The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 03-25-02 City of Cupertino '10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, Co!ifornia 95014 (408) 777-3308 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MtiE-'rING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers March 25, 2002, 6:45 p.m. ORDI~R OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 11, 2002 February 25, 2002 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on issues that are not _~Iready included in the regular Order of Business) CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Application No.(s): EXC-1999-10(M) Applicant: Derek Fluker Location:. 22811 San Juan Road Time extension for a hillside exception consisting of a 2,953 sq. ft. residence on a prominent ridgeline, development on slopes greater than 30%, height exception, front setback exception, and a parking exception to have less than four functionally independent parking spaces PUBLIC HEARING 3. Application No.(s): U-2002-01, EA-2002-02 Applicant: Chicago Pizza & Brewery, Inc. Location: 10690 N. De Anza Boulevard Planning Commission Agenda of March 25, 2002 Page -2 Use pe~,it to demolish an existing 9,079 square foot restaurant and construct an approximately 8,350 square foot restaurant and bar with 406 indoor and outdoor seats Tentative City Council date: April 1, 2002 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny EA-2002-02 2. Approve or deny U-2002-01 4. Application No.(s): MCA-2002-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendment to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding definition of setback line Tentative City Council date: April 15, 2002 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny MCA-2002-01 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Committee Mayor's Breakfast REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. Planning Commission Agenda of March 25, 2002 Page -3 G:Planning/Ag~a-2S-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 DRAFT SUBbilTTED (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF ~ REGULAR MEETING OF TI~ PLANNING COMMISSION I~lJll ON FEBRUARY 11, 2002 SALUTE TO ~ FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Patnoe, Saadati, Chairperson Corr Staffpresent: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development:, Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin June, Senior Planner; Peter C}illi, Associate Planner: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works:, Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEb~ENTSfRF_,MOVALS I~ROM C.AI.lr. NDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALEHDAR: None PUBLIC m~ARING: 1. Application No.: 17-R-01 Applicant: Dennis Norton Location: 10430 Stem Avenue Appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of a new 2,60:5 square tbot two-story residence with a basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel resulting in a floor area ratio of 45%. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 2002 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, noted for the record that no conflict of interest existed for Com. Auerbach, as a resident of Rancho Rinconada, because he resides outside the distance that would create a conflict. .qt~ff' preqent~tlon' The video presentation reviewed the application for an appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial cfa new two story residence on Stern Avenue. The committee denied the proposed project because of the findings outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission may choose to deny the appeal, uphold the appeal and approve a submitted plan or uphold the appeal and approve the model resolution with any modifications by the commissioners. The Planning Commission decision will be final unless appealed. Mr. Peter (3illi, Associate Planner, reviewed the exhibits illustrating the various elevations of the proposed home. He also reviewed past approved designs in Rancho Rinconada. Relative to tho Planning Commission Minutes 2 February I I, 2002 findings for approval, the Design Review Committee determined that the project is not consistent with the Cieneral Plan and zoning, specifically on zoning, the requirement that every 24 tbot span of second story wall have an offset; the wall on the south side of the second elevation is 30 I~et with no offset; there is a finding that the project is detrimental or injurious to neighboring property. Staff docs not feel it is necessarily detrimental or injurious, but other findings would have to be made also in order to approve the project. Staff and the committee agreed that thc residence is not in scale and not harmonious with the neighborhood, and that the project is not consistent with the design guidelines, and that the project will result in significant adverse visual impacts. Because the findings for approval cannot be made, staff at the Design Review Committee recommended that the project be continued and the applicant amend the plan. The applicant wanted a final decision and if denial, to give him the option to appeal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gilli answered Planning Commissioners' questions relative to the prolx~scd project. Mr. Dennis Norton, representing the property owner, noted his objection to Com. Aucrbach's participation in the discussion, since Com. Auerbach resided only four houses away from thc proposed project. Mr. Norton said he felt there were incorrect statements in thc staff report, such as stating the applicant did not conform to the architect's and staff's recommendations. I Ic pointed out that there was no mention in the process of offsetting the center until it reached thc'" DRC, nor was there anything in the design criteria about balance; and he ti~lt they contbrmcd to the recommendations and had paid $700 for thc review of the city's architect. He said it' thc design criteria for the neighborhood required a single story house or wood house, they would have complied; they followed thc design criteria, including coverage, FAR and materials. He reviewed the recommendations of the Cannon Design Group and noted their compliance in thc areas addressed and in accordance with what the Planning Commission approved in the past. Mr. Papken Der Torossian, owner of the property since 1974, said that a major concern was thc placement of the window that affected the privacy of his neighbor Tom Jennings. I-le said he was agreeable to redesign of the window placement so that the neighbor's privacy was not jeopardized. He said he concurred with the city's desire to have consistent guidelines for the neighborhood for harmony within the neighborhood. Mr. Norton answered Planning Commissioners' questions and reiterated that he ti:it strongly that they conformed and were in compliance with everything approved in thc past. He reiterated that they had paid the $700 fee for the review, which did not include a recommendation tbr thc offsetting of the house, nor did staff mention it until thc design review. He said he felt it was not a valid reason for denial as thc project was more offset than anything approved within thc last two years. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Harry Morrison, 1042:5 Morretti, said his home was located directly across the back fi:ncc fwm the applicant's home and he was concerned about privacy issues, as the master bedri~om windows of thc applicant's home look directly down into their back yard. He said at thc Design Review Committee in December, there were recommended requirements tbr planting a row el~ Italian cypress trees along the back fence to provide a privacy screen tbr the neighbors and the trees would be protected against any future owner removing them. He said Mr. Norton proposed another plan for a lattice on the back fence, but a height of 7 feet would be required to provide a Planning Commission Minu s a February I I, 200Z privacy screening; for a total of 12 feet high fencing. He said he was not pleased with thc proposed solutions for privacy. Mr. Gilli clarified that the maximum allowed fencing height is.8 feet from the ground to thc top o1' any material. An exception would require the agreement and approval of all affected neighbor. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Saadati said he did not believe that the General Plan or city code specifies the setback of the second floor; specifically how many feet; and as long as the second floor is not lining up with the wall of the first floor, it softens the effect to some extent. He said by shifting the building slightly over, it would expose some of the second story windows which are covered by tho rool'of the first floor. Also, relative to the privacy issue, he said the applicant indicated he was willing to address the privacy to modify the windows in response to the neighbor's concern. Com. Saadati said that being able to soften the elevation to some extent with articulation in the material, could have a positive effect in reducing the scale of the second story. Com. Patnoe said Mi'. Jennings' comments on the design review focused on privacy and although the homeowner said Mr. Jennings was comfortable with it; without his presence, he tblt it was' difficult to have thc privacy issue be one of the reasons to sway thc decision one way or another. Com. Patnoe said that he was inclined to support the DRC decision, but wanted to continue thc discussion. Com. Chen said that a decision was rendered previously, and there have not been any changes since, and she intended on holding her position to deny the design. Com. Auerbach said that the regulation clearly states there cannot be more than a 20 Ibot run o1' wall without having something to break up that run. It is not something left to interpretation yet is missing from the house. He said to address the privacy measures, possibly removing the window from the north side and putting windows on the east west sides, would result in an awkward design. He said as Mr. Gilli mentioned in his opening remarks, at the conclusion o1' the DRC meeting, they wanted to continue the discussions to the next meeting to givc staffa chance to work with the applicant to resolve some of these issues. It was the applicant who asked tbr a denial in order to appeal to the Planning Commission. He said he felt the DRC worked well in that they had heard from the applicants, visited the neighbors, had discussions with them about the impacts on the adjacent properties. He said it was evident that the building was not far enough along and required tweaking, and that could best be handled between staff and the applicant. Com. Auerbach said that he would like to see a mechanism to send the application back for discussion and return it to the DRC. Com. Patnoe suggested not taking final action, but give the applicant more time to work on tho proposal and bring it back, providing as many options as possible for the applicant. Mr. Gilli said that it was possible to continue the item and have it return to thc Planning Commission; with some direction given on the aspects of the plan of concern to the Planning Commission. Chair Corr expressed concern with what seemed a sense of urgency to move toward denial of thc project, rather than continue the ongoing dialog. He said he had concerns with the privacy is.~uos Planning Commission Minutes 4 February at the back as was mentioned by Mr. Morrison, and not yet hearing from Mr. Jennings. I-lc said while he understood the nature of having to redesign the whole interior to balance the house, hc felt there would still be ways to soften how the house presents from all directions. He said he was encouraged that the applicant is willing to adjust the window on the north side: and he would uphold the DRC design; but would not be opposed to continuing the item in order to continue discussions. Com. Saadati said he concurred with Chair Corr, since he felt there was an opportunity Ibr the applicant to go back and look at it, rather than rejecting the idea. He added that if the application was continued, he would like the privacy issue addressed to the satisfaction of the neighbor in thc back, and look at the materials that could work with stucco to soften the effect ol'tbe second Iloor or some articulation in the elevation. In response to Com. Patnoe's question relative to Mr. Cannon's recommendation about thc garage size, Mr. Gilli said that the architectural consultant recommended that the garage be set back 12 inches from the face of the exterior wall; the applicant proposed more (18 inches). Com. Patnoc said he concurred with Com. Saadati's suggestions about addressing the privacy screening. Com. Cben said that the privacy issue and staff's concerns had to be addressed which was the reason for the desire to continue discussion. She said she was aware that the applicant Iblt thc process was unfair and that he was complying in all areas, and the Planning Commisskm was interfering with the architectural design. Mr. Norton said he was willing to work with staff', but felt they had gone out of their way to conform. He said he could work with a variation of materials, and the second story ell'scL although he felt the neighbors would not benefit. He said the ordinance was unclear to applicants relative to what they were required to do. Ms. Wordell clarified that the checklist on Page 1-16 of the staff report outlined three areas o1' non conformance: second story offsets every 24 feet: transitions between buildings: wall articulations and wall heights reduced. Mr. Norton said he was unaware of the second story oftgeL~ of24 Ibet until the meeting, but could make it work. He said they had addressed the sccond story wall heights, but could do more if desired. Com. Auerbach said tha~ the direction to continue included meeting the criteria and the issues that staff had, including the transition; the continuity of the wall, the vertical height; privacy issuos: and some materials. He said staff was asking for wood around the windows. Chair Corr summarized the issues to be addressed: privacy issues: softening the second wood trim pieces; the 25 foot sidewall; and the second story setback. MOTION: Com. Patnoe moved to continue Application 17-R-01 SECOND: Com. Saadati AMENDED Com. Auerbaeh amended the motion to refer Application MOTION: 17-R-01 back to the DRC (Com. Patnoe supported the amendment) SECOND: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 February I I. 2002 2. Application Nos.: 1 l-U-01; 16-EA-0101 Applicant: Bill Marei Location: 10056 Orange Avenue Use permit to construct a 7,912 square foot mixed use building with 4,483 square Ibet el' office/retail space and 3,429 square feet of residential space (2 units). St~affpregentntinn' The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to replace a 1,205 square foot single family house with a 7,912 square foot mixed use building, located in a developed urban area that will be redeveloped as part of the Monta Vista planning area. The Monta Vista design guidelines provide development standards and design guidelines tbr various land uses, including mixed use residential and retain commercial in the Monta Vista planning area. Details on the proposed project are outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration and use permit application in accordance with the revised model resolution. Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the application as set tbrth in thc staff report. The proposal includes two apartment units on the second level above thc .... commereial/retail floor; one apartment unit will be a 2 bedroom, 2 bath. with a one car ground level parking garage and an open parking stall in the rear of the building. The second apartment unit will be a 3 bedroom, 2 bath unit, with a two car garage. Mr. Chris Spalding, architect, said that relative to Chair Corr's concern, they could put a two ~bot wooden comp single rooting awning over the two doors. He clarified that the ell'ice/retail space was 3,065 square feet. In response to Com. Auerbach's concern about site drainage, Mr. Spalding said that one of the conditions of approval is to mitigate in another fashion. Depending on what the soils engineer comes up with, the options include a drywell under the parking lot Ibr thu drainage to flow into, or an underground rain water retention system which takes the storm flows and slowly pumps it into the storm drain. He said another concern was the planting under the oak tree that is being saved. Com. Patnoe said he liked the mixed use project and the building. In response to his question about occupancy, Mr. Spalding said that he planned to reside in the apartment and work in thc smaller office with his own business and an additional two persons in the office: with thc remainder of the staffout in the field. He said at this time he was not certain who would occupy the other.spaces. Chair Corr opened the meeting-for public comment. Mr. Don Hart, 10056 Orange Avenue, expressed concern about the heavy traffic on ()range Avenue, and stated that it was a feeder street for many streets in the neighborhood, as well as the main entrance to Blackberry Farm. He said it was over burdened now and had a heavy trill'fie backup in the afternoon because of the schools in the area and at 9 in the morning from Stevens Creek back to Orange Avenue. This proposed change is for quadruple the automotive traffic that ordinarily would stem from a resident lot. He said the project would not work as Orange Avenue was already burdened. He encouraged those present to go to Orange Avenue at 9 in thc morning and 3 in the af[ernoon to see the traffic impacts. Planning Commission Minutes 6 February I I, 2002 Ms. Wordell said that the Monta Vista'zoning zoned the area commercial, planned development /commercial with incidental industrial or residential, and applicants are being advised they cannot go strictly residential. Mr. George Adzich, 218:~0 Grenada Avenue, said that Mr. Hart made appropriate remarks about the traffic. He said he has lived in the area for 30 years and was familiar with the zoning; and was shocked to learn that re'mil/office and some apartment buildings were planned. He discussed the blockage of Orange Avenue and the effect on the surrounding streets, noting that it would not be able to handle the traffic. Relative to the mixed use in the area and the comparisons shown, he said it wlis critical to understand that there is nothing similar in the area; the comparison properties are on Pasadena and Imperial; this would be the first of its kind. The other two properties mentioned would be developed shortly. He said he did not want to limit the developers to what they can do on a property they have purchased as that zoning, but some o1' the key el¢inents to look at with a project like this is the impact on the environment. Mr. Adzich said that it may start out as a good plan if the owner plans to live in the apartment, and include el'rice space; bt, t thc retail may bring in 5 or 50 cars per hour. The environment drastically changes aro,lnd thc property, and in this case the entire area has to be considered. He said that the guidelines are very subjective; and the previous application addressed issues of bare straight walls, and the proposed application is a box also. He said it was confusing to know that the city wants and he Iblt I. hu' project should not be approved as there were still too many issues to be addressed. Mrs. Cathy Harr, 10056 Orange Avenue, addressed the privacy issue and said that there is now a second story deck looking down into their minimal back yard. She said that property values o,~ their side of the street will not be improved by having a large commercial building looming over their smaller house. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. Com. Auerbach said he felt Monta Vista has been under-served. He said he was not opposed to the development as it is; and said that a box around other box development in an area with light industrial canneries is in keeping with the area. Monta Vista is an ideal area to try and preserve in that way and continue that building form. He expressed concern about how the city is developing the street structure, by taking an area which had narrow ~ozy 25 foot wide streets, and prcvcnied people from speeding down them, and are putting in a 40 foot wide, 50 tbot wide total right o1' way down thc middle. Com. Aucrbach said they were destroying Monta Vista by suburbanizing the area which was rural and town-like. He said Orange Avenue would not work because thc area has been seeded hack to thc citizens and no longer have that right of way. People cannot go to Orange Avenue, thus taking one street out of the mix to get to McClellan and putting thc burden on the other streets. Those decisions were made many years ago when traffic and design thinking was different, and it is time to revisit the issues and clean up thc design in that area. Com. Auerbach read an excerpt from $oburhsn lqntinn regarding streets. Hc expressed/¥ustration that planning progress wasn't occurring faster. Hc discussed thc benefits of parking on thc street and recommended that the issue be revisited. Com. Chen said that traffic was a concern and there have been no traffic reviews for 15 years, when only mixed' use buildings were permitted in Monta Vista. She said it was a gtx~d design and although she liked to sec new development in Monta Vista, she was uncomtbrtablc with thc trall~c issues. Ms. Wordell explained that sometimes traffic problems may be perceived problems, not real ones. She said her impression from being in the area several times, that there wasn't Planning Commission Minutes ? February I I, 2002 excessive traffic, and there is no documentation of a traffic issue for that area. Com. Chen said she was concerned that there was no traffic study nor any documented problems. She said in thc General Plan amendment process, they were looking at making a conscious decision to lower the level of service even more on the main street which would impact the neighborhood, which was a situation she did not want to occur. She reiterated that she shared the concern about the tral'lic issues. Com. Patnoe said that the land is zoned in a particular way and whether or not the application is approved, there will likely be a similar building in the future. When the project is approved, il. should b~ aesthetically pleasing and have minimal impact on the neighbors. He said while he has served on the Planning Commission, he has voted against projects that call for additional ol~iee space if they do not try to improve on the housing availability as well, and he t~lt the proposed application was doing that with increasing some additional square footage in el'lice but also trying to improve the housing situation. He said he was aware of the traffic issues in that area. Com. Patnoe said that he concurred with Com. Auerbaeh's point on blocking of the street, and he suggested a discussion with the neighborhood and City Council possibly about lilting that, and what that would possibly do as they move forward in the next ten years in this particular neighborhood. .... Com. Patnoe said he supported the application as presented, with the caveat of Chair Corr's request that staffwork with the applicant regarding the doorway. Com. Saadati said he concurred with the application and suggested modifying the entrance; and suggested that staff pursue tile traffic issue and evaluate traffic calming measures if necessary for that area. Chair Corr said he supported the application. He reviewed the language changes in the model resolution. MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 16-EA-01 SECOND: Com. Saadati VOTE: Passed 5-0~0 MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application I I-U-01 including changes in tile model resolution and additional work on the front th~:ad¢ and work on storm drainage SECOND: Com. Chert VOTE: Passed ~-0-0 Chair Con' noted that the Planning Commission decision is final, and may be appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days. Com. Auerbach said he wanted to see a full map when completed, illustrating what Monta Vista looks like with regard to streets. He said he has long been an advocate of some rural standard, and noted that .$uburhnn Mntion has a set of guidelines for different street widths for different parts of the city, and its part of the General Plan and the traffic portion thereof. Hc said citizens should be given a chance to revisit the Monta Vista plan after 15 years. OLD BUSINESS: 3. General Plan study session regarding thc Land Use clement (the preferred alternative) Chair Corr declared a brief recess. Planning Commission Minutes s February I I, 2002 ,qtut~ preqentntinn' Ms. Wordell said that the preferred alternative was the subject of the study session, which is a preliminary approach to determining land uses and allocating development potential. Preferred alternatives refer to the distribution of land use types and the amount o£ development in those land use types. She stressed that the proposed direction was preliminary, with no final numbers developed. Referring to the Urban Design Overlay, Ms. Wordell said the concept was that the General Plan changes are going to look at achieving some sort of form to meet the objectives or guiding principleS. She discussed the preliminary preferred alternative for commercial, office, residential, and hotel as outlined in the Land Use Development Allocation Matrix, Exhibit ^. Com. Patnoe said that he was pleased with the preferred alternatives and said he did not Imve anything to add. In response to Com. Saadati's request for clarification on whether there was not any commercial development in the past 10 years, Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, said there was a net increase of 30,000 square feet (actually built) in 10 years. Ten years ago a consultant felt at that time the city was overbuilt relative to retail development; and the city reduced its commercial development' ' potential feeling assured that there would not be a large amount of construction, which proved to be true. Ms. Wordell said that in the last General Plan when there was reallocation el'development potential, commercial was cut back at that time to accommodate hotel, residential and office: hence it was cut back before and it is still largely unspent. Some of the commercial will get reshaped into the areas desired; the downtown village will receive more, some areas will get less; areas that want to have mixed use would get less so they would have room for the mixed usc. Mr. Jung said that the additions in retail in Cupertino have been along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Ms. Wordell clarified that mixed use was a combination of residential with non-residentiaL She said that the General Plan would specify areas as commercial, residential, and retail/elliot residential. Com. Chen reiterated the importance of reviewing the larger environmental picture instead o1' focusing on specific areas only. Com. Auerbach said the alternative scenario for commercial was that the square I'ootagc is concentrated at the crossroads, downtown village and Vallco. He reaffirmed that they should bc considered separately. He expressed concern that allocating more space to the north DeAnza area might encourage developers to develop in that area rather than on Stevens Creek or other areas such as the downtown village; and said he was in favor of having either a citywidc pool or I[~cus on the downtown village Ms. Wordell said it was possible if there were additional office development allowed there, it could usurp office development that might go downtown; although on the other hand it is dillbrent types of development; second story office is smaller scale; large user on north Deanza would probably be a typical R~D, hence it may be attracting a different market. Another trad¢off is that the concept would tie it into providing housing so that to get it, housing has to be provided. Responding to Com. Auerbach's question, Ms. Wordell said that the concept o~' the downtown village plan would include retail office along the street and residential behind; and it was possible that the property owners or developers would be different. Com. Auerbach said that b¢causc el' Planning Commission Minutes 9 February I I, 2002 the amount of work that it would take to make the downtown village a reality, developers n¢~d be encouraged to be creative, to approach people whose lots aren't fbr sale and are not being redeveloped. He said he envisioned prospective developers being directed to the downtown village when they ask where they can develop in the city, and it would be backed up by General Plan numbers. Chair Corr stated that they were successfully moving forward to get the jobs/housing balance more in line. He concurred that North DeAnza was in good shape and not a lot of time would have to be focused on that area. He said the redevelopment of the city will start slow and will catch on; and increasing the number of residential units within 'a mixed use development will become more the regular than the irregular it is today. He said he was pleased with the direction they were headed. Com. Auerbach said relative to residential, he had asked staffto Ioo1~ at an FAR element to muk¢ sure the residential developments aren't 2,000 square foot luxury apartments, but a good spread of units. Relative to the schedule, Com. Auerbach suggested a session on residential development with regard to the General Plan, including streets, overlay districts and house design, especially RI. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that the ERC had not reel but is scheduled to meet Wednesday, February 13th. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that the committee changed its name to the I lousing Commission and would be meeting on Thursday evening. Mayor's Breakfast: None held; Com. Chen said that one would be held Tuesday. Com. Patnoc said that the contents oftbe Mayor's State of the City address on the Cupertino website. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No report. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on February 25, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 DRAFT SUBMITTED (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNIbIG COMMI~qSION I:IEi J~ ON FEBRUARY 25, 2002 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chen, Patnoe, Saadati, Acting Chairperson Auerbach Commissioners absent: Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner, Therese Smith, Parks and Recreation Director. Don Wool[~ and Leon Pirofalo from Planning Resources Associates were also present." APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 28, 2002 Planning Commission Study Scs'sion Com. Saadati requested the statement "less than LOS E" on Page I, 7 lines from the bottom, be clarified. Mr. Piasecki suggested the language be revised to read: "no intersections in Cupertino worse than LOS E" Page 2, paragraph 3, second last line: (revise line format- no wording change) MOTION: Com. Auerbaeh moved to approve the January 28, 2002 Planning Commission study session minutes as presented SECOND: Com. Chert ABSENT: Com. Corr ABSTAIN: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 3-0- I Minutes of the January 28, 2002 Planning Commas'sion meeting MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the January 28, 2002 Planning Commission study session minutes as presented SECOND: Com. Chen ABSENT: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR; None Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 25, 2002 OLD BUSINESS: None 2. General Plan study session regarding the Environmental Resources Element Staff pre~o, ntntinn. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that guiding principles address creating open space in parks and access to them in neighborhoods, protection of the environment, the use of sustainable concepts encouraging recycling and minimizing use of non renewable resources. Two significant proposals identified relate to the organization of the plan, which is proposing to locate the parks and open space policies and text in the land use element. The second main emphasis and change is to focus on sustainability as a concept. She said that staff was proposing that the element be called environmental resources and sustainability; and not only would it bo emphasized i.n the environmental resources element but throughout the plan. She said they were innovative changes that will help create a unique approach for Cupertino. Ms. Terese Smith, Parks and Recreation, explained the role of the Parks and Recreation Department. She said that Mike O'Dowd was currently the lead staff person on the master plan that will incorporate 60 city owned acres, and said how it plays into the long-term vision is important to Cupertino. Ms. Smith reviewed the function and purpose of the Parks and Recreation Department. She reviewed the current policies, including Policy 5-45: Park Acreage; Policy 5-47: Minimum Acreage; and Policy 5-48: Park Design. She revieWed the current park inventory, and illustr,'~ted pictures of the parks, including Creekside Park, Hoover Park, Jollyman Park, Library Field, Linde Vista Park, Monta Vista Park, Portal Park, Somerset Square Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Memorial Park, Three Oaks Park, Varian Park, Wilson Park, Blackberry Farm and Golf Course, and the Sports Center. She reviewed the eight sites utilized for organized recreation; noting that they did not currently use outdoor areas of the high school site. She noted that open space was an important aspect, and that the open space was large enough for active recreation, since active recreation was a major' factor of why people move to the Cupertino community. She reviewed tho enrollment in classes, camps, use of Blackberry Farm, and McClellan Ranch Park; and discussed the community's desire for a community gymnasium and a community pool. She pointed out that they were experiencing difficulty in finding a location for the skateboard park; and that the sports center was an issue as it was currently serving mostly non-residents. Ms. Smith discussed thc Blackberry Farm master plan; park renovation plans; Cupertino's open space and trail priorities; and consideration of land acquisitions outside the city limits for farm demonstration or summer camp use. Whether or not 3 acres per 1,000 population is sufficient, she said that given the lack ct' available open space, they should currently plan how to use what is currently in public ownership so that it is serving residents, and the city should require that small parks be dedicated/constructed within new developments to help provide open space opportunities for new neighborhoods. As development continues, the provision for neighborhood recreational needs should be considered when proposals are evaluated, specifically in the three areas currently park deficient. She said that linear parks can be used to augment the community's recreational inventory. Ms. Smith addressed Com. Saadati's question relative to Blackberry Farm being converted to mostly resident. She said if they did it immediately, they would stop charging thcs, as it was probably the biggest impediment toward resident use. The beginning of the conversion Wotlld occur with the construction of the Stevens Creek trail. She noted that part of the difficulty with the Stevens Creek trail alignment is that the revenue generating portion of the operation needs to be kept separate from the public throughway without completely reconstructing the parks. The Plannin8 Commission Minutes 3 February 25, 2002 Blue Pheasant lease expires in March 2004 and discussions are already under way with the owner of the business. She said the master plan process will ensue over the next 18 months, during which time community input will be received. Relative to deficient park space, Com. Saadati questioned if there was a plan to add park space in the Vallco area or Rancho. Ms. Smith said that as development proposals came in, there was opportunity in Vallco and Villa Serra to provide park acreage in those areas; and in the Rancho area the Saratoga Creek trail project could start to drive linear park development. She recommended that the General Plan support those acquisitions. Ms. Smith explained the park in-lieu fee. A section in the state government code called the Quimby Act empowers the developers to contribute to park land. The fee can be used ilar land acquisition, parks use, or facility construction. Relative to private open space designation, Ms. Wordell said that in the past particularly near the hillside areas, there have been planned developments and subdivisions with a private open space component as part of' the development and a private open space zoning district that limits the things that can occur there. She noted that areas in Regnart Canyon and DeAnza Oaks on Stevens Creek toward the quarry have components of private open space. Ms. Smith said that the 3 acres per 1,000 was attainable given what is available with the school sites, and that only portions of the school site are used for recreation. She explained that it'there is' ' surplus school land, the city has first right of refusal on acquiring the land and purchase it at their cost plus inflation, not market value. She said there was also the issue of Blackberry Farm which is not part of the calculation and the Simms property and Stecklemeir property. Discussion ensued regarding the use of community parks. Ms. Smith said that it was possible ti) do a survey on usage of parks, what parks Cupertino residents use. She discussed the usage of Memorial Park,' noting that approximately 2,500 people per day utilized Memorial Park. Com. Patnoe suggested that a question about park usage be included on the next Godbe survey. Ms. Smith said that moving the parks element into land use was appropriate because parks are a part of the fabric of the community and they take on the character of the surrounding land use. Il' on a major arterial such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, the intensity of use would be dil'lbn:nt than at Somerset Square or Three Oaks park, tucked back in the neighborhood. Parks are not all equal and people should have different expectations if they live near a park. If they are in a residential area and all the streets are residential, it is not fair to put a skateboard park or a dog park in that area; but if on a major arterial street, she said that a skateboard park is a reasonable thing to expect. She said she was supportive of staff's recommendation to move parks into the land usc element. Ms. Smith said that parks are different, and the na~tional standard may be relevant in one area, but not in another, as they have different intensities of use and are distributed ditl'erently about the community. Chair Auerbach questioned how the distribution of parks in terms of size, size distribution of parks in Cupertino compares to the outline shown. Ms. Smith said that no emphasis was put on thc play lot portion of the inventory; Cupertino is a young city and the play lots and small pocket parks an: generally the ones that serve the fewest people and cost the most to both build and main0.dn. She said if developing a park system in an organized manner the goal is to build those facilities that arc going to serve the most people for the least money. Those are built first to meet the community needs, and as built out, focus is on the acquisition and development of smaller park sites. The wisdom in the strategy is every neighborhood would want a pocket park; and someday they will all have it, but if starting with that, where would the 4th of July celebration be held; where would Planning Commission Minutos 4 February 25, 2002 the skateboard park go; where are the lighted softball fields; and where are the larger co,nmunity needs met?. Chair Auerbach said that relative to the 3 acres per 1,000 issue, if it is defined as various acres, there is also one policy that parks should be designed for 3.5 acres and that is dit~rent from the national park standards that gives this broader range of parks. Ms. Smith said it was a successl't,I strategy, resulting in the parks that serve tens of thousands of people served by Cupertino. She said if there was a strategy to acquire whatever people wanted from the people who were the ,nest vocal, there would likely be bunches of small parks everywhere and not serving the numbers that are being served today. Chair Auerbach questioned the recommendation on the policy given that it would be benel~cial to have a broader range of park options in the General Plan over the next 20 years. Ms. Smith said that on the immediate horizon at Villa Serra and Vallco, she felt it should be in there since they would try to acquire sites of 3 acres or more. In areas such as Rancho where there is no other opportunity, the policy currently says that if that is not possible, a park deficient neighborhood can be identified. She reported that the city was paying the General Fund back Ibr tile park acquisitions in the 80s and 90s and there were major improvements to be made at Blackberry Farm and an opportunity to start to provide some community amenities there, which raises thc' ' question of how to stretch the resources. Ms. Smith said the trail system could contribute to pedestrianism with connections such as thc Mary Avenue overcrossing, making connections to Memorial Park and DeAnza College; as well as some connections from what will become Towne Center out to some parks. Relative to thc current General Plan requirement for parks to be within one half mile of homes, Ms. Smith said that depending on the area, some places were in compliance, yet others were park poor. I~telative to the quarter mile standard for parks,'Ms. Smith said it would likely be more than 20 years bcti)rc that was the norm, as she felt it was not a priority. She said she felt that pocket parks would not achieve the goal of pedestrianism the way other improvements would, as they are a big expense and a drain from accomplishing some of the other Parks and Recreation priorities at this ti,ne. Chair Auerbach presented a comment fror~ an e-mail regarding the use and funding et'small parks in communities as part of a research pr6ject. Ms. Smith said that not all cities are equal, wil. h different lengths of time they have been incorporated and different lengths ot' time they have actually provided parks and fee services. She said that it is usually not the first thing that has happens when a city is incorporated, but occurs many years later. The establishment o1' thc parks system in Cupertino is relatively new, and is successful because the people have been t'ocused and have addressed one set of goals at a time. She said that pocket parks were valuable, but by comparison are the least used acres in the park system and the most expensive to build and maintain. They are ideal if the city has the tax resources to support them. She said the city has to decide where it is in the continuum oftbe city's development and whether or not they want to have a policy of putting resources into them. She said she did not recommend that Cupertino do st). Ms. Smith said that community response to recommendations will be what decides what goes 'into the General Plan, and she said her predecessors were successful because tliey had a Ibcus and understood that there are building blocks in a park system. Ms. Smith discussed whether Blackberry Farm could be envisioned as a neighborhood park or a community park. She said there was a need for a community park and it could be located at Blackberry Farm. She said a suggestion was made to use the creek at Blackberry Farm as thc Planning Commission Minutes s February 25, 2002 organizing theme throughout the properties and have the 60 acre open space focus not only on recreation, but the cultural and natural history of the area and have that as thc organizing principle tying it together. Them would be a trail corridor that would make it possible to get f'rom the north side of Stevens Creek over to schools; and if'the pools become mom accessible, perhaps them will be more community use of the swim pool and the snack bar. She said they were evaluating thc fees charged and the possibility of increasing the rental fee for use of' the facilities rather than charging an entry fee to the park. Mr. Piasecki said that the questions being asked were appropriate questions: how tar to walk to open space and park facilities; desire for a walkable community; ¼ mile preferable to ¼ mile: what is the appropriate size of parks, etc. He said the questions should be asked as they go through the General Plan, and it should be looked at as a compmbensive package with parks, trail systems and a network of getting around the community that differs from the way it h:ts been treated in thc past. He added that there may be opportunities through better connections that solve a lot of issues of access, or that there is a tiered plan, with a base level to attain. If it can move beyond tho base plan, other things can be added and there may be other resources and opportunities available. Chair Auerbach briefly discussed policies 5-48, 5-49, and 5-52, and questioned why the city accepted throe parcels in Oak Valley in lieu of park fees. Ms. Wordell explained there was a' ' difference of opinion whether the developer should pay the in-lieu fees as there was not a demand for a park in that neighborhood; hence in-lieu fees could not be used there. Them was compromise to accept some land as a way of working through the impasse. Relative to maintenance and operating costs, Corn. Cben questioned the possibility or forming a benefit district for neighborhood parks. Ms. Smith said it was possible, however it costs money to form and manage a district, and said what cities have done successfully when thoro is a need li)r major renovation on several parks is to go out for a bond issue. She noted that a bond isst,o is more beneficial for a bigger project rather than a series of small independent ones as thc overhead costs are very high. Chair Auerbach opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Auerbach said that feedback was needed on what policies should be pursued, what direction staff should take relative to crafting the parks element, and whether or not to move tho parks element to land use, neighborhood parks rs. large parks and comments on minimum acreage. Com. Saadati said that having too many small parks would be unmanageable; and said focus should be on the community as a whole to make the streets more walkablo so that people would walk to parks and not use their cars. Com. Patnoe said he supported the ¼ mile park language; and favored mom parks to keep as much space open as possible. He said he was not opposed to moving it into the land t, sc clement. Relative to Policy 5-48, he said he preferred the vague language, and was in Favor or it remaining the same, since it allowed flexibility, to the Parks and Recreation department and tho city's planners to ensure that the same mistakes were not made relative to the fountains and other potential maintenance problems. Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 25, 2002 Chair Auerbach said that he felt the language about park design should be stronger to include policy that the park should be designed for the benefit of the broadest range of Cupertinians and not just all for tennis and soccer use. The policy should also reflect planning ['or the next 20 years taking into consideration the aging demographics and possible change in the use oFthe park. Chair Auerbach said that he would like to have the design of parks be done in an environmentally friendly way and integrated with nature rather than shielding them offwith a cyclone fence. Com. Chen said that she supported revisiting the calculation of 3 acres per 1,000 populatioq, to truly speak to the ratio between thc usable open space vs. the population of Cupertino. She said she supported thc concept of designing parks system, and being addressed citywidc in usage in meeting thc community's needs. Com. Chert said that thc dcsign policy language was appropriatcL specifically Iow cost long-term maintenance, to create thc least impact to thc operating bndgct in maintaining the costs. She said she felt maintaining thc parks was very important and safety was also an important factor in the park design. Chair Auerbach said he was an advocate of the '/~ mile grid where possible. He said thc drawback of the ½ mile standard is that people will drive the half mile; theretbre if serious about pedestrianism, it needs to be addressed, and when looking at daily activities or frequent activities," ' park visitation could be one. He said it would be helpful to add the questions to the Godbe survey, and by asking different questions on the Godbe survey, a lot would be learned and about what thc consumers want. Chair Auerbach said that they considered putting more units along the major arterials of DeAnza and Stevens Creek, and in trying to leave the neighborhoods more residential with more open space, he felt it was consistent with that. He stated that the Four Seasons corner was not a good example, as it may be too large; however, smaller refuges From traffic and the like could be very important, which is sometimes seen in larger urban areas. He said he felt because they were projecting out 20 years that they should start along those corridors thinking more urban. Chair Auerbach said he was strongly in favor of moving the parks element to land use, since he felt it was a land use issue and not an environmental issue; the parks themselves arc generally manufactured; not creatures of nature. He said he did not support the vague language; and Iblt the problem around the policy of park design should be addressed. Chair Auerbach said that the 3 acres per 1,000 issued required more discussion. I% cited that Cupertino High School's fields were counted as parkland but were not 100% as they were only available certain hours and for scheduled uses. He noted that its school yard has barbed wire fencing which was not an inviting amenity for the community. He said the language in the ordinance of 5 acres per person seemed regional and high based on Cupertino's standards; the 3 acres per I000 were more appropriate. Coincident with that policy would be to obtain a policy, that is citywide construction of parks to meet the broadest need of Cupertino citizens, such as thc community gardens. He said a survey of the community would reveal the needs of the community. Ms. Smith reported that they had a long-term agreement with Cupertino Union School District, but not with the high school district, which results in the fields being off limits for use because' the high schools use their fields in the evenings. She said they had a tenant/landlord relationship liar gyms and pools. Discussion ensued regarding the community dog parks. It was suggested that the community bc surveyed on potential interest and percentage of Cupertino residents that would use the park. Ms. Smith also discussed the leash law, and suggested a program wherein specific parks would bc Plannin8 Commission Minutes ? February 25, 2002 open to unleashed dogs at certain hours if they had passed a special training. She also discussed the concept ora dog park in the sunken area between the Cupertino library and city hall buildings. Chair Auerbach declared a brief recess. Mr. Don Woolfe, Planning Resource Associates, discussed sustainability. He defined sustainable planning and development as that which fulfills the needs of the present community without limiting the ability for future generations to survive and live in the community. Sustainability Ibr our purposes in planning deals with the conservation and efficient use of energy and other natural resources. It deals with the way renewable vs. non-renewable resources are treated: and also incorporates regional statewide national and now global implications. He said presently there arc 116 cities in the country that have implemented sustainability programs; it is a premier issue spurred on and bolstered by the energy crisis in the 70s and the California electric power issue last year, and by some solid scientific research which supports the notion o.r global warming, degradation of water bodies, and watershed management issues on a global scale. Mr. Woolfe reviewed the principles of sustainability proposed to include and adopt as a ixdicy and implement the guiding principles: linking of resource management and economic terminations: conservation and efficiency; reduction of waste; resource management for benefit or I't, turc ' ' generations; prevention and mitigation for continued enforcement of CEQA, particularly early intervention; restoration of impacted environmental resources; encouragement or' new building technologies; encouragement of innovation and design; encouragement of non conventional approaches; consideration of the substitution of materials; community participation; and preparation and dissemination of educational material. Mr. Woolfe said that one of the components central to sustainability programs is the green building program. He said they were proposing green building as a core program because it is in building design and review of buildings that addresses the sustainability issue, since I/3 el' all thc energy and 2/3 of all the electricity are used by buildings. He said there were many industrial and business entities in Cupertino who are now practicing green building raaintenance, and are saving money doing so. The city's General Plan program is an excellent vehicle tbr coordinating of thc sustainability program with the city's programs. The General Plan in this case becomes an anti- piecemealing device; because it does relate and permeate all levels or the General Plan; it coordinates it; it forces looking at the General Plan as an integrated whole and it tbrces those to avoid looking at each project as a piecemeal development, because piecemealing is what has destroyed the planning fabric in California and other places. Piecemealing tbcuses on thc short term without monitoring long-term results. Mr. Woolfe illustrated how the planning and regulatory processes relate to sustainability. He said that they would address how to encourage and ensure that people Who design, build and maintain buildings to more than just comply with thc letter of Title 24 of the California Energy Regulations would be provided incentives. Mr. Wooll'c concluded by stating that although i16 cities have implemented or are in the process o1' implementing these programs, very few if any have had the courage to make it part ur their General Plans as he is proposing. He said the proposal was pioneering on thc brink of achievement for communities; and he encouraged involvement and welcomed feedback. Com. Patnoe said he was supportive of the green building concept, and questioned how to communicate the long-term benefits to the developers and builders. Mr. Woolt'e said education and possible incentives to the builders would help the developers to see the long-term benefits of the green building concept.. Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 25, 2002 Com. Saadati said he was familiar with the green building concept and he felt developers and builders needed encouragement to see long-term benefits of green building to otTset the initial costs. Mr. Woolfe said that he was recommending that a manual for the city on the evaluation el' green building be prepared; customized for each city, as the cookie cutter approach would not bo effective. Com. Chon said she strongly supported the conservation effcJency use of natura~ resources and felt that outreach was an important part to include in the Genera~ Plan. Mr. Woolfe outlined the key elements of a successfu~ educationa~ outreach program, including staff training, ensuring that key staff has a good background in sustainability programs, cqcrgy conservation, efficiency, and green buildings. He said there should be a key staff person in thc planning and community development department to remain abreast of all the programs and develop educational materials and seminars for the community; and invite key speakers from thc Bay Area. He recommended the city conduct a sustainability audit to find out where it stands, and make it a part of the General Plan policy. Mr. Woolfe said that the governmental entity needs to' lead by example in acting as showplaces for technology. Mr. Piasecki said that some of it exists within the current structure of the city, mainly because cities have been required to concern themselves with nonpoint souroe issues, water quality issues and recycling, reducing the waste stream. While some of this has been done in response to smtc related mandates, what this element will do is set the future direction and how fhr to go with it. The city needs to be poised to take advantage when technology is appropriate to require certain implementation of some of the measures. He also discussed the benefit or compost bins. Ms. Wordell noted that the city was recycling 62% of its waste, while the state requirement is 50%. Chair Auerbach opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Chon said she felt green building design guidelines were a good idea and she supported thc concept. Relative to the energy issue, she said automobile use should be reduced, which complies with the general vision for the city to increase the walkability. She said she was supportive of thc outreach, and felt the audit was an interesting concept. She said staff would be responsible Ibr recommendations on how far to take sustainability. Com. Patnoe said he was supportive of the presentation; and relative to Policy 5. l0 said he was pleased to see the change for greater protection of street trees. Relative to Policy 5.6, Mr. W~x~ll~ said that most counties and cities have banned wood burning fireplaces in new developments, but wa.s not retroactive. Com. Saadati said he was supportive of the outreach program and sustainable materials. Mr. Piasecki said that there has been a statewide effort to get this into the ordinance structure of many cities but not in our structure now. Chair Auerbach said he was pleased with the direction taken. He said he previously sent comments to city staffon how the element should be beefed up and move land use out so it could Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 25, 2002 solely focus on thc truly environmental sustainable clements. He discussed compost bins, Iow flush toilets and other conservation methods, and suggested charging a different rate ilar trash collection for people using compost bins. He said it was important that staffbe comtbrtable with these concepts, and said that giving people access to Pacific Encrgy Center was a valuable resource. He suggested incentive programs to enable them to internalize the long-term costs up front. Relative to the street tree issue, he said there were improvements, but that the policy should be further addressed; as well as storm water runoff and narrower street widths. Hc recommended a booklet be available "So You Want to Build a Home in Cupertino" that would covcr thc issues, not just the green issues but also the design issues - a one-stop shopping for thc people to get resources and referral to further resources. Chair Auerbach said he had no opposition to the presentation and was looking forward to seeing the draft. Ms. Wordell said that staff would continue working on the draft and return with more details on thc preferred alternative, which would bring more to thc jobs/housing ratio discussed previously, and then address residential policies. Chair Auerbach directed staff to add a guiding principle or' city beautification. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF TITE. PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No report. Ms. Wordell reported that thc Pepper,hill restaurant would be replaced with a new brew/pub/pizza concept restaurant. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that the February 14 meeting t~cuscd on organizational items. Hc reported that thc Housing Committee was changing its name to thc Housing Commision, and its meeting day to 6 p.m. on the second Thursday or' thc month. Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Chert reported that she attended the recent brcakthst. She commc,~dcd thc teen commissioner, and discussed their work plan to ensure consistency between thc tccn commissions because of thc frequent turnover. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported on his attendance at a three week program at Harvard University program for senior executives in local and state government offered by the John F. Kcnncdy School of Government at Harvard. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CI.IPPINGS: None OTHER: Com. Patnoc read thc following statement into the record: "As most of you know, I got married four months ago to an amazing women I met in 1992 while wc were both waiters at the now closed Good Earth Restaurant. Over thc past four months wc began planning for our future and spent several weeks researching housing opportunities so 'that wc might finally purchase a home in Cupertino instead of continuing to rent. What we found compared to what we could afford as a young couple was, as you might im.'tginc, was disappointing. In addition, the economic slowdown has affected everyone in this region, especially those of us in technology industry. With that in mind, Christine and I began to reevaluate our plans for the future and have made the difficult decision to move out of Cupertino. Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 25, 2002 As a result, I will be submitting a letter in the morning to the Mayor and City Council that I will be resigning my seat on the Cupertino Planning Commission effective March 6, 2002. Christine and I made this decision about our future based on what is best for both of us financially and personally. I feel very strongly about this community and am sad about the prospect of leaving my hometown; however, I am excited about starting our life together in San Diego. I feel very good about the role I have been able to play on the Planning Commission over the past 14 months with regard to responsible land use planning, the work on the General Plan and efforts to improve Cupertino's housing crises. I am also proud of the preliminary work conducted to create a downtown vision for this community. A vision that will offer opportunities tbr residents to spend their time and their dollars in Cupertino through an improved walkable, mixed use corridor along Stevens Creek Boulevard. I have truly enjoyed serving on the Planning Commission and I will miss this unique opportunity to serve my community. Thank you so much to City Councilmember James, Mayor Lowenthal and former Councilman Burnett for this opportunity. To my fellow commissioners, Angela Cben, Taghi Saadati, Chuck Corr and to my good friend Marc Auerbach, thank you all for your friendship and dedication which you demonstrate each week in your position on the Planning Commission. '" I also wanted to thank members of the city staff for their help, patience and energy, especially Klm Smith and Carol Atwood. Most importantly, I want to thank the Planning staff including Stove Piasecki, Ciddy Wordell and your impressive team. Steve, you and your staff are one of the hidden treasures of this community and the way in which your department goes about helping plan and shape the Cupertino of tomorrow- while dealing with several opinionated decision makers - is truly amazing. The residents of Cupertino are very lucky to have you working for them. I also did not want to forget and thank my good friends with the City Channel who are downstairs working to send this broadcast over the television and internet. Thanks to webcasting on the internet, I will be able to look in on the Planning Commission from my new home in San Diego. I look forward to watching you all continue to shape Cupertino, but do not be surprised if you receive an e-mail, a phone call or even a visit from time to time with my two cents on a project, plan or idea. Cupertino was an incredible place to grow up and I am grateful for the opportunity to have been able to give something back to a city and to the people who have played such a critical role in my life. Wherever I may live or work in the future, Cupertino will always be my home. It was here that I first learned the value of activism and the importance of community and lbr that I will always be grateful. Thank you .... JeffPamoe" The Planning Commissioners thanked Com. Patnoe for his contributions to the Planning Commission and the city, and wished him success in his future. Mr. Piasecki and Ms. Wordell thanked Com. Patnoe for his support and contributions and congratulated him. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on March 11, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Planning Commission Minutes II February 25, 2002 Elizabeth Ellis Recording $~cretary CITY OF CUI~RTI~O 10300 Torte AvenUe, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP~ REPORT FORM Application: EXC-1999-10(lVl) Agenda Date: March 25, 2002 Applicants: Derek Fluker Prop .e~y Owner:. Same Property Location: 22811 San Juan Road AppHcation Snmmary: Time extension for a hillside exception consisting of a 2,953 sq. ft. residence on a prominent ridgeline, development on slopes greater than 30%, height exception, front setback exception, and a parking exception to have less than four ~unctio~ally independent parking spaces Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of ~ time extension. Discussion: The Harming Commission approved a hillside exception for the applicant on October 25, 1999 (see enclosed resolution and plan set). Subsequent to the approval, the applicant submitted building plans. On September 24, 2001, Mr. Fluker requested in writing an extension from the building depa~-,ent for his building permit until April 2002, due to his inability to begin construction during the rainy season. The request was granted. Mr. Fluker intends to begin construction on April 8, 2002. However, the hill.~ide exception expired on October 25, 2001, so currently there is no valid approval to allow construction to proceed. Staff believes that Mr. Fluker's understanding was that he had taken the proper steps by extending his buildir~g permit, and that ~'delay was unavoidable due to the rainy season. Therefore, staff believes that, in this case, an extension of the hillside exception is appropriate, even though it was not expressly applied for until February 2002. Staff does not believe this is precedent setting, due to the specific circumstances of this case. Staff wants to point out that the applicant has made minor changes to his plans · . since approval, which staff deterndned do not require additional discretionary approval (see enclosed two-page plan set). The residence is set into the hillside more than the original'approval, an outside stairway has been added and a rounded exterior element hz.~ been squared off. These changes are part of the building permit and do not require addit4onal action from the Planning Commission. Enclosures: Model Resolution Planning Commission Resolution 5077 Approved plan set Plan se.t changes (2 pages) Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve I~a~ecki, Director of Community Developmert~~ G:plannin~/pdreport/pcEXCreports/pcl0excg~M 2 EXC-1999-10(M) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO EXTENDING APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 2,953 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE ON A PROMINENT RIDOELINE, ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 30%, AND TO EXCEED THE ALLOWED HEIGHT AND FRONT SETBACK, AND AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW LESS THAN FOUR FUNCTIONALLY INDEPENDENT PARKING SPACES ON A PARCEL ON SAN JUAN ROAD SECTION I: FINDINGS ':..'".. WHEREAS, th~ Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received a request for an extension of an approved Hillside Exception, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant h~.~ demonstrated a compelling reason for granting an extension of the approved hillside exception as follows: 1. The applicant requested and was granted an extension of the building permit. 2. The applicant was unable to pwceed with timely construction due to the prohibition of construction during the rainy season. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for an extension of the hillside exception is hereby approved until October 25, 2002; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public record concerning application EXC-1999-10(2V0, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 2002, and are incorporated by ret'erence as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.(s): EXC-1999-10(2Vl) Applicant: Derek Fluker Location: 22811 San Juan Road Re~olution No. EXC-1999-10(M) March 2§, 2002 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 2002, at a Regular Meeting of thc Planning Commission oft. he City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ' COMMISSIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Charles Corr ..... Director of Community Development Planning Commission Chai~a~an g/planning/pdreport/res/EXC- 1999-10(M) 10-EXC-99 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 5077 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A 2,953 SQ. FT. KESIDENCE ON A PROMINENT RIDGELINE, ON SLOPES'GREA~K THAN 30%, AND TO EXCEED THE ALLOWED HEIGHT AND FRONT SETBACK, AND AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW LESS THAN FOUR FUNCTIONALLY INDEPENDENT PARKING SPACES ON A PAKCEL ON SAN JUAN KOAD SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Pl/mnlng Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Hillside Exception, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and .. :..... WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the procedural ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has demonstrated a compelling reason for granting an exception and has met the following findings for a Hillside Exception as requ/red in Section 19.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code: I. The proposed development win not be injurious to property or iml~rovements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 2. The proposed development will not create a hs~rdous condition for pede~hlan or vehicular traffic. ,(.'?-','., 3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to ,,.. ~...,:::~'~ serve the development. 4. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification bf, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed.in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. 5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have be6n considered an have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the proposed development. 6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological or environmental hn~rcls which have been deteimined by expert testimony to be unsafe or b~rdous to sh-uctures or persons residing therein. 7. The proposed development includes grading and dr~insge plans which will ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads, housing sites and improvements will be minimi=ed. 8. The proposed development does not consist of structures which would disrupt the natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the valley floor u~!ess either: a. The location of a --h acture on a ridgeline is necessary to avoid greater negative environmental impacts; or Remlution No. $077 :'. "iv., 10-F, XC-99 '":~"*~ .'..'.',: 0ctober25, 1999 lo. The structure could not otherwise by physically located on the parcel and the size of the structure is the minimum which is necessax3r to allow for a reasonable usc oftbe parcel. 9. The proposed development consists of structures incorpomtlng designs~ colors, materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment and which are designed in such a wnnner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including building height, as much as possible without creating other negative envi_ronmental impactS. 10. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open space preserves.or parks ( if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and wildlife habitats unless such location will create other, more negative environmental impacts. 11. The proposed development includes a landscape plan which rc~alns as many specimen trees as possible, which utilizes drought-tolerant native plants and ground covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes lawn areas. 12. The proposed development confines solid fencing to thc areas near a ~ixucture rather than around the entire site. 13. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the ...... purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010. "q..~'.; .2 -' - NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for exception is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public record concerning application 10-EXC-99, as set forth in the Minutes of the Plavning Commission mectlng of October 25, 1999, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION H: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..... '" Application No.(s): 10-EXC-99 Applicant: Derek Fluker Location: San J. an Road (APN 342-22-077) SECTION HI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DF-lYF. 1. APPROVED EXI-m:HTS Approval is based on the seven page plan set, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING: All trees with 10 inches or greater diameter as shown on Sheet A-1 shall be preserved. Shrubs shall be retained as much as possible, except as needed for building construction and fire pwtection. A $10,000 bond shall be provided prior to grading and construction to assure tree preservation, and may be released prior to 6hal occupancy subject to an arborist's report stating that the protected trees are in healthy condition- Additional oaks (24" box) shall be planted as shown on Sheet A-1. Re~olution No. 50?? ,,:...r..,.. 10-EXC-99 :'"' '"" O~'tober 25, 1999 Page 3 3. OFF-STREET PARKING An a~eement to allow off-street pn~king for the subject property in the private wad shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. GEOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the City's consulting geologist ns described in the letter of Suiy 15, 1999, shall be complied with. 5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein tnny include certain fees, dedication requirements, resen, ntion requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protes~ these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), hns begun. If ,-:,:."i;i.%. you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section · i.:.:..-:,:,:.,:~,,:..a · 66020, you will be legally bat'red from later challen~/ng such exactions. "...' · SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~ 6. STREET WIDENING Street widen/rig;, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and ns required by the City Engineer. Recorded Right-of Way must be abandoned by either of the following two methods; (a) If the City owns the right-of-way, developer shall pay $5,000.00 for abandonment and provide plat and legal description of area to be abandoned, or Co) If the City does not own the right-of-way, developer to acquire by quiet title action. 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS .,:'..:.;7'... Curbs and gutters, sidewnlks and related structures shall be i~.~alled in accordance with grades · '.....:' and standards as specified by the City Engineer. g. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shah be i,.~tailed and shall be ns approve.d by the City En~neer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the _mAy, imum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 9. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 10. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic contwl si~.~ shall be placed at locations specified by the City. I 1.' STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by tbe City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 12. GRADING Grading shall be ns appm .red and required by the City Engineer in accol~_snce with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 13. DRAINAGE Resolution No. $077 ~'~'~ ' 10-EXC-99 :':" """" October 2§, 19~9 Page 4 Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm dm_in facilities are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drnln.~ arc not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An agreement to provide drs_ inage on the adjacent dew-hill property shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building pet'mit. 14. UNDEP~GROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Or~innnce No. 331 and other related Ordinane, es and regtllatiOn.~ of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for in.~tllafion of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 15. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT .:.~-',. The project developer shall enter into a development a/reement with the City of Cupertino ,:.~ :,.;.~..~.:~. .. =::c'.:.'~'::=' providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees; -storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under/rounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of con~kuction pei'~,,/ts. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Improvement Cost (Off-site & On-site impwvement) or $1,975.00 mlnlnlum b. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00 c. Storm Drainage Fee: $1,290/acre d. Power Cost: N/A e. Map Checking Fees: N/A f. Park Fees: $15,750 "i.. The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City · . "...'..' Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or iss,,Ance of a building permit in the event of said change or chan~es, the fees changed at that firae will reflect the then current fee schedule. 16. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and shnilar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public sireet areas. 17. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES .. The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement wiga Cupertino Water Works for water service to the subject development. 18. BEST MANAGBMBNT PRACTICES Utilize Best 1Vfn_nagemcnt Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction ac. ti. 'vity which disturbs soil BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Ewsion and Sediment Control Plan is required and shall include prevention of debris and sediments from going into storm drains and flowing into the bay during R~olutionNo. $077 .... ~":'"' 10-F.,XC-99 i:./.,:...:.:i.: Oct01~r25, 1999 Page 5 and a/tcr consW,_ction. It shall includes details .such a~ installation of hay bales, silt fences, berms, specii:ications for re-vegetation, etc. to prevent erosion. 19. ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT Developer to sign roadway mai-tenance and con~i,.~ction reimbursement agreement for the /mprovement of San Juan Road. Said agreement shall be executed by the applicant and the future developer that benefits San $,,nn Road. ',:?!?,i.;.:"~,":':"'"'"' CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF .. . "~;~'"";'" ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS .... (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineer/ng Inactices. Bert Viskovich, City Engineer PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October, 1999, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following rbll call vote: ' "~':; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: .. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chalrmsn Doyle ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Robert S. Cowan /s/Andrea Harris Robert S. Cowan Andrea Harris, Vice Chairperson Director of Community Development Planning Commission oN .~*1~ ~..,.~~_~ ~,v, ~,,~,. ~,;? ' ~&., .. C~FilI PI~ .~o~o" · i .................. ) c~ 91.7 CU. YDS. ~ FILL 0.o ~;/. YDf. ,. ... .. .. .. .. ~ _...,,.. ,..,. _ , /~/a~ -. '-. '--.. ---.' ~4--.~_----.'-.. / ,'.~.- --__ ---. , : "'" --_ '~ -. -. I--4. I ~~ , . -... ,.._:....-... ~/..~,,,.. o.,,,.., --c_7,.. ---- .:--. --. -.. ~. .... .. ' ~. ~ ~. -. ' J~ Z ~l ... ._. ,. , .... _ ..... . . .. , I . - '. - '_ ~l e*,~. ' .... '-"~ .... -.~IIIV ..... ,,:,..?, · .. -.. --.',, .. 2--,:~.~ I '~.~.- _ _ _ ~ ~. -. ~ .... . .,'q: ~'" .. -.. -. ,._ --' . ,~'~._~ ---... ,. ~1 . ~ ~ ,~,~ ~.. .... .~.. , . .. . _ -. , -~-,, ~~ L~J T~--', '-. '-,t-~l~3~'' "~" /',-.~ 7 ,-""-.. 5',, ', ',,X ~ ; '/ I: / ~- -~ ~;. ~ x, ,& · A~N 392.22.?7 ~,,~t l*,~ I~7 ;"~ ~' ,,,~.,,,.~.~ _".. ~ _.~_. . · .: .. .-.', ..... ~, .. . :. s ; ~ ., 'l' · .- .,. I _J ,i~.:: ~-- ---: · u~,· i ~ . I~.. ~11"~?"-:" .... I ' ~ " ' '- ~e~[ .0. I/4'-I:O". I.l.i ( ~ ~ /~, o i, . :.'. .:..:..'i,'... . ~ 'ii' ".i, :~ '' ' '" · ".~ I. i ~,~ ~ ' · . · · " ~1 ' ';i: '.~ .' .... ' ' ' , ' i!~ ' ~.'!' ' · . ' ' · ':" ' I ~ · '.' ' tt' .".. ·" : ' · ' ' .... · . · ..... 't~. ' '~- ~ t · t: · .. ' . · · · . - .. :' ~' . ~ · . · ~.:~.... · · , :, .. ..... . . . . .. . .. . · . . . .~ .... · q --. ~1~. .... -:-'-. .... ._ti: ........ u ......... Il · - ~ · . ',~ ...'. +'r . . . , ,, .... .',' ::~ .. . . . . . . ~, ..' '.,' . .... . . . . . ~ ~ ~ :'.k . ' . .' · '.-- ,~... '. . ..... ". " ~ :~.~L--":I~ : l~* '' . ' · /' / ,'_~-,--'-~-- '. . ' ' ": · ' . ~ ~> ~ · ..... ~ ~- ':. BI. _ .'. · -""-:2 ~t-;: :: ' .' <: ' · · .' '. '. __ ~. ':.:~" ",' ,~ ,': i ~.'. '. '. . - . . . - r .- -. ,' . . .. . ' - .' "_~ ¢.~:::. ~l' i' .. "- . '.. ~' ..... · ~. .~ "'.:.. :':~:..",i'.:..~' .-.- ..2... ..~. '..." . .' .~... . ..:~' ..,:.....~,,~.. :~:..'X · . .i. ':: .... ~ ~- , ,/.......,.., :' ~ ,"..':' ..~ .,:...: '::. ,,..& ... ;.:..~:: ..... :'...,:..~ . .. ..~.~?~-:: .....'?... ~.~ ....:... ......~,.::....,~. :?..... . '.-. ..: ..¥ ..'.-....... , . .,-.. , . . .', . .:. . . i-- . .: '" ':'~'~'"' '' '"'""' ' "'"'' ':':":~'" ' "':'"'~' "':~" ':'~"~ .... '"'"":":"' '.'~¥'-'~'~.: ~":~':-'~"'i:"'~..,..':::~'...','..-".-..'."'~, ':'"..,.".~;~'"~"~".~'.',L: ':'.' '. . .',?..'..", ..... '".',..: :::. ".'..' ".':.. .... '~ :.. ,... .. ' ' :. '.. :'..-.' '.. · ! , CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, C~li¢omia 95014 DHPARTMHNT OF COMMUNITY D~-~,OPMtiNT RI~PORT FORM Application: U-2002-01, EA-2002-02 Agenda Date: March 25, 2002 Applicant: Chicago l~.~n and Brewery, Inc. (aka BJ's) Owner: Sobrato Interest II Locatiom 10690 Nor~ De Anza Boulevard, APN 316-02-104 AppHcatibn Summary: Applicant is requesting a Use pera~it to: 1) Demolish a 9,079 square foot restaurant and bar on a 1.?4-acre site (Peppermill) and replace it with a 8~49 square foot restaurant and bar with 248 indoor seats and 158 outdoor (patio) seats, and 2) Provide for late night hours of operation until 2:00 a.n~ RECOMMENDATION: Sta~/recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval 1. The negative declaration, file number P_~-2002-02. 2. The use pe~wlt application, file number U-2002-0L in accordance with the model resolution. Project Dat~ General Plan Designatiom Office/Industxial/Commercial/Residential Zoning Desig~tation: P(Comm, Ind, Oh~), Planned Development Commercial, Industrial and Office Acreage: 1.74 acres Height: 30' Stories: 1 story Parking Required: (24 bar stools)(1 parking stall/3 seats) = 8 spaces (382 rest. seats)(1 parking stall/4 seats)= 96 spaces Total Parking Required: 104 spaces Parking Supplied: 94 + 11 o~site (adjacent Sobrato property)= 105 spaces Project Consistency with: General Plato Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment:. Negative Declaration .. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Chicago Pizza and Brewery (BJ's), has requested a use pewdt to allow the demolition of the 268-seat Peppe~-.ill Restaurant and Bar and the construction of a 406-seat restaurant and bar (brewhouse). The proposal is for 248 seats indoors and 158 seats outdoors on two patios located west and south of the building. Hours of operation are proposed to extend to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Beer brewing is not proposed onsite. The property is surrounded by a parking lot to the north, a parking lot and Apple Computer's campus office buildings to the east, an office building to the south, and an office building and a retail center to the west across De Anza Boulevard. DISCUSSION: Parking Although'BJ's is increasing seating by 138 seats, the parking requirement is only incrementally higher than the existing business because the applicant is substituting restaurant seats for bar seats. The City has a greater parking requirement for bar seating (1 s+~ll for every 3 seats) than for restaurant seating ( 1 stall for every 4 seats). The parking requirement is 104 st~lls. One hundred five stalls will be provided, with 11 of them supplied of 4-site on the adjacent office building parcel. The office building property owner will share 11 outdoor parkin§ st~lls with BJ's (Exhibit A). The parking is located along a driveway of 4 M_~riani Avenue that leads to the restaurant. The parking will be available to restaurant employees and patrons between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. on business workdays and at all times on Saturdays, Sundays. and legal holidays. A parkir~ easement and signage are required as part of the conditions of approval. The increase in seating will generate additional traffic: the net increase in A.M. AVT (average vehicle trips) is 39 and the P.M. AVT is 47. The figures are based on a wide survey of sit-down restaurants. The morning AVT will probably be much less as the restaurant will not be open for business until ll a.rm On workday evenings, right lane northbound traffic can queue on De Anza Boulevard because of the ramp metering on the Highway 280 on-ramp. Evening restaurant traffic can access the site from the bus duck-out which tapers into the restaurant De Anza Boulevard driveway or enter on Mariani Avenue, avoiding the evening vehicle queue onto Highway 280. Tree Removal Ten of the seventeen trees near the development site are proposed for removal to accommodate the new building footprint. Seven of the proposed removals are specimen size Coastal Redwoods 00+ inches in diameter). The applicant is proposing to plant 16 new trees as mitigation for the removal. Staff recommends that the trees proposed on the north and east sides of the building, and on the south side of the.. .. awning (ten altogether), have a minimum planting size of 24" box because of the larger growing zones and the desire to screen the awning from street view. A condition is included in the model resolution to this effect. 2 General Design S~'s m~,~ urban design concerns were to have the building address the street with a pleasing and well-proportioned design that reveal.~ the activities going on within. The site is highly visible from De Anza Boulevard, which makes the design of the front faqade very significant. The applicant desires to evoke a "working man's" image of its establishment through the use of an antique brick veneer, which is reminiscent of older factories and manufacturing centers. The antique brick veneer is used throughout the building: entry feature, building corners, wainscoting, header and patio fences. A WPA (Work Projects Admires' tration) mural is integrated into the front faqade, which also follow~ this industrial worker theme, and adds visual interest to the building. A painted tin crown caps the roofline to help finish the look of the building. The well- proportioned building entry is tied to the mural through the window awnings and the brick coursework along the patio and roofline. Restaurant activities are open to street view by incorporating large window areas in the indoor dining areas and an outdoor dining patio on the De Anza Boulevard frontage punctuated with table umbrellas. The brick coursework and a painted tin roof crown are Wrapped around all sides of the building. The !ong, north wall, which houses the service functions, is broken up by another mural with a beer brewing theme. Staff was concerned that the large south side awning would detract from the appearance of the building. The applicant indicated that the awning was crucial as it relies on year-round outdoor dining as part of its operations. Four trees were added to the patio area to help screen the large awning/rom street view. A stand-alone grain silo is shown on the site plan on the De Anza frontage, part of BJ's signature image. The silo is a decorative feature, not a functional one. The proposed height is 22 feet, which is comparable to the restaurant building height. The silo elevation de~il was mistakenly deleted from the plan set. It will be available at the hearing. The City Architect, Larry Canon, participated extensively in the design review and was largely responsible in guiding the applicant to produce a well-proportioned and pleasing design using judicious amounts of brick veneer and pedestrian-oriented features in a contemporary style (Exhibit B). Staff expectations were meet and satisfactorily balanced against the applicant's corporate image expectations. · · Sign_age Wall signage is conceptual and can be approved at a staff-level at a later date. The applicant is allowed a ground sign, but has not proposed one yet. Signage is not being allowed on the grain silo. 3 Storm Water Ou~llty Management The Regional Water Qual~ty Control Board is req~]i~'ing local agencies to incorporate sto,m water quality design techniques in their new projects. The objectives ,are to improve the quality of stoz,.L waters entering the bay by detaining/retaining storm waters on the project site and allowing the soil to naturally filter out the nonpoint source pollutants before enter the creeks and bay. At the building permit stage, staff will be req-i~ing the applicant to design a rock or vegetative swale on the north side of the property to filter a portion of the storm flows before they enter the City's stomL drainage s.y. stem. Late Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing late night hours until 2:00 a.m. seven days a week. As this property is completely surrounded by parking lots, streets and office and commercial uses, there will be no disturbance of residences. Staff supports the use permit for late night operations. Enclosures: Model Resolution for U-2002-01 Initial Study and ERC recommendation Exhibit A: Letter trom Sobrato Development Cos. to Larry Canon dated 2/27/02 Exhibit B: Erw~! message and elevations from Larry Canon to Colin Jung dated 3/1/02 Plan Set Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~' Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development G:planning/pdrelaort/pcUsereports/U-2OO2-Ol.doc 4 U-2002-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REcoMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BAPJRESTAURANT OF 9,079 SQUARE FEET, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 406-SEAT (8,349 SQUARE FEET) RESTAURANT AND BREWHOUSE WITH OPERATING HOURS EXTENDED TO 2 A.M., 7 DAYS PER WEEK ' SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: U-2002-01 (EA-2002-02) Applicant: Chicago Pizza and Brewery, Inc. (BPs) .. Location: 10690 North De AnTs, Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application tbr a Use permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WI-IBRBA~, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Plannirlg Commission has held one or more public heatings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental' or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful cousideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this .. matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beghanlng on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusious upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2002-01 (EA-2002-02), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 25, 2002, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. U-2002-01 March 25, 2002 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED The recommendation of appwval is based on the exhibits labeled BJ's Restaurant, 10690 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014, consisting of seven sheets with dates and no dates and labeled: A-2.1, A-2.11, A3.1, A4.1, A4.1.1, C-I and P1, except as may be.amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursvsnt to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements o1' Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. PARKING EASEMENT As part of its municipal code required parking, the applicant shall secure a parking easement of at least 10 parking stalls on the adjacent property located at 10600 North De Anza Boulevard ( Assessor Parcel No. 316-02-103). The parking shall be convenient to and accessible to BJ's restaurant employees and patrons after regular working hours, on weekends and legal holidays. The parking shall be signed to notify potential users of its restricted availability. The easement shall be recorded and an endorsed copy provided to Community Development Dept. staff prior to building occupany. 4. HOURS OF OPERATION The pe~'mitted hours of operation for this business shall be from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. the next day, daily. S. TREE PROTECTION Existing trees designated for protection on the approved exhibits and within the construction zone shall be fenced wi~h rigid fencing (chain link fencing is the minimum) during all phases of construction and demolition. The protective fencing shall be erected, and a tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 is required prior to isa-at,ce of the demolition permit. 6. TREE PLANTING The ten pwposed new trees on the north and east sides of the building, and on the south side o1' the patio awning shall have a minimum planting size of 24" box. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and 'as required by the City Engineer. Resolution No. U-2002-01 March 2:5, 2002 Page 3 8. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and stan~Rrds as specified by the City Engineer. 9. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining pmperti~.4, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 10. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 11. TRA.FFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 12. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 13. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.'401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of En~neers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 14. DILa, INAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones -,less storm drain facilities arc deemed necessary by the City En~neer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site sto,'ai drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be in.~tailed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new con,traction to the approval of the City. 16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall ~:oordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The devel~0per shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMI~,NT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City or' Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall bc executed prior to issuance of construction permits. 3-.3- Resolution No. U-2002-01. March 25, 2002 Page 4 Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 6% of Off=Site Improvement Cost or $2,268.00 b. Grading Permit: $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost. or $182. i 2 minimum' c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: Paid e. Po~r Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: N/A g. Park Fees: N/A h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PO&E rate schedule approved by the PUC. Bonds: a. Faithful Perfommnce Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the I'ccs · changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 18. TRANSFORMERS Electrical trarmformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 19. DEDICATION OF WATEI~I,INES . The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Stanrlzrds and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to thc subject development. 20. FIRE ACCESS LANES Emergency fire access lanes shall be recorded as f'n'e lane easements on the final map and shall meet Central Fire District standards. 21. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources'Control Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 22. STORM WATER OUALITY MANAGEMENT Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall incorporate stoica water quality management design techniques intended to detain and percolate storm waters on the project site. Revised project improvements shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution No. U-2002-01 March 25, 2002 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2$th day of March 2002, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: · . COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Charles Corr, Chairman Director of Commllnity Development Planning Commission 0:planning/pdreportJres/U-2002-01 res Case File No. O-* PROJE~ DESCBXPTXON: A**--_qments ? ProjectTMe BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse Project~ocafion 10690 North De Anza Blvd. PmjectDesc~l~on The extstinR site is 75.931 sf with an existinn Peppermill Restaurant, which will be demolished and a new 8,349 sf BJts Restaurant constructed in aooro~i~.e~ely Dhe same Environm~talSeUin$ O-Rra"W~-r~ ~.r Io.~IL ~ kDo~ ~u~%;l- ~,~] location. The site ii full~ developed. The site is surrounded By mature trees and lawn areas ~ronting th& proper~y. PROJECT DESCRIFEION: " Site Area (ac.) 1,74 BuildingCover~c 11% Bxi~Buikl~Ug_s.f. PmposedBIdg.8'349 s.f. Zol~ P (}.P. Desi~ comm. Assessor's Parcel No. 316 -_D.2_- 10 4 If Reside~nl. UnRs/Oross Am TotaL~ Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.r.. Price Unit #1 Unit Typo Unit Typo .- Unit , Unit Type Applicable Specifd Area Plans: (Check) t~ Monte Vista Design Cmidelines [---I S. Do ~_n*n Concep~**t . ' .. f----I N. Do Ann Conce~,*i ~ S. Sera-Sunny Conceptual J'~ Stevens Crk BlvcL Conc~**t f'---J Stevens Creek BIvd. SW & L'scape 8 34~.f.9 FA~ 11Max. Bmployees/Shifl:2Q If Non-Resident;hi, Building' ' Area . Pnrking Required 10 2 Pnrking Pr?ided 9 5 Project Sit~/s Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES ~ NO 3- o 1) Complete ell informetion requ~-~md on 4) When ~pl.~.i.~ any ~es response, hi)el the t. a4.l Stud~ COVeF paSe. t.li'.&~ ),our 8nswe~ clearly (Eommplo '~T - 3 BLANK SPACES ONLY Wn~.l%T.4, Histnricel") Pleeso tr~ to Fespond concisely, SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT end place es mm~ exphnetor~ responses es APPLICABLE. possible on each page. 2) Consult th6 Inithl Study SomT, e List; use S) Upon completing the checklist, sisn end the mem'=t= listed therein to complete, ~o date the l~'s A~idfLvit. throuf~ O. ' 6) Ploaso attach tho ~ollowin8 materials be~xo submittins tho Initial Study to · .. You are encxmraged to cite other'mlovant City. sources; if suoh sources am used, job in their -ProJeet l~n set otLesM~tv~ .Docment 0) cop~ title(s) in the "Sourc~~ column next to the appn~ba) question to which the~ relato. ~ SIRRI.: ~,()l R l~l[I \!~ S'I'I l)~, 3) I~youcheokanyofthe"YES'responso gl I~IlTT \1~ 1% ('()~iI'i.I.:Ti,] - to any questions, you must attaoh a sheet ILY '( )~I I'l .I.]'1.i M.VI'I]II \1 explnlnins the potential hnpact and sugsest [-\1 :,%l% PR()('ItlSSIN(; I)!:! mitisation i£needed. B) GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD 1) Be IocaMd h an mu wJdch hms Zom~ 2 4) Bo Io~t~d in m area ofsoil f"d'~"O 10,39 8) Xnvolvo (xmslm~on of & btdldln[. result intlm mnoval ofa,,~,ql t~omm · ·. 3) Convm pflmo qfl~iunl iud [] [] [] [] [] S,39 (Chis Im' rr soih) to non-qrlcultnrsl um or i,,T-Jr tho qrloultund productlviq/of' ua. by prln~ qricatund tnd? Sp~ usemonO WU.T. ~ PROJECT... Not s~t si~m~,~ ctm~ SOURCE stsnt~nt ~ ~o NO ~ ~ P~t h ~ ora ~ ~pln ~ Bol~hafl~ wn.T. ~.PROJECT... llot s~lflCl:t si~ifl,l:t :~,,,i~. SOURCE mdm~ speeCH ofplmlt or mbnd? (]) TRANSPORTATIO~i o 1) Cram n incm~ tn lrd~ which is mb~.d h r~,,,*t,~ to tim existins 2) Cnso fray publl~ m' In'ivato steer ~ to fim~iou below Lm'd of 41 Advmoly sfb:~ sccus ~o commerdai .-*.kfl.hm~d.. publi~ .. pnrkkS hrJlP_.k~. ~ en~nd~ dtnund ~r [] [] [] [] [] 15.16 Not .~lanl~nat .q|sniflm~ CupidS• stsnifbnt ~ ~ NOISE 1) Inm~ms substantially h~to embi~t 2) l?~sult in sustslned incrtme In pmjm 3) Result In ~ ri•Is• leveb I) Be st vminco with epplimble 2) C~nito sn =~__,~etically of~mive lite open to publio vlew~ [] [] [] [] [] 1.17 3) Visually Intmlo upon m ares of' 4) Obstruct viow of, ~mllo fldgr, lino [] [] [] [] [] ,. 9 vblblo ~,m. ~ho valley floor? [] [] [] [] [] business dlslric~? I,!?,19 or publi~ nmdv~s~ M) ]DqKRGY 2) Y, en~ve v6s~:-.:'.d~ ~,~tdln~ ' - · · .. ~.k-~ ~~ m ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 11.19 ~O~GI~ I) b Io~d h n ~a ~d IMI~ACT WILL ~ PROJECT... s(x s~d~,-,,t s~l=n, cu,md~o SOURCE NO ~ ~ V/2~ 77t'E PRO. l'EC'IL. subsumially d~n~n~ the habitet ora fish or w~ldll~ species; to Qanso a fish or wildlh~ pol~fls.~on to drop b~low se, lf-su~shlo l~ls; to lhrm~n or 8~,,,~,, s plant or animal community; to mta:e the v-mb~r of~r rmi~t th~ re!go of a ram or ~ plant or animal; to eliminate hnlx~ant mmmpl~s of th~ msjor pm-iods of C~'s hismr~ or 2. Haw the pomntial to achi~ short l~m environmmml goals to lh~ 3. Have environmental impac~ which sro indivi~l!y I~mlted, but mm cumulativeb, considerable? C'Cumulaivel:~ comidereble: means ant the inc~mant~l effects o~ an individual pm]oct are substantive when viewed in conjunction with ~e effects at'past projects, other cun'e~ pmjecU, and proha~ rutm~ ~j~m) 4. Have en¢~or, men~l ~em which will ~,,_q substantial adverse impam on hunan beinp, either direc~ or in~ I hm~by certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and ~ to the best of my knowledge and belie~, I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source refm*ences when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure o~relevant envfronmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within etl, Initial Study may musa ~lay or discontinuance of ~ pmj~t r~d~w pror~dur~, and h~r~I~ agree'to hold h~mkss tho City of Cul~rgno, its staff and authorized agents, from the c(msequences of such dehy or dhcontinuanc~./ ~., ~/~"~~'~ ,~J Print Pmpsrer's Neme S~ane y~ Uchi. zono Response ~6 Item C-1 and F-4: ... Because of new construction, we propgse to remove 9 trees, she slisht effect of this remo'veal, we propose to add 12 new trees to the site, [] Land U~/l~.n'al Plea [] Geoiosic/Seismic I.T,~rd ~ ~~~ ~ Ho~ing ~ ~UA~ON S~phnnln~lntstd~4.doe The proposed new BJ's Restaurant & Bmwhouse located at 10690 N. DeAnza Blvd., Cupertino is a new 8,349 square foot building slated to replace the existing Peppermill Coffee Shop and Lounge. The new establishment will indeed add value to the neigh- boring businesses and communities, project a rich architectural aesthetic and bring an increased '~ense of place to the site. A valued gathering place: The BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse features a warm, loft-like decor punctuated by a grand back bar and cues to the companies brewing heritage in the form of large bccr storage tanks and proprietary brand graphics. The ambiance, coupled with a large menu designed for broad appeal, make the restaurants popular gathering places for young and old alike. Additionally, the new site will "connect" with. the street scape via two patio areas; an intimate bistro-like environment flanking the entry and a larger, outdoor area spanning the West elevation. Whether filling bar stools or high chairs, accommodating large celebrations or intimate couples, the BJ's experi- ence more closely mirrors the Cupertino demographic. Architectural Presence: Designed and built in the early sixties, The Peppermill projects a dated architectural presence. The asian-inspired roof line is elegant but somewhat incongruent with the buildings use. The proposed new BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse, which blends contemporary styling with select, restrained applications of nostalgic materials such as tin cornices, used brick and slate, represents an architectural pres- ence more representative of the area and its innovative image. Although slightly small- er than the existing footprint, the massing of the new building is very compatible with the modeme aesthetic of the Apple Campus to the south and west. The parking requirement has increased slightly but it falls within the allowable 10% variance. Because the BJ's Building will be built almost exactly over The Peppermill Restaurant footprint, them will be a minimal effect to the existing landscape surrounding the site. It is planned to have approximately 9 trees removed but BJ's will mitigate this by planting " an additional 12 trees. CITY OF CUPEKTINO KECOMMENDATION OF ENVIKO~~ REVIEW COMMITTEE February 13, 2002 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmelltal Review Commi~tBo of the City of Cupertino on Febma~ 13, 2002. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2002-01 (EA-2002-02) Applicant: Bob Lombardo, Chicago Pizza & Brewery, Inc. Location: 10690 North De An~ Blvd. DISCRETIONARY ACTION REOUEST Use Pe,,,,it to demolish an existing 9,079 square foot restaurant and construct an approxlmstely 8,350 square foot restaurant and bar with 406 indoor and outdoor seats. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE · The Enyironmental Review Committee re¢omme21d~ the granting of a Negative Declaration finding tr,,hat~roject i~stent with the C-eneral Plan and has no si~nificant environmental impacts. Ste~ Piasecki Director of Community Development ~/ordREC EA-2002-02 GXHI~IT A Pnl~e 1 o ri F_.a~ibit: B Co,in J-ng ............................ From: Larry k. Cannon [cdgp~sn~pscbe~Lnet] Sent: Fridey, Maroh 01, 2002 3:10 PM To: 'Colin Jung Subject: BJ's Restaurant Colin Attached are some very rough suggestions for the BJ restaurant elevations. As I discussed with you and Steve yesterday, I ap~reclete the efforts to make changes that the architects did after I met with them. However, I don~ think that the minor changes made are going to be enough to strengthen the design of the building sufficiently end to address the earlier concerns. My suggestions are shown on the elevations and include: 1. Widening the brick entry element to bring it Into a better proportional relationship to the bigger restaurant block. ; 2. Increasing the use of brick to include pilasters at the building comers and a more continuous bdck building base. 3. A lowering of the mural box to keep it from competing so much with the entry block. Elimination of the very large awnings in favor of smaller awnings over the windows. The use of umbrellas in the patio areas would be line. 4. Unifying the window areas in the front elevation (things now seem rather visually fragmented) by treating as a continuous window wall. Areas where glass is not possible could be stainless steel infill panels. 5. And, something really needs to be done at the left side elevation facing the driveway to the Apple project. This is now the least addressed elevation. I would suggest some projection similar to the mural boxes although smaller. At the very least, the addition of pilasters as provided for on the right side elevation should be provided. 3/4/02 Contemporary shaped awnings . = -- ~, --.~ Smaller Mndow I T ~t ~ ~ ~ndow ~11 Enlarge brick enW feature T~ a~ as ~dow mil Su~fle~ted changes to front e~wt~n Provide depth relief on this w. ll similar to mural boxes (nMd flot be a~ de~ ss mur~l boxe~) '""~ ' :: "' ':~ ~ ' :: --'--'~ Brick plhetero .... : ...................... at comers ) ' Lower mural ~ .... '~mr'".~+'~ ~' box SS shown ..~ ~ on front elev. '.~ :.' ii ,, .... . . .. '~.:_~ :_~..~.'::'::,~i' ,~ :']~. ::.:..' ~ Suggested changes to left side elevation continue brick base ~ March 1, 2002 C~o~ D~S~GI~ GI~ouP ~ '");," T~,::;~, 'q%l~'T' ......... 'T, ~f-,F', 'l-- i i.~' ] t I I t t I I i i I [ t [ I [ I I [ i " --'--'-'~ ,' , , ~[~,, -,--~ ....... .... ~ ..... ' ,, ----~ I · -'"~"- :~',~ i~. ,'~ ..... ~ .... ,-, ,' ,, . , ,, .. ..... _~ ~ -- .... = ....... Le___~ ~ ~ ~ ............................. ~-~-~ NORTH DE ANZA BLVD. (R/W VARIES,) i ~ 3/15/2002 I .... · ..'~:"...., '..i~?/:'~.~:'.."'......'-.:... "" ' ' / ' '"" /,/' ' · ~., . ... ,~ ,..,;~. ::..,: ,~,~ :,.~ ,:.,'~q'~.~ ... ~..~,, . ...... ~ · ~' · ,.. ..... .: ....~......,....,.., ..~ ............... ~.-.?.~:. . ,,.......:: .. ., :."~.';~ .;:.. . ~ ."/ ~... '.:...~.:.::~;..~;: ~. ~,, .~-~-~...~ ~ .~., . · ~ ~,, ~: ....... .....~:. ~.....~ / :. ~... :.: : . '- .. ,...-~... ~ · ....... ~ ......... . . . ,..?,~,,. .., ~ ... -.~ .....:. ~R~.:..~:~,..'..:... ~ . ..~....:... . .~..~.... · - ....~?.: ....:~:..~¢~?c,,:.~-.??.~x.~,::.... ,'r ..:>.: ,:~>;.'. '. ~..} ~":']./. '. ?'x,:.: ' · .':a~.~.::;b~;.".: ' "" '.v~???' ': ':" ,~ .... ',' "'.",.~ :"-' ," x · .' ?:, :.'... ..~..,... / *~ -' ,.':'"' :'i ~);~ ~ ...... ...~;.'.';' .x .. j / ' -- ~.; .....';- ..... .... .~. ... ,'..~:. ~,. .... ~ ~, ~. -- "' .~.~?:-~. ~ '~e'.~ .~'..~ ;~ - - - ,~- ~ j..~.~.....'....4 ' ' -.. j;.. "?{.~.. . .: .- ~:.... · ~./j..' ' .'. 'i'~ ~ .:......{...... ..... .' . ~ · :. . : .'? ,.: "':~ '" ' : ~?'"~" '" ..... e ~' "':' :" -f~ ":' ';" ' :~:X' :' "' ';~' ..'::t)..".~.-X. /' :.'.,:;...~. -. .. ~* . ~ ': ..... :--..': .. ....-..w" --- , '- '.:." . · · ...' ','~' :~.. i . . , ~......~ :. ~. ':: . · - · ':~'. / ' '~'.' ' · .: .'.:~ ;',. .. . . .. '":'" "~ .... z .... :.:'-:.-:~e' ':" ~-: I~ , -?:.. :"',';.,~{~.. .?:....., ':.,.:.;~ .~:~'. ' '..:. ~ '~ j ::~ ...... .;~..,....:~..~ .'.~a/.'. ~ ... ?'.. ..-. f ~. ?... · :~,~.~ .:.~- . · ,.~ . .~. . '...'fi': ,~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ .:.. ..X. . ~,~ -_,. . .... , ~ ~ · : . x~. - . ~ ~ ~ · ' .. .. ~ ...j . ~:~ .~:',~. ~ ~ ~ .............. .., ~:~ ~.. .,..~....:.~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ..~ .:....~.. ~ ....... _ ~. ' ' · ~ "'~/~;~-~ · i ~ ~ ~ · '- · ....?,....-....~.... ~. .............. .. i~ ,"' ..... '":': "; ....... ...... ' ..:.:,;.".; :~', .; -T: - .~ ~, *' ................ . ............. . .:.....: ..,.....~:~:..,...:.,.... :',~...... ':.: x,,.:':,,-;, x,~ ....;:....;S . ~?. ?..: . ,.... ...... ...,.~ ....,,::~...:.........:.. .... .,..*..s.'.c,; "~ "':' - . '.'*c.' ' · -: .... '.. - : -' -~., I--~ ' ~'_~_ I · ,': ~ ' ..:..: .., .. . ~ ..'..-..', .... ~._ .... ';: .. .... . . '~ .. **, * ...... . . .............. ~ ~ · :';::.:;?:.:.~:;,::c..:~.;.....'....~ --, .. .. "..,. . .. .. .-- -~,- ~ ', ,I ~ . . ~ ~ - .............. ,.,.:,~ ,. :.-~. ..... ....: ..4.....: .....; ..... . , · .: .. o'.z ... " '".": .... ' ~ ~. "... . .'. :. .......... · .... - ...,:.. -1 ........... ";~/~;'e '.;;. '" .. . ..... ~ · · ~ '.'~'~A4~;," '~".;:~ ~1.:.:' ' ""~" ':"' .... :, .':'~ .... ...:?.:.?.'*:" ".'.:.."-,..: ..... ..-..S.'C:'.; .:.. '. . : t: . ; · . ':.~$~%.' .... d'.? .' ~ .. ~. · · . ..! . ..: ~,...:.?,,.-...~.~.:.-.-..~~,~, ... ~ ....... -~~..~..? ~..~:~i~. ~.:~.{~:~,~ ~.~ . .. ..t', .' c.'.~:.~,~XX'"::~ "~.~.'.': .. ,' ...... ~.....~ .,...~ ~..~ ' ) ~ ~ ~.:~~'~' ' ......... "' ' ' ...... ..... -- ....:,.<;.,~...'~. ,':,~...-.,...*-?:~:x~.,.=,=.-',~',=.:: ~ .... ~<.... . · ....... t..':5.',. · ..~ .~ ~ ~'oz'~~:~d'~p-~:*~t~.'~ ~- ::'."..' '.:~* 90 ~t.te~ .~=~ ~ ~l~t ~. ~ ~ . ' · ~ :'"'. '~,'?"'"'.": '?':.'.-~.~* ~~~"'eZ~"~*'.~:" t//~/ti ~ .,. , .......:.,.._.~,.,**~,.~:.~~=~ ~~,:..;..~,~.-T:.-.-.-,;.:~.: ..~ ~st~'-~..~.u'~t~:~4.~:~*=- . · ." · ' '[' '*,'.'~'":*e~* 4" :" e **;***.*:~' ~~ t**:*~: ":" ': '*~*~'* t':~~ '" ': ' ' ;:~*~'~ · '.~ ~, ~,t~ .~;~ =*c. ~.~ ~t.. ..:', :;;:**'iris '~t, ~c ~'~. ~.. ~ ~o . .,.~ ........ -'~ =-':*:*" ,'*~: *..=*',*-.'., .:=,.,**... * .*,.. . ...... ..~,.,.~ .......... .'. .... . ......... ;* :..~ .*- *~:~. ..::. '~=~{9~*~"~i7:". *"'}~'~/~'~'~:?'.:'. .";c:'Xt:.:,': ' "'>' " ".:':'~;:' "' ' ~ff~ : . .. .~.,., ~ ,,.x,. ;~ ,, ,,= ~,..,,~:.,,,, ..~*** ...... ........ ,.. ........ , .; . ,, . ,, .. ., . ~,=.:~.,...... ,~.,,~,.. O/ O/~U~ ...... ,. ':.x;'...',*' ', .... ...' , ......... · ............................. . ...... ..., ............ ... ~: . .X~. "..:.~';~ : ".:.:'"'. .... .~, v... ..::..::,~'.,, '. '-'":~:.;:~:'~:." ~:"'. . ~ ~ co~m~ ~w cu~. ~. t~-n~ES~s.~,~.m a'~,,,c,~ P~NTING PAL~E ·. ~. ~ .:..... ~ :.~...' ...-, ~~ ~ , ...~ ~..::~...?.:..~ ,,~ ~~~~. ~ ~ ~ :':-'.~ :..'....,:", ~. w ~'...-~.:-~-::: '~'..:~.--.:.: ~~'..'.~ :'...x · ~ · ':" .... ."".'-":':-'."'~ '.:;' :.":".:: ',::':":~"~C'.'.~'~"~.'~ ~ '¥~'.'~."'~ - ~~ ~ ~""I """ '""' ':': '"'"~' "'" ~'~' '::"' ~'~ ,.; ~ :.;~*,, . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,L ', ~ "'?' I - ~~~A~W~~ ~ ~V~~~A~ ~ .' ..... ;.-~ '.?: .~-::' ~.?.; ..~-,.'. - ~ ~ ~,,,~ ~ ~ ~ '. ..... ,..-~ :...: -'. , .~.,_... ., ...... ( ~ t. ~,' v~ ~ "' " ... .... . .... ... ......~ . ~ ~ .......... . ~~ ~ ~..~ .... ..,~ ~,..~......:.. ~.. . -~ .., .".',..' ....... · . ........ ~ ~ .,..~ .... ~~ . . ..,..... - ~ ~ ~?...'...' ~ ...? ......... ~. :::,., ~',:.: ?: ~ . :~ ,: ~ SITE IRRIGATION SYSTEM NOTE - ~ ~::'~. .: .... . "'"' '"':'~' '"'" '" ' ~~~~A~ · ' :.'~'. .'..'z,..:'....."'.'.;':' .:~ ~~~~~ . ..... ~........... ~.~:.:...,: ,..:..".';:}~:::...: ?.::,.,..:.::?..: ~~_~ ~ ~~.~ ~ ~. .'L,. ~;...-"':'~'. ~'..' j'. ~.::. :. ~.- ,'....., - :.,...~ ~:...'.; ':..~..:'..'...'~ .... ~. ~/~[/too~ 10~00 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM AppHcafion: MCA-2002-01 A~enda Date: March 25, 2002 Applicant:. City of Cupertino Proper~y Owner:, Various Property Location: City-wide Appli~ifion Sununary: Amendment ~o Chap~r 19.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding definition of setback line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the MCA-2202-01 BACKGROUND: The current definition of "setback line" states that it "means a line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the boundary of any specified front, side or rear yard, or the boundary of any public right-of-way, whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise, or a line otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structures or uses." This definition requires property owners to set back structures from public rights-of-way, but not private rights-of-way, like access easements or public roads. This is the situation the ordinance amendment addresses. DISCUSSION: Exhibit A provides an exzmple of the need to amend the ordinance. The property lines of Parcel 53 include part of a private road. When the property owner proposed an addition, the addition could .have been constructed on the edge of the private road, given the above definition. The property owner agreed to set the addition back from the road, irrespective of the ordinance. Given that it is desirable to set structures back from roads, whether they are public or private, and that a pe~-~-, mnent solution is needed to fix the problem, staff proposes an amendment to the definition of setback line, which is: .. "Setback line" means a line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the boundary of any s. pecified front, side or rear yard, or the boundary of any public right-of-way or I~rivate road, whether acquired in fee, easement, or / otherwise, or a li~ otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structures or uses. This amendment will not require structures to be set back from private access easements, such as flag lot access. While staff believes this would be desirable, for the same reason that it is desirable to set back from private roads, requiring set backs to easements could ~li~oura§e property owners from granting access easements since their setbacks would become more onerous. Therefore, staff recommends confining the setback requirement to public rights-of-way and private roads. Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit B: Example of private road Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ..~.... Approved by: Steve Piosecki, Director' of Community Developmen~,~,~,~ 2 MCA-2002-01 CITY OF CUPERTIHO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL I~-qOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTERS 19.08 REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF SETBACK LINE. Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25· day of March 2002 at a Regular Meeting of '"'" the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of C.~lifornia, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COlVllvflSSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATT~-~f: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki ..Charles Corr, Chairperson Director of Community Development FIE, ming Commission G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT~RES\ MCA-2002-01 reso.doc EXHIBIT A Proposed text is underlined. MODEL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ANflr~'NDING CHAPTER 19.08 REGARDING THE DEPlN-rrION OF SETBACK LINE WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to require building setbacks from private roads; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends an amendent to the definition of setback line; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.08 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: DEFINITIONS "Setback line" means a line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the boundary of any specified front, side or rear yard, or the boundary of any public right-of-way or private road, whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise, or a line otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structttres or uses. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 25th day of March, 2002, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of April, 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATT~-qT: APPROVED: City Clerk .. Mayor, City of Cupertino G:\Phnning\ PDP. EPORT\ORD\MCA-2~2~)I ora. dec _ , '~'- u · ' '~ · ~ ' - ~. ~ ~ ~ ' I ' ......... ~- .,~ ~ -.- ... ~ ~s~ ~ Is .,~. / :' . ~n r ~ " ~ = ~/ Ad~fion co~d be co~a-ucted on ~e edge of ~e prlvate road. · ~ ~a.~ ... .. ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ..- .