Loading...
01-09-07 draft minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES JANUARY 09, 2007 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Gary Chien Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Staff present: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner Assistant City Attorney: Ciddy Wordell Aki Honda Snelling Colin Jung Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the December 12,2006 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to approve the December 12, 2006 minutes as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, noted receipt of an email relative to the tree ordinance item scheduled for the January 23,2007 meeting agenda. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 3. EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue Exception to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot lot width, for two proposed parcels. Tentative Map to Subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to the January 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to postpone Application EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12 to the January 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 9,2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. M-2006-06 Laura Tomas (peet's Coffee) 22350 Homestead Road. Modification to a use permit (V-2005-11) to allow an opening time of 5:30 a.m. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Aid Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for the modification of an existing use permit to allow an earlier opening of 5:30 a.m. for Peet's Coffee located in the Homestead Shopping Center, as outlined in the staff report. The facility has been opening at 5:30 a.m. although the permitted opening time is 7:00 a.m.; and the applicant is requesting modification to the permitted operating hours in order to be in compliance. . Staff is concerned with the earlier opening time of 5 :30 a.m. because of the close proximity to the surrounding residential area and the potential traffic and noise impacts to the adjacent residential properties. . Staff feels that it is not good public practice to promote early morning operations next to residential and therefore recommends a 6:00 a.m. opening time rather than the 5:30 a.m. opening time, which would still allow the employees to arrive earlier. If the Planning Commission considers the earlier opening time, staff recommends the same condition that was placed on Starbucks also be placed on this application, which states that if there are complaints received, there be a review of the use permit by the Planning Commission to consider mitigation measures to include the hours of operation. Staff recommends approval of the modification of the use permit to 6 a.m. with the addition of the condition stated staff. Ellen Sinnet, Mid Peninsula District Manager ofPeet's Coffee: . Answered questions about competitors in the area, and stated they were currently opening at 5:30 a.m. although the permit states a 7:00 a.m. opening time. . Stated that they felt the earlier morning hours would not negatively impact the residential units in the adjacent neighborhood; and that the 5:30 a.m. opening time meet customers needs for early morning opening. . Stated that although no formal neighborhood meetings were held, some were interviewed on a nonchalant basis; and there were no complaints received from neighbors. . Estimated that there were 20 to 50 customers in the first hour from 5:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., generating an additional $200 to $300 during the first hour of business. . She added Peet's Coffee was new to the location and it was important to establish a competitive base with Starbucks across the street. . Stated that deliveries occurred between 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. and some in the middle of the mornmg. Com. Wong: . Said he resided in the neighborhood and was concerned that the some deliveries were being made outside the range of permitted hours. He suggested the applicant work with staff on resolving the issue. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 9, 2007 Ciddy Wordell: . Said she would refer to the ordinance relative to deliveries as some deliveries were being made prior to 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. Ellen Sinnet: . Said she would discuss the delivery issue with the corporate office. Com. Wong: . Emphasized the importance of outreach in the neighborhood, and said notification should be made to residents within 300 feet. He questioned whether the applicant had contacted the HOA next door. Matthew Dacks, Peet's Homestead location manager: . Said that they had not approached the nearby residents; however, they had not received any complaints. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that notification to residents within 500 feet was the norm, and said that no complaints had been received from the neighbors yet. . Staff said that employees are permitted to arrive earlier than the opening hours for preparation. Chair Miller: . Relative to the approval for Starbucks, he asked if employee start times were specified. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak. Vice Chairperson Giefer: . Said that no negative feedback has been received from neighbors; and since Starbucks applied to open earlier, it did not appear to be a problem in that neighborhood. . Supports the 5:30 a.m. opening time, with the condition that if a problem arises with the opening time, the application come back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration within 6 months. . She also recommended that Peet'sCoffee work on the delivery schedules to be in compliance as discussed by Com. Wong. Com. Wong: . Said he concurred with Vice Chair Giefer, and said it was important that the applicant be in compliance. . Supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time. . Relative to delivery schedules, he said it did not appear to be a hindrance, but with the potential of Peet's Coffee and competitors getting more visibility, it is important to be proactive with the neighbors. He suggested that a clause be included to work at staff level and to have communication with the neighbors. . Relative to traffic, he expressed concern about making left turns going toward Foothill Expressway and how it would be addressed as the businesses become more successful. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that if directed by the Planning Commission or City Council, and there is substantiation that it is a problem, staff would report back on the problem and report if any solutions are necessary. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 9, 2007 Com. Wong: . Said he supported the application and was hopeful that the applicant would work with staff on delivery schedules. Com. Chien: . Said it was a decision about being consistent with what the Planning Commission decided recently when allowing Starbucks to open at 5:30 a.m. It relates to competitive fairness, and given the added condition to bring back the application should there be any problems with the neighborhood, he said he supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time. Com. Saadati: . Said that considering there hasn't been any neighborhood complaints and the Planning Commission approved a similar application recently for a 5:30 a.m. opening time, he supported the application. . If a problem occurs and the application returns in six months, more information can be provided to the Planning Commission at that time. Chair Miller: . Said he supported the application. . Noted that the side of the Peet's Coffee building facing the condo complex, was a solid masonite wall which would serve as a further buffer for noise from Peet's coffee. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Application M-2006- 06 for Peet's Coffee to open at 5:30 a.m., 7 days per week, with the condition that in the event the city receives a complaint from the neighborhood, the use permit be brought back to the Planning Commission to consider additional mitigation measures that may include reduction of hours. (Vote: 5-0-0) 2. M-2006-07 Peet's Coffee & Tea (Laura Tomas) 20807 Stevens Creek Blvd. Modification of a Vse Permit (V-2005-11) to allow an opening time of 5 :30 a.m. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Aki Honda Snelling presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for modification of an existing use permit for the Peet's Coffee Stevens Creek location to open at 5:30 a.m. Staff supports the 5:30 a.m. opening time because of its location, surrounded by commercial uses. The opening time permitted is 7 a.m. and the applicant is requesting to open at 5:30 a.m. to be consistent with other coffee shop opening hours. Staff supports the 5 :30 a.m. opening, and recommends that the property owner be asked to put up additional directional parking signs as noted in the staff report. . Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the use permit with the 5:30 a.m. opening time with the additional condition read by staff. Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 9, 2007 Ellen Sinnet, Peet's Coffee and Tea: . Said the objective of the application is to become compliant with the legal operating hours. She said they were willing to comply with the property owner along with their construction department to address the sign age issue so that parking is clearly stated. Com. Wong: . Relative to the parking ratio that Panera Breads and Peet's has been successful with, he asked staff to indicate on the aerial where they were directing the auxiliary parking. Aki Honda Snelling: . Illustrated on the aerial that there was parking along side each building in the complex. Com. Wong: . Said he was concerned that the customers not be inconvenienced. He said he did not want to tie the hours to Peet's Coffee, and suggested having the landlord address the issue on a separate application and a hearing. He reiterated that he did not want to hold up Peet's Coffee on their hours. . Questioned if it could be conditioned that if it could not be resolved at the staff level, it be brought back to the Planning Commission. He said he was not concerned about the hours. Ms. Wordell: . She said that staff would research the issue since she did not recall if when the building was approved there was any knowledge of that or any expectation that would be the case. It will have to be discussed with the property owner, so that people do not have to go to the far corners of the development to park. . Suggested leaving the condition stating there is a directional sign and hopefully it will be adequately resolved where the parking is without coming back to the Planning Commission. It can be brought back to the Planning Commission if necessary. Chair Miller: . Said he recalled the meeting where the owner was present and he said that he owned the whole section and would do whatever it took to make the parking work; and if Peet's was having a problem, he would make sure there were other areas of parking open. . He said Com. Wong's point was well taken, and if there are reserved signs on that other space, they need to be removed as part of the condition of approval. Com. Saadati: . Said that he was familiar with the area and has walked along the parking lot at 5 :45 a.m. when there were very few cars parked and not many people in the building. However, he said in the afternoon there are not many empty parking spots in the area. . He suggested putting signage for Peet's Coffee parking, otherwise the office people park there all day and there won't be any parking available. He said it was an item they needed to have the owner's recommendation on; hopefully, in the future the signage and additional parking will help resolve the issue. . He said that there is no direction, and it is confusing. . Supports the 5:30 a.m. opening time. Com. Chien: . Said he was not opposed to the 5:30 a.m. opening time, however, he expressed concern with the condition regarding the directional signage. He said the project was approved before his Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 9, 2007 tenure on the Planning Commission, but he recalled hearing that the mayor had an agreement with the property owner to install directional signage. . He said the conditions as they appear this evening, indicate that the responsibility falls on the applicant Peet's Coffee. He said he would rather have that go back to the property owner and have them keep their word on that. Vice Chair Giefer: . Not opposed to 5:30 a.m. opening time. . Recalled the meeting that approval for the building they now occupy, and said those spaces on this corridor were part of the parking calculation for the building. She pointed out that four Commissioners that were part of the calculation were still on the Planning Commission. She said that people could park where they wanted, since they would not get towed. . She said that she wanted it fixed, and supported the directional sign because it would encourage people to be more bold about parking where they want; but they should talk to the property owner about removing the reserved parking signs and putting in the directional signs, because if Peet's Coffee puts up directional signs for Peet's, they are not going to put them up for Panera Breads. Ms. Wordell: . Said the parking compliance would be a matter of enforcing the use permit for the original building, that if they have altered it, then that is an issue as far as being in compliance with their use permit. . She said the directional sign is appropriate to tie to this application since they have the leverage for the sign. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she felt it serves Peet's Coffee; and would help them in their business situation to put the directional signs in for their business. . Said she agreed that the property owner should be brought back to the Planning Commission because they are in violation of their use permit because they do have reserved parking signs. Ms. Wordell: . Suggested that they move forward in that manner; through Code Enforcement talk to the property owner about compliance, stating they need to comply within a certain period of time and if they don't, they are subject to revocation. . Staff will report back to the Planning Commission. Com. Wong: . Expressed concern that it was a lengthy process of going through Code Enforcement. He said he was inclined continue the application and have the landlord come before the Planning Commission to straighten it out, since going through Code Enforcement adds more time. He said he would like to have the problem fixed in a timely manner. Ciddy Wordell: . Said to the city attorney that she assumed there was nexus between the parking issue and this application. Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 9,2007 Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said she felt the Planning Department could work faster and the item did not have to be continued because of that. She said she felt a letter from the Planning Department on revocation of a use permit would get instant action. Com. Wong: . Relative to the sign, he asked if Peet's Coffee was responsible for the sign or the property owner, since the model resolution is vague. Ellen Sinnet: . Said she understood that their construction department would be in touch with the landlord and partner to make sure the signage was implemented. She said she was not opposed to incurring the cost of the sign to get it finalized, especially if they are not reserved parking places, so that their customers have the autonomy to park wherever they want in that facility. . She said she did not know if because they were not the property owner, if they had the authority to remove the reserved signs. She said the construction department would address the issue with the property owner. Ms. Wordell: . Said it was two separate issues; they will work with the property owner to get the directional sign which will not state anything about reserved spaces or not, and they would work separately with the property owner on enforcing their use permit relative to parking spaces. . She said if the property owner did not comply, it would possibly take two months to schedule a public hearing regarding the reserved spaces. Com. Wong: . Stated his concern to the city attorney, that if they go through the Planning Department or Code Enforcement, it is to get their attention; and four commissioners recall that the property owner said that he would comply and resolve the issue. He said there was an underground parking garage where office employees can park and the goal is to have successful retail and a good interface. Presently it is miserable finding parking at Peet's Coffee and Panera Breads. Eileen Murray: . Said that the city looks at the use permit and sees what the agreement was on parking and goes to the property owner explaining the agreement, and stating they are in violation and will be subject to some action. . She said the city would not go out and remove the signs, and she did not think it would take two months. She said it was not likely the property owner would come to the Planning Commission, as the property owner would see the terms of the use permit and would likely correct the issue. Chair Miller: . Questioned if they were within their rights as a Planning Commission to tie the two issues together. Eileen Murray: . Said she felt they were not related; early hours for 20 customers is not related to the parking shortage. The answer is that it is not legitimate and it appears to be a stretch. Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 9, 2007 . Said if the directional signs are necessary for additional parking and they are agreeable to doing that, that is fine. She said she did not think they should tie this application to that; this application is about extended early morning hours when there is no parking problem. Chair Miller opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Saadati: . Said he supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time and said that the parking issue could be addressed through staff, and as per the attorney's statement, they are not related. . Said the parking on the narrow strip should be made available; it is the property owner's responsibility . Com. Chien: . Said he supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time. . Relative to the directional signage, he said he understand his colleagues' desire to have the parking issue resolved expeditiously; however, as the applicant stated, they are going to go to the property owner anyway, and through that process it doesn't guarantee that it is going to move any faster because the property owner will likely stall as well. Furthermore, the city attorney said there was no legal nexus and it is a far stretch for directional signage. He said while he would like to tie the two together, he did not think they should do that; the responsibility falls on the property owner as they promised for quite a while now. . Supports the application without the condition for the directional signage. Com. Wong: . Supports the application for the 5:30 a.m. opening time. . Supports staffs recommendation regarding directional signage; and said he hoped that Peet's Coffee would work with the property owner to resolve his concern about parking. He asked that a sentence be added that if they cannot resolve it at staff level, staff bring it back to the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Giefer: . Supports staffs recommendation of opening at 5:30 a.m. with the directional signage. . She said it appeared that Peet's Coffee does not object to putting in the signs, and she felt it serves their customers. She said she would also like to see some results on staffs side; she said she was flexible with the push and pull regarding the property owner to solve the overall parking issue that exists. Chair Miller: . Supports the application. Said he hoped that staff moves quickly to address the parking issue; it is more than taking reserved labels off the parking locations. As Com. Saadati suggested, perhaps it is putting Peet's or Panera Breads labels on those locations so that more parking is reserved for the businesses. Ciddy Wordell: . That is going beyond what can be asked given that it was left open as part of the use permit. Chair Miller: . He referred again to the owner stating at a meeting that he would make good on the parking whatever it took. He said this location is underparked; the space between the parking on one side and the parking on the other side is substandard; and in general it is a problem; he Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 9, 2007 promised us when we approved the application that he would return to support our other solutions if we had a problem. He said he was almost reluctant to approve the application because if this is the leverage to do that, they should use that leverage despite the city attorney recommending against it. Ciddy Wordell: . Said she did not recall the exact condition of the use permit, but the Planning Commission might need to invoke that condition if they determined that the parking problem has to be readdressed and in fact bring them back for that. Chair Miller: . Suggested that they research exactly what was approved and what the conditions were, to ensure that the Planning Commission is on firm ground. . He said he specifically recalled the property owner making that commitment. Ciddy Wordell: . Suggested they follow through with the research, report back to the Planning Commission, and if the Commission is in a position to bring it back as a hearing item, staff can be directed to do so. Chair Miller: . Summarized that they handle the parking by going to the original hearing for the original use permit and moving forward in that manner. Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application M-2006-07, without the condition that there be directional signage installed. Com. Wong: . Asked the Planning Commission for their opinion about the directional signage. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she felt they needed the directional signage as a bandaid until the bigger issues are solved. Chair Miller: . Said he agreed. Com. Saadati: . Commented that the directional signage does not have to be permanent, it can be removable and Peet's Coffee can have it up in the back, similar to a real estate sign, and it would provide direction for people on a temporary basis. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said the solution should be that the landlord put in additional signage that says there is parking at Peet's Coffee and Pan era Breads. . She said three commissioners felt strongly that there needs to be something done immediately to address the parking. Com. Saadati: . Said that staff will follow up, and if the landlord doesn't comply, the permit would be revoked. Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 9, 2007 Com. Chien: . Said they were discussing leverage and were always interested in how to get the applicants to comply. He pointed out that in the present case, the leverage is that the current property owner is in violation of their agreement. He said they need to enforce that and make that happen; which is the reason he does not support putting the responsibility on the tenant, but on the property owner who made the original promise. No friendly amendment was proposed. (Vote: 2-3-0; Motion failed; Chair Miller, Com. Wong and Vice Chair Giefer voted No.) Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to approve Application M-2006-07 with the directional signs. (Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Chien voted No. He said he supported the 5:30 a.m. opening time; however didn't see the legal nexus between the signage and the opening time.) Eileen Murray: . Asked if the directional signs were going to direct Panera Breads and Peet's Coffee customers into spaces that are now marked reserved. It is not known what arrangements the landlord has made with other tenants, whether or not they are paying for reserved parking; and where are the directional signs to recommend where the people park until the Planning Department reviews the use permit. Ciddy Wordell: . Said the intent is that it is open parking; and it would state that additional parking is available. The wording is in the condition; it is just available parking to the west. Eileen Murray: . Said she did not want to burden this applicant with that kind of competition or problem with other tenants on that property owner's property, where the property owner is actually responsible for abiding by the use permit. She said to put the tenants in competition or conflict might be a mistake. Chair Miller: . Said at this point there are some spaces designated reserved and they are not being changed; they state there is further parking in this direction. There are some spaces that say reserved and some that don't say reserved. He said he was uncertain if there was any difference from the current situation. Eileen Murray: . Asked where the directional signs were directing people to park; what is the proposal? Chair Miller: . Apparently it is just a general directional sign, they are not specific. Com. Wong: . Asked staff if the landlord could return under Old Business within 30 days or was a motion needed. Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 9, 2007 Ciddy Wordell: . Said the landlord could return under Old Business within 30 days. 4. Z-2006-06 (EA-2006-20) Olivia Jang (Huang & Armanini) 20916 & 20956 Homestead Rd. Rezoning of a 2.2 gross acre site from Planned Development (Recreation, Entertainment, Limited Commercial) to CG (General Commercial) Tentative City Council Dale: February 6, 2007. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for rezoning of an approximately 2 acre parcel from Planned Development (Recreational Entertainment, Limited Commercial Intent) to CG (General Commercial) as outlined in the staff report. . He illustrated aerial photographs to show the relationship of the four properties that compose the shopping center. . He reviewed a list of uses generally allowed in the spaces, mostly of a recreational enteJiainment nature. Com. \Vong: . Questioned why those particular businesses did not go through a use permit? Colin .lung explained why the businesses did not go through a use permit. . Said they were looking for a space that was readily available and did not subject themselves to a 6 week public hearing process and planning fees in addition to the building permit fees to locate in that space. Particularly in adjacent shopping centers, if they could go in there by right, there was not a strong enough inccntive to go into this centcr. Rezoning justifications, the conccpt of a specialized recreation and entertainment center has never really materialized at this site even after 30 + years of zoning restrictions. . The more limited range of allowed uses places this center at a competitive disadvantage compared to other commercial centers that are nearby and in adjacent cities. The city requirement to issue a use permit for every change of use places this center also at a competitive disadvantage to other commercial centers. . He pointed out that whenever there is a new use proposed, staff looks at parking since all the parking is shared. They look at it at the building permit stage; hence there is no need to be concerned about the change of use actually impacting the parking that is on the complex. . Staffs recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Negative Declaration, approval of the rezoning in accordance with Model Resolution Eric Huang, Applicant: . Said the current zoning has put many restrictions on the type of tenants they are trying to actively seek. In trying to attract more diversified tenants for the property, he said he has found that quite a few tenants require specific use permits on an individual basis, which is expensive and cumbersome, and some tenants balked at pursuing the negotiations or further discussions. . He said he was attempting to attract tenants who would complement the existing tenants, which would be a win-win situation for the city as well as the property owner. Colin Jung responded to Commissioners' questions: . Said that the General Plan designation currently for the area was commercial/residential. Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 9, 2007 . Said the downside to the city granting the change was that general commercial zoning allows up to 25% of the space, which would be about 4000 square feet of it to be tentative with office spaces. No sales dollars would be associated with that. . The upside is that they may rent out tenant spaces faster if it has a more flexible zoning and there would hopefully be fewer vacancies. . Said that they were not proposing to rezone the bowling alley and McDonalds parcels; they would remain the designation ofP Recreation. . The property is four different parcels under four different ownerships with a shared parking lot among all of them. Com. Wong: . Asked staff to provide a history how the specitlc parcel at one time was intact. Colin Jung: . Said that in 1974 a 5-acre site was proposed for development by the Brunswick Corporation, who emphasized the demand for recreational uses in the area. The City Council approved the bowling alley which was built within two years, and restricted the land uses of the other approved buildings to recreation, entertainment and related commercial uses. . The property owner was unable to secure other tenants for the other building spaces and sought a change in the general plan use designation to a General commercial use, which was denied by the City Council. . In 1977, the city approved a rezoning of the property to P (Enter, Limited com) which allowed a greater range of commercial uses, but required a use permit for every change in use. . In 1979 the applicant returned to modify the zoning again to add additional commercial uses in order to fully occupy the building spaces. The City has not moditled the zoning since 1979. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Olivia Jang, Property Manager: . Asked for support of the rezoning as they have had difficulty renting space m the past. Rezoning would allow more options to provide different services to tenants. Soheila Lahooty, resident: . Said she supported the rezoning as it was good for the people and good for the community. Aimin Zhuo, Saratoga resident: . Said he was in favor of the rezoning so that the center would attract more businesses and services for the community. Khalil Marzban, resident: . Said he supported the zoning change because of the need for more variety of shops in the center. Currently there are only eating establishments and beauty salons and the residents of the area need more options that provide a variety of services and goods. Margaret Yeung, resident: . Supports the rezoning. . Said she felt it would be fair for the owners of the shopping center to be granted the rezoning so that they would be on the same footing as the other shopping centers in the area. She said it she felt it would also be good for the city. Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 9, 2007 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada Resident: . Said it was important to keep the commercial element in the area to provide a variety of needed goods and services to the residents. . She cautioned about rezoning the area so that it would eventually become residential. . She asked that there be adequate parking provided for the future customers on the separate parcels. . Said that the shopping center should reflect the Gateway to Cupertino, should be attractively landscaped and that the buildings maintain a similar architectural agreement. Carol Armanini Matteson, co-owner of 20916 Homestead Road: . Urged the rezoning of the property to general commercial so the tenants could be on the same competitive level with other tenants; as it has been a disadvantage for them and difficult for the landlords to attract tenants. . She said that it would benefit the city, landlord, and tenants. Melinda Chen, resident: . Supports the rezoning, and suggested usmg the market force to determine the type of merchants for the property. Chih Yuan Pe, resident: . Supports the rezoning. Said it was fair for the property owner and good for the people and the city. Patrick Hsu, resident: . Said he supported the zoning change. This bowling center was established thirty years ago and at that time that was the only bowling center for Cupertino. The city has approved a bowling center in Val1co, which will provide competition for the center. Sparky Colins, resident: . Said he understood that the bowling alley began making it a sports related area, and accommodating other businesses relating to one another. He said he feared that opening it up would result in a non-identify of the area. He suggested doing something with the parking lot and renovating it the way it was intended to be zoned. . He said he did not support the rezoning. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Wong to approve Application EA-2006-20. (V ote: 5-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Chien, second by Com. Wong to approve Application Z-2006-06. Com. Wong: . Reviewed the original intent of the property, noting that the bowling alley wanted a part of the five acres. . He said that the proposed Vallco Fashion Park Mail bowling alley was more of a night club, and would not be in direct competition with Brunswick or Homestead Lanes. . He asked for more information relating to the history of the subdivision into three parcels. Planning Commission Minutes 14 January 9,2007 Colin Jung: . Explained that when Brunswick initially developed the proposal they were only interested in developing the bowling alley, not the remainder of the property. They sold the remainder of the property in order to have other property owners and other businesses develop it in accordance with what the City Council at that time wanted. It was never the intention of the Bnmswick Corporation to be in the land development business; the intent was to build the bowling alley and sell the rest of it. . He said he was uncertain about the history of the subdivision. It appeared it would result in multiple ownerships; the corner was an attractive, high profile spot for a restaurant. He said he did not know the reason for the lot configuration, but the concept was that they would share the parking. Com. Wong: . Reiterated that it would not affect the bowling alley; it is zoned recreational and will remain on the property. . He said that the shopping center needs to be revitalized. It gives a tool to the property owners to get good tenants and hopefully revitalize the building and the landscaping. Perhaps by getting a better group of tenants that will complement the bowling alley as well as the McDonalds. . Since they already have the shared parking agreement, he said he was comfortable moving forward. . He said it was unfortunate that the property has been divided into four different parcels. It would be ideal for a book store, computer store or medium or large box store, but not possible unless there would be an agreement made between the two property owners. Com. Saadati: . Said he suppOlied the items of rezoning especially when there is competition with another city directly across from this property. . He said he hoped that the area would be revitalized with a common architectural elcment. . He asked if there were any agreements written among the owners to work together for collaborating as far as improvement. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that it could be entirely voluntary. Com. Saadati: . Said it was a very successful center and is a good thing for the community. Chair Miller and Com. Wong asked the city attorney to comment on the nexus. Eileen Murray: . Said it was a zoning requirement and conditions could be added. It would only be on the two parcels that are making the application, not on the bowling alley or the McDonalds parcel. Com. Wong: . Expressed concern that if it was done only on the two parcels, if the applicant was wise, at the time it is revitalized, the two other property owners would be consulted and it would be done together. . He said that the message from the Planning Commission is that by granting the privilege of having it general, the owner would work with the city and the proposed new tenants to help Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 9, 2007 revitalize the center. It may be a rough jewel in Cupertino, and it could be made more attractive as it is a gateway to Cupertino. Vice Chair Giefer: . Suggested adding two conditions that the owners come to a mutual agreement in terms of an approved landscaping for the center, and that they repave and restripe the lot. Colin Jung: . Addressed the issues of condition of the lot, the landscaping and potential need for repaving in the center. He noted that in the past there has been code enforcement action on Brunswick to cleanup the property and renovate the landscaping because it was obliterated with weeds. When Brunswick sold the property part of the agreement was to fix up the parking lot, and the condition of the area has been improved since then. The Homestead side is wen maintained and standard for landscaping. . He noted that the poor condition of the pavement is on the Homestead Lanes property and is not subject to this zoning application. The other portion of the parking lot that is in need of some repaving is part ofMr. Huang's property and could be improved. . He noted that many of the areas of concern are not part of the subject application. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she agreed with Colin Jung; there are areas that need improvement and that is not subject to this application. (V ote: 5-0-0) 5. Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02 (EA-2006-02) TS/Civil Engineering (Property Owner Louis Lau) 21600 Rainbow Dr. Rezoning of a 2.09 acre parcel from RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 square feet minimum parcel size) to RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size) Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.09 acre parcel into one 40,009 square foot parcel and one. 51,171 square foot parcel in a proposed RHS-40 zoning district. . Colin Jung presented staff report: . Reviewed the application for rezoning a 2.09 acre parcel from RHS (Residential Hillside.) The difference would be to change the minimum lot size needed for sub division purposes from 80,000 to 40,000 square feet, which is less than an acre. The Tentative Parcel Map is to subdivide a two acre site into two parcels. . He reviewed the Geotechnical Review, General Plan Conformance, Zoning Conformance, and Specimen Trees as outlined in the staff report. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the negative declaration, approval of the rezoning and the approval of the tentative map in accordance with the model resolutions. Com. Saadati: . Asked staff how much exploration went into putting the restriction in the area. Planning Commission Minutes 16 January 9,2007 Colin Jung: . Said he was not sure of the extent of the review done. He said there was a lot of trenching done for the original subdivision; and a long trench was done on the property prior to the applicant's ownership of the lot itself. Although the amount of geotechnical review done is not known, it apparently was adequate as the City Council approved the subdivision and the buildability of the 21 lots that were part of that original subdivision. Com. Saadati: . Asked if there was any slope evaluation done as far as stability? Colin Jung: . He said not relative to stability; staff does not have any housing plans that were submitted with this application. The proposed site for the development is a tennis court and not on any of the steep slopes existing on the property. Vice Chair Giefer: . Discussed the dwelling yield calculation, which indicates that there can be 2.7 dwellings on the property. Will the numbers change at all if you look at it based on the proposed parcel sizes? If you took parcel two, it looks like the majority of the slope is on that parcel and so if you look at the proposed area of that which is 1.175 acres and you calculated that with the slope would you still get that same result as showing that you should have one house that is approximately 5000 square feet, or would it be smaller if it you just looked at those specific numbers with that specific slope? Colin Jung: . Said that when the maximum allowable floor areas were calculated, the civil engineer looked at each parcel separately. However, for subdivision purposes he looked at the whole property in his calculations that calculate the dwelling unit yield. Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked staff to report on the calculations for parcel two regarding home size? Colin Jung: . Said the parcel two calculation was in the accordance with the formulas specified in the RHS zoning ordinance. He said he did not have the entire calculations of the factors that would be plugged into the formula; but the tentative map shows the average slope being 28.9 %. There are some modifications or basically some credits given for lots that are over 10,000 square feet as far as allowable floor area, then you subtract the slope penalty. When you do that you come up with a figure 5006 square feet. Terry Szewczyk, Applicant: . Said that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the neighborhood. . The lot sizes surrounding the parcel are generally smaller and this is an excellent use of the property. It is an ideal infill opportunity, not often do you have a situation where you can put a new residence in and that does not impact the privacy of any adjoining neighbors. . Said Mr. Lau has been a Cupertino resident since 1968, has owned the property since 1987, and his intent is to create a home for his son, and in order to do that, must subdivide the property . Planning Commission Minutes 17 January 9, 2007 Chair Miller: . Asked staff the reason for the 80 foot restriction initially on the property. Colin Jung: . Explained that the Monta Vista Fault runs along the west foothills of Cupertino; for General Plan purposes it is treated as if it were an active earthquake fault and geotechnical review is required when properties are close by; and for life and safety reasons, a building setback is required in instances where they find the fault. . The fault has not been located with certainty in every part of West Cupertino since it runs through too many properties across many miles. . The geologist would also look at the geophysical characteristics of the property itself; does it look like there is an abrupt change in the slope of the property, which is the case here or are there other things about the land itself that would indicate there would be a earthquake fault there. Based on their observations about what an earthquake fault looks like at above ground level, and based on the physical evidence of certain points probably what they have done is extrapolated the line across western Cupertino. Chair Miller: . Said it was an interpretation and that was the reason for the restriction. . He said the owner returned and has done geological studies to prove it was not there but in another location without the restriction. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said she visited the site and the area where the home is on Rainbow Drive is very hilly, and steep. She said she felt the access to the property with the driveway is a concern, because coming down Rainbow Drive there is a steep hillside and the driveway is immediately to the right. . Expressed concern about the stability of the slope, and need to improve the access from Rainbow Drive if there are two 4500 square foot homes. . She questioned whether there was a possibility of subdividing the lots again in the future. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Colin Jung: . Relative to easements with the zoning application, he said that the tentative map provides for a reciprocal access to both of the dwellings, with a 24 foot reciprocal easement for emergency vehicle access and public utilities. . The engineers have been in contact with the fire department and the entrance was widened to the driveway and the access issues have been addressed in the event that the interior property is sold. Further subdivision of the lot is not going to be possible. The dwelling unit yield is 2.74 according to interpretation of the formula; rounded down, the maximum is two dwellings for the property. Vice Chair Giefer: . Pointed out that the hillside property is zoned RHS, and said she was pleased to know that since there are other properties in the neighborhood zoned RHI that should be RHS because of the slope. Given that and the dwelling unit formulas, it shows that there could be two residences on the property. . Said staff answered her questions, and she supported the application. Planning Commission Minutes 18 January 9, 2007 All commissioners said they supported the application. Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chien, to approve Applications EA 2006-02 (EA-2006-02) and Z-2006-01. (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: The next meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2007. Housine Commission: Next meeting is January 11,2007. Economic Development Committee: No meeting held. Mavor's Monthlv Meetine With Commissioners: . Next meeting is on Wednesday, January 10th, at 8 a.m. in Conference Room A; Chair Miller will attend. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: . Ms. Wordell reported that the City Council discussed their goals at the last meeting, including the sustainability policies in the General Plan and how the Planning Commission will carry them out as part of the work program. A consultant will be hired to advise on implementation of the policies and interviewing people this month. It is expected to have it active within the next couple of months. . Vallco - Trying to be more proactive on it to ensure its success; want monthly updates on City of Cupertino. . The elections for the Planning Commission will be at next meeting. . North Valko - Information is included in a packet about the first workshop on January 25th. She explained that North Valko is North of 280, encompassing Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Village, bounded by 280, on the north and the south, and Tantau on the east and west. Chair Miller encouraged the audience to attend the workshops. They will be taped, but not broadcast live. Com. Chien commended Chair Miller for his leadership as Chairperson the past year. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on January 23,2007. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary