PC 06-09-97CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 9, 1997
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Roberts, Doyle, Mahoney, Vice Chair Austin (Chair Hams
arrived at 7:55 p.m.)
Staffpresent:
Robert Cowan, Director of Comm~mity Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic
Engineer; Carmen Lyaaugh, Public Works; Eileen Murray, Deputy City
Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 27, 1997 regular meeting:
Relative to Item 3, Application No. 15-U-96, Sand Hill Properties, Com. Roberts said that he felt
significant lines of discussion and debate were omitted from the text of the minutes, and requested
that the following paragraph be inserted between Paragraph 8 and 9 of Page 10:
"Coms. Doyle, Harris and Roberts noted apparent inconsistencies between the site plan submitted
with this application (Dwg. 1) and that reviewed at an earlier meeting (Scheme L, Dwg. L1,
12/23/96) with respect to site layout and setback along Wolfe Road. The majority of
Commissioners requested an updated, comprehensive site layout plan, to avoid confusion that
might result from approval of inconsistent documents. Coms. Doyle and Roberts pointed out a
possible impact on the double row of ash trees ~the parking lot surface intruded under them. Com.
Doyle reminded the Planning Commission of the fate of the ash trees along Wolfe Road at Vallco,
which had to be removed because they uplifted nearby pavement. "
Com. Roberts also noted that the last line of Paragraph 8 should read: "in the parking lot."
Page 7, 4th paragraph from bottom of page; last two lines: "plain was higher" should read:
"plane was longer"
Page 7, line 3: "plain" should read: "plane ".
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 1997
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Roberts moved to approve the May 27, 1997 Planning comnUssion
minutes as amended.
Com. Doyle
Com. Mahoney
Passed 4-0-I
WRITI'EN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
8-EXC-97
El Molino Taco Grill
The Voit Company
19656 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Sign Exception for an existing sign to exceed the allowed size and to use exposed neon in
conformance with Chapter 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETEIqMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
REMOVE FROM CALENDAR
8. Application No.(s): 5-U-97, 2-TM-97, 4-Z-97 and 14-EA-97
Applicant: Hossain Khaziri
Location: 22020 Homestead Road
Use Permit to demolish a vacant service station and constxuct !,0 townhomes on .96 acre site.
Tentative Map to subdivide a .96 acre site into 11 lots (10 townhomes, one common lot). Zoning to
rezone a .96 acre parcel from Planned Development (General Commercial) to Planned Development
(Residential).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TI~NTATIVE C1TY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 7, 1997
REMOVE FROM CALENDAR
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to remove Application Nos. 8-EXC-97, 5-U-97,
2-TM-97, 4-Z-97 and 14-EA-97 fi.om the calendar
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
P~operty Owner:
Location:
9-EXC-97 and 20-EA-97
Brian Peters
Michael & Darlene Billig
22040 Regnart Road
Hillside Exception for a new residence and accessory structures to exceed the maximum floor area
ratio to be built on slopes greater than 30% and in the 100 tr. riparian corridor setback in accordance
with Chapter 19.48 of the CuperUno Municipal Code.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 9, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 14, 1997
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to continue Application Nos. 9-EXC-97 and 20-EA-97 to
the July 14, 1997 planning Commission meeting
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Hams explained that the applicant clarified the reason for the continuance was to get a
geologic report showing that the site is stable, or note what has to be done in the event of a slide.
The applicant was hopeful that the planning Commission could change the typical order; but was
informed that usually staff's recommendation would prevail, which is that the geologic work is
required and then the proposal submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Application No. 19-EA-97 - Five Year Capital Improvement Program (Fiscal Year
1997-98 to 2001-02) to provide funding for maintenance, repair, renovation and
construction of vafioas City capital projects. Finding of cunformance to the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION UNLESS APPEALED
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the Consent Calendar
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
4-ASA-97
Hewlett-Packard Company
SW Comer of Homestead Rd. and Tantau Avenue
Architectural review of a building elevation, landscape plans and amenity space square footage on an
approved, new 304,100 sq. ft. office building.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Chair Hams noted that Coms. Austin and Mahoney would be excused from discassion of the item as
a conflict of interest existed. Deputy City Attorney, Eileen Murray requested that the reasons for the
conflict of interest be disclosed for the record. It was clarified for the record that Com. Mahoney
was a Hewlett-Packard employee and Com. Austin's husband was also employed by Hewlett-
Packard. Com. Doyle clarified that he owned Hewlett-Packard mock; however, he did not have a
directly vested interest. Ms. Murray explained that the Planning Commission could make the
decision either randomly with a drawing of lots, or make an equitable and fair decision, regarding
planning Commission Minutes 4 ,]lille 9, 1997
Com. Doyle's participation so that there would be a quorum of the remaining Commissioners. By
consensus, Corns. Mahoney and Austin were excused, and Com. Doyle remained to constitute the
needed quorum.
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate planner, reviewed the background of the application
of the condition of approval on a previously approved Use Permit for Hewlett-Packard Building No.
45 on the southwest comer of Tantau Avenue and Homestead Road. He reviewed the three items
that were returned to the Planning Commission in the form of an architectural site approval:
landscaping, building elevation along Tantau Avenue, and what project amenity space would be
discounted from the FAR to det~nuine the ultimate development potential of the property. Relative
to the landscaping, he said that the applicant had indicated use of 36-inch box evergreen trees along
the landscape b~tm along the Homestead frontage and the Tantau Avenue frontage. Mr. Jung
outlined the applicant's proposed altemative to plant smaller 24-inch box trees at the start of the
construction to provide some screemg during construction; however, staff feels that the original
recommendation of 36-inch box trees at the property perimeter should remain.
Mr. Jung distributed the rendering of the Tentau Avenue building elevation and reviewed the
applicant's proposed changes, as outlined in the attached staff report. Proposed changes include a
material change from concrete at the building comers to metal panels; a deep articulation of the
building in the middle; projecting concrete walls at the building comers; and creation of the
"eyebrow" feature above the windows for each sto~y. Mr. Jung explained the location of metals in
the building.
]Mr. Jung said that the amenity space was the floor area discounted fi:om the FAR used to calculate
the maximum development potential of the building. He cited two examples where applicants had
proposed the amenity space; the amenity space is at the discretion of the City and is based on criteria
found in the development intensity manual revised in May 1990: (1) the exempted space does not
generate additional employees; (2) the exempted space is not necessary for the building to fancfion,
such as exterior or interior decks or balconies, mechanical space for equipment normally placed on
rooftops; and (3) the exempted space results in a more attractive environment for people witltin the
building or provides space for facilities that cam be used for access by the general public for such
purposes as display of artwork or historical materials. He sa~mmarized the proposed amenity
square footage for the building, as shown in the chart on Page 2-2 of the staffreport.
Mr. Jung said that relative to the non-code required vertical circulation, staff agreed with the
applicants in that the non-required vertical stairwells are a part of the architectmal facade of the
building as shown at the north facade of the building, where one stairwell balances the other
stairwell. Staff recommends that it be included as amenity space. He added that staff was not
recommending the two elevator shatts for amenity space as they felt it was an accessibility issue, and
do not agree to discounting it. He said that staff also disagreed that the electrical room be treated as
amenity space. Mr. Jung reported that the staffrecommended amenity space total was 14,586 sq. ft.
in comparison to the applicant's proposed amenity space square footage of 16,320. Staff
recommends approval of the application.
Com. Roberts questioned the issue relative to having an entrance to and fi:om Homestead Road and
the traffic situation vis a vis the neighbors across Homestead Road, and asked if it was a question of
ingress or egress; were all of the questions actually answered? Mr. Jung said he understood that
Option B was selected, which was the alignment of the driveway entrance with the service yard and
all the traffic mitigations recommended by the traffic engineer be implemented including the
extension of the left turn pocket, and the traffic diverters so that traffic does not end up on Peacock
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 9, 1997
Avenue. He reiterated that it was his understanding that those issues were addressed by the Planning
commission.
Com. Roberts asked for clarification on the note appearing on several drawings, such as C.I.I which
states refer to drawing A 1.0 for revised entry and parlang layout. He questioned if the revision
was made prior to Planning Commission approval or subsequently made. He pointed out the
January 1997 date of the drawing and said that the change notice must have occurred after the
drawing, but whether it was made after the last meeting was questionable. He said he assumed the
change was made after the last heating on the issue.
Com. Doyle recalled the discussion when it was decided to use Option B with the diverter and
extend the U-mm bay. Corn Roberts reported that it was not shown anywhere.
Referring to Drawing CI-I, Mr. Jung reported that the applicants were liberal with number of
drawings in the packet. He pointed out that the drawing showed the incorrect, unapproved driveway
configuration. He said it was the grading and drainage plan, but that they would have to submit a
new grading plan at the building permit stage showing the correct driveway alignment. He reported
that the resolutions excluded the sheet fltom the list of approved exhibits, and thai the exhibit
included in the approval of the architecture and site approval application pertain to both landscaping
and building elevations. Com. Roberts also noted a similar note on L 1.0, listed among the
approved er, tu-bits. Mr. Jung explained that once again the landscape was working with an old
driveway alignment, but that it would be acceptable to note on the conditions of approval that the
driveway Option B was the correct one. He said that the other more detailed landscaped exhibits
show the correct driveway configuration off Homestead Road. Mr. Jung said that AI.0 was part of
the Use Permit approval; and stated that only the drawings in the resolution pertaining to landscaping
and the building elevations were noted. Mr. Jung said that it would be aeceptable to note in the
conditions of approval that confirmation was needed that the preferred driveway alignment is Option
B, and the change would be made in the resolution.
Discussion continued wherein it was noted that several inconsistencies existed in the ckawings.
Relative to Approved Exhibits in Resolution No. 4-ASA-97, there was consensus to insert "Al.0"
to line 2 prior to "AS.0", and add "dated 5/19/97" to the last line of No. 1 Approved Exlu-bits.
Referring to the overhead of elevation view fxom Tantun Avenue, Com. Doyle asked for clarification
on existing t~ees and proposed landscaping. Mr. Jung said that the applicant would clarify.
Chair Harris asked that the concept of amenity apace be clarified; specifically did it add additional
cars, was it not going to provide additional trips to the site, and is that why it would not count in the
FAR?
Mr. Jung clarified that it involved more than additional cars, and that it reflected something that
might be an architectural feature of the building itself, and also involved an amenity for an employee
that might not otherwise be provided by the building itself. He said the best example was that
certain spaces don't generate additional parking, such as restrooms or mechanical spaces in the
building itseff. He said that parking was not an issue with the amenity space because it is not
supposed to generate additional employees above and beyond what is already in that existing
workspace. He clarified that the conference center is a meeting area for employee functions taking
place in the building as well as surrounding buildings. He said that public access~ility was
important and that it be through outside doors, accessible to the parking areas. In response to Chair
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 9, 1997
Hams' question about availability of parking to the public, Mr..lung said that Hewlett-Packard
would make the spaces available dumag regular non-working hours in the evening.
Mr. Rick Felipe, Ehflich Rominger, architects, referred to the drawing and illustrated the existing
trees shown in dark green color; the bright green in the foreground are existing trees. He answered
questions about tree growth, views from different areas, and explained that with the two layers of
screening, it created the ideal situation for screening the building in terms of providing layers upon
layers of screening. He noted that it was important for Hewlett-Packard to be a good neighbor and
provide amenity to its employees, which is evidenced by the sites. Mr. Felipe explained that the
topic of the 24-inch box trees vs. the 36-inch box tree, resulted from discussion with local residents
in Sunnyvale who were concerned about growth and development, and the object was to install
landscaping early to m:, to allev/ate some of the residents' concerns, hi response to a question from
Com. Doyle about the difference in cost, Mr. Felipe said that he did not presently know.
Mx. Felipe referred to the colored renderings and re,riewed the proposed design modifications, and
color scheme used for the building. In response to a question from Com. Roberts regarding the
conference center capacity, Mr. Felipe said that it would accommodate 150 people. He noted that
the conference center was a relocation of an existing conference center on the site, and much of the
use was internal use. He noted that the space was turned into an area for cafeteria services and did
not create additional net gain in offices.
Mr. Don Silva, Ehrlich Rominger, architects, said that the 4200 sq. fr. conference center could later
be converted to another use, but said that the needs of the site as well as the desire for Hewlett-
Packard to be a good neighbor, would preclude them from doing that. The conference center is
frequently used by non-profit organizations. He said that the break centers were centrally located
within the core of the building along with other building services. He also said that the nursing
mothers' room was accessible without going through the ladies' restroom, and could be used later as
a private room for other uses.
Mr. Felipe defined that the break room functioned in two ways; one with a section of vending
macki~es, coffee machines, and the other allowing the ability for the people to sit down and utilize
the space. In t~mS of the layout of the building, there is a central core area which is hardwall
spaces so that the walls of the break area are defined by restroom cores, the other walls have
restrooms and is contained within a hardwall section. With the exception of Messrs. Hewletr and
Packard, Hewlett-Packard does not have, nor does it place any employees in private offices. All
other employees are in open office areas. He said that by the nature of the break areas within the
core areas, they could not be open office areas; walls would have to be tom down to actually include
that as part of the open office areas.
Mr. Silva stated that the pedestrian link was 8 feet dear but out-to-out was approximately 12 to 14
ff. including structure. Mx. Felipe clarified that it was 8 feet between the colnmns and 10 feet to the
glazing line, and with the additional structure, with the entire envelope accounted for, would be 12
feet. In response to Chair Hams' question, he said that it could not be offices and a pedestrian link,
but that the only way to access it was from the outside. It is not adjacent to anything, but is
freestanding with open area on both sides.
Chair Hams questioned if the stairway areas were being requested to be considered non-code
reqtm'ed vertical circulation exemption areas, and were they different from the ones that are code-
required?
Planning Commission Minutes 7 Jtm¢ 9, 1997
Mr. Felipe responded only in that they exist as an amenity. He noted the stairs in the building had
interesting architectural features, because they were employee ent~ancos and the larger areas
provided amenity space for the employees. He said that one of the issues in designing Hewlett-
Packard space is to attempt to have the people closer to the glass and have the advantage of the
outdoors which reheves ongoing stress and boredom, and provide a connection to the outside.
Because of the placement of office space, every employee does not have that connection to the
outdoors and the glassed-in stairs would provide that oppornmity as the employees enter. He said
they were not necessaxy in terms of code, but were in terms of what Hewlett-Packard was .trying to
provide for both their employees and for the lypes of spaces they are creating. Mr. Felipe said that
one of the concerns is that there may be two different divisions on two different floors, and by
having a visual connection between them it creates a better connection between floors and makes for
a better association of people between floors.
Chair Hams questioned if an engineer determined that a typical and reasonable amount of employee
office space was 6 by 8 feet, and Hewlett-Packard decided to provide each employee with 8 by 10
feet, would the additional square footage should be considered amenity space? Mr. Felipe
responded that he felt it would depend on how the space would be used. He said the tr~m is
amenity, and it is a question of what the amenity is; and in this case he felt the stairs qualify as an
amenity and were designed to benefit the employees. Mr. Felipe said that he felt that the criteria
established by the City of Cupertino met that definition.
In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Silva said that relative to Building 45 being the highest
building on the site, only the small perimeter of the rooftop equipment screen was, and the bulk of
the building was actually lower than the majority of the existing bm]dings on site.
Com. Doyle expressed concern that the site was being redeveloped to a c~'ain extent under a
development agreement which appeared to be a prototype of a higher density development, or
would this be the exception on the site. Mr. Felipe said that he did not have a response on behalf of
Hewlett-Packard.
Mr. John Pihl, Hewlett Packard, explained that the development agreement covers only Tier I and
that future tiers would have to be negotiated with the city, they are not predetermined. He said that
Hewlett-Packard was attempting to utilize its option under Tier 1 to erect a building that works
within that criteria, and would like to develop future buildings on that site, but had no idea what
those would be at this time.
Com. Doyle reiterated his concern that over a period of time, there would be development with
significant density on one portion of the parcel or one group of linked parcels, and the net result is
that there is now a precedent for higher development in the site which sets the future game rules. He
pointed out that the bm]ding is closer to the street than any other buildings on the site and higher than
the others. Although he had not seen the square footage or number of people per square foot, he
said he felt it was becoming another level of development, and again questioned the direction it was
headed, or if it was an exception.
Mr. Pihl responded that there were multiple answers. The first is that there is an immediate need for
300,000 of sq. ft. of space in the bay area and the most opportune location for that is Cupertino. He
said Hewlett-Packard had an agreement with the City of Cupertino to develop that amount of
property at this site, and that the configuration of this comer of the site which was the optimal place
to develop, allowed for this building configuration. He said that various alternatives were studied;
two sto~ buildings were spread out and required constructing parking structures which would add to
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 9, 1997
the project cost. He said the trade-off was that it was the optimal solution at this fime. Intermsof
setting precedents, as Hewlett-Packard business needs change over time in the bay area, it may return
to Cupertino w/th the need to develop additional facilities on the site and work together with the
Planning Commission to determine what it could be. He said he felt it was not a precedent.
Com. Doyle reiterated that it was a development agreement which the City felt was appropriate for
the city and the proposal is an implementation of that development agreement, and over a long t~m
there is a plan for Hewlett-Packard to continue to meet the requirements of the development
agreement.
Mr. Pihl said that although he was not an expert on Tier 2, he felt it was not a finalized document
that does not entitle Hewlett-Packard to specific items. He asked staiTto clarify.
Mr. Cowan explained that the development agreement signed by the City Council and acted on for
this body provides for m-called base entitlement which is FAR. Certain earlier drawings submitted
in conjunction with some of the hypothetical drawings for the development agreement had shown
much smaller footprint buildings scattered throughout the site. He said that the issue had been
discussed, and there is always potential for additional growth. Hc said that the issue discussed is
when vacant land is actually set aside and concenlxation is on one comer of the property; in essence
the entire site is fully developed in one way or another; there is always potential to tear down
buildings, and the Planning Commission and City Council have control over how that evolves. Mr.
Cowan noted that the applicant chose to put 300,000 sq. t~. in Building 45, with 100,000 sq. ~.
remaining, which could either be a smaller footprint building or some of the older ones could be tom
down and combined into a larger space. He said that if Hewlett-Packard decided that they wanted
out oftbe development agreement, agreement could be unilateral, and then revert back to the regular
zoning controls. He said that the building agreement locked in thc General Plan us it existed when
the agreement was signed. If the development agreement were to disappear by request of the owner,
the terms of the agreement could be rescinded, and fall back on thc current General Plan.
Chair Hams opened the hearing for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak.
The public hearing was closer[
Relative to the parking issue, Mr. Jang clarified that while amenity space is not intended to generate
employees, and thus generate parking, the City calculates its parking requirement based on gross
square footage, which is all-inclusive. Therefore, even though in theory thc emenity space docs not
generate employees, and thus does not generate parking the square footage is still counted toward the
parking requirement for the site.
Mr. Jung stated that ina_qmuch as the drawings illustrated the incorrect driveway, notation would be
made to indicate that the preferred driveway configuration is Option B.
Chair Hams snmmarized thc issll~s: (l) 36-inch box trees at conclusion of construction, per staff
recommendation, vs. 24-inch box trees at beginning of construction; (2) Tantau Avenue elevation
showing the building detail, and landscaping needed to break up the visual mass and create building
interest; (3) Amenity space; (4) Consensus that the condition on exhibits should read that it is
understood that the driveway be modeled as the correct one although not shown on the approved
exhibits.
Com. Doyle questioned iftbe issue was resolved regarding thc discussion about the parking surface
presently grass being converted to parking lot. He recalled that staff recommendation at the last
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 9, 1997
meeting was that if needed, they could use one and hold the other in reserve. Mr. Jung said that it
was decided that what would be held in reserve was the space for surface parking where the previous
building was demolished, as well as restriping. The planning Commission decided to have the
restriping option and the surface parking as a fallback reserve in the event parking became a problem
once the building is occupied. Mr. Jung said that one surface lot would be green until needed; and
the Planning Commission had the power to not approve any development on that site until Building
45 project is occupied.
Com. Roberts said he preferred the 36-inch box trees, noting that constraction would not look good
whether or not there were trees m the way, and larger trees were better. Relative to the Tantan
elevation screening and design concept, he commended the architects on the constructive revision,
which he felt was a vast improvement. He said that for the 7 items of amenity space (staff version),
he favored all but the conference center, because the conference center is a part of the business
function of the building and it would be the same building without the conference center. He said
that the conference center will be used in large part for bringing people from outside, and it would
set a bad planning precedent to exclude conference centers here because it would end up excluding
conference centers everywhere. Referring to exhibits, he said that it should be specified that the only
place Option B appears is in the drawing called A1.0CP, and it should be referred to specifically,
otherwise there is no Option A and B in the package. Com. Roberts concurred with Com. Doyle's
concern about a future occupant, tenant or owner doing something different and said that it was not
presently defined as an issue, and although Hewietr-Packard would be on the scene for a long time, it
could be clarified.
Com. Doyle said that he preferred the 24-inch box trees for an early growth start, although it would
not hide the bulldozers and U'ucks very well. He said that relative to the Tamau elevation, the
screening was appropriate. He said that the 141 foot setback is not in the fight direction, but would
approve it with caveats. Com. Doyle said that the amenity space should be kept to upgrade the
amenities, not to design variations. He said the break rooms and showers were appropriate; "no" on
the conference center; vertical or extra staircases were appropriate per staff recommendation; lobby
appropriate; "yes" for nursing room; electrical rooms should not be included; "no" on walkway
between.
Mr. Cowan explained the precedent for external walkways and said that previous wulkways have
been granted as amemty space. Chair Harris said that caution should be exercised about what is
approved because it is then applied to furore projects.
Com. Doyle suggested reviewing the resolution and simplifying it to include lobbies and cafeteria,
with the other to be at the discretion of the company. He noted that it includes gray areas. He said
he felt it should be designated as amenity space, with lobbies and cafeterias qualifying. Com.
Doyle said he preferred the gray windows.
Com. Doyle expressed concern about the concentration of site development into a smaller area than
had been past practice. He said he did not see it as a problem if there is a development agreement in
tact and if both parties agree.
Relative to Com. Doyle's concern about the constraints on allowing future development, Mr. Cowan
said that decisions are made reflective of the present-day attitude with the General Plan, and the
General Plan sets the parameters; this agreement locked into this particular 1993 version of the
General Plan, and a future City Council or Planning Commission could change that.
Planning Commission Minutes Io June 9, 1997
In response to Com. Doyle's concern that the previous proposal was a site with many buildings
spread out across the entire parceI, Mr. Cowan pointed out that it had been pm, xdously discussed, and
was submitted as a hypothetical plan, providing an image of what Hewlett-Packard's thinking was
when they entered into the agreement; and that the Planning Commission reached the conclusion that
the building was appropriate with this concentration. He said that the details being presently
discussed were a fundamental change. He pointed out that staff addressed the issue in the staff
report and discussed it at the lasx meeting.
Chair Harris said that she was in favor of the 36-inch trees at the end of construction phase, which
aligns with staff recommendation, because trees at the beginning of construction are subject to
hazards, and runoff f~om the development into the area where the trees are planted, which could
damage them. She said that the elevation is successful, am'active and the landscape plan is good.
She said that the existing trees mask it and it will blend in. Chair Harris said that although she would
like to see it set further back, it was acceptable. She felt many of the amenity spaces were an
exaggeration; she favored the pedesUian link as amenity space. She said she felt they were no
different than an outside balcony and there are many buildings with them, and if they were not
convertible to office space, they were acceptable. She said "no" on the conference center;, she would
approve the break moms with the condition that they could not be converted to office space later.
She said that calling some of the staircases amenities and some of them not amenities when they are
obviously part of the planned function of the building is inappropriate. She said the lobby was
appropriate; the nursing mothers' room appropriate if easily converted to another use at a future
time. She said that showers were also appropriate as many buildings had them, and they were not
considered as amemty space.
MOTiON:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Roberts moved to approve Application 4-ASA-97 in accordance wiga the
model resolution with the conditions listed with the 36-inch box tree option;
approval of all of the staWs recommended amenity space items except for the
conference center; and further stipulating in the conditions overlooking
inconsistencies in the attachments with respect to the driveway Option B as
detailed in drawing A1.0CT, and that the date of the exhibits being approved are
5/19/97.
Com. Doyle
Passed 3-0-0
Commass~oners Austin and Manoney returned to me meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
3-TM-97 and 16-EA-97
Maw Kirkeby
11354 and 11350 S. Stelling
Tentative Map to subdivide 2 existing parcels totaling .83 acres into 5 residential lots, ranging fxom
6,610 sq. ft. to 7,745 sq. ft.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIvlINATiON: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE C1TY COU~CIL HEARING DATE: June 16, 1997
PLPuNNiNG COIvhMISSION DECISION FINAL Ut'NLESS APPEALED
CONq'INU'ED FROM PLAN~NqNG COMMISSION MEE~G OF MAY 12, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes Il June 9, 1997
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to subdivide two existing parcels
locating off So. Stelling Road into 5 residential lots, which was continued fi.om May 12, 1997.
Issues still pending include location and width of the right-of-way and drainage easements. It was
noted that a new 56 foot right of way is under proposal which will allow emergency vehicles to
access the five future homes while other vehicles are parked on both sides of the roadway. The fight
of way is also now centered so that equal portions will be dedicated between the two properties. The
two pmpemy owners have also reached agreement on issues related to storm drainage easements.
Staff recommends approval of the application. A detemfinafion if renched will be forwarded to the
June 16 City Council meeting.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the drawing of the reduced lot sizes and explained the
background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. She noted that the fire
department requirements called for a 56 ft. right of way, and not the 50 ft. proposed previously. She
noted that some of the lot sizes were reduced to accommodate the wider road width.
Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, referred to Page 4-42 of the staff report and illustrated the
proposed 56 ft. right of way which would require dedication of one foot on each side. He noted that
Page 4-43 illustrated the options of reduced street section for cul-de-sac, for parking on one side of
the street only; with 28 ft. pavement width and dedication of 8 ft.; and the option of parking on one
side only with equal dedication between the north side and the south side. Mr. Chong said that the
radius in the cul-de-sac was being adjusted to accommodate the movement ora fire track.
Referring to the map of the reduced lot sizes, Ms. Wordell said that the lots would not be reduced as
much if the right of way was narrower. She noted that many of the streets in Cupertino had the 30
foot pavement width, primarily cul-de-sacs. Ms. Wordell said that because of the Diocese
development, staff was considering something mailer, and in pre-existing conditions wanted to see
if it could be done with a 30 foot road width with parking on both sides for the Diocese property.
She said that under the worst case scenario with cars parked on both sides, the fire trucks could not
pass. Pre-existing situations were based on existing standard details for road width and the fire
department widened that, and the two are inconsistent; and now standards streets should be
consistent with the fire code standards. Com. Roberts recommended addressing the issue at a future
meeting.
Mr. Mmv Kirkeby, civil engineer, referred to the drawing illustrating the reduced sized lots, and
explained the reason for the reduction of lot sizes. He explained the loss of area in the cul-de-sac
lots was due to the fire department requirements for increasing the radius of the cul-de-sac. B~canse
the design was already completed, the applicant was able to negotiate with the fire department for a
35 foot width. He explained that the 36 foot requirement is for access for an emergency vehicle in a
situation where there is already a fire u-uck at the location. He said that in the past, the major
concern was that the reduction of the street width was considered as a means of decreasing the ~ont
setbacks of the slruotures. He discussed alternatives such as eliminating sidewalks on one side of
the street or eliminating planting strips on the streets. Mr. Kirkeby said that the proposal was 36
feet face of curb to face of curb, with 10 feet t~om face of curb to property line on both sides; the
properW to the south would not have sidewalk built on its property, but would on the extension of
the street on Lot 5, with 2 feet ftom the face of curb to the property line of that property and would
be obligated for a dedication of 8 feet in the future when the property is developed.
Mr. Kirkeby referred to the thawing of the site plan with U'ee locations illustxated and specified
which trees he felt were salvageable and which were in poor condition. He said that it was preferred
not to retain the eucalyptus and redwood trees because of their size next to structures. Mr. Kirkeby
Planning Commission Minutes t2 June 9, 1997
said he objected to Condition 2 of the tree protection, which called for replacement with 24-inch box
trees; noting that approximately 50% of the trees were not 24 inch for the existing trees.
In response to Com. Austin's quest/on, Ms. Wordell clarified that the red color on the drawing
depicted trees to be removed, and green color depicted trees to be protected.
Referring to the drawings of the proposed configuration of lots, Chair Harris questioned if the
applicant had considered moving the property lines of the first two lots on the cul-de-sac over to the
adjacent two lots to make them larger. Mr. Kirkeby said they had considered it, but from a practical
standpoint, could only take the lines off on an angle to leave somewhat of a normal frontage. He
said the lot is in excess of the required 60 foot front setback and he felt both lots were in excess of
the 60 foot.
Mr. Kirkeby clarified the proposal to deal with the slxeet problem relative to three foot planter strip
vs. a five foot planter strip. He indicated that the street would stay the same but instead of requiring
the 8 foot dedication, it would only require a 5/10 setting. He said it would Increase the lots by
about 100 sq. fL Referring to the drawing, he illustrated where a monohthic sidewalk would be
built, and indicated where there would be no sidewalk.
In response to Chair Harris' question, Ms. Wordell clarified the tree protection. She said that the
$10,000 bond was a cuqhion in the event of loss for replacement of trees; it is not an attempt to put
a value on the exact number of trees. Because the property is so heavily covered with trees now, and
many are being removed because of their small size, the feeling of the lot is that it is heavily
vegetated. She said that it was reasonable to protect as many as possible; the $10,000 would be the
responsibility of the developer. If a future property owner proposed to remove any of the protected
trees, they would have to replant with a 24-inch box tree, and given that the character of the lot is
changing with development, it would be appropriate. The bond would be posted by the applicant
until the final map is recorded. She said that a plan could be devised to select a reasonable mount
to cover the damage.
Com. Mahoney questioned the implications of a 5 foot sidewalk and a 3 foot easement
Ms. Cas'men Lynaugh, Public Works, said that the city standards were 10 feet from the base of curb,
whether it was a monolithic sidewalk or behind the park slxip; which is to help tree growth when it is
a park strip. She said that if there is a right of way and trees are planted behind, it is to ensure that
nothing gets put Into that area, because people could request low fences In that area and other things
up to the property lIne. She pointed out that five feat was better for the tree.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Rupinder Sekhon, 11342 So. Stalling Road, stated that his May 19 letter was included in the
staff report. He said that he had measured various streets in Cupertino and found many to be
narrower. He referred to the overhead map of his home and illustrated the location of his deck area
and yard area. He discussed negative impacts to his home which were included in his letter. Mr.
Sekhon said that the Planning Commission's compassion and understanding was greatly appreciated.
In response to Com. Doyle's questions, Mr. Sekhon said that he did not object to parking on one
side of the street only, centering the street on the property line, or the proposed 5 foot monolithic
sidewalk. Mr. Sekhon expressed concern that if any more land was lost and the fence lowered, they
would be sitting 3 feet above the ground level with no privacy.
Planning Commission MinuteS 13 June 9, 1997
Mr. Cowan said that possible options may exist to work with the property owner relative to the
privacy issue.
Mr. Garold Pugh, 11360 So. Stelling Road, expressed concern that if he lost any of his land for
development proposes, he should receive fair market value for it. He said that his home fi:outed on
Stelliag Road. In response to Com. Doyle's questions, he said that he did not object to parking on
one side of the street, provided the fence remained. He reiterated that he had no objection to having
the proposal on the center line if he was compensated for the land.
Mr. Steve Zankich, 11354 and 11350 So. Stelling Road, said that he would be developing the
property and did not object to parking on one side of the street. He said that one of the present
property owners would be occupying one of the finished homes and was not opposed to parking on
one side of the street. He said he felt that parking on one side of the street was a plus to have the
project workable. Mr. Zankich pointed out that he planned to retain or replant as m~my trees as
possible or plant new txees.
Chair Hams closed the public heating.
Mr. Chong reported that with Option 3, there would be a sidewalk on the north side and also a
sidewalk on the south side, but with a dedication later for the 4 foot strip when it is developed.
Option 2 would have 8 feet on one side and no sidewalk on the other, with dedication on the north
side.
Chair Hams summarized the options on the stxeet: (1) 56 feet with parking on both sides; (2) 48 feet
with parking on one side (Option 2); (3) 48 feet with parking on one side and centered (Option 3)
with the sidewalk on both sides; (4) monolithic sidewalk with 5 foot or 3 foot planter strip which the
city is not ia favor of at this time; and (5) some other widtlz
Ms. Lynaugh clarified that the standard without the monolithic sidewalk, but with the park strip, was
not a problem, except that Public Works needs 10 feet fi:om the basic curb, thus the need for 5 feet
ia fi:out of the sidewalk or 5 feet in back of the sidewalk for the trees. She said it could be
designated not monolithic sidewalk. Doyle said that if it wasn't designated monolithic sidewalk, it
would be moved back into the green space, putting the houses tight up on the sidewalk. Ms.
Lynaugh clarified that it could be either monolithic or park strip; that there were both standards; and
generally ia cul4e-sac, monolithic sidewalks are used, and it would be appropriate to designate a
park strip. She said it would not change the right of way, it would remain at 10 feet.
Com. Mahoney said that 3 feet was more tenable with a monolithic sidewalk because a parking sthp
has pavement on both sides. He said that if choosing a narrower landscape strip, having a
monolithic sidewalk would be the better approach. Ms. Lynaugh concurred, stating that trees
wouldn't be planted in something narrower than 5 feet. She noted however, that staff was
recommendiag staying with 10 feet.
Com. Mahoney said that relative to the street, his first preference was to return to the 50 foot
standard. He said he felt the cost benefit tradeoff would not warrant making the street 6 feet wider.
He said his preference was the 50 foot slxeet, centered, and second preference would be the 48 foot
parking on one side, centered. He said he felt it was academic who is developing, when, and which
side parking is on. He said that Option 3 would probably be the 52 foot width with the 3 foot
parking strip with the monolithic sidewalk.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 9, 1997
Com. Roberts said over the years applications have been approved at odds with the fire code, and he
felt it would be unwise, having the fire code pointed out, to go against the gram and approve
something in conflict of the Planning Commission's recognition of the fire code. He said it would
put the City in a bad light if an unfortunate event occurred in which the fire department's access was
impeded. He said in this particular case it would be acceptable to have parking on one side of the
street, presaxming that people would comply with the parking. He said he favored 48 feet, parking
on one side, cantered, and the second choice would be a variation which would be straight forward
conformance to the fire code.
Com. Austin said she concurred with Corns. Mahoney and Roberts that Option 2 with parking on
one side, cantered, was appropriate. She said she felt the fire code should be followed.
Com. Doyle said that more questioning of the fire department requi~ments was needed. He said
that considering all details in a cul-de-sac such as the proposal, some positioning of fire hydrants
might make it possible to accomplish the same goal without continually widening streets. He said
he felt the concept of having 56 feet dedicated away fi.om the property owners is not effective today,
nor any more useful in the future, and he suggested making it smaller if possible and come back with
a way to get the fire depmU~ant to return with another alternative instead of making eve~hing
wider. Relative to options, he said he preferred parking on one side, monolithic sidewalk 5 feet;,
the 5 foot grean area and also on canter line.
Chair Hams said that she agreed with the majority. She said she felt it was unfommate that because
the applicant was granted a continuance for another mason, he was now being subjected to
conditions others have not been subjected to for the last number of years it has bean in effect. She
suggested that the policy apply to new applicants now that the awareness has been heightened. She
said she felt the fire departmant standards should be honored for safety reasons, but not to make
people lose their land, have no setbacks, no backyards, tiny homes, just for the sake of anormons
streets. She said she preferred the proposal for 48 foot, parking on one side, and cantered.
Chair Harris requested input on the treo issue specified on Page 4-4 of the staff report, antitled Tree
Protectton. She noted that the applicant indicated the desire to remove all redwood trees and
eucalyptus trees.
Com. Roberts said that the applicant's intantious were not clear. He said that he welcomed the
removal of the eucalyptus and acacia trees. Relative to the pines, redwoods and oaks, he said he did
not see a reason for removal of the redwoods.
Com. Doyle said that the issue had been addressed in the post, and it was agreed to protect native
trees, and that others such as tiaxit trees, nut trees were expendable, and in some extraordinary cases
where there are very large ones, it may be significant to shield the uncovering, and exceptions could
be made. He suggested the same criteria be used; detemaine which are natives, which are the large
shielding trees and the others may be expandable.
Chair Harris s~mmarized that there was a consensus for keeping the oaks, redwoods, and pines, and
when raferrmg to redwoods, a cluster would count as one, and additional trees to total 18 for the site.
She said that there was consensus to remove the acacias, black walnut, privet and eucalyptus, unless
used for screening; the remaining would be at the discretion of the applicant relative to whether they
will be replaced, replanted or protected. She said that the and result should be 18 trees, including
Planning Commission Minutes 15 June 9, 1997
replacements with 24-inch box natives to replace those removed; addition of one or two specific
trees was also acceptable.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the protection of trees, and the appropriate criteria to be used
in determining what trees should be removed and what should be protected.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration on 16-EA-97
Com. Roberts
Passed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 3-TM-97, to include the change in
street width to be 48 ft. total, centered, parking on one side; and that the specific
trees in the current conditions be reduced to pines, oaks and redwoods only; but
that the total number to be retained, transplanted or replaced w/th 24-inch box
trees, at this time, not with subsequent property owners, be maintained at 18 and
we would keep the $I0,000 bond; the redwood clusters to be hsted as one;
retaining the language relative to subsequent propelly owners' removal of trees.
Com. Roberts
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris declared a recess and resumed the meeting at 10:10 p.m~
ApplicationNo.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
6-U-97, 4-TM-97, 5-Z-97 and 15-EA-97
Steve Zales/O'Brien Group
The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose
South ofi-280, west of Foothill Boulevard and Rancho San
Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek Boulevard
APN No.(s): 342-054)54, 056, 059, 060 and 342-52-003
Discussion of the Planning Commission's May 17 field trip (to 4 different locations) as it relates to
the architecture of the Diocese property. The full project review is scheduled for a special planning
cormmssionMeeting of Jtme 18, 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
NO FINAL ACTION AT THIS MEETING
Negative Decla_mtion Recommended
(Not reviewed at this meeting)
Staff presentation: Chair Hams explained that discussion would be held for the Commissioners to
consider two tlxings: (1) the RI-IS ordinance as the Commissioners feel which tenets of it might
apply to the development being brought forth by the O'Brien Group, and (2) the three projects which
were visited on the May 17 field ~ip and any personal impressions to share. She invited the public
to speak following the Commissioners' discussion.
Ms. Wordell reviewed the context of the development in terms of what the existing development
foundations are. The planned development zoning district was one of the policies that was specified
in the General Plan, planned development is proposed for th/s development; the General Plan land
use map also shows the development areas as special development areas. She said that there were
General Plan designations along much of the western foothills, but the General Plan for the Diocese
Planning Commission Minutes 16 June 9, 1997
was a special planning area winch the policies relate to. She said that m the General Plan process,
staff identified development areas and constxaint areas winch was illustrated on the map.
She said that staff presented background information on different elements of the R/IS ordinance
that might be discussed relative to this proposal; and that even though the RHS other than the heights
is not specifically called out for the property, there may be elements that the planning Comrmssion
may wish to consider. She said that the staff report addressed what does and does not conform in
their plan.
Ms. WordeH stated that in staffs opinion, grading, setbacks and the building forms were the most
significant aspects for discussion; the remaining ones are taken care of as far as the proposal itself.
Referring to Page 2 of the staff report, Com. Doyle questioned the reference to split level
residences, and when it was addressed. Chair Hams pointed om that the topic of split level
residences had not been discussed. She requested that staff report on the topic at the next meeting;
addressing when it came about, as she did not recall it being discussed at the Planning Commission
level or the Council level.
The issues were sa~mmarized: grading, FAR, height, building and roof forms (arcintecture style); and
colors.
Com. Roberts said he was taken by surprise because he thought it was implicit that the development
in the sensitive area of the hillside would adhere to the RI-IS regulation, except insofar as explicit
exceptions were made, namely with the premise that the RHS would apply. He said he was
puzzled that the staff had interpreted otherwise. He said he felt it was something that should be
explored, that the RHS should apply in general, except where exceptions were made, and in
particular the purpose of the R/IS ordinance would be served, which is to preserve the natural setting
of the inllsides. Com. Roberts said he felt it should be the guiding principle, and other decisions
reached would be details consistent with that principle.
In response to Chair Harris' question about PD, Ms. Wordell said that it was flexible in the context
of the job plan.
Com. Roberts said he did not andet~taad what specifically was modified in the General Plan
Amendment, but pointed out that on Page 2-38, Policy 2.41, diocese property protection, it states
"unequivocally apply all hillside protection policies for the Diocese property" He questioned if it
was revised?
Ms. Wordell clarified that in one sense the policies for the Diocese property as a special study area
superseded the other section because, e.g., the clustering is not adhered to; the 10%/90% clustering
under the general hillside protection policies is not adhered to in the Diocese general plan section.
Com. Roberts questioned if that was the interpretation, would it mean that the General Plan was
inconsistent. Ms. Wordell saidthatit shouldbecladfiedbyidenfifyingifthere were others that were
not consistent between the two sections, that they should be made to be consistent. Com. Roberts
questioned where the inference of intent came fi:om and said that it was not the Planning
Commission's intent to recommend it, and he was not aware of the Council's intent. He said that if
the Council lef~ Policy 2.41 in place, it must have been their intent for it to remain there, and that the
City Attorney would have ensured that the Council did not enact a General Plan Amendment that
was inconsistent with another part of the General Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes 17 Jane 9, 1997
Chair Hams questioned if there had been any discussion of the issue. She said that the Planning
Commission probably felt that the RHS would apply because of the paragraph which was vague, but
very specific in terms of all hillside protection policies. She asked if the City Council was aware
that the different configuration for the Diocese was opposed to the General Plan. Ms. Wordell said
that she did not think that it was explicit that the RHS would be applied to the Diocese property, as
it addresses the hillside protection policies being applied. She said she felt it was inconsistent
between the clustering and the type of clustering that was done under the actual Diocese section.
Com. Roberts questioned if it could be interpreted that the specific exceptions made were intended,
and that where no specific exception was made, it was intended to follow the spirit of the R/IS to the
letter. Ms. Wordell said that it could be interpreted as such. but that there were some conslxaints,
such as lot size, to be able to do that.
Chair Hams said that Policy 2.37 addresses the special hillside protection area, continuous open
space, and includes the Diocese property. She asked how it got extrapolated that the Diocese was
supposed to be PD, which General Plan? Ms. Wordell responded that it was the General Plan
Amendment specifically for the Diocese, beginning on Page 2-15. Mr. Cowan clarified that Policy
2.37 and 2.41 were drafted and adopted ia 1993 and the other in 1995. He said there was a specific
General Plan Amendment for the Diocese property which was more precise, and it would be the one
to refer to. Chair Hams pointed out that things were dealt with through the constraints - tree
protection, wildlife protection, etc. which have already been dealt with. She said it didn't address
what the buildings would look like. Com. Mahoney suggested discussing what the Commissioners'
objectives were. Com. Roberts said that the plan was to apply the RI-IS ordinance ha spirit and in
letter insofar as it is not contrary to the General Plan Amendment that was enacted to permit denser
development on the Diocese property.
Com. Roberts stated that the purpose of the hillside protection as set foffia in the first section of the
RHS ordinance was to preserve the natural setting and hillsides and to his knowledge has not been
superseded by the General Plan Amendment that permitred a denser development.
Com. Maboney said he agreed with Com. Roberts relative to the true hillside parts of the property,
not the seminary parcel. He said he would like to keep the spirit of the RHS as much as possible,
but would be more flexible about some of the elements for residential area No. 1, colors will apply
anywhere because that is a visual impact fxom the hill. He said he was flexible on grading, as
residential area No. I would be rather fiat, there will be R1 with some exceptions about how it looks
from a distance. He said he was concerned about the view from a distance.
Mr. Cowan repo~ted that the General Plan specifically referenced the RHS height regulations. He
said a note about the side yard setbacks is that the RI-IS are much more, and are geam'd for half-acre
lots, two acre lots, and by having 176 lots in these two small areas, the setbacks will not work. The
General Plan specifies put 90% oftbe land in open space, 105 in development; however, this is 25%
in development and 35% in open space, and is not consistem with the RHS ordinance, but it was a
precise amendment that dealt with that property only.
Com. Mahoney said that to be more specific for residential area 1, the seminap./property itself, he
would be more receptive to looking at I types of setbacks and building heights instead of RI-Il
because it is flat and the lots are small and clustered. He said he still wanted to keep colors and
lighting because it is not in the h ills, but can be seen fi-om the hills.
Planning Commission Minutes lS June 9, 1997
Com. Doyle said that relative to grading, the seminmy parcel was more of a standard development;
Cristo Rey should be very stringent on following the RI-IS requirements. He said he would like the
seminary parcel to have some commonality with Cristo Rey; and not have disjointed members, such
as one adobe or one craftsman wood. He said that overall as far as the RHS impact, relative to
grading, there would be some flexibihty on the seminary parcel for it. He said at first, he said no on
the FAR, but did not see how it applies directly. Relative to setbacks, there would be some
flexibility to the RHS, none on the height and building form, and none on colors. He said his
comments were specific to the semina~ parcel. Cristo Rey should be in RIDS. He concluded,
grading setbacks and hold on the FAR.
Com. Mahoney questioned if they were identical - the FAR between RHS and R1. Mr. Cowan said
that they were not, and recalled that on the RHS there is some slope penalties; there is a sliding scale
in the ordinance.
Com. Austin said she agreed with Com. Roberts, that it was not a PD. She said she was adamant
that the FAR and setbacks be followed. Relative to Policy 2.41 or 2.42, she said that a decision
should be made to make a General Plan change or not, but follow it. She said that the RHS
ordinance promotes compatibility of colors, materials, structures, and surrounding natural settings
and it should be followed and be applicable. She said that she did not want all one style, and that a
variety of architectural design was appropriate; privacy should be promoted between San Antonio
Park and there, between the houses themselves. She said that on the May 17 field trip, she was
looking for colors, height and how the houses related to each other. She said she felt that the RI-IS
ordinance should be followed on the seminary site, which is the most beautiful site on the 200 acres.
She said it was important that it be rustic and blend in with the colors, and it would have to be
unique. She said that unless the General Plan was clianged to say it is not important anymore, R1
was not acceptable.
Chair Hams said that she was for the spirit of RHS as welL, and did not necessmily see a conflict
between the provision on Page 215 of the General Plan, policy lands of the Diocese, that says
regulate residential land use intensity through the plan development zoning district and then later
2.41 which says apply hillside protection policies. She said she felt the intent is to develop the
Diocese property as per the constraints and as per the approval and to not have it impact the
community in teL'a~s of oar philosophy about the hillsides which means that the colors and the
building forms and the grading issues need to blend in and deal with the visual concerns and other
concerns in the RI-IS.
Com. Mahoney ,qtmmarized that there was a 2:2 agreement on one particular property, the specifics
of setbacks and he said he felt it was important that the applicant have a clear message. Mr. Cowan
said that he would attempt to make a statement to get the Commissioners' feedback.
Mr. Cowan explained that the General Plan takes precedence; and it is safe to say that the RHS
ordinance can be used to backfill those areas that are not specifically covered in the General Plan.
He said that if there is a real conflict with that, the City Council needs to be informed that the
Commissioners want to change the General Plan. He said he sensed that it was the feeling that the
RI-IS ordinance was a key document and the General Plan was secondary; however, he reiterated that
the General Plan is primaxy and the ordinances are secondary. Chair Hams stated that the General
Plan Amendment deals with the constraints and the development envelopes and they have been dealt
with already. When developing a property, you have to look at the roles the city has written for the
different areas, and decide which tenets will be taken. Mr. Cowan pointed out that there are very
Planning Commission Minutes 19 June 9, 1997
precise roles dealing with number of stories, setback issues, and riparian environment. The General
Plan Amendment has to be used as a primmy guide.
Com. Doyle asked if staff could do a comparision, noting that there was some inconsistency being
referred to that is creating ambiguity.
Chair Hams said that tonight's decision was relative to how well Policy 2.42 is implemented,
applying hillside policies through Diocese property and with Policy 2.37, special hillside protection
area, and includes the Diocese. She said it was obvious the General Plan intends to look at this
region as a special hillside property and it allows, by Page 215, a planned development zoning; but
there is not a conflict betwe~al hillside protection and a planned development zoning district. There
is nothing in those two constructs that conflict with one another. She said that if the RHS ordinance
conflicts, perhaps the Commission should be advised that it cannot be done that way. The items that
are to be applied and put into the PD plan will have to be chosen.
Discussion continued wherein Com. Doyle asked staffto return with a comparison between this and
the 'RHS ordinance, where they don't coincide or they can cause some conflict. Chair Hams said
that there will be some comparison shown by staff to illustrate where if any are the proposal
conflicts with the General Plan and the constraints set out therein. She said it is being requested in
addition, that a comparison be given with the RHS as well, so there will be two levels of
comparison. Chair Hams said that the items she was particularly concerned about ~xe the building
and roof forms and colon and height.
Com. Robetls said he agreed that the most important are height, building and roof forms, colors,
and FAR. He said he did not foresee any conflicts there, since we have been told that no building is
planned on no greater than 10% percent slope. He said that grading was important; but perhaps not
the quantity so much as conforming to natural contours of the land. He said from earlier hearings
the applicant's representative made the case that in some areas they would like to restore natural
contours that have been disturbed, and he felt the Commission could make exceptions to that, and as
it was not steep, there should not be any problems.
Chair Hams asked the Planning Commissioners to comment on the recent field trip to the
developments of Vintage Oaks, Woodhill Estates, and Portola valley Ranch. relative to likes and
dislikes relative to hillside development.
Com. Doyle said because he felt they were different, he would divide his response into two
discussions - the development intensity for the seminary site and the Cfisto Rey site. He said he felt
the seminary site should be similar to St. Patrick's (Vintage Oaks). He characterized the
developments: Woodhill Estates was the slash-bm approach; bulldoze everything and plant new,
and in approximately 20 years there is a very nice effect, but very different from what originated
there. St. Patrick's (Vintage Oaks) incorporated the trees into the site and blended it together.
Portola Valley Ranch attempted to build houses without having any impacts. He reiterated that the
seminary site should be similar to the St. Patrick's site, taking in the limitations and attributes of it,
and my to reflect that. Cristo Rey should be similar to Portola Valley Ranch with a natural setting,
and attempting to incorporate the homes and feel into that. He said that the architectural theme
could be discussed later.
Com. Austin said that Vintage Oaks was large, and she liked the variety of homes; however, she was
concerned with looking out the windows at the other homes. Relative to Portola Valley Ranch, she
agreed with Com. Doyle that later development might be somewhat similar. She said that in general
Planning Commission Minutes 20 June 9, 1997
she did not like the Saratoga development. She said that she liked the rustic, modem, but not
Mediterranean styles, but that she would not like to see all one style. The colors were pleasing
earthtones. Com. Auslin said she did not feel Woodlfill Estates merited comment as it was not what
she would choose.
Com. Roberts said he agreed that the Vintage Oaks development could be an example of a
development that is relatively dense, more conforming to R1 than RIDS, but said that type of density
is planned for the seminary parcels, therefore not appropriate. He said he was pleased with the
diversity of styles which detracted from the tract appearance, and commended the developers. He
said it was important for the residents of Cupertino that the development look good to the elevated
perspectives identified as critical viewpoints in the ElS, and suggested that the actual proposed
development be assessed. He said that he would like to see visuals that permit assessing the actual
proposed development from that point of view. He said that in the early stages when the genetic
blocks were shown, the Commissioners were told they would have a second chance to see how the
project looked from the same places, and it should be followed up on. Secondly the other difference
especially from low elevation p~pectives in the county park is that the seminary development is
seen against the backdrop of the FORUM and it would probably work out best if it shielded the
FORUM to the maximum possible. Com. Roberts said that he would attach a lot of importance to
the building shape, especially the roof forms, and the tone found about the Vintage Oaks
development that wouldn't work in that regard were the steeply pitched roofs. He said he would
like to see building forms and the rooflines that are more harmonious with the natural landforms
which are rolling hills. He said the lesson learned from Woodhill Estates is that Cupertino does not
want that look; and the Portola Valley Ranch concept might apply to Cfisto Rey other than the
seminary parcel. Curran Ranch demonstrated that substantially sized homes could be built in one
story.
Com. Mahoney restated that his primary issues are the visual impacts from the hills, therefore he was
not wort'led about what the houses look at from each other or when driving down the street. He said
he agreed with Com. Roberts to put something in from of the FORUM, especially with its natural
colors instead oftbe light colors of the FORUM. He said he also agreed with Com. Roberts that the
roofiines and general shapes are the most critical and he would prefer the roofiines be lowered, a
more horizontal look to all of the buildings, but again especially the non-seminvay area in 2, 3 and 4.
He said that the issue of diversity vs. uniformity was interesting and he leaned toward uniformity to
gain the advantages of having the low roof lines and the horizontal shapes, and the variety of
architectural styles. He said that he would prefer the same peak lines, blended in from above. He
said that it is "limited" diversity, and it would be a willing price to pay to make that tradeoff and
still have enough diversity. Woodhill Estates did not make any tradeoffs that way; Vintage Oaks
showed how to achieve a reasonable level of diversity and still have the visual impact be maintained;
Portola Valley Ranch went the other extreme, away from diversity toward nniformity; toward a total
of blending in, which he said he felt was inappropriate. He said that it was good to see single story
houses could be done on 1/2 acre lot.
Chak Harris said that she liked Vintage Oaks very much, especially the fact that Vintage Oaks used
the features of the lots and built the houses around them. On the lots where there were large trees
kept. a very lovely environment was created; and on the lots with no trees, ones should be planted.
She said she was pleased with the house sizes in relation to the lot sizes because they did not seem to
be large houses filling entire lots; they were tastefully sized for the lots they were on. The
community as it developed the way the houses mine& didn't face all the same way; and she liked the
variety of the different architectural styles; although there may be one or two not appropriate for the
proposal. She said she did not want to see the same roofs, the same colors, uniformity, because that
Planning Commission Minutes 21 June 9, 1997
is what is at the FORUM and is tiresome. She said that focus should be on the colors of the RI-IS,
including window wires not being highly reflective and using tasteful colors. Chair Hams said that
she was not opposed to the steeply pitched roofs as long as all the roofs are not all steeply pitched
and as long as they don't become a visual impact from the valley and from the areas mound. She
said that the building heights were relatively the same and it was pleasing to have a variety and to
define interior spaces that have variety and roof pitches need to be changed to do that. She said
Portola Valley Ranch was interesting; and she noted that the real estate values haven't changed in the
last while, which may be indicative that its a construct that has seen its time and are more difficult to
sell now. Cupertino does not want to have a development that is not successful, therefore the buyers
need to speak out about the features they want and will be looking for. She said that Cristo Rey was
very different, the seminary parcel is relatively fiat and the Cristo Rey parcel is barren; unlike
Portola Valley Ranch which had wonderful Ixees and natural vegetation. Chair Hams said what she
envisioned at Cfisto Rey is a development problem because anything that is built there wi]] stick out
like a sore thumb and the developer may not develop at all but is going to have some guidelines and
sell the lots of whatever the plan is. Anything developed there needs to have a major landscape plan
and needs to bring in some lxees and cover that ground, because we would like to have in the end a
beautiful and attractive rolling hill area and now its a blast of heat. She said that Woodhill Estates
was slash and bone, exactly what Cupertino does not need; knock it down, build it up, totally
uniform and not taking into consideration of all things like available views if you don't put a two
story house at the bottom of a cul-de-sac. She said she felt the developer needs to look at what is
there and plan the houses around that which they seem to have done at Vintage Oaks. Chair Hams
concluded that the success of this project is if it looks at each individual site and not how can it can
all be crammed in and how big can it get?
Com. Doyle said that he had seen some pieces called prairie, craftsman, and others at Vintage Oaks
which were tasteful with clean lines, attention to detail, lower sloped roofs, some higher sloped roofs
that had good articulation and were attractive. He said that he saw some flexibility in the roofline
but would like to make sure we keep some good simple lines as much as possible. Com. Doyle
suggested that garages not be built in front of the houses, which gives a much better look at the home
without the garage out in front; or take the lot and narrow the aspect of the house relative to that to
get a bigger buffer between houses, for a much greener and broader look; to give a house a frontal
look. Vintage Oaks did a good job of citing the relationships of parcels and the house siding on the
parcels were good, which gave the area the feel ora group of homes vs a bunch of houses plopped
down on the site. Com. Doyle concurred with Chair Harris to look at each site or each parcel and try
to make it distinctive on its own merits.
Chair Harris said she did not like the caps on the fireplaces at Vintage Oaks because it accentuated
the height of the fireplaces and recommended they be de-accentuated to make them less obvious.
Chair Hams opened the meeting for public comment. She explained that the meeting will be held
on June 18 at 7 p.m. when the actual proposal will be presented.
Mr. John Johnson, 2405 Cristo Rey Place, said that he learned of the hearing only two weeks ago
and was not able to acquire much information, therefore some of his comments would not apply
directly to the architectural aspects of the buildings. He reiterated his concem about the amount of
traffic the project would generate end some oftbe safety issues because of only one access road into
the project. He said he would like to see planning to allow a different access road, preferably onto
Stevens Creek. He said that relative to safety, there was a lot of traffic on the road and even though
it meets state guidelines for proposed Iraffic, the road was special because of the hills and contour of
the land. Mr. Johnson asked for the Planning Commission's support to do whatever possible to
Planffmg Commission Minutes 22 June. 9, 1997
reduce the traffic. He questioned what would be permitted in the open space areas as he had not
seen any plans of what would be permitted; he asked that no horses be permitted in that area. He
said currently there are 5 or 6 horses that cross his lot each weekend and he objected to it continuing.
Mr. Roman Yanovsky, Cristo Rey Drive resident, said that the issue for him and his neighbors was
the protection of hillside. He said that there were cyclists passing by his house and he was
concerned with the effect on the hillside, that the hills would become unsightly. He said that he had
nothing to add to the Plarming Conunissions concern. He said he would appreciate the developer
contacting the neighbors because of its effect on the lifestyle and values of properties. She said that
his wife had a list of concerns to present to the developer. Mr. Yanovsky asked if the developer or
Diocese representative could meet with neighbors on issues of concern. Chair Hams asked a
representative of the developer's office speak with Mr. Yanovsky.
Mr. Steve Zales, O'Brien Group, expressed his appreciation for being included on the recent field
trip and hearing the comments in advance to meet plans to fit everyone's goals. He said that they
have been working all year to come up with a project that is a sensitive proposal for the project, and
appreciated the comments relative to Vintage Oaks. He said he was primarily responsible for
Vintage Oaks, in citing the hopes, developing the lots, and working with the txees and said he has
done the same on this project. Mr. Zales said he was concerned with the same issues that the
Planning Commission was concerned about, and he knew there was concern on the comm~mity part
and planning Commission on the outcome, because the property is very visible in the comm~mity
and is of critical importance. He said the applicant's approach is to work very hard with the best
consultant on a lot-by-lot basis, to look at the trees, the slopes; and the real goal which was very
clear, is that the visual impact of this project post development is of critical importance. He said he
looked forward to the presentation on June 18th to explain the reasons behind their actions.
Mr. Zales said that he had direction in the form of over 100 EIR mitigation measm~ and General
Plan requirements and as the proposed negative declaration indicated, he felt all requirements set out
in the General Plan and EIR were met. He said that he appreciated knowing about the conversation
about potential conflict between what RHS means and what should have been applicable or what
was meant, and questioned if staff could find out what the Council's interpretation was. He
requested the opportunily to discuss the hillside considerations with the Planning Commission as
they had detailed plans including architecture, land plans, grading, and landscaping.
Mr. Zales suggested that there was a differentiation between neighborhoods 2 and 3 which have
large lots, and neighborhoods I and 4 which have smaller lots. He said it was his understanding that
at the General Plan stage, the approved plan was accompanied by specific site plans, plot plans with
setbacks, which in the PD generally met the R1 requirement, but they clearly did not meet in areas 1
and 4 where there were specific plans shown and studied from a visual impact standpoint in the EIR.
He said the plans did not have the RHS guidelines and the most problematic one of side yard
setbacks and first end second story. Mr. Zales pointed out that it was difficult to have the General
Plan contemplate an 8,000 square foot lot, and as staff pointed out most of~q RHS lots are one-half
acre to well over one acre and it is a different situation when the lots are sma~er as they are in those
He noted that it would be discussed in more detail on June 18.
Com. Doyle requested that Mr. Zales state the hillside zoning points that are not applicable and that
he took issue with, and put them in written form for the Planning Commissioners at the next
meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 23 June 9, 1997
In response to a question from Com. Doyle, Ms. Wordell stated that residential area 2 was included
in Cristo Rey.
Further discussion of the item will continue on June 18.
Application No.:
Applicant:
Proper~y Owner:
Location:
7-U-97
Dance Academy
Stonestown Development
21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Use Permit to locate a specialized school in an existing shopping center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION UNLESS APPEALED.
Staff ~: The video presentation reviewed the application for a dance school for children
in the Oaks Shopping Center, as outlined in the attached staff report. The prima~ area of concern
for the use p~mdt application is parking; however, staff does not feel parking will be a problem
because classes are offered for children only and the dance academy is located at the rear of the
shopping center where less traffic occurs.
Chair Hams questioned the restrictive limitation on hours of operation and maXUnum number of
individuals on the premises, noting that the Use Permit would travel with the space, making it
necessary for the tenant to return with minor changes, or a future tenant to return with modifications.
She said she felt that the parking problems created by evening events at Flint Center should not
impact a business wishing to do business in good faith.
Mr. Cowan explained that the center did have a parking problem because of the high demand from
the restaurants in the center and it was determined future growth would need to be controlled
because of that demand.
The applicant from Dance Academy USA explained the hours of operation for the dance studio were
after school, from 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., and that the clientele was mainly school aged children.
He said that adult classes were not in demand but a possible class might be scheduled 1 or 2 hours
per week. He also pointed out that sign-up for classes during the summer months was minimal
because families were on vacation. It was explained to the applicant that the restrictive hours would
preclude holding dance classes at any other lime other than what was in the Use P~nuit. Chair Harris
clarified that the use limitations would not allow dance classes to be held from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30
p.m. or 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and if there was a need to schedule a class at a different time, the
applicant would be in violation of the Use Permit. Following a brief discussion, there was
consensus to delete the last two sentences of Condition 2 and modify the hours of operation to 7:00
a.m. to l 1:00 p.m., and if parking becomes a problem, the Use Permit could be reassessed.
Chair Hams opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak on
the item.
planning Commission Minutes 24 Jane 9, 1997
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Application No. 7-U-97 according to the model
resolution, deleting the last two sentences of Condition 2, modif34ng the hours of
operation to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., with the stipulation that if parking becomes a
problem, the Use Permit will be reassessed.
Com. Roberts
Com. Doyle
Passed 4-1-0
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
15'U-96 (Mod.)
Sand Hill Properties (Tandem)
10741 No. Wolfe Road and Prtmeridge Avenue
Use Permit Modification to modify the site and architectural plans of an approved hotel to increase
the number of rooms fi.om 160 to 171; to relocate parking fi.om the central building on the west
elevation and other modifications related to the site plan, floor plan and conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: June 16, 1997
CO~D FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 27, 1997
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell outlined the proposed modifications to the site and architectural
plans of the hotel, which included the east elevation of the hotel; landscape areas and setbacks
between Wolfe Road and the hotel; and the parking ratio.
Referring to the overhead drawing of the hotel plan, Ms. Wordell illustrated the elevation changes
which included lowering the balcony; roof element changed to a pitched roof; decorative tiles and
pilasters on the upper areas of the towers; downspouts; and the 6" offsets. She said that the staff
report raised the issue of the window depth, and noted that the applicant would respond in his
presentation. Ms. Wordell pointed out that the setbacks were 71 feet for the center portion of the
hotel; 95 feet for the ends, which is comparable to the existing restaurant.
Ms. Wordell referred to the landscape plan and illustrated that the sidewalk is proposed to be
relocated 3 feet closer to Wolfe Road to provide a wider landscaping strip for the second row of
trees. She outlined the modifications including the car overhangs, redesign of the parking area with
a landscape strip of 15' 8", a 5 foot sidewalk and 7-1/2 feet between the edge of the sidewalk and
the curb where the parking lot starts. She referred to a revised overhead plan of Cupertino Village
which illustrated the similarity in plans relative to setbacks; the proposed plan being 27 feet, and
Cupertino Village being 30 feet.
Relative to the parking issue, Ms. Wordefl explained that a check of the Mamott parking indicated
that the parking demand was fairly consistent with what staffreported in the past. She said that if the
Planning Commission is interested in having greater assurance of parking availability, the applicant
is interested in some reciprocal arrangement with the shopping center.
Chair Harris said that the staff report states that the parking lot of the hotel largely replaces the
existing grass landscape strip between the current building and the sidewalk. She questioned how
much green there would be between the sidewalk and the building if they move the sidewalk closer
to the street.
Planning Commission MinuteS 25 June 9, 1997
Ms. Wordell responded that there was 15 feet of landscape strip between Wolfe Road and the
sidewalk and 7.5 feet between the sidewalk and the parking area; and also shown on the cross-
section, there is a miniraum of 5 feet at the other side of the development; a minimum of 8 ft. 7 ins.
between the building and the parking lot, and in one area actually increases to 15 ft. 8 ins. Ms.
Wordell responded to questions relative to the proposed landscape plan and pa~king spaces as
outlined on Page 7-2 of the staff report. She noted that Page A1 required clarification relative to
where the new sidewalk was located. She said that staff suggests the applicant have a reciprocal
parking agreement with Cupertino Village and stuff park there.
Ms. Wordell distributed a copy of a proposed reciprocal parking agreement, and referring to the
overhead, reviewed the reciprocal agreement between Cupertino Village I and II and Sand Hill
Properties and said that whatever amount to be used, either I space per room or inclusion of the
evening employees, would be calculated as part of the shared parking analysis for that center. She
said that it could be required that the employees at peak evening hours use that as an option.
Mr. Mike Anderson, Sand Hill Properties, presented a colored aerial view of the site plan which
illustrated the landscaped area provided by Sand Hill Properties, the existing green area; the
building; and the existing former restaurant building. He reviewed the proposed landscape
modifications, and noted that the existing ash trees would be retained. He illustrated where the
sidewalk would be relocated to the middle of the area between the row of ash trees, which the
arborist confirmed would be a good location and would allow more room for the trees.
In response to Com. Doyle's question about the elevation of the parking lot on Wolfe Road
compared to Wolfe Road, Mr. Anderson stated that it was about a foot higher.
Mx. Anderson reviewed the changes in the architecture which were made in accordance with
direction from the previous meeting. He solnmarized the modifications to the architecture: removal
of parapet featmes; lowering of balcony; different color scheme including a color band; addition of
6-inch offsets; addition of downspouts; shortenin4 of building by 40 feet; window depth is
approximately 6 inches; addition of co!nmn~ and colored file for accents. Mr. Anderson clarified
that the color below the band was a different darker color than above. Chair Hanis said that she
objected to the heavy downspouts, which Mr. Anderson said were a decorative element. In response
to Chair Harris' comment about the area on the far fight side of the building with the four windows,
Mr. Anderson pointed out that with the additional color treatment and 6 inch offset, it appears as a
narrow tower element and the architect chose to leave it as is because of the intricacy of the facade.
Mr. Anderson stated that the larger openings on the left side of the building were public meeting
areas that.were moved to the one side of the building.
Mr. Anderson said that Ms. Wordell reviewed the landscape modifications. He clarified that the
minimum distance between the cars and the building is 7-1/2 feet, including the overhang; not 8'7".
Com. Roberts said that he was previously concerned about the health and welfare of the double row
of ash trees and questioned the proximity of the excavation to the tree trunks. Mr. Anderson said
that the sidewalks were almost fight against them at present, and the proposal was to move the
sidewalk back to create more room. Com. Roberts recalled that approval was requested in the last
two years to remove 4 ash txees at Vallco because of their proximity to the sidewalk, and questioned
what assurance could be given that it would not occur again. Mr. Anderson said that an arbodst
report was included in the staff report. Mr. Cowan pointed out that if the tree roots uplit~ the
curbing, the cmbing would be replaced. He reeommendad that the double row of trees remain as it
was a trademark for the street. He stated that it could be stipulated as a condition that the Ixees
Planning Commission Minutes 26 JuRe 9, 1997
remain, and it be made clear to the hotel management that if the trees disrupt the sidewalk in the
parking lot, the two pieces of infrastructure would have to be replaced and the trees retained. Mr.
Anderson clarified that he had met with the arbofist and the arborist had designed a curb to
accommodate Mr. Cowan's recommendation and to ensure minimal disruption to the tree roots
around the new curb in the parking lot. He noted that the changes were incorporated into the site
plan by the architect. He reiterated the desire to protect the trees which are a major asset to the site,
adding to the value and beauty of the site, as well as softening the noise and view of Wolfe Road for
the hotel guests.
Ms. Wordell illustrated the landscape photos of Cupertino Village and she and Mr. Anderson
answered questions about the proposed landscape plan. Mr. Anderson noted that Cupertino Village
did not have the numerous islands that the hotel property has which will be planted. Mr. Cowan also
passed around the photo board for the Commissioners to examine.
Mr. Anderson addressed the parking ratio issue. He reviewed the hotel parking analysis as outlined
in Exhibit 2 of the staff report. He reported that a city staff count of the Marriott Courtyard parking
lot at 7 a.m. on June 4, revealed 20 vacant spaces, and at 10:30 p.m. on June 4 there were 42 vacant
spaces, which was at a .99 count on the property. Barton-Aschman's report indicated a parking
study demand of.77 spaces per room and a December 1996 Man-loft Courtyard demand of.69. Mr.
Anderson stated that applicant was requesting .93 parking ratio and they felt there would not be a
shortage of parking on the hotel site. He commented that at a prior meeting the manager of the
Marriott Courtyard indicated they did not have a parking problem, but in fact had extra parking.
Members of the Planning Commission disagree& stating that they were told there was a parking
problem.
Mr. Bill Fortier, Hilton Hotels Corp., 9336 Civic Center Drive, Beverly Hills, said that Hilton Hotels
was suppoxtive of the .93 parking ratio, because the Garden Inn is similar to the Courtyard as an
upscale commercial business Wavelets' hotel, with little meeting space and minimum restaurant and
lounge space, and what is there is to primarily serve in-house guests. He pointed out that the hotel
guests attend meetings, conferences, training sessions and while they use three rooms for three
people, they usually take only one car. He said that in his history with Marriott Courtyard, parking
was considered at .75:1 even though in most cases there was 1:1 but were never all used. He said
that normally parking problems are created at larger hotels where there are receptions, large eating
establishments, large action lounges which amact outside customers. Mr. Forfier noted that the
hotel would serve breakfast only and the morning shift of employees would total only about 9, and
by 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 90% of the hotel guests are already Waveling to their business meeting.
Between 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. when the guests return fxom their meetings, the only parking at this type
of facility is utilized by staff; which numbers few. He said that most guests cheek into the hotel
between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m., and after 9 p.m. the staffing level drops down considerably; at 10 p.m.
until 5:30 a.m. there are only t~o employees at the hotel. He pointed out that there is not the
difficult situation that the major full service hotels encounter with parking.
Mr. Anderson said that they were always willing to work with the Planning Commission on all
suggested items and he felt they had met every requirement. He said parking is one where they
believed they were on target, that .93 is more than adequate for this site. The issue of the reciprocal
parking arrangement is such, first of all, it is a separate partnership that owns that property, the hotel
is involved with it, but as separate partners; and can provide a fight to park on that but we don't
want to do anything that interferes with the existing tenants. We have existing leases in place and we
don't want to jeopardize those tenants. When you talk about reciprocal easement in a legal sense, it
ereates its own set of requirements and parameters. First of all it is not reciprocal because none of
Planaiag Commission MilluteS 27 June 9, 1997
the people fxom the shopping center would be parking on the hotel; so that's a term of art that would
have to be changed. Secondly, it would have to be something that it only kicks in as needed. Again,
everyone is practical and the realily is that if there is a parking spot, people will park there no matter
what. He said to keep in mind that .93 is assuming that all 171 rooms are rented, 11 of which are
suites which will be the first to be taken, leaving only 160 rooms, and there are 159 parking spaces,
which is adequate. If there is a binding agreement, the key is to tie it into the hours of operation of
the center, the center being pretty much shut down at 9 or 10 at night and the shops will reopen at 9
a,m. and it coincides with the peak demand of the hotel. Mr. Anderson said he wanted to make it
clear that the two items are limited in time to that period of time where it is most needed at the hotel
and the time when it is not needed at the shopping center, and they would be glad to enter into some
kind of agreement that does that; but can't do anything that affects the shop owners and diminishes
the parking for those people who have signed leases and have committed to the shopping center. He
reiterated that he felt there would not be a parking shortage with this design.
Com. Doyle addressed the issue of landscaping on the Pruneridge Avenue side, stating that there
were trees ia the parking lot area there. Mr. Anderson said that there were existing trees they were
trying to save, but that there were no big trees like those in the front of the property. Mr. Anderson
said that there was 7 feet of existing landscaping that is being maintained within the parking lot, and
along the parking lot from the existing landscaping there is an additional 5 feet, with an additional
12 feet of total landscaping in that area, yawing in different portions.
Com. Doyle questioned how the site information presented and setbacks were reflected in the
resolution. How is it documented as to what is going to be put in?
Ms. Wordell said that the resolution references the exhibits that are part of the packet which includes
the cross sections. One difference pointed out that their site plan shows 8'7" minimum landscaping
between the parking lot and the east facade building, and they say it is really 7'6"; therefore the
condition would have to be changed to state that, that it would be 7'6" minimum landscape strip.
Com. Doyle said according to the condition, it does not address exce?tions that may be amended by
conditions; but states Pages A1 to A4, and it doesn't say anything about the attached ones that have
no numbers or designations. Mr. Anderson said that he pointed out the 7'6" because that is what it
is and there is no other room given the size requirements of the parking stalls for it to go anywhere.
Ms. Wordell indicated that she could numbe~ the cross section pages for approval so that they could
be referred to as numbers.
As there was no one from the audience who wished to speak, Chair Hams closed the public hearing.
Chair Hams summarized the issues: architecture; landscape areas; setbacks/c~oss sections; parking
ratios; and reciprocal parking agreement.
Mr. Anderson clarified that the landscaping areas illustrated encompassed the two foot overhang;
and he understood that they were approved at the last Planning Commission meeting. He reiterated
that what was shown were the areas that included the two-foot area.
Com. Austin expressed concern about the reciprocal parking agreement, because the people most
likely involved would be employees and she felt security was a factor, especially in the evening.
However, if necessary, the reciprocal agreement might work. She said if there was some way to
conduct a review in six months or a year if it is a problem, otherwise it should be left as is. She said
that she was in favor of the parking at .93, and that landscaping was appropriate. Com. Austin said
Planning Commission Minutes 28 June 9, 1997
that the architecture was not suitable and she did not like the two-tone color, nor the line; the
downspouts were appropriate. She said she felt it appeared to be a pink tone and did not like it;
however, at this point would approve it in general.
Com. Doyle said that relative to architecture, the downspouts were suitable; the color change at the
break of the arches was suitable; he said he felt a 4 foot setback would be more appropriate than the
6 inch setbacks. Relative to landscaping, the proposed setbacks were tolerable. He said he would
have preferred to maintain something that was a good buffer but have turned it into a parking ... at
least it is consistent with what is around there. Relative to tree protection, if there was support for a
berm similar to Hewlett-Packards, it might be more appropriate. Relative to the parking ratio, he
said he felt it should remain at 1:1. He pointed out that what occurs is the tendency to get the
exceptions, and should stay with the 1:1 and get a reciprocal out of that. He said he favored parking
at .87 and a reciprocal arrangement and 1:1. He indicated that cross sections and setbacks were
appropriate.
Com. Mahoney said be felt the architecture was appropriate; the color band was suitable, although
very minor, but did not l~e the fact that it cut through the one window on the fight side. He said the
landscaping a~a and cross sections/setbacks were appropriate. He said he felt .93 for parking was
appropriate for the hotel, and not try to formalize a reciprocal arrangement.
Com. Roberts said that he felt the architecture was a considerable improvement and the east facade
was acceptable; the landscape area was minimal, but he would have preferred to see more greenbelt
around. Com. Roberts pointed out that a priority with him was the preservation of the mature ash
trees and suggested that a condition be written that dearly specifies, that should problems of
uplifting pavement arise, that the pavement will be sacrificed rather than the ~ees.
Com. Harris ~commanded the language under Condition 6 Tree Protection: "If in the future, the
ash trees disrupt the sidewalk/parking lot, the trees are to be preserved. "
Relative to parking, Com. Roberts said that he was convinced by the applicant's arguments, but
would support Com. Doyle's' recommendation to adhere to the 1:1 principle in some form, and with
that in mind, would support a parking overflow agreement with Cupertino Village to allow excess
parking, whatever is required to make up the 1:1 ~om 9 p.m. to 9 a.m.
Chair Hmxis said that she was in favor of the architecture, the landscape, the setbacks; preferred 1:1
on the parking, dropping the 1 per evening skiff employee. She said that she did not want the hotel
employees during the evening shitt~ to be required to park at Cupertino Village parking lot. She said
she felt there should be two spaces provided for the evening employees at the hotel because they
should not be going to and fxom the parking lot at l0 p.m.
Ms. Wordell said she would check to see if legally there is a need to remove the word "reciprocal".
Chair Harris recommended that it be changed to read: "a reciprocal parking agreement ... 171 spaces
(1 per room) .... Last sentence "Employees ..... parking lot" will be removed. She recommended
that the hours be changed to 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. Sunday through Thursday; stating that she did not feel
it was a problem on the weekend. She said she agreed with the applicant that people would park in
that parking lot whether or not there is a reciprocal agreement but it is appropriate not to make a plan
that depends on that concept, which is saying they will all park on the street, and the city needs to
provide for their parking. Corns. Doyle, Roberts and Chair Hams agreed to the hours of 9 to 9
every day.
Planning Commission Minutes 29 June 9, 1997
Ms. Wordell asked that the exhibits be sheets A1 through A6 and the color rendering dated 6/9/97
which was circulated tonight be part of the approved exhibits, and change the landscaping
dimensions to 7-1/2 feet minimum width between the parking lot and the east building elevation,
rather than 8 t~. 7 in.; landscaping and colors to be returned for final approval.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Application 15-U-96 (Mod.) according to the model
resolution with the following modifications: Page 7-5 of staffreport, No. 6, Add:
lf ash trees disrupt sidewalk/parking lot, the trees are to be preserved Reciprocal
parking agreement with 171 spaces from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m.; a comment specifying
that Sheets A1 through A6 and the color rendering dated 6/9/97 be part of the
approval; with the landscape plan being changed to show the distance to 7.5
minimum between the parking lot and the east building elevation; and that the final
landscaping plan and colors are to be returned to the Planning Commission for final
approval. Staff to work on language whether it be parking overflow agreement or
what staff and Council work out with applicant.
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5 -0-0
Application will be forwarded to City Council on June 16, 1997.
Item 8 removed fxom the calendar and Item 9 continued to July 14, 1997.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Chair Hams requested that the Planning Commissioners consider the dates for the neighborhood
meetings for Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and Rancho Rinconada to determine if one commissioner
could attend each meeting to listen to the community input on annexation and report back. She
asked that available dates be selected and submitted at the next meeting. Staff will be present at the
meetings.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m. on June 10, 1997 to the adjourned
meeting of the Planning Commission of June 12, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in
Conference Rooms C and D of Cupertino City Hall.
ElizalSeth Ellis
Recording Secretary
Minutes Approved as Amended: ,July 23, 1997