PC 05-24-99CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Ton'e Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 24, 1999
SALUTETOTHEFLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Corr, Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chan'Person Doyle
Staff present:
Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development (arrived at 9:50
p.m.); Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Michelle Bjurman, Planner Il;
Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Mark Srebnik, Consultant; Eileen
Murray, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 10, 1999 regular Planntng Commission meeting:
Com. Corr noted the word "unit" on the second line of Page 3 of the minutes should read "story".
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of May
Commission meeting as amended
Com. Con'
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-1
10, 1999 Planning
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Doyle noted receipt of a letter from Technical
Assistance Legal Center and an invitation to an opening of CentuW Theaters in Union City.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Com. Harris removed hem 2 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Com. Doyle excused
himself from discussion of the item as he resided within 200 yards of the property. Com. Harris
chaired the meeting during Chair Doyle's absence.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
25-U-76(M)
Sunnyview Lutheran
22445 Cupertino Road
Modification to remove two protected lxees.
- Planning Commission decisionfinal unless .appealed
Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 24, 1999
Staff presentation: Mr. Rhys Rowland, Planning Intern, answered questions regarding the trees
designated for removal, and the replacement trees. He noted that the two existing trees Were
designated as protected because they were part of the original landscape.
Mr. Rowland explained that the existing trees were in relatively poor condition before construction
began, and noted that it was discovered with the installation of the new building that the floor
height was higher than the existing grade, and the grading had to be brought up approximately 4
feet from the trunk diameters. He said it would be cost prohibitive to keep the trees in their
existing condition and put wells around them and it would actually alter some of the positioning of
the approved landscape, sidewalks, and pathways in the vicinity of the trees.
Mr. Ron Zielske, apphcant, said that an effort was made to remove a minimum mount of trees in
the consmxction. He said it was disclosed that 4 feet actually meant 4 feet of the think, and the
opinion of the arbotist and CCS was that the trees would not survive, and a petition was submitted
to remove them and replace them with large trees. He noted that the pear tree was recommended
by the arborist.
Com. Kwok questioned whether during construction, if there was any provision in the permit or
any attempt made during construction to protect the trees, as it appeared they were not protected.
He asked staff to ensure in future that the trees are protected during construction.
Mr. Zielske said that as a result of the arborist's recommendation, the contractors felt the trees
would not be saved and made no further attempts to protect the trees.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that the trees were not bonded, but were on the landscaping
plans to be saved. In response to Com. Kwok's concem about taking measures to protect trees
from being damaged during consta-action, she said it usually is done; however, and may have been
an oversight.
Com. Co~r said he initially was prepared to approve the consent calendar; however in light of his
concern about the misinformation about the trees, he was not now prepared to approve it.
Com. Hams said that it did not appear that the tree had a grade problem, and as noted by Com.
Corr, prior to the development, the process was to keep specific trees, whether or not they were
bonded. She said the applicant's commented that once it was decided the trees would not be
saved, the contractor did not do any work in an attempt to save them, and until this approval took
place, there was not any ability of the owner to make that decision because they had a certain
requirement in the plan. Com. Hams pointed out that the evergreen trees were being replaced with
deciduous trees and they were proposing to replace two large trees with full canopies with two
newer trees.
Com. Con- said that he could not understand how they could put a 4 foot hole close to the
walkway, close to the building in an otherwise open, fiat area.
Ms. Wordell said that they were internal trees and did not serve as a screen. She added that when
reviewing it with the applicant, they discussed moving the walkways, but did not discuss the
proximity to the building.
Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, said that the flowering pear could grow to a height of 50 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 24, 1999
Com. Stevens expressed concern that the photos shown were after-the-fact and everything done
was after the fact, and expressed disappointment in the city's part in the planning. He said the trees
were internal trees, and he supported the application, but expressed to staff that they should be
alerted to such instances. He questioned the effect of raising the grading 4 feet.
Com. Kwok concurred that although he did not like the idea of replacing trees that have existed for
a long time, he supported the application as recommended by staff. He cautioned staff to make
sure that the trees were protected in the future. He said he did not see the necessity of planting
extra flowering pear trees there.
Com. Corr said he was reluctant to support the application as he was unclear as to what really
existed, and the presentation was confusing.
Com. Hams said they had previously discussed the importance of being aware of major grade
changes, and she recalled the approvals, but not that the building was being built 4 feet above
grade, and questioned how it could happen.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 25-U-72(M) as recommended
by staff
Com. Kwok
Com. Corr and Hah-is
Chair Doyle
Denial 2-2-0
Com. Hams said that she would vote for something that indicated the applicant recognized they
had erred and that they enhance the property in some way other than just two replacement trees that
would grow only 2 to 3 feet per year, as it would take a long time to reach the present 30 feet
height. She said she felt there should be some comment on their part for making up for the error
and only providing 2 tree replacements.
Chair Harris noted that the denial could be appealed to the City Council.
Chair Doyle returned to the meeting.
Chair Doyle removed Application l-Mod-99 ~om the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Application No.(s):
Apphcant:
Location:
1-Mod-99
Westmont Park Villa Homeowners Association
8129, 8130, 8084 Park Villa Circle
Modification to an existing planned residential development to remove three trees and replace with
two trees.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remove and replace three
trees on the Westmont Park Villa residential development. Staff recommends approval of the
removal of the trees; however, recommends replacement with 24 inch box trees, not the 15 gallon
size proposed. A decision if reached will be regarded as final, unless appealed within 14 calendar
days.
Planning Commission Minutes
4 May24, 1999
Mr. Samuel Isaac, applicant, said that the development originated in 1972 in the City of San Jose
and was annexed by the City of Cupertino many years ago. He explained that the tre~s proposed to
be removed were causing damage because of their size and creating a safety hazard. He said that
the replacement trees were chosen because of the space limitations.
Com. Hams recommended that the eucalyptus tree be replaced with 24 inch box flowering cherw
trees, and that the hackberry tree be 36 inch box and said that it could be planted elsewhere.
Chair Doyle commented that trees are being replaced with non-native trees common to the area,
and in 50 or 100 years there will not be any in that size range; therefore they should try to foster as
many of those possible into the landscape.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve Application l-Mod-99 with the staff
recommendation of 24 inch box for the two cherry trees, and there be a 36 inch
box hackben'y planted as described in the green area
Com. Stevens
Passed 5-0-0
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Presentation by Cindy Wu, Cai Poly student, on pedestrian environments for the Heart of
the City planning area.
Ms. Cindy Wu, Cai Poly, San Luis Obispo landscape architectural student, gave a presentation on
proposed pedestrian environments for the Heart of the City planning area. She said that the project
on urban design focused on how to bring a pedestrian friendly environment into an automobile-
oriented city such as Cupertino. She illustrated examples of cities that had areas for public space
for people as well as automobiles, such as Castro Street in Mountain View, and Market Street in
San Francisco. She presented a design plan for pocket spaces along Stevens Creek Boulevard to
allow people to gather for socializing. She also suggested the concept of a farmer's market one
night per week, closing offthe street, and having entertainment for children of all ages, and a place
for people to gather for a sense of neighborhood.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of having an area in Cupertino to draw people in,
because Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAaza Boulevard were too wide to close off. The
Planning Commissioners thanked Ms. Wu for her creative proposal and wished her success in her
endeavors.
Application No. (s):
Applicant:
Location:
32-ASA-9g
Keith Royster Architectrs (Woodworks)
19875 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Architectural review of a proposed remodel of a facade of an existing commercial building.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the proposed remodel of
the fagade of the Woodworks store on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of
the application; a decision if reached will be considered final unless appealed within 14 calendar
days.
Planning Commission Minutes
5 May24, 1999
Mr. Rowland reviewed the architectural modifications and color pallette for the building.
Referring to the site drawing, he explained that the existing parking included 63 spaces, and said
that although the parking requirements for the site were 101 spaces, the furniture store had operated
in the same location for 35 years without any additional requirement for parking. He said that
there was also parking available behind the store, although an unimproved area. Relative to
lighting, Mr. Rowland said that there were three wall packs proposed to cover the proposed striped
parking area. He pointed out that the current landscaping is adequate and no additional
landscaping is proposed at this time. Mr. Rowland said that they are asking that a condition be
attached for a deed restriction on the property that would require its use be limited to a furniture
store, such that if any other use were to come in, it would be required to come up to code.
In response Com. Corr's question about reciprocal access to the property for the future, Mr.
Rowland said that a condition of approval existed on the office site for reciprocal access to the
propen'y for the future.
Com. Kwok expressed concern about the impact of incoming traffic to the premises on customers
walking from the rear of the store to the fi'ont of the store. Mr. Rowland said that the store had
been operating under the existing conditions for many years and it had not presented a problem
before.
Com. Hams expressed concern about the impact of the rear favade of the store on the neighbors.
She said she felt that mitigation was needed on the hack part of the building visible from the
residential area.
Mr. Rick Heimond, applicant, explained that he was the tenant, not owner of the building, and he
and his brother were covering the expenses of the renovation. He said that if faced with having to
provide mitigation to the rear of the building, they might not be able to proceed with the renovation
because of the added cost. He said that he felt the renovation of the building would enhance the
community; however, because they were already exceeding what they had originally planned to
spend for the renovation, they might not be able to do the building.
Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
Chair Doyle summarized the issues of concern: parking, fxont fac, adc, rear finish of the faqade,
lighting, and rear eotzy requirements.
Com. Hams said that the parking was suitable, as they have not experienced problems in the past.
She said she felt the front facade was excellent, with good quality and good colors to enhance the
boulevard. The hghting is suitable; the rear entxy should be safe for people exit/ag their cars and
entering the store and she felt the present use was appropriate. Com. Hams reiterated that she felt
the finish of the rear of the store was an issue, and said it should have some trim on the upper
portion above 12 feet. She said that it needed to be more than painted solid blocks if visible from
the residential area. Later in the meeting, Com. Hams said that she supported a light for the side of
the building.
Com. Corr said the parking was suitable; he was pleased with the faqade; the lighting in the back
was appropriate, but questioned the need for a light on the side along the driveway. He
commented that the rear entry has worked for years and is suitable, and suggested an entry sign to
address the issue. He suggested that the back side of the front facades have a finished appeaance.
Planning commission Minutes
6 May 24, 1999
Com. Kwok said the parking was suitable; faqade and lighting appropriate. He expressed concern
about the possibility of increase in accidents because of the parking in the rear'. He suggested the
concept of a pedestrian sidewalk along the side or additional formal rear entry for customers. He
said that the rear trim was appropriate.
Com. Stevens said that parking is appropriate; the fagade spectacular, and was a much-needed
improvement which will add to the community. He said unless the Sheriff's Department felt that
the lighting posed a problem, he felt it was appropriate, and suggested a light along the side
driveway. He said it would be advantageous to formalize the rear enny as people use it heavily.
He recommended the rear area be fimshed or painted.
Chair Doyle said that the parking with restrictions was appropriate; the new fagade and colors
appropriate; lighting should be reviewed with the Sheriff to make sine they agree to the proposal;
rear entry should be identified as an entW and ensure its safety; rear finish on the fagade to have a
fimshed look and not left as an open structme.
Chair Doyle summarized the comments on the issues: parking appropriate the way it is worked out;
facade is suitable; lighting to be subject to Sheriff's Department review; rear entry appropriate.
Relative to the remaining issue of the rear finish of the fagade, Com. Hams said that although she
supported the application, she could not approve it until she knew what the rear finish would be.
Mr. Helmond assured that the outstanding issue of the fagade in the rear of the building would be
taken care of to the satisfaction of the city. He said it would include some trim, and be finished so
that it didn't look like an unfinished building from the rear.
MOTiON:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Con' moved to approve Application 32-ASA-98 according to the model
resolution, adding No. 6 that the back of the high facia of the front of the building
will have a finished appearance and some trim; and No. 4, inclusion of a side light,
and to subject to review by the Sheriff's Dep~uhuent for any other problems
Com. Hams
Passed 5-0-0
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No. (s):
Applicant:
Location
Amendments to Newsrack Ordinance
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Consideration of amendments to Chapter 10.21 (Newsrack Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal
Code to require modular newsracks
Tentatn,e City Council heanng date: June 21, 1999
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1999
Staffpresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to consider four changes to the
ordinance on newsracks as well as newsrack design standards, as outlined in the attached staff
report. Staff recommends approval of the amended newsrack ordinance and the accompanying
design specifications. A decision if reached will be forwarded to the June 21 City Council
meeting.
Mr. Jerry Haag, Contract Planner, reviewed the Planning Commission's direction to staff from the
March 23 meeting; to allow publisher~ to undertake a voluntaxy, trial upgrade program for
Planning Commission Minutes
7 May 24, 1999
newsracks; consider the draft newsrack ordinance and standards prepared by staff; and provide for
enhanced newsracks at key locutions in the city. He said that since the last meeting the draft
ordinance and accompanying standards had been modified based on a subsequent meeting held
with the publishers and distributors on April 30~. The publishers and distributors have expressed
their desfl:e to undertake a trial program throughout the city; however, before they make such a
substantial commitment in new racks, they would like some direction in terms of what the city
would like in terms of new standards. Also the publishers are supportive of any city efforts to
provide upgraded racks at key locations which could include such things as add-on trellises or any
kind of integration with street furniture or planters, which would need to be done by the city in
terms of original construction and maintenance. Publishers have expressed that the racks are
expensive and further upgrades should be at city's expense.
Mr. Haag reviewed the four changes as outlined in the attached staff report and responded to
commissioners' questions. He said that staff recommended a forest green or beige/tan color for the
newsracks; and recommended that the city not charge an encroachment fee.
Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Tom Lillydahl, said he worked with three other cities on news~ack advisory committees, and
represented a number of publishers with fi'eestanding racks in Cupertino. He clarified that when
there is a five foot space between modular units it is an ADA requirement to have right of
passageway for people going from the sidewalk to their cars on the curbs. He said if there is a
restriction of more than 12 feet of modular racks in 150 foot space in places, and if the sidewalk
allows for, it would potentially force places like the post office to relocate thek racks beyond the
area they are trying to market with the products. Also when the racks are grouped together, it
creates a draw to one type of service into one area, which would be disbursed over a large area. He
said the publishers would want to be able to group the modulars as close to each other as possible.
He discussed the rationale for having the newsxacks face the sidewalk rather than the street side.
Chair Doyle closed the public input pordon of the meeting.
Com. Corr suggested that the definitions in Section 10.21.020 be clarified. He pointed out that
reference to Section 10.21.100 under Design Standards should read Section 10.21.90, and
recommended the abatements of violations also be clarified relative to length of time to remedy a
violation. Com. Harris suggested the wording in Section (e) (1) be changed to read "neither
requested a hearing by the City pursuant to Subsection (a) above" nor remedied ..... She also
stated that (2) should be specifically at~er a denial, and suggested the wording ... "(2)following
appeal hearing, has failed to remedy the within the 10 days ...
Discussion continued regarding the design standards, placement requirements, appeals process and
composition of the newsrack committee.
The outstanding issues were summarized as: Should an encroachment fee be charged? clarify
definitions; number/module; height; color; orientation; limits on apphcability; rear elevation of
modules; dimensional criteria; composition of newsrack committee and length of ttial period.
Comments on the issues were as follows:
Com. Stevens said that he felt no fee should be involved. Relative to definitions, he said that if
placement requirements are followed, that one can be put there; it is very conflicting. Number of
modules: 10; height: ADA requirement.should dictate; color: beige; orientation: on the inside
Plamfing Commission Minutes g May 24, 1999
facing toward the street; limits on applicability: limit to selected portions of the city; rear
elevation of modules: consistent, with name of product only, not (~dvertisements; dimensional
criteria: as specified on Pages 6-9 and 6-12; committee composition: should consist of newspaper
and one city member; trial period: 3 years.
Com. Kwok said that he felt no fee should be charged. Definitions need to be clarified whether
modular or smd-alone newsrack; height: ADA requirements; color: blue; orientation: backs of
newsracks facing the street; limits on applicability: citywide; rear elevation of modules:
consistent, per staff recommendations; dimensional criteria: as specified on Pages 6-10;
committee composition: should consist of newspaper and one city member appointed by the City
Manager; trial period: 2 years.
Com. Corr concurred that no fee should be charged. Definitions need to be clarified and
consistent; number of modules: maximum of 12; height: ADA requirements; color: dark color;
orientation: based on the locale of unit; limits on applicability: citywide; rear elevation of
modules: no advertising other than what is contained in staff recommendations; dimensional
criteria: as specified in staff recommendation; committee composition: per staff
recommendations; trial period: 2 years.
Com. Hah'is said that she was in favor of no fee as long as it remains as a non-profit occupation,
however, if it becomes a profit motive issue on the part of the people placing them, the city should
get a percentage. She said if they begin a major mitigation expense that is not being recovered, a
fee would be necessary to cover the non-recovered expense from the violators. She said that the fee
issue should be reviewed at the end of the trial period. Definitions: should be uniform; number of
modules: possibly 10 or 5; height: would prefer aheight of S0 inches as 54 inches is too high;
color: dark color; orientation: not facing the street, which would encourage people to drive up to
purchase a paper; rear elevation and dimensional criteria: per staff report; committee: the section
should add what other two people said as well as say that the city manager ma add community
and/or staff members to the committee; limits on applicability and dimensional criteria per staff
report; committee composition: per staff recommendations; trial period: I year.
Chair Doyle: no fee charged; definitions: be consistent; number of modules: I0; height: 4 feet or
less; colors: dark green; orientation: inside the sidewalk, facing out; limitations: specific sites in the
city; rear element control: if moved to the inside, it goes away; if not, keep the controls in the staff
recommendation; dimensions: those specified on Page 6-12 are suitable; composition of
committee: concur with Com. Harris' comment; trial period: depends on limits on the applicability
of the process (if across the entire city, 2 year trial period; if in specific areas of the city, a one year
trial period).
Summaxy of discussion of issues: No fee be charged, with a caveat by Com. Hams that if it gets
too onerous, the fee recovery system be addressed; consistent definitions needed; number of
modules: 10; height of the newrecks 4 feet; dark green color; orientation: units facing inside of
street; citywide placement of modular racks on a trial basis; dimensional criteria: per staff
recommendation; rear elevations on modules: staff recommendation/no advertisements; and
committee consisting of publishers and community/staff as recommended by the City Manager.
Com. Hams clarified changes to be made to Sections 10.21.020, 10.21.040, 10.21.090, and
Placement Requirements as discussed earlier in the meeting.
MOTION:
Com. Hams moved approval of the draf~ City of Cupertino newsrack
specifications dated 5/24/99 as amended this evening, and draft newsrack
Planning Commission Minutes
9 May24, 1999
SECOND:
VOTE:
ordinance dated 5/24/99 as amended this evening, with the items listed to b/e
specified as agreed
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Doyle declared a recess from 9:40 to 9:50 p.m.
Application No. (s):
Applicant:
Location:
11-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to RI-Ordinance
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Single Family Residential ordinance regarding
building mass, setbacks and height. Discussion of design guidelines, selection of representative to
Residential Design Review Committee, review process, street trees and story pole policy.
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1999
Tentative City Council hearing date: June 7, 1999
Staff presentation: Ms. Worded_reported that the item was continued from May 10t~ in order to
discuss Design Guideline changes and to select an alternate representative to the Residential Design
Review Committee. She noted that the staff report included a review of the process and a report
on tree policies.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to appoint Com. Stevens as the alternate representative for the
Residential Design Review Committee
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
Mr. Mark Srebnik, consulting architect, reported that the design guidelines were updated to include
the changes discussed at the previous meeting. Discussion ensued wherein the Planning
Commissioners offered suggestions for further grammatical and graphic changes to the guidelines.
Mr. Srebnik said that further modifications to the graphics would be made for cleanup purposes.
Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved approval of Application 11-Z-97 as amended, subject to further
modifications to the graphics and final review by staff
Com. Hams
Passed 5-0-0
Mr. Cowan reported that in July there would be a public hearing on changing the RI ordinance to
reflect the RHS requirements for lots over 30% slope, and said that more involvement was
necessary for street trees for projects that do not require discretionary review, and the fagade of
garages that do not require discretionmy review.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
8. Selection of two Planning Commissioners to the Design Review Subcommittee.
Planning Commission Minutes t0 May 24, 1999
Ms. _W. ordell re~..orteO t~at the procedure was previously app/roved by the Planning Comrmssion
and City Counml whereto some apphcataons would go directly to a Design Review SubcOmmittee,
separate from the R1 Design Committee. These would be fence exceptions, architectural mad site
approvals that a~e minor, sign exceptions, and any other architectural reviews requested by the
Planning Commission or City Council.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Stevens moved the nomination of Com. Harris to serve as a representative
on the Design Review Subcommittee
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Corr moved the nomination of Com. Stevens to serve as a representative on
the Design Review Subcommittee
Com. Kwok
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Hams moved the nomination of Com. Kwok to serve as the alternate
representative on the Design Review Subcommittee
Com. Corr
Passed 5-0-0
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Kwok presented a brief report. In
response to Com. Hams' request for an update on the four season park, Mr. Cowan explained that
the property owner was explonng options to exercise on the property, which included structured
parking beneath the park. City council has granted the property owner a one-year deferment of the
actual installation of the eastern improvements. Mr. Cowan provided a brief update on the Plan
Corn aerial on the Apple Computer property.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: There was a brief discussion relating to the
article on parking spaces.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
meeting at 6:45 p.m. on June 14, 1999.
Respectfully Submitted,
Approved as presented: dune 14, 1999