Loading...
PC 10-13-80 CITy OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino. Ca. 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 PC-342 Page 1 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR flEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Adams Commissioner Blaine Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Johnson Chairman Koenitzer APPROVAL OF MINUT£S POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITE~~ wRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A letter from Mr. Paul Sonnenblick, President of the West Cupertino Homeowners Association pertaining to Item #1, and a letter from a landscape development company evaluating a tree for the applicant in Item #3, these letters to be entered into the records in the respective hearings. ORAL COMMU&IcATIONS PUtiLIC HEARING ITEM ftl,Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan including, but not limited to (1) Land use changes for a number of individual properti s located througriout the community; (2) An evaluation of alternative land use types and development intensities for property located along Homestead Road De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens creek Boulevard; (3) A refinement of the City Circulation Plan including a plan to provide long-term financing of major transporation improvements. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council nearing date - November 3, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that this item had been continu d from the Neeting of September 29u, for Staff to convey the finàings of the Council discussion of Public Works Director Viskovitch's traffic report, that it nad oeen decided to delete areas F anå G from the General Plan consideration, and that at tne conclusion of this presentation it was to be recommended that two other properties also be removed, since they did not relate directly to the transportation matter being addressed. The Council had reviewed the traffic report and had suggested some of the options be narrowed dO\vu, by taking the recommended implementation plan and going throug~ it on an individual basis. He said Staff felt tnat an impact report would be required, evaluating the options, and bad developed a matrix to organize thought on existing land use policy relating to improvements under discussion. (He went through the matrix briefly to explain now it ívorked). PC-342 Page 2 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PL&~NING CO~~IISSION MEETING He went on to say that Staff felt that Highway 85 corridor and the De Anza Boulevard underpass were somewhat independent, and that an at-grade intersection at De Anza Boulevard would be negative, since it would not be able to support a higher range of residential density. Therefore Item A had a positive value in terms of all tne land use policies, and Staff felt it was a needed improve- ment to make the General Plan work. CüR. KOENITZER suggested, for people in tne audience who did not have copies of tne matrix,Assistant Planning Director Cowan should explain the options running across tn~ top of the matrix and the land use policies running down the sidew Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that option A was a freeway with an intercnange at Stevens Creek and Highway 9, a grade separation at McClellan and Stelling and no access there; Option B was a four-lane expressway with tile possibility of lignt rail, with intersections at Stevens Creek and Sunny- vale-Saratoga and a signal at Stelling and McClellan with full access there; Option C was a two-lane high capacity collector, with no direct access and nothing fronting on to it, but witil two lanes reserved for building if required; Option D was a two-lane higú capacity collector presenting an opportunity for surplus lanu to be sold for development. These options ran across the top. The options down the side were, Option a, an undercrossing at the Stevens Creek/De Anza intersection; Option b was an expanded at grade intersection there; Option c was a loop road situation. COM. CLAUDY assumed that atnree-way off-ramp at McClellan and Stelling was not technically feasible, and that options ß and C would take all or most of the existing right of way. he saw C as a potential upgrade to B later, and wondered if this was a correct assumption. Assistant Planning Director Cowan said it was not, but C and D could have other accesses into the neighborhood, wnereas the expressway, B, would not, eing limited access. COM. BLAINE felt another option was needed, Option E, a four-lane road; not an expressway, to be built immediately. She wanted to see this option because the City Council had instructed the Commission not to be concerned itá cost at this time, but to pick an ideal situation. She pointed out that it would be cheaper to put in four lanes at one time, rather than two now and two later. discussion ensued on whether the Council actually wanted the Commission to be concerned with cost in their decision. ublic Works Director Viskovitch felt practicality had to be borne in mind, s an ideal was not likely to be made reality. HR. KOENITZER asked Assistant Planning Director Cowan for information on he amount of the freeway right of way extending east of Cupertino owned by he State, and which areas had been developed, or had permits for development. ssistant Planning Director Cowan referred to the fold-out map in the nvironmental impact study for the corridor as containing this information. nd summarized that in the Cupertino section from Stevens Creek Boulevard to aratoga-Sunnyvale Road was 98% acquired with some key gaps of one or two cres' The big gaps were at Highway 17, Los Gatos Boulevard, Lee and Oakridge Hall. HINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-342 Page 3 Public Works Director Viskovitch added that some development had occurred in the rigilt of way, even t10mes, and there were 12 pending applications in the corridor throughout the County. ~HR. KOENITZER observed that it could certainly be thought of as a solution to Cupertino problems, and there was a possibility of an ex~ressway from ~ighway 17 to Highway 85, COM. CLAUDY wondered if Los Gatos or Saratoga could stop Highl.ray 85 being extended if the State suddenly decided to put it through, Public Works Director Viskovitch thought they could make things very diffi- cult, as agreements had to be executed. CHR. KOENITZER was concerned that if the Cupertino section was made into a two-lane road, it would put a funnel on any future development. He felt the possibility of an expressway or a major arterial in the corridor snould not be precluded unless the State announced it would dispose of it. Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested it might be a good time to discuss what role Cupertino should play in the region, and what was best for the region, with further discussion of the light rail option. PUblic Works Director Viskovitch felt the discussion emphasis should not be on the region, but on a contingency plan if all options were closed in the 85 corridor. The County had decided that the transporation demand was not in the West Valley Corridor now, but south, at Guadalupe. CHR, KOENITZER wanted to know what percentage of the right of way between Stevans Creek and Highway 17 belonged to the State. Public Works Director Viskovitch replied that 60/70% of the entire corridor was in that stretch, and it was the weakest in terms of acquisitions. Tile State owned 70%, approximately, but he did not have the exact figures. COM. JOHclSON wondered if the City Council had asked that the Commission exclude the regional approach at triis Meeting. Public Works Director Viskovitch said the idea was really to discuss the 1.8 mile stretch through Cupertino,and what should be done if the remaining stretcn was gone. COM. CLAUDY took the position that the first priority should be Higin.¡ay 85 built along the entire length in some form, ~.¡ith the second priority being a contingency plan if this did not happen, and that the regional approach should not be forgotten, Cupertino should not be thougi1t of as trying to sabotage trie corridor, and should speak in favor of it being built in its entirety, as planned. Public Works Director Viskovitch observed that the regional approach would take a consortium of all the cities. PC-342 Page 4 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 R£GULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ~ŒETING COM. ADAMS stated that Hr. Viskovitch's traffic studies had shown areas the Commission ¡lad not been aware of, such as the spreading of tile peak hour over a longer period, wide:l had made traffic problems easier. He felt a good job ~.¡as being done, and that there should not be pressure to make a firm decision at this time, though policies on parking, restrictions, trip ends, etc., could be examined and maybe changed. Public Works Director Viskovitch felt this was a good point, and an issue that should be resolved. COM. ADAMS wanted to see the controlled traffic system finished and assessed ill the spring before makiDg a decision on the 85 corridor. He did not think the State could sell the land without legislation. Public Works Director ViskovitcÎ1 thought the City should be prepared for that, just in case, and mayoe reaffirm a regional approacá, asking Caltrans to make a decision. COM. BLAINE pointed out that this approacrl ¡lad been tried and had only produced delaying tactics. SHe had a negative opinion of what they would do and wanted to have a contingency plan, especially with regard to streets going across the corridor ~nd traffic generated by future developments, COM. CLAUDY was concerDed because the citizens had asked that the traffic be removed from Bubb, Stelling and Rainbow, and if development was allowed, based on a contingency plan which the State might not allow to be carried out, there would be even worse problems on these roads. COM. ßLAINE saw the contingency plan to be removing the traffic from these roads. COM. CLAUDY thought tne contingency plan silOuld state that there be a road in the corridor before any more development was allowed. COM. JOHNSON saw an expressway through Cupertino as being compatible with the regional approach, as it could be extended later. COM. BLAINE wonde:red wllett1er the freeway should remain as the desired plan, as she could not see it being built within 20 years, or should a contingency plan be implemented. CilR. ~OENITZER observed that to be decided, when the State and local action would start. Ranch was in process. even for d contingency plan legislature would be asked There had to be an answer a cut-off point had to release the land. soon, as Seven Springs COM. JOtlNSOH wanted it decided whether to go with the matrix or to proceed some otner way. Public Works Director Viskovitch said it should be decided whether or not something should be done and a time-limit should be set. COM, ADAMS suggested tilat when permit applications started to come in for the non-acqu- ired land from highway 17 west tile State i.vould make a decision, and at that point Cupertino should take action. MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION IIEETII¡G PC-342 Page 5 CO~J. BLAINE questioned wi1ether ttlis time limit should be extended to developments in Cupertino in the area around the 85 corridor, such as Seven Springs Ranch and Bollinger Road. COM. CLAUDY felt a decision could be made that private land within the corridor would not be considered for development, but Corn. Blaine's suggestion could not be carried out without a public hearing. CHR. ì.ZOEì:~I'.rZER saw it as rè.commending a moratorium on development; somethin the Commission had been very cautious about. COM. AD~ S wondered if there were some capital expenditures planned to alleviate the traffic in the Stelling area. Public Works Director Viskovitch said the only expenditure was the signal at Rainbow and Stelling, but that though De Anza Boulevarå was independent, it was expected to lure traffic away from the area. CHR. KOENITZER wondered if Mr. Viskovitcn had an assessment of the effect of the controlled traffic intersection on the Stelling traffic. Public Works Director Viskovitch explained tHat some tests had to be run and the system had to be balanced before such an assessment. COM. ADA/IS thought tilat in the spring more information would be available regarding the private areas to be deve~oped in the corridor between Cuperti 0 and Highway 17t and at that time a decision could be made. Public Works Director Viskovitch advised that the environmental impact stud was held UPt which meant the Study would not move for the next year and possibly two, so a decision could be delayed that long. COM. CLAUDYsurmised that within a year the City would know now the inter- connects were working. Mr. Alf Modine of Cupertino referred to the Deleuw Cather Report on Light Ra'l, suggesting that the 85 corridor was not a route to be considered. He felt that though the Guadalupe corridor deserved more attentiont Cupertino's immediate problems were here regardless. He felt the statistics portrayed the developing of the 85 corridor as an expressway as being a static situatiollt but it was a dynamic situationt and even the synchronising of the traffic signals in the, City would have an effect. Mr. O'Sheat Clay Streett Cupertinot wanted to raise an objection in that many of the audience were concerned because in the last twenty minutes of the Council Meeting a number of things had been said that were not represented in the Staff Report tonight. He suggested that the Commissione s listened to the last twenty minutes of the Council Meeting tape. He ~ad given a presentation to the Council addressing the Highway 9 and 85 issues in terms of traffic source and options of how the traffic should flo and was here tonight to give the same presentation. · PC-342 Page 6 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING de exhibited a commute map of the County shØï.Jing the streets that connected regions, and other major streets, and described how they were used in the commute. He thought that anything done in Cupertino not affect commuters norto of El Camino. If Stelling Road was closed to force co~uters onto De Anza Boulevard t~lere might be some surprising results, he thought, in that the commuter had yet more options. He said that Saratoga and Los Gates had improved their traffic in the San Thomas Corridor, Winchester Boulevard, Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, so that they no longer re- quired Higntvay 85 to go through. Other citi~s such as Campbell and San Jose ilad taKen action; Prospect Road through Campbell had been improved and Bascom Avenue had been linked with the Soutilwest Expressway. Sunnyvale had decided to improve east/west traffic, and this needed to be considered in Cupertino. He did not think De Anza Boulevard would stand the test of the"in/out and north/south commute, as it could not'be fed because of problems in Sunnyvale. He was amazed that tne State had not abandoned Highway 85, as was indicated by the expansion of Hig~way 237 to six lanes where it fed Highway 85. He went on to say that his remarks to City Council had been summarized as being against a high density area, but this had not been his main point. There were two overiding approaches to choose between, Highway 85 and the De Anza interconnect and the two-level Highway 9. To compare, Highway 85 offered a solution compatible with both S~ate and neighboring city feeder routes, whereas a two-level tlighway 9 required the use of overloaded feeder routes in Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara; the highway 85 interconnect offered a nor tn/south route bypassing Highway 280 and its east/west conges- tion, wher~as the two-level highway 9 forced traffic to traverse from 280 and 85 to Highway 9; the Highway 35 interconnect offered that through traffic be carried in a corridor to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect, wnereas if that traffic ~vas forced to Highway 9, this would act as a magnet drawing option route traffic bound dmvn Lawrence Expressway; Highway 85 and interconnects offered reduction of through traffic on center streets, whereas a two-level Highway 9 divided Cupertino in half; the Highway 85 interconnect had a major beneficial impact on the in/out citizen and student commute, whereascthe two-level Hignway 9 impact was on the commercial commute; the Hignway 85 interconnect offered. secondary.. benefits or reducing through traffic on town streets, whereas Highway 9 focused traffic flow in Cupertino and through the center of town; a two-level High~'Jay 9 put signal coordination above all other City considerations, whereas Highway 85 would be the best reducer of delay time incurred by Cupertino Citizens. His fundamental objection was that a two-level Highway 9 would divide Cµpertino in half, destroying a sense of community. He felt the City needed to dedicate itself by mobilizing every political means to get Highway 85 built, and as a last resort, building it itself. COHo BLAmE questioned whetHer the State was improving Highway 237 for traffic coming into the industrial area from Highway 85, or for the traffic from Milpitas. ~1r. O'Shea stated that a high speed commute from tile Middlefield feeder in both directions was being set up, and that it was not affecting the Milpitas traffic, HI,~UTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLA.'NING COMHISSION MEETING PC-342 Page 7 Juanita' McClaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, felt it was time the City relayed firmly to Staff that it did not want alternatives, but the corridor as planned. There was a State Senator in the City now, and there was documentation in lIastÜngton detailing w;¡at the City had done over the years in regard to the corridor. Sne felt a recoI1Ullendation sllould be made to Council that the City go to Sacramento and make firm demands. SÜelley Williams, Cnairrnan of tne ;'¡est Valley Hulel-modal Corridor Committee said he had appreciated tile Commission IS discussion and was particularly interested in Chairman ¡(oenitzer's comment that 101 was a traffic ge.nerator. This was part of the reason traffic was coming t~rough Cupertino, as was the fact that Highway 280 was 10g-jaI1Ulled morning and evening. No-one had paid attention to transportation in Santa Clara County in the past ten years. The State could act rapidly, he felt, but had to have a firm demand made of it. He reported that a couple of weeks earlier, Governor Brown had visited the Seven Springs Ranch site, and afterwards had spoken on KXRX Radio, saying that routes 85 and 87 would probably not be constructed because of current funding restrictions. He pointed out that Governor Brown had put: the r~strictions there, anù i1e could lift them. He advised tnat he [lad written a letter on October 3rd to Mr. John Ilest of Caltrans in San Francisco, asking to be açivised when the environmental impact study on the 85 corridor would be completed, as they had received the input 309 days earlier. Last lIednesday he had been called by Mr. Richard Gee of the State Department of Highways to say they ~.¡ere waiting to hear from Sacramento before replying. tie further advised that on the day his letter was written he rrad been called by Senator O'Keefe's office to say that wnen they had asked the State how much unallocated money was in tile transportation fund they ilad been advised it was $335,111,673; so it was obvious the State nad money it had not spent. He thought if the fort.¡ard progress was continueù there could be results, and that thougn there should be concern for the whole County, the local quality of life was important. He said the State should not be allowed to dump pollution and traffic on the West Valley, and 85 should be completed. Ann Anger, Cupertino resident, was tired of hearing there was no money. In Roseville millions of dollars was being spent on roads. She felt the area had to organize to get funds, which otherwise would go down south. She pointed out that in this area at present there would be no way to move people in case of disaster, but that the Governor and the President had recently communicated on earthquake concerns, so she felt the State should be forced to do something. Mr. williams made a comment on financing, that it was available, but was locked up. The Governor did not have much longer in office, he said, but someone even less sympatnetic might replace him, so that the approach of needing the roadway to be put tnrough had to be maintained. PC-342 Page 8 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chuck Cantoni, Lindy Place, Cupertino thought the residents of the Regnart area wanted to see the corridor preserved, with none of it being sold off to help finance De Anza Boulevard improvements. They were particularly concerned with the corridor being used to handle the commute traffic, leaving the residential area for local traffic. It would complicate current problems to put in Seven Springs Ranch without fUrther traffic handling capabilities, it was felt. He said that constructing a road in the corridor and improving Highway 9 should not be seen to be mutually exclusive. An improvement of De Anza ßoulevard/Hignway 9 would be beneficial to community traffic, so should be carried out, and secondly, the corridor had to be worked on, perhaps utili..:. zing it as an expressway type road with pedestrian and bicycle areas also. MOTIOi, : Com. Claudy to continue the Hearing of I-GPA-80 to 7:30 p.m. on Tl1ursday, October 16, 1980. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: ITEM #2, Application 17-U-78 of ROBERT ALTEVERS & COMPM,Y (HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT): RENEWAL OF USE PERÞIIT to continue to operate a Discotheque (including dance floor) in the existing Houlihan's Restaurant. The subject property is located in the Orchard Valley Market Place Shopping Center located on the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue in a P (Planned Develop- ment with General Commercial use intent) zoning district. First Hearing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan, giving the Staff Report, said that this case involved a consideration of the Use Permit approved for the discotheque portion of tile restaurant, as there had been a condition placed on it t~at it was to be evaluated after a ·year, this being up in March. The matter had been referred to residents living within 300 feet, the Sheriff's Department and the Central Fire District, and responses had been received from the last two. There had been one letter from a resident of Coldharbor who was not too con- cerned, but to his knowledge no complaints or other responses had been received. The Fire District had experienced problems with overcrowding on the dance floor and with the surrounding lounge exceeding occupancy levels, so Staff was suggesting extension for one more month, so that ti1e Fire District could work with the restaurant in the meantime to come up 1;.,1ith a solution. CON. JOHNSON wantf;d to know if there was a capacity figure. Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that the dance floor was rated for 25 people, and tnat apparently there had been 50 at one time, and that the immediate lounge area had also been at more than capacity. COM. CLAUDY presumed that it was being recommended to extend the Use Permit for one month to give the occupant time to work with the Fire Harshall, after which time the Permit would be granted. If this 1;.,1aS the case, he felt it sÌIould just be extended, and if nothing had been worked out at the end of the monta it could just be voided. T~lis would save another Public Hearing, he felt, as anytning worked out with the Fire Marshall would surely be satisfactory to the Commission. CHR. KOENITZER Wondered if there l1ad been any parking problems, anò thought maybe some complaiTIts might come up in testimony, though none had been received in writing. HINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-342 Page 9 Assistant Planning Director Cowan recalled that at the hearings for Portal Plaza some people had talked about parking problems, but no complaints nad ueen received in this instance. COM. ADAMS observed that when he had driven by in the evenings the parkin area was full. CHR. KOENITZER'S feeling was to go ahead and extend the Use Permit, advising the Fire Marshall to come back if there were any prqblems. COM. CLAUDY added that a clause could be written to the effect that the hearing would be reopened at the request of the Fire Marshall. Mr. Vanderson, Attorney, speaking on behalf of Houlihan's owners, pointed out that Houlihan's nad first been aware of the Fire Department problem this monta, and that the condition on the original Use Permit, pertaining to it being heard again in one year, was primarily involved with the area of noise. Houlihan's had conducted an extensive study of noise, he advised, and the level had not increased beyond the normal noise level of Stevens Creek Boulevard. They were somewhat unprepared for the Fire Marshall's question tonight, and a meeting with him was scheduled for this week. Tlley would be perfectly willing to have the Permit subject to rehearing if necessary. However, inasmuch as the company had invested considerable money, an annual hearing was a threat. He pointed out that originally the dance floor was planned to be larger, and was cut down at Planning Staff's and City Council's recommendation. CO!!. JOHNSON wondered if a control existed for people going into the area under discussion at night. Mr. Vander son advised tilat two members of management were at the door at all times to monitor the level, and that this was a new problem to them that woulJ be dealt with. He requested again that the Commission not proceed with the recommended action regarding an indefinite Use Permit, subject to tne Fire Marshall. CclR. KOENITZER called for a consensus on either continuing for one month or adding a condition for review at any time by the Fire Marshall. COM. ADA}!S pointed out that there was an option of reopening any Permit on the basis of cause, and t~erefore if indefinite extension was to be considered, there would still be an option to review and reopen. ChR. KOENITZER suggested adding a condition that if the Fire Marshall was unable to permanently resolve the occupancy problems, it would be in violation of the Use Permit, as condition 17 was already conditioned ,this way with regard to noise level. Hr. Vanderson agreed that tne Permit would certainly be subject to review an the decision of tÎ.le Commission. COM. BLAINE interpreted Condition 18 to say that there would be one review period, and said she would like to see the Use Permit extended, pending the solution of the overcrowding problem, and not setting up any PC-342 Page 10 HINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLAL'INING COMMISSION HEETIN G more reviews, etc. The Fire Marshall could then ask the Commission to review at any time; he could also close the doors if necessary. CHR. KOENITZER summarised that apparently noise was not a problem, and the par~ing problem, thougn severe was not enougn to aggravate the residents, so tnat maybe a new Condition 20 should be added, that in no case should more than the permitted number of people occupy the facility, the applicant immediately abating any violation of this provision. C0!1. CLAUDY did not think such a clause was needed, but he did think there was an advantage to fiaving a Condition that the Permit Le subject to review, because this would put the applicant on notice. COHo ßLAlclE wondered if the Fire Harshall had reported the overcrowding because he had been told ti,e Use Permit was to be reviewed, or if it was something he had noted and was keeping until asked. Assistant Planning Director Cm/an advised that the Fire Harshall had received some complaints about an overcrowding condition at Houlihan's. COM. BLAINE wanted to know why the complaints had not been broyght to the Commission's attention. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reasoned that it was due to the lack of a proper procedure. COM. CLAUDY wanted to know whose responsibility it was to enforce the occupancy restrictions, as in fact there was no necessity to report it to the Commission. CHR. KOENITZER stated that it was the Fire Harshall's responsibility and silOuld be left to him. Assistant Planning Director Cowan ti10ught that the subject would be a topic for tne Public Safety Commission, as this was a new situation for Staff. Mr. Vanderson made the point that be believed the administration of the fire safety laws was a ministerial act,for which any State or governmental agency would be immune from liability. i.iowever, the management and ownership of Houlihan's would be directly responsible, and would have a vested interest in being within the law. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: HOTlON: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Johnson to close the Public Hearings. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 Com. Adams to continue the Use Permit with two modifications to Condition 18, Condition 18 to read: IIThis permit is subject to review at any time for cause. The Planning Commission shall hold a Public Hearing after notification of all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the facility, and shall determine if the Permit is to be revoked, based upon the findings that within one month of t11is date the Fire Marshall is satisfied with the controls established by the management to keep the fire code requirements. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 MINUTES OCT03ER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ITEM #3, Applications 45-Z-80 and 26-U-80 of SALEEM SHAIKH: REZONING approximately .23 acre from Rl-lO (residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)zone to P (Planned Development with single- family residential intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appro- priate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to èonstruct a single- family residence in a Planned Development,zoning district and ENVIRON- MENTAL R..EVIEW: TÎ1e. Environmental Review Cormnittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject property is located at the northern terminus of the paved segment of Riviera Road approximately 100ft. north of the inte.rsection of Riviera Road and Scenic Circle. First Hearing. Tentative City Council nearing date - November 3, 1930. PC-342 Page 11 Associate Planner Piasecki described the location and explained that the property nad been zoned RI.lO and annexed to the City three years ago, at whicn time it l1ad been zoned PD. The reason the application ~.¡as before the Conunissiol1 was that a three storey building 'VlaS planned, whereas the Rl.lO district allowed two storeys only. de pointed out that ti,e Commission and Staff tJad supported the idea of flexibility in setbacks of buildings in the area, in order to use the flat areas rattler than the severe slopes, but tÌlat this application presented two problems, in thdt a fire turnaround had TIot yet been incorporated, and also an approximately 30/36" diameter oak tree on the site was not planned to be saved. A fire turnaround was necessary as the building would be 150 ft. at least from the turnaround on Scenic Boulevard, and was also nectssary to serve any futura development on lot 28. The oak tree corresponded closely with the envelope of the building anù the applicant had provid~d a letter*to the effect it would be too costly to save. Some sliùes were sllOwn with emp.hasis on the topography of the area and the oak'trees. Associate Planner Piasecki informed the Commission that the tree expert felt there were some mitigating measures that could be taken to save the tree at a total cost of between $6,000 and $3,000. He relayed the Staff position, that tnis large tree was prominent in the neighborhood and that the plans could perhaps be changed to incorporate the measures suggested. A discussion ensued on the scenic impact of the tree and how and when the roots had been damaged; which it was determined had been due to prior excavations by former owners. It was agreed that the house would have to De completely redesigned around tÌle tree, if it was to be saved. The problems of damage if the tree blew over and if the tree died once the tlouse was built were discussed. Associate Planner Piasecki advised approving the zoning but continuing the Use Permit to evaluate a redesign. CHR. KOENITZER observed that the applicant would have to redesign for the turnaround and access in any case, and that the turnaround would involve taking out a second tree. Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that the access to the property to the north would probably necessitate that anyway. "~see page 1 PC-342 Page 12 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION }ffiETING CHR. KOENITZER was concerned not to see any provisions against erosion of the creek bed in the case of a IOO-year storm, as the creek was cutting at this point. He observed that Condition 17 of the Use Permit was to demonstrate satisfactorily that the bank would not be further eroded. Assistant City Engineer Whitten said it could be ensured that no more erosion of the site occurred under any conditions. COM. ADAMS wanted to strengthen Condition 17 with Condition 18, listing measures to be implemented. There was a discussion on the Conditions of the Use Permit pertaining to erosion and concern regarding a lOO-year storm, and that measures taken for a 10 or 2S-year storm might be washed away in a 100-year storm. Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that the Water District considered this area a natural flood plain and was not putting its typical flood improvements in this particular stretch of the creek. However, there was still an erosion problem. Mr. Jerry La Gtusa, San Jose Building Designs, representing the applicant, said the two major problems he was aware of were the oak tree and the fire turnaround. They were in concurrence with the proposed fire turnaround, though the house would have to be moved 10 feet, and the retaining wall at the back of the turnaround area could be incorporated into the one at the back of the garage. However, with regard to the tree, the grade wall would have to be high and long, and, together with the hous~ foundation required to support the load, would be expensive. Also, it ì1ad been indicated to them that the tree in its present condition would be unlikely to survive a struc- ture being built around it. and a 12 ft. diameter space would have to be left, which, with the lot being so steep, did not leave much space to build on. He concluded by saying that they were providing a recorded easement to the property to the north and were also in process of realigning the 10 ft. easement on the south for a storm drain carrying water down from the upper properties. COM. ADAMS wondered whether the owners would be amiable to another layout with the possibility of saving the tree if there could be some allowances and variances made. Mr, La Giusa thought that Mr. and Mrs. Shaikh would prefer not to redesign, since it was their own plan, and sat very well on the property. CHR. KOENITZER was concerned about designing a house around a tree which might not survive. COM. BLAINE's thought was though the tree was desirable it rendered the lot unuseable, that if the house was built around it, nobody was going to see it, and that the house design required to incorporate it would probably not fit the geology of the site. COM. CLAUDY's feeling was to continue the Use Permit for the applicant to reconsider the design; though it was possible there was nothing to be done. MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMmSSION MEETING PC-342 Page 13 Mr. Jerry Rook, owner of lot 28, remarked that the tree in question was not unique, that tnere were twelve to fourteen others within three lots, and toat though it should be saved if possible, it would not destroy the landscape. He informed the Commission that the land under the tree had been eroded and had been partially excavated by a prior owner who had planned to build. He felt tnere was a possibility the tree would come down on the home. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: HOTION: SECOND: VOT£: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECO@: VOTE: Com. Claudy to close the Public Hearings on 45-Z-80. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy to recommend approval of 45-Z-80 based on documents. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 Com. Claudy to cmntinue 26-U-80 to permit redesign to conform to Fire District requirements and to enable the applicant to recon- sider the design of the house to save the oak tree. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 Com. 31aine to continue Items 6 and 7 until October 16, 1980. Com. Claudy PASSED 5-0 ITEM #4, Application 13-TM-80 of WOODSPRING, INC.: TENTATIVE MAP to consolidate two parcels into a single 2.93 acre parcel and to divide said parcel into 67 air space condominium units and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The subject p-roperty is located adjac~nt to and southerly of Homestead Road opposite the intersection of Fallen Leaf Drive and Homestead Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - October 14, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki described the location and explained that a single parcel was to be created of parcels 1 and 2. He advised that the recording of tile individual air spaces would occur after the building was constructed and observed that it was Cupertino's first residential air space condominium project. It was determined that the air space condition was due to the building being multi-storied; therefore each unit did not have ground beneath. COHo CLAUDY wondered if the additional parking stipulated at the time of the zoning and Use Permit had been found. COM. BLAINE pointed out tnat the parking was one space short. CHR. KOENITZER advised that this matter would corne up at the time of the Building Permit, and also that an environmental review had already been PC- 342 Page 14 MINUTES OCTOßER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMÞIISSION ~ŒETING approved on this project, eliminating the need for one tonight. Mr. Robert Foulk of Brian Kangas Foulk and Associates, Construction Engineers, Redwood City,asked if the Connnission had any questions of him in regard to the tentative map. The Con~ission had uo further questions. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Blaine to close Public Hearings Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 Com, 31aine to recommend approval of Application 13-TM-80, Standard Conditions 1-14 and 15-19. with findings and subcon- clusions as in the Staff Report. Com. Adams PASSED 5-0 ITEM #5, Application 18-TM-80 of MaNTA VISTA DEVELOPMENT CO~œN,Y: TENTATIVE ~uœ to divide approximate}y 1.25 acres into 13 residential townhouse lots and one lot to be held in common ownership and ENVIRON~ŒNTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no action is required. Said property is located adjacent to and southerly of Olive Avenue opposite the intersection of Olive Avenue and Pasadena Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - October 14, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the request was to place lot lines around tl1e individual ownership project which had been approved last December. He ilad no other comments and felt that the Staff Report was self-explanatory. COM. BLAI~E questioned the larger rear yard in lot 13, as it appeared to be the same size as the others. Assistant Planning Director Cowan pointed out the area on tne Use Permit exhibit and snowed that it was intended to be rear yard space for the unit and not a common space area. COM. ßLAINE ,wanted to know wny the lines weEe different in the Application and the Use Permit. The applicant explained t~lat tney had started out with an initial request for fourteen units, which tne City had reduced to thirteen. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NEW BUSINESS Corn. Johnson to close Public Hearings. Com. C1audy PASSED 5-0 Com. Johnson to approve Application 18-T!1-80 with findings and subconclusions as in Staff Report, and subject to Conditions 1-14, 15, 16 17 and 18. Com. Blaine PASSED 5-0 MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ~mETING PC-342 Pa::ze 15 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHR. KOENITZER was concerned that United Cable Television put back any landscaping that would be torn out from individual lots in installation of underground wires~ Assistant City Engineer Whitten advised that the engineering details of the entire installation would be worked out with the City during the next two months, and everything was to be finalized tomorrow with City Council. He thought they might elect to go behind the sidewalk as it was expensive to cut the street, but as he would be handling any complain s he felt confident they would replace everything in time, COM. BLAINE thought perhaps Staff could look into the matter of the building at the corner of Foothill and Stevens Creek, as it had now been marked with graffiti, in case the owner asked for an extension. ClIR. KOENITZER wondered if the new sign at the Oaks Shopping Center had been approved by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. COM. BLAINE had noticed, in the same shopping center, that Senor Pepe's restaurant had a car with a sign on top parked next to Stevens Creek Boulevard. She thought this was against the sign ordinance. CHR. KOENITZER did not think anything could be done about signs painted on trucks, etc. REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR MEETING ADJOURNED 11:33 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: ~