PC 07-30-80
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Te1ephone (408) 252-4505
MINUTES JULY 30, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM
JULY 28, 1980.
PC-337
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG
7:30 p.m.
(14)
ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Claudy
Commissioner Blaine
Commissioner Johnson
Chairman Koenitzer
Absent: Commissioner Adams
Staff Present: Planning Director Sisk
Assistant Planning Director Cowan
Associate Planner Piasecki
City Engineer Whitten
ITEM #9, Application 41-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (ORANGE AVENUE/MC-
CLELLAN ROAD): PREZONING approximately .7 acre from Santa Clara Rl-6
(one-family residence, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) and Santa Clara
County Rl-8 (one-family residence, 8,000 sq. ft. 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 the granting of a Negative Declaration. The ~ubjec
property consists of several unincorporated parcels located in the north
west quadrant of McClellan Road and Orange Avenue. First Hearing.
City Council hearing -- August 18, 1980.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan indicated the site on the board map an
explained that the area contained four (4) parcels with single-family
homes. He said one parcel was large enough to be subdivided at some
future date (15,000 sq. ft.) and two (2) lots of about 5,000 sq. ft.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson
SECOND: Com. C1audy
PASSED: 4-0
ABSENT: Com. Adams
MOTION: Com. Blaine, Recommend Granting of Negative Declaration.
SECOND : Com. Claudy
PASSED: Com. Adams absent 4-0
MOTION: Com. Blaine, Recommend Approval 41-Z-80.
SECOND: Com. C1aùdy
PASSED: Com. Adams absent 4-0
ITEM fllO, Application 42-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO (BUBB ROAD/PUMPKIN
DRIVE): PREZONING approximately 1.0 gross acre from Santa Clara County
A (Exclusive Agricultural) and Al-1ac (Agricultural-Residential) to City
of Cupertino Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum
lot size) zone or whatever zone may?e deemed appropriate by the
Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review
Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. The sub-
ject property is located adjacent to and easterly of Bubb Road approxi-
.
PC-337
Page 2
MINUTES JULY 30, 1980 REGUlAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONTINUED FROM
JULY 28, 1980.
(15)
Associate Planner Piasecki pointed out that the exhibit reflected the
proposed prezoning: Two (2) distinct single-family homes and potential
for furthèr subdivision up to a maximum of five (5) homes. He located
the homes presently on the site and identified the open areas.
MOTION:
Com. C1audy, Recommend
on 42-Z-80.
Com. Blaine
Com. Adams absent.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED; Com. C1audy
SECOND: Com. Blaine
PASSED: Com. Adams Absent 4-0
granting of Negative Declaration
SECOND:
PASSED:
4-0
MOTION: Com. Claudy, Approval 42-Z-80, exhibit reflecting the particular
prezoning application -- 3 existing lots of record and 3 homes on the
property, Rl-6 consistent with the surrounding neighborhood with
minimum lot size ,after dedi,cation (especially of the corner lot).
SECOND: Com. Blaine
PASSED: Com. Adams absent. 4-0
ITEM .#11, Application 43-Z-80 of CITY OF' CUPERTINO (BUBB ROAD/FOLKSTONE
DRIVE): PREZONING approximately .64 ~ross acre fro~ Santa~lara County
Al-lac (Agricultural-Residential) to City of Cupertino Rl-6 (Residential,
Single-family, 6,000 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 the granting of a Negative
Declaration. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of
Bubb Road and Fo1kstone Drive. First Hearing. City Council hearing date
August 18, 1980.
Staff located the three· (3) existing lots and the homes on the property.
It was suggested that the area could not be divided into 4 lots by
virtue of not having sufficient square footage per lot.
MOTION:
SECOND:
PASSED:
MOTION:
, family,
SECOND:
PASSED:
Com.
Com.
Com.
Johnson, to Accept
Claudy
Adams absent
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Johnson
SECOND: Com. C1audy
PASSED: Com. Adams absent. 4-0
Negative Declaration
4-0
Com. Johnson, Approval 43-Z-80 amended to zoning Rl-7.5, single-
7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone,.
Com. C1audy
Com. Adams absent 4".0
ITEM #12, Applications 3l-Z-80 and l7-U-80 of WOODSPRING, INC. (HOME-,
'STEAD ROAD): REZONING approximately 3 gross acres from ML (Light In-
dustrial) to P (Planned Development with medium to high density resi-
dential, 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre intent) zone or whatever
'zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to
construct a 67-unit residential condominium building and ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a
:Negative Declaration. The subject property is .located on the south side
of Homestead Road approximately 300 ft; easterly of .Foothill Expressway
(opposite Fallen Leaf Lane). First Hearing. City Council hearing date --
August 18, 1980.
.
r
MINUtES OF JULY 30, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN CONTINUED F M
JULY 28, 1980.
E '" ~:(:
SECOND:
PASSED:
Com. C1audy to Tab1e'Item 1/12 until the end of,c;he mee;t.ing ill
order to allow the appl,icant, time. to ar,rive "v, '
Com. Blaine, , ,:0" - "':'
Com. Adams abs~nt 4-0
p~
Page 3
" "
(18) ,
MOTION:
ITEM 1/13 (UNFINISHED Bu:riNES$)'"wâs neård on July 28,1980, PC-337, pagel¡
11, 12 & 13. ~,.. ,,'
':..:: ~,'
..
NEW BUSINESS' t' ,"'. c: ,"
,
:-. ,.-, L· '. . '
ITEM #14, Informational -- Discussion of Kaiser Perman~~te Noise-Walls.
Assistant Planning Director Cowan, related 'the 'reason'for'the"issu~ being
on the Agenða, Aft:cer lengthy ,discussion, !twas dêcided-thá'f MÌ":Cowan,
should send ~rlet:ter to' the"appropriate' "ind<Í:iriduals oragendes;âd'-'
vising them that ctheiCity of Cupertino Planning CóûmiitfSiotÍé1:'s'would 1)"
like to have staggered wall sections, 2) prefer co1ór-m~tchèd sectio~s,
3) wish to have maintenance guaranteed, 4) wel'e'interested '!í1"adequåt:e
landscaping along roadway side of walls,S) needed to know whether the
walls were '~ffectiVe nOis'e'bätriers for ,roadñoise, motor 'noise, e~<;.,'
(Mr. Cowan ~epo~ed¡thatthere had been~greement reached' betwee~ th~
County and the 1t011l8owners}..¡, "
,'j
.:;. ,
COM. BLAINE said it was imperative that the, wa;1.l 'sections match'eac1r
other and that design should be maintained a1Qng the length of the w¡1l1 , '
installation.
Slides were shown of various areas with walls and variousâreas without'
walls. Along the edges of rental units, it was agreed the renters,
could care,' Jes,s ,about" upkeep: on any tyf the' propert'ieå ahd' most' partie:'"
ularly on CQu~y-owned wa11s. It'c was a~reed that'] even' where' thè wB"ll
was almost contiguou's', with the 'guard rail, there "houl<l" be' sonie effort to
landscape and maintain landscaping. ~fust of the installation was noted
to be outside CupertinO'. ': Thë areas of Cupertino to receive the wall
were identified. E~thetlcs were¡~ry important.
ITEM 1/15, Green Leaf Landscape Management -,Change-in Use - Ex!sting "'
Non-Conforming Building. L,,'
The proper~y was loc~ted as b.e+~g adj,acent to,. the Mot\~a ViS1;¡1, Marlçet;
The proprietor of~ fhe DUsinéss",wa$present" áncÍ ,related that, th~y weJ:'!I
using nearby parking. COM. 'CLAUDY said"he'd like to ..\<.n<;>w':more about ",
the operation because, although they had been led to, ~e;1.ie,ve,,-tþat use ...a
light, a much more intensive use was now indicated:
SECOND:
PASSED:
, , .
Com, B1aiñe; :~ontinue ~te~ #15, Green Leaf
tó ¡the Rägular Planning CómmíssionMeeting
,_. " .- .' ,", ;. .
Com: . John',!,on. .
Com. Ad~ absent
, :,;";,
La~<!~,l!:j8pe 'Managem.errt
of August 11,; 1980.
MOTION: '
4':0
RECESS:
9:is p.m.
~, ,
. ,. ~- . '. ' , }
ITEM 1/12, having been delayèd b,ecause the applicant
now brought up for"'consláeratión, ,on, Agenda PC-337,.
,". . .\- '. ~.
<
"
was not present" was.
n
'-:1
.
PC'")37
Page 4
MINUTES JULY 30, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CON-
TINUED FROM JULY 28, 1980
(17) Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked if he could relate the areas
surrounding the property in applications 31-Z-80 and 17-U-80, WOODSPRING, INC.
Associate Planner Piasecki then explained the plans exhibited on the board
and called attention to the designation, in the Staff Report, of the 10-12
density designation. He said that the detls1tyllad been changed at a previous
meeting, at the last minute, to 20-35 units/acre. The effort of part of
the present application was to utilize part ..of· ,the"c!riveway going back
to the rear development as part of the land area ,in the density -- the
area not being critical to Los Altos computations on land uses. It was
pointed out that the driveway (in Cupertino) served apartments (in Los
,Altos). He asked that the driveway space, a separate parcel of land,
'be utilized for access to Springwood -be applicable in terms of
density bonus; and, the density of Springwood would be 25 units/acre.
'Additional parking spaces would be 10c,ated ,in the driveway,area. He
pointed out the extent to which the site f,unctionedas, a .setback from the
development to the east -- if the area were to be all one site, then the
'proposed driveway-parking area would. have a setQaçk ~~lationship. One
of the Conditions for approval required that ti>e two'p,arce1s be combined.
:The members of the P1anningCo~ssion discussed traffic, 4nd slides
were shown to show the additional parking available on the roadway parcel
:of'land. Parking credits/unit were discussed.
The applicant asked that he be allowed a density of 67 units on the site,
and that he be charged with sufficient parking to meet the requirements.
Agreement with adjacent excess supermarket parking area was discussed.
Associate Pláriner Piasecki pointed out that thê property ,would be in the
'jurisdictton of a homeowners association a~d with incóip~ratio~ of the
adj oining property" that 'too would 'De und'er the 'as'sociatïon;' He said
Staff recommended joining the two properties and meeting 'the c!ensity re-
;quirements. .,' ~'1 ., 11, ":',
I"~ f r .
COM. CLAUDY, noting that there were three parcelS' 'of ~land, asked if in
'granting the Use Permit it would be pOssible to Ccndition the driveway
,be used for nothi\1g Qut dr:!.ve:way. Resaid he. d;d not want to come into a
position that the driveway area could be sold. He "was assured that the
roadway was the power1ine easement .and theref~r~ could not· be sold off.
,
" r"
!'
COM. BLAINE said she felt ,that the area 9bu1d fall~nder the homeowners
iassociation for the ,condominiums. Yet, 'she ,said, ,it,, W\I1d, be.,used by the
[apartment dweller". .She suggested there shouldb4¡! so~ kit)(lof an agree-
,~ent and it should be the .burden of the condominium dwellers and owners;
[through a yearly maintenance fee. '.'
"
<.'
'Mr. Duncan L. Matteson.. 525 University, Suite 22, Palo Alto,,'CA, one of
. the partners and appli.cants, showed slides from var;lous pers,,~ctives of
;the property in question. He said that additional parking s~lscpu1d
be added after meeting the turning requirements of the Central Fire
,Dis'trict. Mr. Matteson suggested some effort be, made to seek¡:ooperation
from the fire department as to their requirements (most of the require-
ments being a hardship on developers from financial and design interests).
.
PC-337 "
Page ?
Clearance for the parking (required by the fire department) was discusse . (16).
MINUTES JULY 30, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,
COM. BLAINE asked if the bike 'lane ran the full length of Homestead'Road.
Views from the 3rd floor of the Springwood Apartments into'the surroundi
area were shown by slide. 2nd level views into adjacent areas were sho
and explained (line-of-vision waS irtto the Glen Oaks development).
The BMR housing and the solar hot water heater conditions had not been
included in the ScaffRepor~. Mr. Piasecki asked that those conditions
be added.
COM. BLAINE stated that she still had serious concern over the parking
credits. CHR. KOENITZER stated that it was 2.4 based on 64 or 67 units.
COM. JOHNSON asked Mr. Matteson'about the current day's 'trips on Homeste d
Road. Mr. Matteson said the current, count' was 14,000 ,t'tips/day.
The Condition for installation of a signal. irt cooperation with the ToWn
of Los Altos, was discussed.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
PUBLIC REARING CLOSED: Com. Claùdy
SECOND:' Com. Blaine
VOTE: Com. Adams absent. PASSED 4-0
Com. C1audy, Approve Granting of Negative Declaration.
Com. Blaine
PASSED Com. Adams absent
4-0
Com. C1audy, recommend Approval 31-Z-80, subject to Standard
Conditions #1 through 1/15; #16,& 1/17 conditions modified ,to
read "... a maximum of 67 dWelling units..." as i'er A-Revision 1/ .
Com. Blaine
Absent: Com. Adams* PASSED 3-1-~
Yes: Commissioners Claudy, Blaine, Johnson
No: Commissioner Koenitzer
MOTION: Com. C1audy, recommend Approval 17-U-80 subject to Standard
Conditions #1 through 1/14; H1S to indIcated Exhibit A, 2nd
Revision; 1/16 modified to read that 67 units of condominiums;
1117 to charge that "the applicant shall increase the parkíng
yield to equal at least 166 parking spaces for the project."
Condition #18, #19, #20, and 1/21 -- add wording to the ~ffect
that a joint maintenance agreement will be made with Springwood
Apartments. Condition 1/22 shall be the standard BMRcondition
for the City of Cupertino. Condition #23 shall be added'Íor th
standard solar hot water heating requirement. Condition 1124
shall reasha11 read that the applicant shall be required to contribute a
fair share to the cost of installing a traffic' signal if 'and
when in the next five (5) years such shall be warranted.
Com. Johnson
Absent: Com. Adams PASSED
Yes: Commissioners C1audy, Blaine, Johnson
No: Commissioner Koenitzer
SECOND:
VOTE:
3-1
PC-B7
Page 6
MINUTES JULY 30, 1980 REGULAR ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING from
JULY 28, 1980
:19)
The applicant for Item #15 having arrived, it was agreed to hear the matter
immediately rather than continue it until August 11, 1980 (as had been
voted earlier in the meeting -- PC-337, Page 3, par. 7).
ITEM 11]5, NEW BUSINESS) Green Leaf Landscape Management - Change in use.
Existing non-conforming building.
Mr. Dave McLeroy, applicant, 21920 Hermosa Avenue, Cupertino, tA 95014
said the nature of the business to be conducted was "communications" --
one of the few competitors of Pacific Telephone. The company installs
and maintains telephone systems for businesses and commercial entities;
citizens would be coming in for telephone needs of a specialized nature.
Repair services would be run by radio dispatch with the drivers of the
trucks maintaining their vehicle at their homes and not parking them near
the facility. The telephone systems were largely designed as internal
telephone systems for businesses -- hookups inside the buildings using
Pacific telephone cables.
COM. BLAINE said she did not feel the use would be as intense as the
previous use. Change of use was approved by
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. C1audy.
Com. Blaine
PASSED Com. Adams absent.
4-0
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CHR. KOENITZER reported that the Noise Control Ordinance would commence
being enforced within 30 days; the senior citizens care home on Miller
was denied because of public safety and fire district problems. It
was reported that the festivities of the Fourth of July were very popular,
but that fireworks had, in all probability, caused fires. It was
recommended that future affairs not be held.
Parks & Recreation Department was reported to be looking to installation
of lights at Jo11~n School for the soccor field.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Planning Director Sisk called attention to the League of California
Cities meeting that was to be held and asked that those commissioners
wishing to attend call Ms. Crissman for reservations.
Mayor of Cupertino, who was attending the Planning Commission Meeting,
announced an ORCHIDS AND ONIONS contest for each City to submit plans
for best designs and good landscaping. She said department heads of
Cupertino city ~overnment were being asked to submit entries. H-Control
would be one of the judging bodies. Deadline for contest entries was
to be August 25. Ideas about designs, or pertinent material should be
sent to H-Contro1.
ATTEST: ~
~{~L.~
City Clerk
APPROVED:
~~
hairman