PC 01-27-97CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JANUARY 27, 1997
Following a Joint Study Session with City Council on the Annual C~neral Plan Review, the Planning
Commission met at 7:15 p.m. for its regular m~ing.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Austin, Doyle, Harris, Ma. honey, Chair Roberts
Staffpresent:
Rober~ Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy
Wordell, Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works Department; Vera Gil,
Planner H, and Eileen Murray, Deputy City Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the January 13, 1997 Regular Meeting
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Harris moved to approve the January 13, 1997 Planning Commission minutes
as presented.
Com. Austin
Chair Roberts
Passed 4-0-1
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
81,052 and 31-EA-96
City of Cupertino
Various
Properties bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Tone Avenue,
Rodrigues Avenue and South DeAnza Boulevard.
AMENDMENT TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN BY ORDINANCE to define
future office, hotel and commercial sites, their future development intensities and to make a deletion or
modification to the medium density residential overlay in the area commonly known as City Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIvlINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1996
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO FEBRUARY 10, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 27, 1997
Applicalion No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
2-Z-83 (Mod.) and 32-EA-96
City of Cupertino
Various
Properties bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Torte Avenue,
Rodrigues Avenue and So. DeAnza Boulevard
MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING to define future land use types,
development intensities and building forms in the area commonly known as City Center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DI~TERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
'11~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997
CONflNUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1996
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO FEBRUARY 10, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
Com. Austin moved to postpone Items 7 and 8 to the February 10, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting.
Doyle
Com. Austin and Chair Roberts
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
NEW BUSINESS
2. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to nominate Com. Harris for Chairperson for 1997.
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to nominate Com. Austin for Vice Chairperson for 1997.
Com. Hah-is
Passed 5-0-0
Newly nominated Chair Harris chaired the remainder of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
20-U-96 (Mod.)
Davco Associates
10165 DeAnza Boulevard
Director's Minor Modification to increase the canopy height and parking space location, with referral
to Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DI~'ri~RMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
CONTINUED FROM PLANNINO COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 27, 1997
Staff ~resentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for three minor changes to the
scrvicc station located on the comcr of No. DcAnza Boulcvard and Alvcs. Thc thrcc changes wcrc to
raise the canopy clearaaco to 15 fe~t, raise the canopy height to 18 feet, 4 inches, and lcrmte one
handicapped parking space in the southeast comer of the lot. Staff recommends approval of the
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the applicant's request for modifications as outlined in the
A discussion ensued regardin~ the Might of the canopy wherein the car wash maangcr answered
questions. He stated that the canopy had been hit 12 thnes in the last 23 years because of the height.
Chair Harris opened tho hearing for public input.
Mr. Lon Davis, Davco Associates, P. O. Box 1621, Morgan Hill, explained that the mannard roof was
a minimum of 3 feet in height. He pointed out that the site is a sloping site and the required clearance
would he from the lowest side for a minimum of 14 feet. Mr. Davis referred to the site plan and
answered questions about the location of the handicapped parking stall.
Chair Harris closed thc public hearing.
Com. Doyle suggested that the wording of the resolution he modified to say "except that the canopy
height shall he no greater than 18 f~ 4 inches above the asphalt grade, and that the sign on thc canopy
shall m~et the sign ordinance".
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application No. 20-U-96 (Mod.) according to
the model resolution with the modified wording.
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Loc~_Oon:
23-U-96 and 34-EA-96
Target Stores (Steveas Creek/Cupertino Associates)
Stevens Creek/Cupertino Associates
20745 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Use Permit to add 31,628 sq. ft. remodel enUy and reconfignre sidewalk and landscaping for an
existing retail store.
ENVIRONMENTAL DI~'I'IrRMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 3, 1997
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1997
Staff orescntation: The video presentation reviewed thc application for the remodel project of the
Target for expansion of the store and integrate the store with the adjacent Bottega Center. It was noted
that when the application was reviewed in December 1996 and the Planning Commission expressed
concern about some design details, parking requirements and the site plan. The Community
Development staff will explain how the concerns have been acldressed by the applicant. The
application calls for expansion of thc garden ccoter, adttiug onto thc back of thc store, remodel of thc
Planain~ Comng~ion Minutes 4 January 27, 1997
entrance and recont~guring the landscape and sidewalk areas. Staff recommend approval of the
application.
Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, referred to the site plan and explained the applicant's responses to the eight
concerns from the Planning Commissioners which were outlined in the attached staff report. In
response to a question from Com. Doyle, Ms. Gil said that the 21 storage trailers on the property were
a code enforcement violation and were not approved.
Mr. Barry WaCkins, Stevens Creek Cupertino Associates, 8502 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange,
California, explained that the two major concerns to be addressed were architectural elements and the
cohesive color scbemo throughont the center. He said it was his goal to have an approval process that
he could present to the Target Stores. Mr. Watkins pointed out that the red colored fencing was the
color used for all the new expanded stores and felt that the compromise of using the front of the garden
area with the red fencing and the landscaping on thc east side, as well as reducing the garden area was
appropriate to address the concerns noted.
Chair Harris noted that it was necessary to address the changes and the areas that the applicant felt
could not be changed.
With the assistance of Mr. Jeff Wheeler, MBH Architects, MS. Watldns referred to the site plan
illus~ating the use of trellises and discussing the proposed color scheme. He said that the single
orchard planting would be provided in the front of the parking lot; the planting in the northwes~ area
along Salch Way would be stagger clustered; and the 8 foot buffer would be provided in the northeast
parking area, with the existing trees remaining on the property line. Relative to parcel 3, the Heart of
the City Plan, he said that tbe City would provide one row of trees, with the sidewalks and street being
modified at a later d~t¢. Mr. Watkins noted that the three dimensional bases that were requested would
be added to the monument sign. He said that by reducing the garden center and adjusting it, the
parking was within one parking space. For the applicant to participate in the siLm~l at Saich Way, it
would require the expansion of Target.
In response to Chair Harris' question about the pedestrian walkway, Mr. Wheeler noted the existing
pathway with the use of 6 light fixtures, and the cur~nt staggered plantings approaching the front of
the store. He said that following recommendation, the plantings had been shifted to the left hand side
of the walkway; and a curb existed which would prevent the cars from moving into the path. He
explained the further landscaping changes to conform to the Planning Commissioners' previous
recommendations. Mr. Wheeler referred to the color renderings and explained the proposed color
scheme oftbe building and fencing. In response to Com. Doyle comment that the Tracy Target store
had a stucco wall with wrought iron, Mr. Wheeler said that the Tracy store was a new design and the
Cupertino store was a r~nodel.
Com. Austin said she felt that the recommendations on Page 4-11 were not addressed and no changes
were made from the previous meeting, particularly the presence of the red color. Mr. Wheeler
explained that in the north elevation, two panels were pushed in to provide relief and were scaled to
match the residences across the street; grillwork in the front was added; planters were added to the
bottom of the setbacks; panels have horizontal and vertical lines to break down the scale. Mr. Wheeler
said that he was open to the option of C4 or C13 colors for the fence. Relative to relocating the main
entrance door, Mr. Watkins said that the floor plan was Target's specific floor plan and that such
improvements to the facade were in thc $175,000 to $325,000 range, and were not typically done.
Plann/ng Commission Minum
January 27, 1997
Mr. Wafldns t~viewed the requested changes on time resolution: Page 4-$: Change "Applicant" to read:
"Stevens Creek Cupertino Associates"; Page 4-6: No. 3: Insert "Prior to the issuance of
construction permits, the applicant shall"; No. 6: Insert: "parcel $ shops portion of the" (line 2);
Page 4-8, No. 11: Insert "Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the"; Item lla, Ms. Gil
explained that the fee was for street improvements on the right of way, not for all improvements in the
center. Item llc: Storm Drainzge Feez were paid when tim Target remodel was completed in 1987 and
other shops in 1989 and 1990. Ms. Gil explained th~ Public Works would verify that the fccs have
been paid and applicant would receive a credit from what was previously paid. Item 12, second
sentence, insert "Prior to fssuance of construction permits for Target expansion ". He noted also that
the applicant has always proposed that their share would not exceed $50,000, not necessarily one-third.
Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development stated that the Public Works recommended
the specific language in terms of the applicant's proportional share and that the item would have to be
discussed with City Council.
Chair Harris closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Chair Harris summarized the issues: the red color which applicant agreed they could change on the side
fence; color alignment with other shops in the center; parking space deficit; decorative elements; traffic
light; north elevation and rear setbacks; roof elements; entrance.
Com. Roberts said that he preferred the overall red color to thc blue color; thc red fence was garish and
he preferred one of the gray alternatives; the integration of the other shops with the Target store was
appropriate; the blue window frames in the shops should be modified to fit in with the color scheme;
he would prefer the Target facade without the blue/green stripe; he was not concerned with the parking
deficit; be said the north elevation and setbacks were a problem; the grids are not appropriate; 23 foot
setback was appropriate, the 12 foot setback was not appropriate; favored the traffic light; the roof
design was acceptable. Com. Roberts said he would not want the redesign of the front entrance to
impose conditions flint would preclude the Target store remaining in Cupertino.
Com. Austin said she was not in favor of changing the remainder of the Bottegas shops, but that it
should be consistent with the Target store; changing the red colors. She said that the design of thc
Target store was unimaginative and the rear facade should receive special attention because it faces a
residential area. She said that the 21 trailers should be removed before anything is built; a wrought
iron fence would be more appropriate than the proposed red fence; parking deficit was not a concern;
the traffic light was needed; setbacks should be a minimum of l:l; roof element is acceptable; front
entrance should be redesigned.
Com. Doyle said he preferred thc Tracy store fence design, no red color in the garden center; the
building color to match the others was appropriate; parking deficit of one space is not an issue;
however, the distribution of the parking spaces on the sides could be addressed; setbacks of 1:1;
traffic light not needed; roof element could be used to break up the north and west elevation; consider a
side entrance; a landscaping plan should be implemented for the interior shell of the parking lot.
Com. Mahoney said the red fence was not appropriate; the integration is appropriate; parking deficit
not a enncem; the 20 foot setback is appropriate; traffic light decision to be left to the City; roof
element and entrance are appropriate.
Chair Harris said that she felt it was an economic development issue and it was important to encourage
retail growth, and it was important to encourage the Target store to remain at the Cupertino location.
pl,~,,,,,ing Comn~ss~on Mh~ut~
a Ianuas3,27, 1997
She said she preferred that the red color for the side fence he changed to a lighter color; color alignment
with the other shops is appropriate; tbe window trim ~ not be changed; parking deficit is not a
concern; the north elevation is acceptable; west elevation is appropriate; traffic light is not presently
needed; rear setbacks at 1:1 is appropriate; no roof element change is necessary; entrance need not be
moved.
MOT[ON:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application
34-EA-96
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 23-U-96 according tO the model
resolution with the following chaages: fence color be changed fi~m red to C4 or
C 13 of the color palette; and changes nXluested by applicant earlier in the discussion
Com. Roberts
Corns. Austin and Doyle
Passed 3-2-0
Mr. Cowan noted that the recommendation will be presented to the City Council at the February 3,
1997 meeting.
5. Application No.(s): 2-Z~97 and 4-EA-97
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Zoning to pr~zone the following parcels to RI-10:20711 Hartford Drive, 21123 Grenola Drive, 20710
Dunbar Drive, 10494 Ann Axber Avenue, 20973 Greenleaf Drive, 21141 Gronola Drive, 10495 Ann
Arbor Avenue, 20861 Greenleaf Avenue, 20883 Greenleaf Drive, 20889 Greenleaf Drive, 10351 N.
Stening Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
'I'I~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the item, stating
that the 11 property owners ar~ either building on vacant lots or have demolished the existing home and
replacing it with a new homes. He reviewed the annexation and prezoning requirements as outlined in
the aRached staff report. Ms. Oil clarified that the City would annex the streets as it is appropriate to
annex the particular parcel.
Chair Ha~s opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Lester Bowers, 21181 Hazelbrook Ct., Cupertino, commended Mr. Jung on his courteous and
timely mspunse to the public. He indicated that th~ Garden Crate tract was built about 50 years ago,
comprised mostly of single story homes, built on concrete slabs. He said that spec builders were
buying the lots, bulldozing the lots, and building large houses without respect to the small homes. He
said that homeowners have voted down three previous attempts by Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Cupertino
at annexation. He questioned why Cupertino did not go in and annex the area without a vote, and why
was a vote needed now? Mr. Bowers said that be had spoken to Mr. Jung and Mr. Riley from the
County who provides the County forms indicating someone is doing a remodel or building a new house.
He said the 1992 provision is a revision of the 1985 policy, which has been in effect for many years.
Planning Commission Minues 7 January 27, 1997
He questioned why thc move to annexation did not I~ppen when the houses were first built, which is
only half thc tract. Mr. Bowers clarified that 11 propen'y owners wcrc not represented, that some were
spec builders. He %o~in qu~ioncd again what triggered thc action on the annexation, as building thc
homes has b~n going on for several years.
Mr. Cowan clarifi~ that a mass annexation cannot occur because it r~quires a vote of the p~plc. He
said that thc County was interested in g~ing all the islands eventually into cities and for a number of
years has had ~ ordlnnnc~ that triggers annexation where houses are being torn down or substantially
remodeled.
Mr. Jung clarifi~i that tbe 11 pwperties were not individual property owners. He said it was his
understanding of the County regulations, that if a property owner kept one or two walls but demolished
the r~aaind~r of the hon~, it was considered a renm~l, which was not subject to annexation.
However, if the entire homo was demolished and rebuilt it would be subject to the annexation review.
He said it was possible that the County did not apply its rules equitably to all the properties, and may
not have applied the ordieaace to the Garden Gate area, allowing the demolition and remodeling to
oocur without referring them to the City. The City in turn would not be aware of these things unless
the County referred the applications to the City.
Mr. Cowan explained that annexation eliminates thc many islands throughout the County. He said that
in the !ate 1970s there was a law enacted which enabled cities to forcibly annex areas of less than I00
acres, without a vote of thc people. He clarified that the General Plan Policy 7-1 states "actively
pursue annexation of small islands, particularly those in need of Cupertino water service and other
municipal services to facilitate new development."
Ms. Frances Sheimaa, 21150 Hazelbrook Dr., Cupertino, said that at one time Cupertino wanted to
annex their area and now did not want to. She said she felt it was inefficient for thc County to annex
parcel by parcel. She questioned whether each homeowner paid the annexation fee. Mr. Jung said that
the annexation fee applied to each individual annexation, and if a group of contiguous property owners
wanted to come in at once, they eonld split the fees.
Ms. Sandy Fiunegan, 21135 Hazelbrook Dr., Cupertino, said that the building in the tract had been
going on for ten years; including next to her home where a 5,000+ sq. ft. home was constructed. She
said she did not understand the technical language of the notice sent to the residents, and questioned the
meaning of RI-10. She said that it appeared to be the same builder of the 11 new homes. Ms.
Finnegan expressed concern with the parcel as a whole, if annexation is started, how soon will it be
before annexation is no longer a choice. She said that under County jurisdiction the area is permitted
to have granny cottages on their properties, home businesses do not require a license; the roads are in
functional condition; and the residents are content with the County services they receive and are not in
favor of annexation. She said she felt annexation was a means of collecting more taxes. Ms. Finaegan
said that the process was not as clear cut as originally presented and the residents had concerns that
they hoped would be taken under consideration, given that the i 1 parcels are only the beginning. She
questioned why now, as it appeared to be the same builder who has been building in that tract in the
past.
Com. Harris clarified that RI-10 meant minimum 10,000 square foot lots which are in existence there.
She said that with Cupertino's .45 floor area ratio allows for a 10,000 square foot lot to have a 4,500
square foot home, which could include a granny cottage.
Planning Commission Minutes s January 27, 1997
Mr..lung explained that there was a 1979 State law which allowed cities to annex unincorporated
islands of 100 acres or less without the permission of residents, but Cupertino took a different
approach and surveyed each of tho County pockets in the Cupertino service area to see if tbey wanted
to b~ anncx~ or not. The G-ard~ Gag ama was survey~ at that ~ and were not in favor of
anncxatiun and thc City did aot annex thc ama at that time.
Mr. 1oseph Ceun, 20945 Greenleaf Drive, said that there were 6 large homes being built by the same
builder in his area. In response to a question about the FAR, it was clarified that the 4,500 square foot
home included the garage area. Mr. Jung clarified that lots less than 10,000 square feet can be built up
to 45% of their net lot area under City rules. Mr. Cema asked if the City had a time flame to go along
with the General Plan for possible annexation of the small pockets. Mr. lung responded that it was not
planned. Mr. Cema stated that he felt County regulations were less stringent than City regulations
relative to developing properties, such as having one single common wall vs. a complete renovation.
Chair Harris suggested that Mr. Cena address his questions to staff.
Ms. Jessiea Rose, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, said that the residents care about the established
neighborhood and they need to decide what type of government will help monitor changes and be a part
of the change, whether as part of the city or the county. She questioned how the City of Cupertino
would respond if its residents appeared before the Plaiming Commission to complain about one
developer who was taking advantage of large lots and infringing on residents' privacy by building large
homes. Chair Harris clarified that the County does not have restrictions on house size; whereas the
City of Cupertino has a .45 FAR. Mr. Jung explained that the City does not do design review on single
family residential homes as long as they meet the requirements in the ordinance relative to setbacks,
height, and FAR. In response to Ms. Rose's question about the $2600 annexation fee, Mr. Jung said
that if the properties were contiguous to ~ach other, the annexation could be considered a single
annexation, and the fee could be divided amongst the property owners. Ms. Rose summarized by
commenting that the residents of the County decide if they want to control the large houses being built
and annex to some city with stricter regulations in terms of the square footage ratio or not control that
and reanain in the County.
Mr. Jung explained the rationale of the prezoning and answered Commissioners' questions. He said
that prezoning is a way for thc City to officially say that if the properties came into the city, this is the
zoning designation they will have. The City will not be responsible for maintenance of the roads until
the parcels are annexed. He clarified that the issue at this time was not annexation, but prezoning the
11 parcels.
Com. Mahoney said be was willing to prezon~ the 11 parcels, and was in favor of initiating pmzoning
the entire area. Com. Doyle expressed cencem about the potential of the residents not having a choice
when the question of annexation arose again; and for that reason was opposed to pre, zoning. Com.
Austin concurred with Com. Doyle on prezoning. Com. Roberts said that he did not see the advantage
of prezoning if it was not carried further, nor the implications of beginning to carry it out to the full
extent. Chair Harris said that she felt the 11 parcels should not be annexed separately, but they should
not be denied the right to annex; therefore the entire community should be prczoned together and as it
redevelops, it would redevelop under Cupertino standards.
Mr. Cowun clarified that the County states that if a property owner wants to rebuild, the property
_ owner has to annex to the City; but the City may ~use the annexation.
Planning Commission Minutes ~ January 27, 1997
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application
4-EA-97
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 2-Z-97 according to the model
resolution to prezonc thc 11 properties
Com. Roberts
Austin, Doyle and Chair Harris
Failed 2-3-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to send a Minute Order to City Council stating in general
the City Council should consider a prezoning effort of the entire Garden Gate area.
Com. Roberts
Corns. Austin and Doyle
Passed 3 -2-0
Mr. Cowan noted that the item would be presented to City Council with a negative recommendation.
Com. Doyle suggested that a enmmunity meeting be held to better educate the residents on the issue.
Chair Harris declared a recess at 10:15 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10:30 p.m. the same ~aff and
Planning Commissioners were present.
6a.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:.
Location:
I-GPA-97 and 1-EA-97
City of Cupertino
Various
Citywide
General Plan Amendment to land use and implementation elements related to the long-term growth
ENWIRO~AL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997
Stafforesentation: Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner H, briefly reviewed the background of the item as
outlined in the a_n_aehed staff report. She stated that staff recommended approval of the Negative
Declaration and the General Plan Amendment. She noted that Items 6b and 6c are General Plan
Amendments also, and because limited by law to a certain number of approved Genoral Plans, the
approval of the General .Plan adoption should be made at one time after all three are considered.
In response to Com. Roberts' question about the status of the Joint Powers Agreement (/PA), Ms.
Bjurman said that the/PA process was pursued; however all the cities did not want to participate in the
process because it would result in the lack of direct power because of the involvement ora third party
agency. She explained that the Santa Clara County General Plan policies for development in the
hillside were consistent with the City of Cupertino interests for construction and density in the hillside,
and the County has followed up with a vm-iety of policy and ordinance adoption changes for hillside
development which is consistent with Cupertino's General Plan hillside policies. Staff felt that the
County's actions are consistent with the City's likes and dislikes for the hillsides.
Planning Commission Minutes l0 Sanuary 27, 1997
Chair Harris opened th~ n~tin~ fur public input.
Mr. Will Betchart, 17050 Montebello Road, said that he was a property owner and resident of
Cupertino for mom than 25 years. I-~ expressed concern that the long term growth boundary may
become a roadblock should the hillside residents develop an interest in extending some type of water
service to the hillside for the purposes of fire protection. He requ~axl that the Planning Commission
take note in adopting the action that it is not the Commission's intent to become uncooperative with
such an effort by hillside property owners should it occur. He said that the coneem is motivated
primarily because it references the long term growth boundary for providing services, assuming water
service would be considered a service. He said that if there were an interest in water supply, it would
undoubtedly attempt to come out of a city pipeline and the city would be asked to serve a mutual water
company on a wholesale basis, which would not violate the Planning Commission's intent of not having
a growth inducing impact on the hillside, bomuse growth is limited by such things as lot siz~ limits.
Chair Harris asked staffto respond if it would keep residents from bringing in and tying into the city
water system for a mutual water company.
Ms. Bjurman said the intent of the policy adoption was to limit urban services which would include
water. She recalled that recently the City had to purchase Re~na~ rt water. She said there would have to
be an analysis about whether the City wanted to enter into an agreement for u municipal water
situation. She said that it did not prohibit onsite retention of water tanks for the protection of water for
fire protection in the hillsides.
Mr. Owen Byrd, 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto, reprssenting Greenbelt Alliance, said that the
organization has worked with cities throughout the Bay Area to establish long term boundaries similar
the one being discussed. He congratulated staff and the City for participating in the West Valley
Hillside Preservation Program, which is a leading example of the region of interjurisdictional
cooperation. He urged the Planning Commission to adopt the staff recommendation and adopt the
proposed General Plan Amendment. He suggested that the word "urban" be inserted in the phrase
"growth boundary" for reasons of good government and regional coordination, so that what is being
adopted is a long term urban growth boundary, and is consistent with what other cities have done.
Ms. Bernice Jones, 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, said she had discussed with staff the coordination
between the City's long term growth boundary and the area in the City's sphere of influence. She said
she felt it was important fur the City staff to meet with the County regarding the areas that are beyond
the 20 year growth as she felt fl~ are limited and unrealistic. She cited an example of a homeowner
having to rebuild a smaller home following a fire, and who would pay the remainder of the mortgage.
She said that the property owners are concerned about those types of things in the ordinance for the
hillsides, and before pr~___~ further, the City should have a copy of the ordinance and know what
thfi restrictions are for its sphere of influence.
Chair Harris noted that in the Fall, the City reviewed the County plan and made some
recommendations. Ms~ Bjurman said that the City reviewed some of thc concepts that thc County
Planning Commission was reviewing prior to formulation of the ordinance that was now being
reviewed with the County lands people.
Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to standardiTe the language by noting "(also known
as urban growth boundary)".
P/ann/ng Comn~sslon Minutes ii January 27, 1997
Com. Roberts stated that be initially was concerned that the City would have less protection against
excessive growth in the hillside but was reassured on that point and that it seemed to be a positive
cooperative action among city an county government and favored the proposition. Com. Austin
concurred with Com. Roberts. Com. Doyle said that the general policy is the right way to go, the
strategies looked to be consistent, protect the City's rights but link us to other people in the corridor.
Com. Mahonc~t agreed. Chair Harris said she agreed but was concerned about the restrictive language,
and that there was no provision for modification except during a comprehensive review of the City's
General Plan.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on 1-EA-97
Com. Roberts
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Application 1-GPA-97 according to the model
resolution
Com. Doyle
Chair Harris
Passed 4-1-0
Chair Harris noted that she would prefer to have mid-course corrections.
Com. Doyle excused himself from discussion of Item 6b.
6b.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
2-GPA-97, 1-Z-97 and 2-EA-97
City of Cupertino
22371 Cupertino Road
General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Medium-High Density
Residential 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre to Low Density Residential 1-5 dwelling units per gross
Zoning to rezone a .25. acre parcel from 113 to RI-10.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997
Staff uresentation: The planning Commission felt that a viewing of tho video presentation was not
necessary as they were familiar with the application which was forwarded to City Council for their
recommendmion, which was to agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation of one single
family development.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Don Gaubatz, 10033 Hillerest Road, spoke in favor of the Planning Commission's and City
Council's action on the proposed development. Mr. Ganbatz reviewed the zoning history of the area,
and said the neighbors felt that it should be zoned RI-10. He requested the Planning Commission's
consideration of R 1 - 10 zoning.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 27, 1997
Mr. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road, said that the proposal of two units was inappropriate
because oftbe nan'own~s of thc parcel.
Chair Hams closed the public input portion of the meeting.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on Application 2-EA-97
Corn. Mahoney
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-1
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Applications 2-GPA-97 and 1-Z-97
Com. Mahoney
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-0-1
6¢:
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
3-GPA-97 and 3-EA-97
City of Cupertino
cit3 ide
General Plan Amendment to the Housing Element related to the housing mitigation requirements.
Consideration of revisions to the Housing Mitigation Manual.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 17, 1997
Staff uresentation: Ms. Gil noted the components to be addressed: (1) Eliminat~ the cause-to-be built
clause in the office industrial seetiun of the manual; (2) Add wording to elaxify amenities in Section
2.3.2; and (3) Elimination of the density bonus unit exemption in 2.3.1; and (4) $2 in-lieu fee.
Ms. Gil clarified the ehunges in 2.3.2, which were differentiating between luxury items and what could
be used to reduce the cost of construetien. She explained that the Affordable Housing Committee
would like the deasity bonus to apply to the density bonus units.
A discussion ensued regarding the $2 in-lien fee. Ms. Gil explained that the policy was voted on and
the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to make a General Plan Amendment.
Com. Roberts said that be was supportive oftbe first three issues, but could not support the in-lieu fee
reduction. Com. Austin concurred with Com. Roberts, stating that she could not vote to approve the
application with the $2 in-lieu fee, as it is insufficient. Com. Doyle said that he was supportive of the
City Council's actions as they are the ones directly responsible for the ramifications of the policies and
the policy changes. He expressed concern with the amount of work done with the major businesses in
the community to reach an agreement embodied by the docoment. He said that the in4ieu fee was
appropriate.
Following a discussion relative to the wording in Section 2.3.2, on a vote of 4:1 it was decided to
reword the language to read.' "Items such as..., may be considered luxury items".
1'here ~ consensus that the density bonus should be 12 units.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 27, 1997
Com. Mahoney said that he was supportive of all four elements. Chair Harris said that she was
supportive of all ¢lemmts, except for the in-lien fee.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to grant the N~tive Declaration on 3-EA-97
Com. Roberts
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 3-GPA-97 with modifications to
tho c, aug-to-he-built, amenities and demsity bonus issue
Com. Roherts
Com. Mahoney
Passed 4-1-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the change in the in-lieu fee from $5 to $2
Doyle
Coms. Austin, Roberts and Chair Hah'is
Failed 2-3-0
Items 7 and 8 were postponed to February 10, 1997.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of proposed shopping center demolition and enastruction of a Home Depot at the
Southwest comer of South DeAnza Boulevard and Bolliager Road, San Jose.
Stuff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for the proposed shopping center
demolition and construction of a Home Depot store ia the city of San Jose, but would impact Cupertino
residences with noise levels ia violation of Cupertino noise level standards during ennstruetion and
aRer construction.
Ms. Wordell explained that staff is recommending forwarding a recommendation for condition of
approval to the City of Son Jose that the turning movements on Bollinger be monitored al~er the project
is built to determine ffany changes are necessary to the left toro lanes, ffany improvements are needed
ih the future, it is recommended that the developer contribute to the improvements. Referring to the site
plan, she reviewed the proposed mitigations relative to traffic, noise and the loading dock. Staff
recommeads the approval of the noise mitigations as outlined ia the attached staff report.
Chair Harris opened ~ meeting for public input.
Mr. Dave Kopels, 958 Westlynn Way, Cupertino, said that he has owned the fourplex on Westlynn
Way for the last 21 years, and felt it would he severely impacted by the lumber dock and other
activities planned for the area. He likened the facility to a truck stop, with 40 trucks, big rigs arriving
every 12 hours driving past the residential area within a few feet. He said he has visited other Home
Depot projects and none are similar to the proposed one ia close proximity to a residential area. He
said it would have a negative impact on the residents to come home to diesel trucks unloading ia their
vicinity, with the motors left running, and air brakes. Mr. Kopels said that he visited the Campbell
Home Depot and found that they did not route any truck traffic past the residential area. Along the
Planning Commission Minutes 14 ]allllary 27, 1997
side of the Homo Depot store, there was a 16 foot wall constructed to mitigate the noise fxom thc
Chair Harris and Com. Austin recommended that concerned citizens attend the San Jose City Council
meeting to voice their concerns as the Cupertino plannln~ Commission was only a recommending body.
Ms. Barbara Kopels, 958 We~dynn Way, Cupertino, co-owner of the fourplex and a real estate agent
in Cupertino, reiterated Mr. Kopels' concerns about the traffic and noise. She said that high walls,
fences and bars on windows lower the property values in a neighborhood. She noted that some of the
tenants work out of their horn, and they also rent to young professionals who won't remain once the
track traffic becomes the nom. She said that she was concerned about the proposed project.
Ms. Mabel Hoffnmn, 1032 Westlynn Way, Cupertino, said that she was concerned about the noise
because the previous K Mart generated a lot of noise. She said that she had spoken to some neighbors
and they were also concerned about the noise traveling throughout the neighborhood. She said that it
was a desirable neighborhood because of the schools. She also expressed concern about the debris
generated by the stores, and in partioular potential rat infestation fi.om the lumber store.
Ms. Roberta Ryan, 990 Westlynn Way, Cupertino, said that she purchased her property because it was
then in a quiet neighborhood away from a thoroughfare. She expressed concern about the number of
tracks arriving at the loading dock as well as the odor of diesel fuel. She noted that Home Depot also
had employee pep rallies at 6 a.m. Ms. Ryan said that she felt if the notices were sent out in a more
timely fashion, more people would have been present at the meeting to oppose the project. She said she
was opposed to the project.
Mr. Ilbok Lee, 987 We~lynn Way, Cupertino, said that he had 14 or 15 tenants living in his properties,
and the previous speakers expressed the same concerns about traffic and noise. He said that there
wasn't always ways to control the time truck drivers arrived at the warehouses, which would add to the
noise and traffic impact on the residents, affecting their living standards, level of comfort and peace of
mind. He asked for Cupertino's support in influencing San Jose's decision on the proposed project.
Ms. Marie C_mtto, 20092 Rodrigues Ave., Cupertino, thanked staff for their help in making her aware
of the numerous repom available. She said that she felt it was not the appropriate commercial piece
for the location. She indicated on the site plan where her two properties were located in the vicinity of
the trash compactor. She said that she was concerned about the quality of life in the neighborhood
because of the traffic and noise impacts. Ms. Gatto said that she visited the City of San Jose Planning
Department and disoussed the wall to he erected, but felt it would produce a jailed-in effect. She
suggested that if Home Depot has to build at the location, the store he moved forward to the front of
the property line and have the parking in the rear. She said that she was not opposed to commercial but
felt the facility was too large for the location. She urged support from the City of Cupertino.
Mrs. Robin Alcom, 1048 Westlyan Way, Cupertino, said that although her home is equipped with
double glazed windows securely shut and locked, they can still hear diesel trucks accelerating fi.om the
intersection at Bollinger and DeAnza Boulevard. She said that residences further away fi.om the
immediate area will be impacted by the noise, as her home is at the end of the block. She noted
inaccuracies in the noise level report from Edward L. Pack Associates relative to the trucking
operations. Mrs. Aleorm said that there is a noise wall between her home and the apartment building
which was built to mitigate the noise of the additional parking spaces at the apartment; however, she
noted that it was not effective and that she can hear conversations fi.om the parking lot behind her
Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 27, 1997
house. She said it wus the same distance proposed for the Home Depot facility. Mrs. Al¢orn said that
she felt it was not thc appropriate development for thc location because of the heavy truck usage.
Mr. Warren Mine, 984 W .~tlynn Way, Cupertino, said that the Westlynn street was one of the most
atuactive showcnses for apartments in Cupertino, and it would be destroyed by the Home Depot
development. Referring to the site plan, he reviewed the traffic flow of the trucks. He said that the
City of San Jose has been r~istant in providing him with information on the project, and urged the City
of Cupertino to help. He said he felt tbe nois~ mitigation study was inaccurate and incomplete. The
suggestion of the 16 foot wall was not taken into consideration, while the City of Campbell erected a
16 foot wall at the Home Depot location. He requested that whatever the developmeat was, Cupertino
put limits on the SUiTOUJ~lin~ a~eets of Cupertino to protect the residents and limit the truck usage.
After speaking with Home Depot officials, he said that there was not any potential for any changes hi
the truck movement. Mr. Mine summarized that the property values would decrease with such an
operation in that location and tbe residents wanted the support of the City of Cupertino to keep the area
one of the most aCtractive areas in Cupertino.
Chair Hams closed the public input portion of the meeting.
In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Cowan said that Planning Department staff would attend
the San Jose meeting relative to the Home Depot proposal.
The following recommendations were discussed: (1) Choose a different use for the location. If Home
Depot is to be located on the premises the following recommendations apply: (2) Industrial character
of the proposed business is npt consistent with the residential neighborhood. As such, mitigation needs
to be taken to reduce the impacts. Red~ign and move building closer to DeAnTa Boulevard. (3)
Trash compactor should be moved away from the residential areas. (4) Track traffic should not be
permitted on Bollinger Lane, passed the site or in the alleyway behind the building, abutting any
residential properties. (5) Loading dock noises - Loading dock should be moved away from residential
homes. (6) Diesel trucks should be required to turn engines off when loading and unloading (smell
mitigation issue and could be a condition of approval). (7) Turning movements be monitored so the
developer would have to pay for improvements if nec~sary. (8) High walls need to be sox°cened and
lowered. (9) A plan needs to be in conditions to prevent debris from piling up in the rear of the
building, as well as vector control. (10) Time constraints on noise during construction (11) Morning
pep rallies need to he held indoors. (12) Written as well as verbal recommendation to the City of San
Jose, with copies to the San Jose City Council and Planning Commission.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to submit recommendation to the City of San Jose that
Home Depot is not the appropriate use for the location; if Home Depot is to be
located on the premises, the recommendations listed above are to be submitted for
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None