. However,
if the building was flipped the other way, they would still have two bays,
but the applicant had concerns with the storage area being behind the building
because of security. Staff, however, was concerned about the site arrange-
ment because of its impact on adjoining properties.
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COÞ!MISSION MEETING
PC-357
Page 13
Luis Pina, architect representing the applicant, said that if he followed
all rules and setbacks on the land, he would have constructed a building
8 ft. wide. Planning Department had wanted him to put the building on
the front, but they had gone ahead and presented their plan to the
Architectural Committee, where it had been approved overwhelming the
first night, the only recommendation being that they return with improved
landscaping, he said. They had done this, but a member of Staff had not
liked the trees, so they had been asked to come back with different ones.
In the meantime, they had been advised by Public Works that there was a
pending dedication on Lomita, which they had known nothing about, and were
also advised by Planning Department to give up a 45° view line on the
corner, so that the site was becoming unbuildable, he felt, and the
situation was not helped when the neighbors, who had not objected earlier
voiced an opinion that they did not want to be against a wall.
He summed up that they did not want to build on the front,
setbacks made the land unbuildable and that the area contained
. remaining light industrial land in Cupertino, where his client
be located, as it was his home. The objections of the
should be seen in the light that it was an industrial area, he
that 25 ft.
the only
wanted to
neighbors
felt.
COM. ADAMS wondered what type of business operation was proposed in the
building.
Mr. Pina advised that it would be a cement contractor's warehouse,
where the applicant would store wood, wheel-barrows, scaffolding, etc.,
but no big equipment.
COM. ADAMS wondered if the warehouse had offices above.
Mr. Pina stated that it did not, and described the windows as being Staff'
idea.
COM. BINNEWEG wondered why he had designed the 23 ft. height, if the
building was not two-storey.
Mr. Pina stated that it was because they had been so cramped for space on
the lot, and that it was only for height of loading. They had agreed to
lower it to 20 ft. because of a neighbor's objection, he advised, and
the finished usable inside space would only be 16 ft.
COM. BLAINE inquired whether the 500 sq. ft. lost if the building was
put on the front was with the 25 ft. setback, and if not, where
the loss of 500 sq. ft. would be.
Mr. Pina explained that even with the 10 ft. setback, by switching the
building over he lost space for three cars, which reduced the possible
size of the building. He added that the 45° angle would mean cramping.
COM. ADAMS established that the nature of the operation would be loading
and unloading of cement finishing equipment daily during the week.
Mr. Pina added that the loading would only occur in the early morning and
late afternoon; that there would be no activity or noise all day long.
PC- 35 7
Page 14
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLfu~NING COM1ISSION MEETING
COM. ADM-IS surrnized that if the building was rotated with the "L" section
parallel to the intersection, the noise of the operation would be obvious
to the neighbors.
Mr. Pina agreed.
CHR. CLAUDY questioned the need for two entrances.
Mr. Pina thought that if one entrance was a condition, the applicant might
be able to reconsider, but he could not speak for him.
CHR. CLAUDY suggested flipping the building over, with one entrance, off Lomita.
Mr. Pina t,.¡as of the opinion that too much area would be lost.
CHR. CLAUDY pointed out that it would only be a small triangle, and that
there would be more parking space.
" Associate Planner Piasecki added that Staff thought this could be done, and
though they had recognized there might be some square footage loss, this way
there appeared to be none.
Mr. Tony Reyes, the applicant, stated that he wanted to get the building,
the way it was or changed, if necessary, but he needed the square footage
as designed; or close to it. Answering questions from COM. BLAINE on his
operation, he established that the trucks would be loaded close to the
building, that the materials would be stored insid"e, and that there would
be no cement, which was brought directly to the job site. His employees
used his trucks for transportation home, he said, so there would be no
parking problems and no trucks on the property, apart from a dump truck
and tractor.
COM. BLAINE asked the applicant if he needed two driveways.
Mr. Reyes replied that he did not, if it was not required by the Fire Depart-
ment and if the single driveway could be 15/18 ft. wide.
Associate Planner Piasecki confirmed that one driveway would satisfy the
Fire Department.
CHR. CLAUDY recapitulated that the Commission was attempting to come up with
a plan to give Mr. Reyes the desired space and facilities while satisfying
the adjacent property owners and the rest of the City, but would not be
attempting to apply residential conditions.
COM. ADAMS wondered if they should be looking at the issue of the 10 ft.
from the aspect of the whole picture.
CHR. CLAUDY thought that this had to be done, as to grant the 10 ft. variance
the Commission would have to make the finding that it promoted the overall
excellence of the development.
COM. KOENITZER observed that this application brought up a problem the City
had not been able to cope with, namely too many small lots in certain areas.
There had to be some way to get them together. This development really needed
another lot added.
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CHR. CLAUDY advised that it was impossible to ask the applicant to wai~
to combine with other properties, and that something had to be done with
the land as it was to enable him to locate his small business on it.
PC-357
Page 1"5
COM. KOENITZER added that if the development was allowed as proposed, there
would be two 50 ft. lots on either £ide, zoned light industrial, that
would be almost impossible to develop.
COM. ADAMS reiterated that the Commission's decision had to be based on the
10 ft. issue only, and observed he would prefer to see a building than an
open yard.
Associate Planner Piasecki counseled that the Commission was to evaluate
firstly whether they could make a finding that the particular site plan,
with the 10 ft. setback, promoted the overall excellence, and secondly,
if not, what site plan would do so, and this was what they had been discuss'ng.
CHR. CLAUDY observed that it was not a Public Hearing, but that there were
people in the audience who wanted to comment, and he asked them to do so.
Mr. James Dyer, who lived immediately west of the proposed building, said
his objections had been expressed in a letter which the Commission had,
but wanted to point out that the height was lowered because of a City
Ordinance, and not because of his request, as the architect had stated.
He established that he did not want to sell his property, but that at some
time in the future it \,¡Quld have to be developed, and with the present
configuration of the building in question, it would be almost impossible.
He suggested that if a reverse configuration could be worked out, with a
10 ft. setback and reciprocal access agreements between Mr. Reyes' property
and the two adjoining, it would provide for a more cohesive future develop-
ment for the adjoning properties.
He was categorically against the buifdinß as proposed with the 10 ft. set-
back and felt the applicant was really asking for a variance to increase
the square footage of the building over what would ordinarily be allowed.
Mr. Oswald Briones, 10135 Imperial Avenue, described his home, being
adjacent to the proposed development, as being 25 ft. back on the lot,
with another "L" shaped building on the other side of it having a 17 ft.
high wall, so that the proposed building as designed would box him in.
He suggested twisting the building around to give a development future for
the adjoining properties and to enable him to stay in his home. He felt
that as the City was planning to close off the street, the corner should not
be an issue.
He pointed out that the applicant was talking about losing 500 sq. ft.,
whereas he and Mr. Dyer stood to lose a great deal more.
Associate Planner Piasecki confirmed that the development would block
sunlight to !1r.Br:lones' property.
Ms. Barbara Trubell, 10354 Imperial Avenue was concerned about the proposed
development, though it was a couple of blocks away, as she would have to
pass it. She was already concerned about the unsightly conditions existing
in the neighborhood, and the biggest problems on Imperial were outdoor
PC-357
....D-qge 16
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
storage of materials and businesses operating without adequate employee
parking. She was very concerned at the mention of outdoor storage in this
case, and hoped it could be worked out so that the building would be on the
front of the property.
She reported that at the original Architectural and Site Approval Committee
meeting en individual had made a statement that he saw nothing wrong with
the proposal and could live with it, but it had turned out he did not live
in the area and was simply leasing the building opposite for a year or so;
it had absolutely no effect on his life, and she felt the needs of the
people who wanted to continue to live in the area should be considered.
Ann Anger, Monta Vista resident, said she was speaking out because of her
interest in upgrading Manta Vista. She felt the applicant had no
considerati.on for what the development was doing to the community, only
for the fact that he had paid a lot of money for the property and had to get
the most out of it. She advised that she and the neighbors were not tr;'ing
to deny him the development, but only wanted a satisfactory design.
Mr. Pina said he had talked to Mr. Reyes and that they would consider moving
the building towards the front with one exit if they were allowed to have
the 10 ft. setback. They wanted to cooperate, he said, and did not want to
do anything against the welfare of the community.
There was a discussion on how the site plan could be redesigned to fit the
needs and Planning Director Sisk advised that the site triangle was not an
ordinance, and that the City had the ability to approve plans without it,
though it was desirable.
COM. BLAINE suggested that the applicant might ask for a continuance and
come back at the next meeting with a revised site plan showing the 10 ft.
setback, one driveway and the building on the front, to see if it was
feasible, and then ask for the variance.
CRR. CLAUDY thought that it might be possible, eliminating one driveway, to
rotate the building 180°, having a very short end, rather than a long end,
of the buidling touching the property line.
Mr. Pina demonstrated that however it was done, one of the neighbors would
be inconvenienced.
COHo BLAINE, looking at the original plan, said that with only one driveway
to contend with and taking one of the legs up to the property line, only a
small triangle would be lost. She could not see that the 10 ft. setback was
warranted under the present plan, but it might be warranted by another plan,
she felt. She asked if they would be willing to take a continuance.
Mr. Pina replied that time was getting short, as interest rates were rising.
After discussion, he was agreeable to a continuance if they did not have to
go before the Architectural Committee again.
Planning Director Sisk established that if they did, it would be before th~
next Planning Commission Meeting.
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-357
Page 17
MOTION:
Com. Blaine, to continue Application HC-51,546.1 for
two weeks.
Com. Adams
PASSED
5-0
SECOND:
VOTE:
ITEM #5, Planning Commission Work Priority.
Planning Director Sisk observed that one item had been left out,
the Historical Preservation Ordinance, and it had been put in under group
3, as it had had a fairly low priority over the years. He suggested that
it might be done next spring.
CHR. CLAUDY thought the general groupings to be fairly reasonable.
COM. KOENITZER wondered if there would be something on solar energy.
Planning Director S.isk said the item had been taken out because there was
now an Energy Commission to deal with it, and that the Planning Commission
. would be dealing with it indirectly in the Subdivision Ordinance.
COM. KOENITZER felt Lindy Lane was still going to be a problem and could
not see why it had been left out this time.
CHR. CLAUDY pointed out that non-programmed and low priority projects
such as this would not get done until they came in, when the issue was
forced, because of lack of Staff time.
Planning Director Sisk reported that under group 1 , items 1 and 2 were
underway and would be coming up shortly, and that the Subdivision Ordinance
was the next project, and this would be coming up in the fall.
COM. BLAINE wondered why the School Board was not on the list.
Planning Director Sisk advised that money had been spent on it and they
were going to do it; it would be put at the top of priority 3, he said.
Regarding historical designation, in which Council member Barbara Rogers
had shown an interest, he said that the present procedure,of not being able
to demolish a building without coming to the City, seemed to work.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
COM. KOENITZER reported on the Mayor's Meeting of 7th May. The Council
had started a 3D-day test period of the interconnect system on 7th May, as
the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard light had finally been hooked
up to the system. The Manta Vista School input from residents had been
examined, as had Linda Vista Park problems. The Library COTOmission had
reported on their tenth anniversary party, and that Sunday opening were
going well, but that they would stop during the summer. The City
Manager had brought up the problem of waste management, that there would
probably have to be a one-third increase in rates, just to cover the cost
of finding new land.
COM. BLAINE wondered whether recycling had been considered.
COM. KOENITZER said it was being examined, but that it seemed not to be
economically feasible. He advised thßt Mountain View was cutting off in 198 .
PC-357
Page 18
MINUTES, MAY 26, 1981 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CHR. GLAUDY suggested that the Energy Cmmnission might look at the problem.
He gave information on two free workshops sponsored by ABAG*, and asked-
for information on the status of Key Chevrolet.
Planning Director Sisk reported that he had called Mr. Heiss, the owner, a
week ago to warn him that there would be a Hearing to revoke all permits,
as he was obviously not going to do what he had agreed to. Mr. Weiss's
attorney had been in touch with him, he said, but did not appear interested
in pursuing anything. City Attorney Killian had been consulted, and he
had advised that Hearings before the Planning Commission be set up for
permit revoGation. He was just waiting a couple of days for Mr. Weiss's
attorney to contact him to decide what they wanted to do, he advised.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Associate Planner Piasecki conveyed to
received on how well run and efficient
had been.
the Commission a compliment
the last Planning Commission Meeting
MEETING ADJOURNED
11.20 P.M.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Ciæ~
a-d: -,
*ABAG - Association of Bay Area Governments