PC 11-10-80
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFO&~IA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca. 95014
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
PC-345
Page 1
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PL&~ING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams
Commissioner Blaine
Commissioner Claudy
Chairman Koenitzer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The approval of the Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of September
10, 1980 was deferred, as there was need for further work and review.
POSTPONE~ŒNTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS
ITEM #6, Application 20-TM-80 - Roger Mason - was withdrawn from the
calendar at the applicant's request.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A letter dated November 7 from Commissioner Phil Johnson, resigning
effective that date, having been elected to City Council.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ITEM #1, Application 2-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to
consider a General Plan Land Use Amendment involving two groups of vacant
properties (Sites F and G) located on the north side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard. The first group of vacant properties is generally located mid-
block between Randy Lane and Blaney Avenue. The second group of vacant
properties is generally located mid-block between Blaney Avenue and Portal
Avenue. The General Plan Amendment hearing will consider the addition of
,8 commercial and office designation to the existing exclusive residential
land use designation for said properties. The acreage of said groups of
properties is approximately 8.5 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environ-
mental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration.
First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - December 1, 1980.
Planning Director Sisk gave a brief Staff Report to the effect that this
situation had evolved over the past couple of months. The matter had been
discussed at the last Council Meeting, and the amendment before the
Commission tonight had been initiated. A map of the overall Crossroads
area was exhibited showing the properties involved. He explained that the
amendment was to consider the addition of commercial land use on these
properties, the existing General Plan land use being planned residential,
PC-345
Page 2
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
with a density of 10/20 dwellings per acre. There had been a consensus
at Planning Commission level to lower the density to 10/15 units per acre,
the only land use being residential.
Past discussions had seemed to demonstrate concerns regarding traffic, but
Staff felt that allowing commercial land use would not have a measurable
effect on the traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The main issue would be
what effect it would have on the Town Center development, which was difficult
to say at this point, as various realtors had differing opinions on this..
Planning Director Sisk then showed slides of a site at Bandley and Portal
wÌlere a condominium/office development had been approved, and one at Randy
and Blaney where Clear lake Development had applied to build a condominium
p1':'0ject.
Ci)M. BLAINE wanted an exp:,anation of what had happened at the City Council
Meèting.
Planning Director Sisk said the applicant had asked the Council to initiate
a land use amendment allowing the option of commercial land use on property.
It had been initiated, and had been sent back to the Planning Commission for
their recommendation. Another hearing would be held by the Council after
receiving tne Planning Commission's recommendation to see whether they
actually wanted to amend the General Plan. There had been a limited discussion
on the effect on Town Center.
CHR. KOENITZER observed that he had looked at the figures quoted in the
environmental review, and unless there was a drastic revision in thinking,
it would certainly have an impact on the Town Center development. He
wondered what the vac~ncy factor of commercial buildings was in the City,
as he had seen some empty facilities.
Planning Director Sisk did not think there was much of a vacancy factor,
and in general discussions he had had with major real estate firms, they
thought commercial land use in this case would have no effect on Town Center
which they had ceased to perceive as a commercial core in favor of Valco Park.
CHR. KOENITZER noted that there were certainly other developable parcels
like these along Stevens Creek and wondered what was also available along De
Anza Boulevard, vacant and under-used.
Planning Director Sisk agreed that some land was vacant and under-used, such
as around the pet hospital and nursery on N. De Anza Boulevard, but the
buildings were not. Likewise, on Stevens Creek, there was the area on the
east of Barclays Bank by Finch Avenue, but an application would be in on this
shor tly.
COM. CLAUDY felt that if commercial or office use was allowed on this site,
all sites in the area would want to go the same way, and combined with the
Mariani office complex, etc., Town Center might be forced to be mainly resi-
dential, which he did not feel to be a bad thing.
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-345
Page 3
COM, BLAINE said she had also been thinking that Town Center could not
be protected. It was not economically viable for the Cole Company~ at
the present density, to build offices there, and it seemed to be a good
spot for residential development, though if the underpass was built,
a buffer of offices would probably be desirable.
CHR. KOENITZER was concerned that the Commission might be asked to raise
commercial and office densities in Town Center.
COM. ADAMS thought that the densities presently allowed would preclude
the average person from renting or buying housing in Town Center, and
that maybe a mix should be allowed, letting the market place balance
itself out. On the western portion of the Torre intersection, there
was quite a lot of commercial now, including specialty shops.
COM. CLAUDY observed that there were vacancies in the Cupertino area in
regard to specialty shops.
COM. BLAINE thought the market was faddish, and did not balance itself out.
It looked for the highest monetary return over the shortest period of time
and did not address tne needs, which were for housing, rental housing in
particular.
COM. CLAUDY thought there would never be much rental housing in Cupertino
because of the high price of land. The City would have to go to higher
densities in any case, and Town Center was more suitable for this, being
isolated. He had come to the conclusion that the developers in this
instance should be allowed to go the way they wanted and housing should
be placed in more acceptable areas.
COM. BLAINE questioned the traffic impact, if 600 units were put in Town
Center.
Planning Director Sisk said this could be looked at as part of a study
to be done on eliminating downtown constraints.
CRR. KOENITZER observed that in terms of trips, residential and office
use seemed to be pretty close, though for commercial use it was multiplied
by almost a factor of ten. Re felt that if more land was zoned residen-
tial such outrageous prices for housing might not be asked.
Mr. Pepper Schneider of Clearlake Development Company explained that they
had purchased the land with a proposed density of 20 units to the acre,
and had felt they could produce af£ordabl~ housing., When the density
was reduced, they had found it difficult to design something which was
affordable and yet had appeal, so that office seemed the only possibility,
and one with which the neighborhood was in agreement.
Mary Callaghan, 19954 Wheatton Drive said that a petition had been signed
by 300 people that wanted the commercial option on the two sites. With
regard to area "F" she wanted to point out that it presently had a
commercial option, and wanted the record corrected to show the option
still existed.
She asked the Commission to imagine high density housing on the sites,
in terms of living in the area.
PC- 345
Page 4
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PL&~NING COMMISSION MEETING
CHR. KOENITZER verified, for the record, that site "F" was designated mixed
zoning, residential 10/20 whereas "G" was designated residential 10/20 with
10/15 proposed, but not yet approved by City Council.
Carl Tucchi, owner of the adjacent property, said he fully endorsed the
amendment. He felt the market-place really did take care of itself, and
that policies could not be dictated based on articificial economic foundations.
As a native Cupertinan, ne felt Stevens Creek Boulevard was the commercial
backbone and that housing should not be placed there.
Jack London, representing the owners of the Cupertino Professional Center,
totally agreed with Mr. Tucchi, and felt it was not right to put high-
density residential next to professional ana commercial on a busy street such
as Stevens Creek. They had been told by Mr. Papalias,a local realtor, that
there was a tremendous demand for professional-type buildings in Cupertino,
10,000 sq. ft. having been built in Town Center and completely filled within
four months. They were proposing 19,000 sq. ft. of a similar type, oriented
to Stevens Creek, next to the presently-existing Professional Center.
COM. CLAUDY observed that speakers often said residential should not back-up
to commercial, or should not be across the street from commercial, and he
wondered how there would ever be two types of use in the City, on this basis.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Corn. Claudy to close the Public Hearing,
Com. Adams
PASSED
4-0
COM. CLAUDY reiterated that he was in favor of including the planned commercial,
office, residential mix at 10/15 units to, the acre on both parcels.
COM. ADAMS agreed.
COM. BLAINE did not feel the community needs would be met.
residential could be placed on the parcels and done well at
She thought
15 units per acre.
CHR. KOENITZER stated that this was also his position. There were existing
parcels zoned commercial and office that could be developed, and the City
needed the residential. The designations of these properties had already been
changed, after long discussions, and he could not see anything to invalidate
those discussions.
COM. BLAINE pointed out that the reason residential had been considered in
tIle first place was to break up the commercial, ete., and to address a housing
need. The market-place took care of itself, but it did not take care of
community needs, and that was why this body was needed, to make recommenda-
tions to City Council who could then make a decision.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Corn. Claudy to recommend approval of the Environmental Impact Report.
Com. Blaine
PASSED 4-0
MOTION:
Com. Claudy to recommend approval of the Exhibits A and B with the
mix alternative calling for planned commercial, office and residen-
tial mix with a residential density of 10/15 units per acre.
Com. Adams
Gom.Adams, Corn. Claudy: Aye
Chr. Koenitzer, Com. Blaine: Nay
SECOND:
VOTE:
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-345
Page 5
CHR. KOENITZER announced that as this was a split vote, under the rules
of the Commission it represented a denial of the change. However, if would
go to Council who aad the option to do with it as they wished.
ITEM #2, Application 26-U-80 of SALEM SHAIKH: USE PERMIT to construct a
single-family resiùence in a Planned Development zoning district and
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the
granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located at
the northern terminus of the paved segment of Riviera Road approximately
100 ft. north of the intersection of Riviera Road and Scenic Circle. First
Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 17, 1980.
Associate Planner Piasecki briefly showed the location of the site and
reviewed the Staff Report, explaining that the applicant had been requested
by the Commission to re-evaluate the possibility of preserving a large
oak tree located at the center of the site, but that applicant was still
requesting removal of the tree.
Some drawings demonstrating the effect of designing the home to accommodate
the tree were shown, necessitating a U-shaped building with three stories.
The applicant's preferred plan was shown, with modifications for the Fire
Department turnaround, the plan having been slightly shifted to accommodate
this.
Associate Planner Piasecki said that should the Commission wish to approve
the Use Permit, Staff had included an additional_condition,requiring that
the ingress/egress easement be shifted to the terminus of Riviera and
the northerly property line, as the former location had been identified as
subject to flooding. The building would have to be shifted in a westerly
direction, to accommodate a required 20 ft. minimum fire turnaround.
CtiR. KOENITZER wondered about the provision for future flood protection, as
he noted that the bank in this location was open to the possibility of
severe erosion.
Associate Planner Piasecki said that construction was contemplated well
outside of the flood plane area, and that condition 17 of the Use Permit
required the applicant to retain a registered civil engineer to explore the
stability of the embankment, preparing a report for the City on erosion
measures taken. However, this did not mean it would be safe for ever in
any flooding event.
COM. CLAUDY pointed out that the 100-year flood prov1s10ns required that
the finished floor of the lowest living level of a building be above the
lOO-year event level, and this house would certainly be that.
ChR. KOENITZER
damage.
observed
that his concern was with erosion, not flood
Planning Director Sisk established that the District's provisions did not
include erosion, and that in event of major flooding, the damage would
just have to be repaired.
It was established that both plans had a right-of-way easement, and that
the building would have to fall outside of the easement lines.
PC-345
Page 6
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMHISSION MEETING
COM. BLAINE wondered if the applicant had any comments on the conditions.
Mr. Matusa (pilOnetic) the designer and agent for Mr. Shaikh, said they had
been in contact with Staff, and that the easement was already conceded
as having to be involved in the application
COM. ADAMS said he was looking for arguments from the applicant against the
alternative proposal for keeping the oak tree.
Mr. Matusa pointed out that if one took the alternative plan and moved it
10 ft. up the hill, as was now required, the house would be split in half.
He hoped the Commission recalled discussions on the condition of the tree,
tnat it was damaged and decaying.
COM. CLAUDY asked Staff if the alternative plan would have to be shifted 10 ft.
up the hill.
Associate Planner Piasecki said that it would.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy to close the Public Hearing.
Corn. Blaine
PASSED
4-0
Com. Blaine to recommend a Negative Declaration of the
Environmental Impact.
Com. Adams
PASSED
4-0
Corn. Blaine to recommend approval of 26-U-80 with standard
conditions 1-14, conditions 15-23, with findings and sub-
conclusions as in the Staff Report.
Com. Adams
_ PASSED
4-0
ITEM #3, Application :46-Z-80 of NANCY BINNEWEG: PREZONING approximately .4
gross acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (one family residence, 8,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino, Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family,
7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate
by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review
Committee recommends tne granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject
property is located on the south side of Alcazar Avenue approximately 100 ft.
westerly of Orange Avenue in the Monta Vista neighborhood. First Hearing,
Tentative City Council hearing date - December 1, 1980.
Planning Director Sisk reported that this was a very straightforward application
to change the zoning of two existing lots of record in the Monta Vista area,
in accordance with the General Plan__
There were no questions for the applicant and no public input on the matter.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com, Adams to close Public Hearings
Corn. Claudy
PASSED
4-0
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING CO~lliISSION MEETING
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
PC-345
Page 7
Com. Claudy to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration.
Com. Adams
PASSED
4-0
Com. Claudy to recommend approval of 46-Z-80 as set forth
in tne Staff Report.
Com. Adams
PASSED
4-0
ITEM 114, Application 19-TM-80 of PARK PLAZA DEVELOPMENT: TENTATIVE MAP to
subdivide approximately 4.7 acres into 79 individual townhouse parcels and
a parcel or parcels covering the remaining area to be held in common
ownership and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed,
hence, no action is required. The subject property is located on the
southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. First
hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - November 17, 1980.
Associate Planner Piasecki explained that the exhibits on the board
displayed the approved project, which had been submitted to the Architectur 1
and Site Control Committee. There were basically two changes that Staff
was recommending in response to comments from the Central Fire District,
that the fire lanes be set up as emergency access easements, and that
they comply with the minimum radius requirements of Central Fire District,
requiring slight modifications.
There was some discussion on the potential shifting by a couple of feet of
pad #76, and it was established that this would not adversely affect any
units or cause any hardship.
Kathryn Beerman (phonetic) 19781 Bixby Drive, wanted to bring to the
attention of the Commission that the silk trees ,which lined Portal were
a concern of herself and her husband. Theyhad been saving to get them
topped and some taken down, as they were dead and dying and affected their
pool. They wanted this known before anything was decided that would
affect their property.
She was advised that these comments should go to the Architectural and Site
Control Committee.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Claudy that Public Hearings be closed.
Com. Adams
PASSED
4-0
Com. Claudy to recommend approval of 19-TM-80, subject to
conditions 1-18 as set forth in the Staff Report, subject to
findings and sub conclusions as in the Staff Report.
Com. Ad.ams
PASSED 4-0
ITEM #5, Application 22-U-70 of P. BRIE~ WILSON: FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF
USE PERMIT for continued use as a law office and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The
project is categorically exempt, hence, no action is required. Said
property is located at 20401 Stevens Creek Boulevard (north side of Stevens
Creek Boulevard, approximately 400 ft. east of De Anza Boulevard) within
a CG (General Commercial) zone. First Hearing.
PC-345
Page 8
HINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PLMNING COMNISSION MEETING
Associate Planner Piasecki outlined the location of the property, being
immediately adjacent to the access driveway to St. Joseph's Church and
school. The applicant was asking for an additional extension of the proposal,
originally submitted to the City in 1970 and extended in 1975 and Staff did
not see any problem with continuing the use of the residential structures
as office buildings. However, in 1979 a strategy had been adopted in the
General Plan for linking commercial properties, and Staff was suggesting a
Condition, number 16, to require the property owner to participate in such
a program. He produced an exhibit which had been presented with an
application from the lands of Rousseau, adjacent to Mr. Wilson's property,
showing a hypothetical easement involving Mr. Wilson's land. It was
basically a conceptual idea and Staff did not envision any linkages until
new development happened. He pointed out that this was the final decision
in terms of extension of the Use Permit.
The applicant said he had a problem with the condition for an ingress/egress
easement, as he was not seeking to develop at this time. He thought it
would be more appropriate when he did, and he was completely in favor
from a conceptual viewpoint. Serious things could happen to the property
owner if he was left with an easement of record, and it was his feeling
that the unification of property should be borne jointly by all parties
to share in the burdens and benefits of it.
CHR. KOENITZER stated that his understanding of the legal requirements was
that a covenant was to be signed to obligate future possible ingress and
egress driveways, and no locations were mentioned. It was a condition that
had been imposed over the past four years or so on all commercial properties
that came bèfore the Commission, to correct problems that had been experienced
with regard to sharing driveways.
Mr. Wilson pointed out that he would be developing eventually and would be
coming in front of the Commission when it happened, at which time it would
seem to be app~opriate to impose a condition.
COM. CLAUDY observed that the covenant in condition 16 was not triggered by
the applicant's use, and that he was just signing an agreement in casê
either property was developed.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Adams to close Public Hearings
Com. Blaine
PASSED
4-0
MOTION:
Com. Blaine for approval of 22-U-70 with conditions 1-16, as in
the Staff Report, subject to findings and subconclusions as in
the S~ff Report. In condition 16, in the third line from the
bottom~ second word from the end of the line, to be changed from
"surrounding" to"adjacentlt.
Com. Adams
PASSED 4-0
SECOND:
VOTE:
ITEM #6, withdrawn from the Calendar at the Applicant's request.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
..
MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1980 REGULAR PLfu~NING COMMISSION MEETING
PC-345
Page 9
REPORT OF THE PLfu~NING COMMISSION
COM. CLAUDY noted with interest the LAFCO*change, and wondered if it would
stand. He heard the Supervisors had voted against it.
CHR, KOENITZER reported on the League**rneeting, and said the most
interesting session he had attended was on manufactured housing. It was
a fact that State law now required all cities and jurisdictions to permit
the placing of manufactured housing on all lots. However, there was a
condition that the housing had to meet Housing Development Board Standards
Assistant
installed
finished.
house.
City Engineer Whitten advised that one such unit had been
in the County area on Cupertino Road at Crescent and was
It seemed to meet the building codes and looked like a standard
Planning Director Sisk pointed out that there had been a modular house
for years on Mercedes, so that it was not completely new.
CRR. KOENITZER gave a brief report on the Mayor's meeting,
One item of particular interest to the Commission was that on November
18 the City Council would review functions of all Committees and Commissio s.
They were advised that it would be acceptable and welcome if they could
attend.
Another item was the parking problem at De Anza College, with particular
reference to when Flint Center was in use during the school year. It
was observed that the Flint Center parking lot was often blocked off,
and that by 7:30 p.m. there was often no parking to be found anywhere on
campus.
In regard to an item on the Parks and Recreation Commission's review
of the Monta Vista Community Center plans, COM. CLAUDY registered a
protest that nobody in the neighborhood had known about the hearing that
had been held, and tIe thought the City could do a better job of advertisin
Public Hearings.
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
MEETING ADJOURNED
9:20 P.M.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
~ ¿?~~~-
City Clerk
* Local Agency Formation Commission
* * League of California Cities