PC 07/01-12/31 e
.Y
-ii>3�`ut�ty't,y?�t1 S"5 i�� rwe`>C 7th.t + �' x u : is - it ? >' e•,
CITY OF CUPERTINO
t 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 10, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Austin,Barris,Mahoney,Roberts,Chairman Doyle.
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;'Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner;Colin Jung,Associate Planner;Charles Kilian,Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
owin
The f g ollamendments were made to the May 31, 1995 Special Meeting minutes:
Page 2, 7th paragraph: Remove"Com. Harris arrived at 6:57 p.m."and put on fust page
under"Commissioners present"(after Com.Austin)"Com.Hams(arrived at 6:57 p.m.)".
Page 4,4th paragraph, 1 st line: "should not be"should read"should be."
Page 5,4th paragraph: Com.Roberts stated that he did not understand the content of the
sentence. He added that the discussion clxntered around whethe=r or not there
would be an exclusion zoite to the Maryknoll side of Cristo Rey Drive 0-r the
other side;and the.sense of the comment was that he favored the development on
the cemetary side.
Page 5, 7th paragraph: Com.Harris said gnat the statement"Commissioner Harris
l requested that the seminary be added to the constraint map"was incorrect. She said she
always supported development in the seminary area,and the discussion related to Mr.
{ Bruner's suggestion that there be a trade to open a wider corridor. It should read"a
portion of the property adjacent to the Marylrnoll seminary."
Page 7,2nd paragraph,3rd line: Com.Harris stated that the word "all"be changed to
",certain".
Page 7, 4th paragraph:Delete the entire paragraph.
Page 8-7th paragraph,2nd line: Com.Harris stated that it should read"one document
1 reflecting the amendments be provided..."
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the May 31, 1995 Special Meeting minutes as
amended.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 540-0
The following amendments were made to the June 20, 1995 Adjourned kfeeting minutes:
t
r f
t ll, �ytt k-51e.9F• aSa'Y .,Fri �.l t t�.1r-K r# ; . '>s rP,.� y a
;�. �.�t:." & F r� br�'.2 '-'{.� rx i '� ..'�"viM s , �° F .�xCs,c�i�t 4 Tt h.as- kwt:,ax�, Fa 7,^ r:pC - z -47^,tx °y47"f:,.M1:54 i6..r�'`E•'Ca� a„ c
+
Planning Commission MinuteR3y 101991
Fage 7,6th paragraph: Paragraph 6,remove the seam"In residential it is 75,
commercial 75."
Paige 7,last paragraph:remove"in parking lots'.
4 Page 10,5th paragraph,3rd line: after"arid"add"`that as we are not investing the money
we are not".
Page 10,7th paragraph:After first sentence,delete and mplace with the following: "She
stated that if part of the development was completed in November and the remainder in
February,and it was greater than 2594, they would be exempt from the requirement of
doing the improvements. She suggested the 25%be considered over a period of 18 to 24
months."
t MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the June 20, 1995 Adjourned Meeting minutes as
'i
amended.
SECOND: . Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSTAIN: Chair.Doyle
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Communications noted relative to Item I
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Item 2: Application 4-U-85(Mod.)-Ola Hussar, 10905 No.Wolfe-Road.
Regu-,st continuance to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 24, 1995.
j
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to continue Item 2 to the meeting of July 24, 1995.
SECOND: Com.Austin
4
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None,
PUBLIC HEARING:
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to discuss Item I and 7 together.
SECOND: Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
1'. Application No:(s): 13-TM-89, 10-U-89, 8-U-94 and 6-TM-94
Applicant: Citation Homes Central
Property Owiner: Citation Homes Central
Location: Southeast comer of DeAnza BivdJHomestead Rd.
Modification to amend conditions of approval regarding below market rate housing, general plan
phasing of development,and access to open spare and other related matters.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
All TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 17, 1995
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION_MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1995
3
I
3 Planning Commission Minutes 3 duly 10, 1993
'µ
7. Applicant: Citation Homes Central
Property Owner: Citation Homes Central
Location: Southeast comer of DeAnza Blvd./Homestead Rd.
Request to set a public hearing to change the land use designation for an 18+acre site from 20-35
to 10-20 dwellings per gross acre. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection
of Homestead Road and DeAnza Boulevard.
Staff_presentation: Community Development Director Robert Cowan reviewed the staff report.
He stated the issues before the Planning Commission were to determine whether or not this phase
of the development can proceed,which involves not only the question of development phasing, but
.z degree of open space access, and how to guarantee the BMR housing. Additionally there is a
request from the owner to seek a General Paan amendment for the property to lower the delisity.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that staff supports building 6c:project because of the General Plan request
to lower density. Rather thati continue to support a de-r ral Plan Policy that does not have the
support of the city officials, Mr. Cowan recommended that the hearing be scheduled to consider a
lower density in the project. Mr. Cowan recommended the development proceed absent
construction on the project to progress without having work stoppage.
Mr. Cowan stated that the issue of open space access is very complex. When the initial project
was built,there was intent to have access to all lots. He said in his opinion it is not practical for the
Aft city to require that this particular open space be made available since there is no real benefit to all
` parties. There is no strong public need to have all access to that property. All the developers have
provided park dedication fees to the city to provide for the public open space, not private, within
the community. It is not critical that all share in the amenities. To summarize, it is recommended
;;. to keep the same condition that requires all peop,e to participate in,but allow the owners to litigate
the numer and reach conclusion in court. There is a condition that recommends the condition not
be Mated per se but that Citation Homes be given the opportunity to litigate the matter. Citation
- would be allowed to proceed even without guarantee of open space. In the matter of the BMR
requirement, the Commission and Council had allowed the BMR housing obligation to be made
offsite,transferred to the future apartment development. When the property develops, it would not
only provide its own BMR but it would provide for the 8 units obligated as well. The applicant
has proposed a-$400,000 bond for the city to make suit that if the project is not built, the city l
would have the funds to acquire other properties in other locations throughout the community.
Mr. Cowan stated that staff recommends the General Plan be changed from 20 to 35 units per acre
to 10 to 20 which is consistent with the surrounding area density that%vas initially proposed for the
project. •Mr. Cowan said staff supports the idea of deleting the requirement for phasing and
recommends a change in the conditions to retain the open space obligation, but to allow the
applicant to record this last stage if they are not successful in convincing the Portofino residents
that access is deemed desirable.
In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Kilian explained that i; could be required as a
condition for the relief of the phasing that Citation comply with BMR requirements that are set
forth for Phase 1II. With respect to Phase I, they are not requesting a change in the phasing so
there is no hook on Phase I; they are requesting a change that allows Phase III to be built. They
j are not building Phase II,so as a condition you could require that Phase III have some BMRs in it.
rlig
.l
yYd
4
x
Planning Commission Minutes a July 10, 1995
i
Com. Roberts questioned why the Conunission permitted the agtommt concentrating the BMR
housing in Phase U which was the last one to be built. Mr. Cowan stated that the BMR
requirement was not in place when this particular development was built. Mr. Kilian explained
that the developer at the time wanted the BMRs there and it was pernutted because it was
stipulated that other phases could not be built until something was done with Phase U. With regard
to Phase I, Mr. Kilian stated that the city was not aware that there would be a foreclosure, a
bankruptcy and a new developer,and at that time the City Council felt it was a good risk to require
the deferment of the BMRs to the Phase 11 high density develuprnent.
Com.Harris questioned if it could be stipulated that if the Citation litigation is unsuccessful,some
of the Phase H area would be made available to the residents. Mr.Kilian responded that litigation
can take 2 to 3-years, but a condition could be to conduct a review at the end of year one or two.
Ilse recording of the final map could be recorded with the stipulation that the same open space
condition remain in full force and effect, and that you would be free to litigate. 'Ilse condition
could then be reviewed at the end of year one or two to see the litigation progress,with the idea of
unposing something on the second phase. Mr. Kilian stated that the.developer would probably
object strenuously to that proviso.
; 4
In response to Mr. Kilian questions, Mr. Cowan stated that when the original phase I(1989)was
developed,it did not a BMR requirement on it. He stated that Phase IB,which is the nese phase I,
did have a BMR requirement on it. He clarified that the BMR program required by the City at that
time required that 10%of the units be set aside.
Mr. Kilian amended his response to state that with respect to the units in old Phase 1, the I?T.IR
requirement would not apply;but with respect to the units in the new Phase 1,those BMF-.s are still
i' required and are in Phase U now, and to require that they either be in Phase II or Phase W or a
combination would be within your purview.
In response to Chairman Doyle's question,Mr.' Cowan stated that-the$35,000 to 540,000 was the
kunderwriting cost for an apartrnent.
A lengthy discussion ensued mg:arding the BMR requirements wherein staff answered
Commissioners' questions. Mr. Cowan stated that Phase III could not be recorded until the open
space issue is resolved by the Planning Comunission and the City Council.
Mr. Chun Pong Ng, Citation Homes,addressed the Commission regarding the request to initiate a
change for the General Plan amendment. He stated that currently there is discussion on the
holdback and the surety of the BMR units. He reminded the Commission that the reason for the
holdback was the city was not sure the original developer Marian was going to build the high
density project. Mr. Ng provided assurance that Citation Homes was very interested in project
completion as soon as possible,with submittal package to the Planning Department by July 26. He
stated it was Citation's objective to get the project built as soon as possible to take advantage of
the favorable market conditions, and to assure the prospective buyers of the high quality product
proposed for the site.
s. Chairman Doyle opened the Public Hearing for comment.
t
i
4
y
tt V1 a u taw i r ''G tFv IN
x'y
♦ :p 4 n G qr �t n
t
Planning Commission Minutes s July 10, 1935
1
AIL
Mr.Ng stated that if Citation had to build the original density for the entire site, it would have to
` go to 225 units minimum which would be a podium design. He stated that an architect is studying
the possibility of an alternative to the 4 story,such as a 3 story which would be ver a podium and
have underground parking. He pointed out that in a recent marketing study it was found that the
people did not like themid-rise or high density buildings with very low building separations. Mr.
Ng explained that Citation proposed to do the 140 units on Phase II, with 2 to 3 story mixod
building structure, with a total of 7 buildings. He stated that City Council members have
encouraged seeking a lower density project as opposed to 225 units. Mr. Ng requested the
Commission to amend the General Plan designation to allow Citation to proceed with its follow up
application to put forth the 140 unit apartment project which would fully take care of the BMR
requirements of Phase 113,Piave Ill and Phase 1I itself.
In-response to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr.Ng stated that the density at 140 would be 14.2 for
the entire site;for phase II alone,it would 28 units per acre.
z Mr. Cowan stated he would prefer to keep the entire 18 acres as an integral unit in terms of
r
calculating density. No zoning modifications would be needed;just General Plan.
Y' In response to Commissioners' questions,Mr.Ng stated that the:_ > for the 140 units is 65%two
Uy bedrooms and 35% one bedroom, with a market range for rental u;uts at $1,7.5/SF, with square
t foatage of units at about 830 to 1,000.SF for various plans. He said there were plans for Phase II
to have an onsite clubhouse,fitness center,pool area and onsite meeting and management office.
r In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr. Steve Schott, Citation Homes,, stated that since
Citation Homes received a copy of the letter from the City notifying Portofino Homeowners
Association that they were in violation of Condition 15 which states that open space is for the
entire development to use, Citation Homes has made a disclosure to prospective buyers that it does
not know what the outcome will be, but if the City is successful in pursuing the 'Portofino
Homeowners Association to comply with the condition,-the homeowners would have to pay an
additional fee to maintain the pool area. He stated that Citation Homes has lost some sales due to
the fact that homebuyers have not had access to the pool area.
Mr.Schott,reviewed the history of the item. He stated that Phase I1 would be apartments,With one
owner and each apartment resident renting from the owner; Phase I and III is an association with
mini owners and to have them share in a common facility is a difficult and lengthy process. He
stated that it would be easier to share common open space in,the Portofino development. He stated
that Citation Homes has invested a substantial amount of time and money in attempting to make
t the development conform to its original intent and orIll continue through appropriate legal action.
Mr. Schott urged the Planning Commission to allow Citation to proccrd with the buildout of the
subdivision.
Mr. Jim Sullivan, Citation Homes, discussed the possibility of the deletion of the holdback
=t restriction. He stated Citation is committed to move forward with the General Plan amendment as
well as,,the buildout of:he Phase II site. He stated that the 8 units originally required that were
transferred to Phase II Will still be built in Phase 11 plus 10%. He pointed out that Citation was
a not trying to do a fee in lieu of situation, but to attempting to place a financial burden upon*
themselves that will alleviate the Commission's concern. Mr. Sullivan stated Citation is committed
to building on the multi family site with plans to begin construction in early 1996, and urged the
Commission to give consideration to deleting the holdback restriction as it stands.
t
Plwniug Commission Minutes b July 10, 1995
i
In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Sullivan stated the selling prices were in the range of
low$400,000 to mid$400,000 range.
In response to Chairman Doyle's question,Mr. Cowart stated that there is no density bonus in this
particular development because they are below the General Plan threshold.
Mr. Frank Nicoletti, Attorney for Citation Homes, explained that he was preparing to file suit in
Superior Court for declaratory relief action in regards to Condition 15 and an injunction to stop the
Portofino homeowners from barring Citation and their homeowners from the open space common
area.
Mr. Craig Knoche,President of the Portofino Homeowners Association, read a statement from the
homeowners' association requesting the continuance of the access to open space item to the next . '
meeting. He explained that he had a problem getting the complete staff report from the Planning'
Department and without the entire packet with attachments was unable to fully understand the
associations' legal rights. He said the Brown Act requires interested parties receive and have t
adequate time to review all the documents. He said it seemed clear from the July 10 staff'report
that staff'had again altered their position and recommendation since the June 26 meeting. His
statement said that staff has encouraged Citation to bring a lawsuit against the, Portofino
homeowners,and for those reasons requested that the item be removed from the agenda in the event
that the Planning Commission should decide-to proceed with the action ,against the Portofino
;.t Homeowners Association,they would be able to fully participate in the public discussion.
A
Mr. Knoche continued his presentation, stating that because they did not have all the background
VV
information, the Portofino Homeowners Association was at'a disadvantage to discuss ftir legal
standing and the property rights in the (natter. Nr. Knoche;- explained that the Portofino
' homeowners purchased their homes on the basis of the CC&Rs and the white paper that they were
'r supplied as well as other things. In addition, many of the newest homeowners were influenced in
their purchases by statements made by Citation regarding ownership and use of common area. The
white paper and CC&Rs provided by the developer to the initial 22 homeowners clearly defines
that the issue of access!o open space would be determined by the decisions made by a vote of the
homeowners. This common area became the private property of the homeowners when it was
deeded to them on the sale of t,:c!first unit. Moreover,four of the homeowners prior to the 2-19-95
spring votes on annexation, (both of which were turned down), were told by Citation that the issue
of use and access would be determined by a vote of all the homeowners again in the Portofino
Homeowners Association. In addition, another four homeowners purchasing after the annexation I
determination were again told by Citation that ownership and use of the common area pool was for
the members of the Portofino Homeowners Association only. He stated that his point was that 6
people have made economic decisions in the purchasing of these homes that%vere materially based
4 upon'.information that was provided in the CC&Rs, white paper and statements by Citation to the
homeowners, and the action that the city is now encouraging Cita':ion to take against the
homeowners has a significant impact on those economic decisions. He stated that as the CC&Rs
were both reviewed and approved by the California Department of Real Estate, the Cupertino
Planning and Department, and the City Attorney, he was alarmed to be facing the threat of
yi litigation. The association numbers 32 families who have chosen to live and send their children to
Cupertino schools and have followed the approved and recorded documents in goad faith and are
concerned with the cost the litigation represents to them. In addition, the litigation to enforce
Condition 15 will have a negative economic impact on their homes, as it may make it impossible to
- m
�I
r,
i
tr
# _ y ;d',
3
Plaauiing Commission Minutes 7 July 16, 1995
Aft sell their homes within the 2-3 years that the litigation will take. He urged the Planning
Commission's help in.the matter.
Mr.Kilian asked Mr. Knoche if the homeowners currently possessed a complete staff report,and if
not,what items were missing. Mr. Knoche responded that none of the homeowners had a complete
staff report and listed the items missing. Mr. Kilian gave Mr. Knoche his staff report packet and
asked Mr. Knoche to verify what documents he did not presently have in his possession. Mr.
Knoche stated he would have a response by the end of the meeting.
Referring to the Portofino phasing map, Mr. Knoche reviewed t'hethistory of the open space issue
for the Portofino homeowners. He stated that they were opposed to the interpretation of Condition
13 as it applies to the entire development.
Mr. Knoche stated that, in the opinion of the homeowners' association, the City Planning
Department was choosing to selectively enforce the original conditions of approval. He read
Condition 20,which was contained in the August 17, 1989 letter to Marian, Page 4, Item 20,and
stated fit appeared it was never the City's intent to provide access to oma small pool by the entire
development. He expressed concern that the City would either take action or encourage litigation
against the homeowners' association to force access to the pool without choosing to enforce its
original Condition 20,which clearly in their view would require access to further common area.
Nfir. Bill Lapson,.10990 Via Sorento, Cupertino, stated that he has lived in Cupertino for over 29
y=rs and decided to move to Portofino two years ago. He stated he and his wife purchased again
in Cupertino because they felt secure about buying into a common interest development in a city
they knew and felt was well run. He. said that their expectations have not been met and are
disappointed, the greatest disappointment that the problems and differences are between the
homeowners and the city. He reviewed the history of the item. Based or, the rules that the city
approved CC&Rs, the Portofino homeowners voted against annexing the Citation Corsica
development and thereby have kept the pool and park as their private property. Two formal votes
were taken resulting in 44%and 46% against annexation excluding the Citation votes. The city
throughthe Planning Department is now saying that some original maps and conditions rule over
the CC&Rs,they are paramount, conditions in reality had expired. We have in effect been told to
fa forget the CC&Rs have been signed by the,City Planning Department and the City Attorney. He
continued his presentation. He suggested the question of open space could be solved by dropping
the requirement on Citation immediately; Citation would no longer ami to provide open space and
leave the Portofino homeowners alone. He said if Citation continues on the path of litigation it
would be sad to find that the city's actions have restarted Citation's pursuit which the homeowners
thought was behind them some time ago. Mr. Lapson stated that in encouraging Citation to file a
lawsuit, they are in reality being lead to harm. The sales of their soon-to-be finished homes will
hardly be helped by the resulting bad publicity.
Mr. Kilian clarified that the City originally: recommended that the condition be dropped; it is
Citation that wishes to pursue the litigation on their own, and would oppose the city dropping the r
k condition at this time. He reiterated that this is not the situation of the city forcing anything, it is
the situation where Citation realizes that it has a right that it wishes to pursue and does not want
;4 the city to drop the condition of open space.
Dr.. Frances Winslow, Portofino homeo%%mer, stated that she purchased from Citation after the
bankruptcy had been settled. She stated that since the city didn't care about enforcing Condition
X
1-1910 1111 111 l 11111 P 1111%1 1�
r
r�s
6.
j
I
O,
.y, � x5 3y.J'n ✓ w tR .}
Planning Commission Minutes s Judy 10, (995
15 itwas unwise to include the suggestion in the stuff report that.it was how.the issue would be
resolved. She stated that Mr.' Schott is a member of the Board ofr Directors of the Portofino
Homeowners'Association,participated fully in the discussions that related to the vote to be taken,
was present when the votes were taken, and publicly asserted that he had no interest in the pool,
and did not mcition any intention to enforce any conditions or file a lawsuit. Dr. Winslow stated
that as a director of the homeowners'association,Mr. Schott has failed in his fiduciary obligation
to the homeowners. If the association had known of the suit,they could have made their decision
on how to'handle the annexation issue based on the full knowledgeof what the co
nsequenees would
be. She questioned why the homeowners should bear the burden of the lawsuit which is an issue
as a result of the developer and the city on the tract map. The homeowners relied on the
'
information on the tract map which expired in 1991 and they have not been able to obtain a copy of
the Citation tract map so they are unaware of what conditions prevail from the Portofino document
to the new one. They were under the impression from the tract crap uiformation provided by '
Citation sales representatives at the site that the open space issue was to be decided entirely by a
Z vote of the Portofino Homeowners Association and before they made their purchase decision spoke
with many of the potential neighbors who agreed with the idea of maintaining Portofino as an
individual association. She pointed out that the Corsica Homeowners Association has no members
and was founded by the developer solely for the purpose of selling homes. She continued.her
presentation, noting the differences in the two developments. Dr. Winslow stated that the 1989
tract map is the latest map that the homeowners have to rely on and have ro way of assessing their
rights. She stated that the map does not include Condition 15, but the fact that it is not on themap
was the basis for the information received when the homes were purchased. Eight homeowners are
now in the unfortunate position of making a major personal investment on.the basis of information
that is untrue which is largely the fault of whoever reviewed the tract map and didn't carry over the
conditions that were supposed to be carried over. If the 1989 conditions were all carried over to
Citation, Citation is then obligated to provide another lot of open space in Phase III. If that is the
case,the whole issue should be discussed in light of them abiding by Condition 20.
Dr. Winslow pointed out that the pool installed originally by health authority standards holds a
maximum of 40 people'. At the present time the development has 32 families with an average of 4
persons per household. If the.new 120 lots in,Corsica there would potentially be 600 people trying
to use the pool that the health department says is only big enough.for 40. This presents a
significant problems and an.economic difficulty for the homeowners. She urged the Planning
Commission, when making a decision, to think about the kinds of information the homeowners
received, the fact that the developer has been in control over the whole program and see them as
Y homeowners and citizens coming to the Planning Commission for relief.
Com. Harris asked Dr. Winslow if the homeowners were under the impression that the use of the
pool and grcenspace would be for Phase III and the remainder of Phase 1, or were thc;y under the
impression it would include Phase Il if voted for.
Dr. Winslow stated the issue was never discussed, nothing that the issue th:_t was discussed was
whether or not to annex the single family homes that are under construction. There N%-Js no
discussion,of whether or not the apartments were included at any of the meetings she,attended,
however,she stated she was unable to attend all the meetings.
Ms. Sandy Adams, Portofino resident, stated sLe agreed with the other homeowners. She`pointed.
out that Citation Homes claim that they are an imiocent party and dz.rnaged by Portofino. She
listed many instances where she,felt that Citation has benefited fi-om the Portofino residents and
s
� r sou c. 1-r.M "dna' yt'Esy.�y �a -s Tf cad rq t'}l1 ',14r y .ari�n2,rP�ek'._^t'a� kbe+ln `�r',�_ '•r
" CkN 1, 1Y�a vnP Y S t�t� rr 3�A M t5� hf Srrk1 ��Yt3 '� arts e Yiq sM n � ✓ a « r
i 11 7{ rY 4 -
Planwtg C immission Minute 9 July 10, 1496
emphasized that in her opinion Citation has not been harmed, tit merely is reaping Prunning Commission the benttis
ission because the sales of their new developnsens
They have appeared before the .
proceeding so quickly that they meed to start building on Phase 11I. She estimated that Citation has
realized a$30,000 benefit per Portofino residence as a result of their representation to the buyers
that the pool was for the exclusive use of the Portofino residents and would not be open to the new
development. She said it was her 'opinion that it is Citation's attempt to be released fmm
conditions which would be of benefit to the community, both BMR conditions and open space j
conditions and in this aM--Mpt to be released from civic duties, they are trying to punish the
residents of Portofino. She stated ithat Citation is now the Planning Commissioners, not only to
support them but also to become their collaborator in their quest to have Condition 15 selectively
enforced. She questioned if this was not the case, if Citation believes that these conditions are
enforceable why area
they asking that all forty of those conditions be enforced, and in particular
Condition 20 which would require them to supply their own open space in both of the other phases.
Ms:Adams urged the PlanningCommission not to selectively enforce Condition i5 as it would set
a bad precedent for the City of Cupertino.
Ms. Sharon Kohlrnannslaner, 20416 Via Volen'te, stated that her family moved to Cupertino one
month ago and had just learned of the lawsuit after close of escrow. She questioned why Condition
15 was being enforced, and not Condition 20 or all 4U. She referred to Amendment 3A of the
µ model resolution before the Commission relating to Condition 15. She expressed concern that the
City of Cupertino is not only encouraging but practically farcing a private corporation to prosecute
its'owwcitizen at a cost to be borne by the residents. 'She urged the Planning Commission to `
consider the people who made their decisions based on the representations made by Citation in the
decision before them this evening. She stated that. the resolution rceommendira amendments is
air and unequitable manner and urged them not to pass the resolution
treating the families in an unf
in its pre.-ent form. k
4
v Ms. Cathy Robertson, 20395 Via Volente, read a statement written by her husband Mr. Tim
Robertson,in which he stated: "As one of the first homeowners to purchase a Portcfrno home from. j
the current developer,Citation homes,we were presented a ropy of the CC&Rs signed by the City i
of Cupertino. It appears that additional conditions imposed by the City on our developmet.,are in
conflict with our CC&Rs. Although that might have been a basis for rejecting the CC&Rs at the
time of their acceptance,there is clear intention by the city to sursersede the conditions by agreeing
to the CC&Rs. Otherwise this is a clear misrepresentation that has grave financial consequences
for us as homeowners and citizens of Cupertino." i
f
Mr.Kilian inquired if Mr.Knoche had determined what information is missing from his packet.
Mr. Knoche stated that material he did not receive until That evening were: phasing map, original.
use permit site map,Citation Home use permit site plan.
Mr. Sullivan stated that it is not Citation Homes position, nor has it ever been, to ask the city to
. Condition 20 refers to one additional lot held in common
selectively enforce the 40 conditions
ownership for each development area. He pointed out that it is common whenever there is a P1), a
' common area lot will be designated for ali of the streetway. Mr. Sullivan stated that when
Citation went before the homeowners.for the vote,it was with the intention of providing a separate
recreational area for Phase 11.
'p In response to Com.Austin's question,Mr. Sullivan stated that when Citation took over ownership k
4 of Portofino, there were 22 homeowners whose escrow,had closed and Citation took title W 10
Y Ii
'f
s
j
,Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 10, 1995. "
additional lots that were partially completed. Mr.'.Schott.stated that Citation discbNW to the
r
buyers that it was the derision of the homeowners because they weren't aware of Condition 15.
l Mr. Nicoletti pointed out that Citation Homes did not want to file a lawsuit in this matter. He
stated that the problem exists because the area was originally set aside for 342 units for the
common area and now there are 32 people who, because they say they have title to the property,
will not allow anyone else to use it. He said the law clearly states that conditional use permit runs
with the land and everybody that comes into the project,no matter when, is bound by the condition.
e Citation is reducing the units from 147 to 115, as well as the apartment complex not being in the
picture. He stated that the people buying homes have just as much right to use the common area as
the 32 people in the initial project. He pointed out that the City of Cupertino has not encouraged
Citation to file a lawsuit.
In response t9 Com. Austin's question regarding use of the common area for nAw buyers, Mr.
Sullivan stated that new buyers were verbally informed by the sales agent that the matter had to be
decided by the Portofino homeowners; but Citation has since disclosed the fact, due to the letter
from the city referring to the enforcement of Condition 15,that it will be attempting to include the
homeowners association, and that the dues may increase in the future. He stated that the general
consensus of the new homeowners is that they would like to have access to the pool.
Chairman Doyle asked if the annexation option was'still available when the proposal was
resubdivided in October 1994. Mr. Sullivan responded that it had expired in dune 1994.
Mr. Sullivan stated that Citation presumed it was one common,area and one homeowners'
association and there were never any comments to the contrary from the Portofino homeowners;
and it,was only after the point when Citation diad not meet the demands and requirements they set
forth,that they closed their doors and said they were going to go their separate way.
r Chairman Doyle stated that the situation pre-racists the.October 1994 decision. He asked why there
was nota disclosure made that the property was not available. Mr. Sullivan responded that
Citation was under the assumption from the conduct of the Portofino homeowners that they were
greeted with open arms when they refurbished the dilapidated site and began a process to continue
the development. Citation was not aware any problems existed at the time.
Chairman Doyle asked Mr. Sullivan if any improvements have been done to the common area.
,a 'There was.a resounding"no"from the audience. Mr. Sullivan stated that there were requirements
placed upon Citation to finish the landscaping of the park. He pointed out that the City has a
pending action against the previous developers' bonding cgmpany that bonded for the
improvements. The work completed by Citation went along with the completion of the partially
completed Portofino houses.
s
Chairman Doyle closed the public hearing.
Discussion continued wherein staff answered Commissioners'questions.
Chairman Doyle asked Mr. Kilian to clarify if the issue could be acted upon this evening as the
homeowners pointed out that there was some information not presented to thein. Mr. Kilian
explained to the residents and citizens that the large tract maps or the maps referred to are not
routinely copied for the benefit of either the public.,or the Planning Commission. They are
LEE
'i
E
tt
f
t
e'
'n�y�t .f� '{a°rye fit ,� �wr'� { 'w °�:Y.M rva}a1�a,-,ry,}a`'r"..:r >K .�,Y1 s`a.��• Ft S.•y�Ms,�& j��s{"tg�af �? T1.4 !; ikr. ,: r �.a �sa��.s} s.
k. Planning Commission Minutes t t July 10, 1995
c�
i€ available for inspection and can be copied at a great deal of wgmse to the requester. He stated
that there appeared to be some other packet information that was not provided to the requester.
Typically the Planning Departrncnt does not copy all.the attachments;however,in this cam he said
it appeared the requester did not receive all the requested information. If the issue was before the
City Council the matter would require a continuance to allow those people to get the additional
information. In fairness, if requested, a continuance would be in order to make certain that the:
property owners have all the information that the Planning Commission has when it makes its
decision. It is not legally required because the Planning Commission is a recommcnding body and
not a final action body, but may wish to dF,so in the interest of fairness, and specifically as there
was a request to do so.
Com. Mahoney asked which of the actions that aught be acted upon by the Planning Commission
would in fact have any effect on the open space issue. Mr. Kilian stated that the condition that is
recommended on the amoenndrnent to the use permit would reinstate or continue that condition unless t
there was a court action determining to the contrary. He stated it was an action before the
r
Planning Commission tonight.
A Com. Roberts questioned why Phase II is included in the condition if it was understood that it
would have its own open space and recreation area. Mr. Kilian explained that part of the
confusion arose from the original condition 15 which was a use permit that vias done at the same
time or prior to the phasing of the maps, and the condition was put in vvithout understanding that
Phase II would be different. Com.Harris commented that the wording could be changed to modify
the last sentence to delete the requirement and state that Phase I and III have access to the common
area. Mr.Kilian concurred that it cr.)uld be changed.
Chairman Doyle summarized that the three issues to consider were open space, BMR and
reduction in density in Phase Il.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that the release of the holdback is meaningless from the applicant's point
of view because until the open space issue is resolved, the map cannot be recorded and building
permits cannot be issued until the map has been recorded.
{
Discussion continued regarding the issues that would be acted upon at the meeting.
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to initiate the General Plan review fiom 20 to 35 units to
10 to 20 units for the entire parcel.
SECOND: Com.Austin '
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
A discussion followed wherein Chairman Doyle summarized the Rvo options. He stated that the
f Planning Commission could take action on the phasing, the BMR and the"open space; make a
recommendation which would be on appeal to the City Council; and finalized at that point; or give
the homeowners' association_more time to review their information and review it at the next
,meeting to come to a decision and propose it to the City Council. It was agreed 3-2 to act on the
items at this meeting.
4 A discussion followed regarding the BMR holdback release.
k
i'
X ?
ji
i � °arfi7 a r a' �\ t1C1•^t K ) < 1 _ r ir' • 2 t.. _ a c \ \
y +,T.� �c
Planning C+munission Minutes 12 July"10,1995.
Com.'Harris suggested that a bond would be beneficial, but stated she felt 5400,E was not
'j adequate. Following discussion, there was consensus that a bond be required, with a one year
limit. •;
Chairman Doyle reviewed tho four options for open space: (1) Reinforcetsupport the current
situation, which is that Phase I and Phase III share the common open space; (2)the open spa=
would not include Phase III,but Phase III would have its own individual open space; (3)Phase III i
does not have to have ita own individual space; and (4) the possibility of residents of Phases IB
and III buying into Phase Ii. ,
Com. Austin asked if there could be a requirement for an open space area for a swim pool if the
density is being reduced. She stated that a recreation center in Phase III would be beneficial. Mr.
Kilian stated that the map is still tentative.
Com. Harris discussed the possibility of the residents of Phases IB and III paying a fee to use the '
improvements of Phase U. She stated the original map was dedicated to serve 147 units and now
116 units,and she stated she felt it was not feasible to take lots away from Citation to have a pool
built. She stated that she was in favor of the residents contributing for use of the Phase H
common improvements at a reasonable rate for the recreation area.
Mr. Kilian summarized Corn. Harris' recommendation that the current old Condition 15 remain on
the property wiless litigation results in Citation not being able to get access to the open space in
Phase I. In that event, if they are unable to do so, they must provide open space on Phase II for
Phase III units. Phase I1 would need to be designed to accommodate that in the future.
Following a brief discussion regarding Item A on Page 3 of the staff report, there was consensus
that the condition be amended to delete the requirement of Condition 15 on Phase II. Condition 15
does not apply to Phase Hand never was intended to.
r Com.Roberts stated he favored incorporation of Phases IB and III into existing open space.
He stated it was his understanding that it was the intent of the conditions approved in 1939. In
response to Mr. Kilian's question about his position if Citation couldn't record the map until they
get access to the open space, Com. Roberts stated that Com. Harris' fallback position was
adequate..
Com. Harris summarized the recommendation, stating it was 3A with the deletion of the
requirgnent of Condition 15 on Phase 11, specifying that if Citation were unsuccessful, some
access would be made available within the Phase 11 common area.
Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Harris, stating that he felt the 10 additional units,were
purchased under the wrong assumptions,but the people that bought the first units, bought into the
development with a common area. fie stated that the two privileges of the fallback might be
awkward but would suffice.
Com. Austin agreed,but added that she wou;d like to see some green area in Phase III in the form
;a of a recreation area or sitting area. 5
Oiairman Boyle stated he agreed with Com. Harris and it would be ideal if the people in Phase III
tt could buyinto the open space. He stated that there was more commonality between Portofino and
Man ;111,131 51 '110011
}
r
c.
1y. r-Av f t$ c ir�� %F @. { �`x' �, �Y t� �i t 1... s S p r� 4.f ✓e�+'� r�ti � a, � ,
Planning Commission Minutes
13 July 10, 1995
i
were "nked
aYp Corsica than between
Phase II and it would be a much bet due 19"On in tinie,Wt didn't know
together and the access issues betvreen II a III not be a bag
how that could be acoomplished•
6 and
Mr. Kilian amended the model Resolution 3A as follows: 3A, tijw 6, delete entire line applicant
replace with"will remain in full force in effect as to Phases I and III provided that the app
1 action to...
bine 8:delete entire fine mid replace with"then condition
F diligently prosecute its egal
IS shall be modified to require that Properties in the Corsica Homeowners' Association will have
access to recreational facilities in Phase II. 'They
will have access on condition that said
homeowners'contribute to the actual cost of m:untenance." Last sentence on lints 8 and 9 remain
the same.
Doyle explained that the wording was included to make sure that people in Pha►sc III
Chairman Doy p
have open space available to them.
regarding BMR units, it was agreed 3:2 for a 5800,000 bond for one
Following a brief discussion rega g
year.
plication No.(s) 13 TM-89, IQ
MOTION: Com.Harris moved that Ap -U-89,8-IJ-94
be modified and 6-TM-94 as per the amended model resolution be approved.
s SECOND: Mahoney 5-0-0
VOTE: Passed
mission s0metmes
Chairman Doyle explained to the audience that the Planninas to make
that the rtaaira considerations this
uncomfortable decisions,and on behalf of the Commission
rs.of the homes and the strong feeling that everyone in the community
evening were for the purchase
should have access to opera space. He pointed out that the City Co�incil would be meeting on July
47th and there would be opportunity to state the positions again and clarify any points that were
not covered this evening.
Chairman Doyle declared a recess_ a8 9:28 p.m. Upon reconvening, the same members were
present.
3. Application No. 8-U-95 and 15-EA-95
Applicant: Byer Properties r
4 Property Owner: Byer Properties
Location: 20558 and 20900 Stevens Creek Boulevard
e
Use Permit to demolish two wasting buildings and construct a 22,000 sq. ft. food market and a
' 4,000 sq.ft. restaurant.
r
?` ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
TENTATIVE CYT''COUNCIL):-TEARING DATE: July 17, 1995. .
Graff pre.enation: Associate Planner Jung reviewed the staff report. Pe stated that the application
st Office and existing Fontana's Restaurant to erect
was for the demolition of the old Cupertino Po
a 22,000 square foot Whole Foods Market and 4,000.square foot Fontana's Restaurant. Mr. Jung
reviewed the traffic impacts, noise impacts, and the Heart of the City Specific Plan and how the
project relates to the policy issues,streetscape design issues,etc.
a
glil
'x
qq n n [ Y �6
S`v i.+ik ZRl'�PY'Y''y,,•.�Z tM1„ l hM,!•�"vxt3�tt'.k T' '3,'SSO Y},Z r0 s. is fnu�..,#.lw i�•..�Sd y�..y .'�WYs`.1,;;'k"-4 -S f'.. ; i1N 1Z 4N'ft1
Playing Commission Minutes 14 July 10, 1393 .
Using overheads, Mr. Jung illustrated the landscape design plan and pointed out the issurs
contained in the staff report. Zlae architectural rendenng of Fontana's Restaurant was passed
around to.the Planning Commissicners. i
Using overheads, Mr. Jung discussed the architect's rendering of the Whole Foods Market which
illustrated both staff and applicant's recommendations. He stated that because the building is ogae
of the first new constructions on Stevens Creek Boulevard, it would undoubtedly serve as a
prototype for any future•rc-.Welopment on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Referring to the renderings, Mr. Jung discussed the applicant's recommendations and:the staff
recommendations,pointing out the differences and explaining the justification for the differences.
Mr.Jung stated that staff recommends the adoption of the negative declaration and approval of the
project with conditions set forth in the noise report relating to the sound wail,the refrigeration units
on the refrigeration trucks,,and the architectural conditions in the report. He stated that there is a
minor landscaping condition that the architect has agreed to.
A discussion followed regarding parking for the Whole Foods Market. Mr. Jung pointed out that
the 40 spaces'in the parking area behind the iron gate were for employee parking. He stated that
the 70 spaces allotted for customers were within the city's parking ratios.
Mr. Jung stated that the patio area of Fontana's Restaurant could be used for outdoor dining,
?. Ah pointing out that up to 20% of the interior seats could'.be used for outdoor seating without any
penalty;for additional parking.
!^. Mr.Alex Byer,Byer Properties,owner of the Crossroads Shopping Center, reviewed the history of
` the project. He stated that his family purchased the post office property about ten years ago arA
the church property about four years ago with the idea that it would be developed as an addition to
the Crossroads Shopping Center. He reported that they have met with the neighbors to discuss the
project and address any concerns they had as well as adhere to a number of conditions during
construction. Mr. Byer stated that they are proceeding with due diligence to get the store opened
and to keep Whole Foods in the Cupertino community as they are a strong asset to the community.
� r
In response to concerns raised about the number of parking spaces, Mr. Byer st<mted that there is
the entire Mervyn's parking lot on the east side that can be used for overflow parking.
Mr.John Fry,Project Manager,Who Foods Market,presented a scale model of the Whole Foods
Market. Referring to the overheads of the staff recommendations and applicant's recommendations
for the market,he discussed the applicant's design proposal. He explained the justification for Rhe
placement of the awnings,the trellis and the store sign.
Discussion continued wherein Mr. Fry responded to Commissioners'questions.
Com. Harris questioned if there had been any consideration given to increasing the size of
Fontana's Restaurant.
AdftL
1 Mr. Murray Horton, Fontana's Restaurant, said that the present restaurant is slightly smaller than
the proposed plan. He stated it was his impression that they were restricted because of the overall x
s
r
Platattttt$Commission Minutest5 July 10, 1993
shopping venter size, and that the proposed restaurant is a plight improverrsent over the prcaent
pretrises.
Com.Mahoney again cxpress�d concern abort the parking allocations. Mr.Jung reiterated that the
provided parking exceeds the requirement by a small marg;.n. He reported that the extra parking
Com.
spaces would be the equivalent of 20 extra seats in the restaurant. Harris pointed out fleet
requirements for c�nmercial, which would be 1
there"was a possibility of changing pig ibiti of inc=sing the restaurant size. Mr.
space per 200 people, which might lmd to the pose tY
Byer remarked that the 40 employee parldng spaces behind*,e building have a big impact.
ex ion of Fontana's Restaurant, Mr. Dye
In response to Com. Harris question regarding pans
stated that it if there was a parking variance, it might be considered. Mr. Byer stated concern that
i be frustrated with trying 4o find a parkingrs m
with the expansion of the restaurant, custosne already sdded 20 seats to the restaurant.
space. He commented that the outdoor seating area
Mr. Fry discussed the landscaping plan for the Whole Foods Market and answered
i' Commissioners'.questions.
Mr.Mike Horton,architect,discussed the landscaping plan for Fontana's Restaurant and answer ad
estaurant, Mr
Commissioners' questions. Referring to the architectural,rendering Plan and lends height to the
Hatton stated that the tower over the entrance V.'ay is in the Spec
building. -
ki. }
Mr. John Statton, Cupertilm Chamber.of Commerce, stated that the Chamber supported the
Ank
project and urged the Commi:;sion to approve the project.
Chairman Doyle sununarizeci the issues to be aced on: architectural design, size of Fontana's,
pacts and setbacks.
parking,noise im
'Iltere was consensus that noise issues had been retmciled and setbacks were t:ot an issue.
Com. Austin stated she favored the architect's architectural design rather than . She and Pink colors
that the colors were not to her liking and stated her abjection to the blue, $
used on must new buildings. She stated that the parking was adequate, and setbacks were not an
issue. Com.Austin said that the expansion of Font n'si as not an issue as there were actually 20
extra seating spaces because of the outdoor seating
Com:Mahoney said he favored the applican> s front and side main elevation elements,but agreed
with sta`f on the heavier trellis for the wall. Color of proicct was acceptable. He stated that he felt
parking would be a problem in the back but was a trades f to help the nein--hors. rther.
Com• Harris
stated he would like to see R more seats in Fontana's although it would impact the parking fu
€ Setbacks are not an issue.
Com. Rch crts said he favored the applicant's design, especially the asymmetric, design and open
trellis roof. He agreed with staff recommendation on the heavier trellis for the side. He stated the
colors for the Whole Foods Market were acceptable but was less convinced about the facade and +
colors for Fontana's,but the landscaping would soften it. Com. Roberts suggested applicant'%vork
with staff further to develop a rarore aesthetic treatment for the west wall of Fontana's. He stated
parking may be a problem,and because of tluit didn't favor holding the project up for more seats in
r.
�k
g1
.; t�
r f ti }"'i�,�'a f t �' P �'tv n i f ''i ehkY:;Gfi?v .wr { �s F�� } •, v s„�{ 'Y r
Pknning Commission Minutes 16 �uly,l®, 1993''
Fontana's at the,expense of a few Parking spaces. He stated he was not in flavor of expansion of
Fontana's. Setbacks are acceptable.
Com. Harris commended the redevelopment of the center, stating that it will be an asset to the
community. She stated that the colors and architectural design were acceptable. She said she was
happy that.staff was looking at the architecture because there is not a committee or an architect to
review the plans. Com. Harris said she agreed with the applicant on the front design of Whole
Foods Market; but agreed with staff on the east elevation for the larger trellis. She said she
favored the front setback shown in the drawing, as part of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Heart of
the City Plan is to have smaller setbacks. She stated that staff was redoing the parking ordinance
because 200 feet for one space in retail is too conservative. She felt there would be room to
expand Fontana's, which is a great community resource. Com. Harris stated her opposition to
compact parking spaces,statLng that 30%was too excessive. She said she would like to soe fewer
compacting parking spaces and would favor fewer spaced overall for the supermarket building.
Chairman Doyle agreed with stars recommendation to break the front facade, but not necessarily
with the specific staff recommendation of 25 to 50 feet; the colors were acceptable. He stated that
parking ma!v be a problem because the entries to the market and Fontana's are concentrated to the
' right of the parcel and stated he felt it would be more feasible for tlu market traffic to enter from
the left which would allow for use of the side wall and both the entrances at some level. Setbacks
are acceptable and expansion of Fontana's is acceptable if it can be done within the confines of the
pig
a
u Mr. Hortcsy said that seating in Fontana"s can be expanded°without building modification.
Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to change the seating capacity in Fontana's to
a i24.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to adopt a negative declaration for the use permit on
15-EA-95.
SECOND: Com.Mlahoncy
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
b1 MOTION: Carrs.Austin moved to adopt the use permit in accordance with the
amended model resolution to include the following recommendations:
* Applicant's proposed roofline modifications are supported
* Colors acceptable
* Parking spaces acceptable - I
* Setbacks acceptable
* Expansion of Fontana's Restaurant to 124 seats acceptable
* Using applicant's north and east elevations with addition of trellis
as recommended by staff on e2st elevation
* Applicant to work with staff on the south and west elevations of
the Whole Foods Market and-the west elevation of Fontana's
Restaurant for landscaping and other treatments
i
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
1�
VOTE: Passed 5-0
4 ` Y
001,1111111,EI,;,
111101ditIA1012A I El !11
IIN
`{[
J.. C
i
L
��Ys S� �a�?.f V�h�'�i� •M,.�"k'°�''62'�t,'1`Y1�!`.1.Ptj Yz .''+G�'.-«,�1 a ++..y,; cam'+ a � te�wb -•. r+K � +,
c � S.y '�4' ti+ s lV-J '�` ,*s �� r• z � y�-`1 r,rk�.. l{� 7 ; N�^fl�r+? .fr d5w
' t � ,• ,,,t �� ��.3 F} �. ;'{A��'J f' o tiV ( a s c its r°n�-t�aces c„r. a i pt��k s �;;_.;,
• .3 Sy _ a + :. K� • sf i� I�a ! ;yC t� �f.,t+..�jfit
Qm
Planni + tnnission Minutes 17
'July 10, I99S .
. 4. Application No.: 6-U-95 and 14-EA-95
Applicant: Target Homestead
Y Property Owner: Target Homestead
s Location: 20956#E Homestead Road
f Use Permit to operate a.sa%ool in an existing shopping center. .
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 17; 199-5-
Staff
995-Staff presentation: Mr.Cowan stated that the staff report explained the application.
Mr. Adam Dorsey,Kumon USA Corporation,explained that the Kumon Educational Institute is a
learning center for students for mathematical and reading drills and averages 10 students at a given .
}.
time. The hours of operation are between 3 to 7p m.two days per week.
!t Chaimm Doyle expressed concern about lighting in the back parking lot and stressed the need for
adequate lighting in the front and rear of the building. Mr. Dorsey stated the front parking lot is
d, lighted and most of the students are accompanied by a parent. I Ie stated that the maximum staff
number was 5.
Mr. Statton from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, sip-ted the Kumon Institute would be an
asset to the Cupertino community,which is a community that values eAucation highly.
MOTION: Com.Mahonf!y moved to approve the negative declaration on 14-EA-95.
SECOND: Com.Aust;4
;j
VOTE:; Passed 544
`t MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve 6-U-95 in accordance with the model
resolution.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
5. ; Application No.(s): 6-U-94(Modification)and 2-Z-94(Modification)
Applicant: Ju-Ping Chang,The E&H First F.L.P.
Property Owner: Ju-Ping Chang,The E&H First F.L.P.
Location: 19340 Phil Lane
Use Permit Modification and Zoning Modification of a condition of approval regarding. tree
protection bond. y
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: Categorically.Exempt
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 7, 1995
Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the staff report, In response to a question from Com.
Harris,Mr.Cowan stated that the smaller developers run into problems with acquiring bonding.
Ms. Emily Chen explained the problems she is encountering with acquiring a tree bond and stated
that she has exhausted all means to acquire a tree�bond. She requested the Planning Commission "
z
Y
i
Planning Commission Minutes t8 July 10, 1995
S
4' waive?,the condition. She stated that she was working with a national arborist as a consultant to
a ensure protection of the trees during construction. In response to Com. Harris question about the
six months duration, Ms.Chat stated that six months is better than two years.
Ms.Nancy Burnett,resident,Stcndahl Lane,stated that she was interested in the property as it is
one acre parcel that once had 41 significant trees,now reduced to 13. She said at the beginning it
was understood that the homes would be occupied by the investors and they arc now all on the
market,which makes an issue of having the buyer being responsible. Ms. Burnett commented that
the staff recommendation appeared to be workable and suggested that when there is a property sale
,x with a tree issue that part of the sale would include the city's most recent tree ordinance,so that the
buyer couldn't claim ignorance once the tree is cut down, and be responsible for the upkeep of the
heritage trees,the specimen trees and the oak trees.
Chairman Doyle questioned the method to be used for informing potential buyers of the tree
ordinance.
Mr. Cowan responded that a CC&R or easement would be utilized. He stated,that in the case of
significant trees such as the trees off Wilkinson Drive where there was a public easement created
around some significant oak tree, ' it was recorded on.the map which would make prospective
buyers aware of the special trees. He said it would create a burden on the city to do it for even.
tree.
Com: Harris suggested publishing the heritage tree policy in the Cupertino Scene once a year.
rChairman Doyle stated that talo Alto uses stickers on the large trees. Mr. Cowan said that the
heritage trees in Cupertino have plaques.
A brief discussion ensued regarding heritage trees, eak trees over 10 inches diameter and trees.
specifically designated by virtue of a map action. Mr. Cowan explained that a heritage tree was
one that was specifically designated when a citizen presents it to the Planning Commission and a
hearing is held on that particular tree because of unique historical reason or unique specimen itself,
and a list is maintained. He said the trees in question do not fall into that category, but are
protected by virtue of the fact that they were condition of approval®rn a map.
Mr. Cowan explained that the action needed is to modify the tree preservation protection on this
zoning condition,which would set a precedence for the future. Staff suggests that the modification
z make Iit clear that the bond is limited to protect against the actions of the developer, not a
subs�.juent homeowner.
A discussion followed regarding the appropriate time period fol release of bonds. Com. Harris
i suggested that someone make visits at 6 months and 2;years, because if 2 years elapses there is no
way a dead tree can be tied into the actions of the developer. She stated she would agree to 2 years
if there was a 6 month inspection conducted.
Chairman Doyle reviewed the two proposals: (1) 6 month inspection with a duration of 2 years,
and (2)the staff proposal as outlined under the new language in Item 4 of the resolution.
Com. Roberts said that 6 months was too short a period as the tree should grow through one
season,and stated lie would support etaff's proposal as outlined in the resolution.
-4
t"
I•
M
I
q .;.. .t: 1. t^^•'x�+ ary�,";g*;;t ;,.ttvt rn. >cx+ +1?5�'^ x, ,x,4• K, t ,:t� x r.-:d il."`n ,,.c-:i F tiT ,�»� `�7`?. P-4x
a .„iS firm r �- rp x
P7
r t i t„y4{t KLy r t r,�T_x n ',�-..4.> �.'fe, �ti Y• t `' $I s y i .".i r `tr
��
' Pkmung Commission Mimutes 1e duly lfl, I91S
Can. Mahoney stated he favored a review when the owner gess it, with an arborist lookiUS at
whadher damage wast done then. He said he would also support staff's recommmbitim.
Corn. Austin stated that the amounts have gone firm $10,000 per wee to $50,0W total. j
expresW1 concern about precedent setting and stated the bond should be maintained at the two
years. She supported staff recommendation on Item 4 of the resolution.
Chairman Doyle supported staff's recommendation and suggested publishing the tree ordinance in
the Cupertino Some on an annual basis.
}
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve t'me modification of application 2-Z-94 and
6-U-94 as modified by staff.
'SECOND: Com.Roberts
NOS: Com.Farris
VO'L'E: Passed t 4-1-0 .
Mr. Cowan stated that there is a tentative map condition on the use permit and will have to return
?, to the Planning Commission.
6. Application No.: 5-EXC-94(Modification)
Applicant: Cary Queen
Property Owner: Cary,Queen
Location: 22830 San Juan Road
p' Hillside Exception Modif cation of a condition of approval regarding requiring sanitary sewage
i systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL,DETERMINATION: Cate3orically Exempt
PLANTING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presen tion: City Planner Wordell reviewed the staff report. Using an overhead, Ms.
Wordel illustrated the new residence on the site plan.
In response to Com. Roberts' questions, Ms. Wordoll stated that the applicant had not submitted
changes 4o the landscape plan. She asked the•a.pplicant to confirm that they would be conforming
to the original landscape plan.
Mr. Andrew Stewart, Korberg Associates, representing Mr. Cary Queen, stated that he would
respond to Commissioners'questions.
Mr. Queen responded.to Com. Harris' question, stating that the property was Purchased in
November 1994 for $800,000 for land on:y. He explained that he was having problems with
placing the utilities and bccause Mrs. Paviso has not been cooperative in granting an casement,he
is investigating connecting several different utilities via different routes, which is extremely �
expensive. In response to a previous question, Mr. Queen_stated that the septic field would not
Hock fire planting of trees: He said landscape plans would be subm:'.A to the Planning
Commission at�an upcoming meeting.
:r
ign g-1 1 ,11111
4
i
"A 1"C + RtiXC2 Li i S ! i h'V'y��.i '1 `^.t hk. kr'1 ;•r 1 Z ti.!1 ,P !4,.:, k - (
' H
F �f
Pig Commission Minutes �0 July 10, 1993
Mr. Stewart cLzrifeed that a landscape plan was scheduled for the consent caleadar for the next
schoduled public hearing.
Chairman Doyle reviewed the four options.
i' in response to Commissioners'questions,Mr.Queen stated that M-s.Paviso was not willing to sell
an easement because the property was`or sale. He said he would negotiate with the new owner for
an easerment since he preferred to be connected to the sewer system..Mr. Queen explained that he
has not received estimates on the house because of the complexities involved with the utilities.
Discussion ensued regarding the recommended options..
Com.Austin stated she would support Opticn 2,with Option 4 as a ser,-,d choice.
4 Com. Mahoney supported Option 2,with Option 4 as a second choice.
Com. Roberts recommended holding a decision for connection to a sewer system. He stated
hillside development was expensive and people who build in remote hillside sectioiss should be
willing to bear the cost,. Numerous exceptions have already been granted on the property. Com.
Roberts supported Options 1,2 or 3,whichever was more practical,but not 4.
' Com.Harris concurred with Com. Roberts,stating that the expansion of the existing septic system
should not be permitted as applicant is tearing down the old residence that the septic system was
AWL designed for,and plan to build one twice the size. Corn.Flarris said it would be ideal if the timing
were right to buy the easement from the new owner, or if a connection to the public system was
possible through the storm drain and if not, the money has to be paid out to connect through the
Marianist property. She stated her opposition to Option 4.
Chairman Doyle concurred with Coms. Harris and Roberts. He stated his opposition to putting in
the septic field. He stated any of Options 1,2 or 3 would be amenable.
Chairman Dcyle summarized that Option 1,2 or 3 was acceptable to the Planning Commission but
Option 4 is not.
MOTION: Com.Roberts moved to deny the.appl:cation for modification of eoridition No.3,
to retain condition 3 as stated.
SECOND: Com.Harris ;
NOS: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-1-0
Ms.Wordell indicated that the decision is appealable to the City Council within 14 days.
8: Application No.: 10-U-94(Mod.)
'~ Applicant: Community Housing Developers
Property Owner: Community Housing Developers
Location: Southwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd.and Tantau Ave.
Recommendation from the Planning Commission for an administrative approval of a nunor change
in a project in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
k r• a, k
1t)``{
Planning Commission Minutes 21 July 10;1995
ENMOh'A N'TAL DETERMINA71ON: Categorically Exempt
4
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
S%flEpresentation: Ms.Wordell reviewed the staff report, and using the site plan,pointed out the
proposed modifications. She stated that it was staffs recommendation that the modifications be
approved with the provision that they return vtith more architectural elements.
Referring to the architectural drawings, Ms. Wordell reviewed the changes in the architectural
elements.
In response to Com. Harris' question about fire department requirements, Matthew Thompson,
Thacher and'Thompson,Architects, stated that it was common for the fire department to require a
15, foot clear opening and stated their request was a valid one. Coon. Harris suggested accessing
fire trucks from Tantau Avenue.
Mr. Thompsoi. ,,-1.;-wed the architectural modifications-to the complex, illustrating the stairway
changes. Discussion ensued regarding the positioning of the stairwells and landscaping. He stated
that staff's concern about the plainness of the complex would be addressed. He passed around a
landscape plan, stating that the urban design concerns would be addressed by the planting of
espaliered plants against the building.
Mr.Thompson discussed the horizontal siding,which was used to bring continuity,particularly on
the inside,where the two story buildings making up the balance of the project, have the horizontal
siding.
In response to Com. Roberts question,Mr.Thompson discussed the,landscaping plan,pointing out
the major outdoor space in the middle in the form of a courtyard. He added that a common area in
the front building on the ground floor has been expanded to include a multi purpose room with a
full kitchen,an exercise room,a larger laundry,and a host of tenant amenities. He stated that all
apartments have their own outdoor porch with a storage area.
Mr.Thompson discussed the proposed setbacks as outlined in the attachment to the staff report:
Ms. Burnett commented that the entry drive portal was not pleasing to her and resembled a
yawning mouth: She concurred with Com. Harris' idea of accessing fire trucks from Tantau
;r Avenue', stating that in her opinion, other traffic should not be encouraged to go through that ;
particurar entrance. Ms. Burnett stated that she found the plan shown on the top more
aesthetically pleasing. She suggested that the drawing on the bottom have a more squared top,
rather than the arched tor.
'A
li
Chairman Doyle summarized the issues:
`4 ,
• side setback
IN parking
* staff recommendation that the skn. rase is stark
more landscaping
• the applicant propose additional archeiectural relief subject to staff approval '
change in the unit ntix-one bedroom vs.studios
J
r;
Planatng Commission Minutes 22 July 10, 1995
Com. Roberts supported the staff report and response. He stated he liked the wood Siding.on the
second story facade, but disliked the entrance. He questioned if it was a requirement to have the
entrance on Stevens Crede. He stated that the parking was acceptable. The substandard setback
on the west side is a concern.
Com. Harris stated she liked the fact that there was an increase in the common area, the housing .
section and the patio area outside. She did not support the 5 foot setback, stating is was not
adequate. She said she would like to see the stairs on the left side designed at the same angle as the
r other stairs, going in toward the arched area. Com. Harris said she disliked the arched access
required by the fire department. She suggested staff contact the fire department to see if something
could,be worked out, as she saw it as a an attractive nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood.
She supported staffs recommendation that the stark stucco base without the stoop be dealt with
} through landscaping or other architecturally. Parking was acceptable.
Com. Mahoney stated he also did not support the large entrance opening. He expressed concern
with the two level architectural style, namely the stucco and the wood siding. Park:ng was
acceptable. He said that the only way to deal with the setbacks would be to have parking on the
outside,therefore he would agree to 5 feet. He agreed that staff should work on landscaping in the
front area.
Com. Austin suggested depressing the entrance opening, however,she would not jeopardize the
holdback because of the fire department requirement. Com. Austin suggested putting an iron gate
in the entry way She stated she like the wood siding on the facade;5 foot setback was acceptable.
Mr.Thompson said he was willing to work with staff to come to agreement in the areas mentioned.
Chairman Doyle stated that he would like to utilize the table of planned parking;he supported the
concept of reducing the number of studies to add one bedroom apartments; he supported the idea
1{. of bringing the first floor landscaping to a higher level; he stated the architectural design was
acceptable. He expressed concern about the blending of the top and bottom of the units, stating
that some appeared to have a castle-like appearance, but perhaps the landscaping modifications ,a
would take care of that. Chairman Doyle said he did not support the 5 foot setback.
Chairman Doyle summarized the Commissioners' recommendations:
yT
• Parking-acceptable
° Landscape-staff recommendation acceptable
Architecture-4 out of 5 supported;need to work with staff on wording on how to
get it done
a Setbacks-3 out of 5 thought it was a problem
Following a brief discussion,there was consensus to continue the item until July 13 because there
was not agreement on the side setback issue bnd to allow time to review the fire access with the
fire department, and to allow the applicant time to integrate the front building components.
G
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to continue 10-1J-94(Mod.)to the July 13, 1995 meeting.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0-01,
t�
Ui
MIMI
k
1 x .: rr. t ".. '�;.° r u r •'r A a S 1a�oy..rR,w�'= y"x q....;.� try IN,i,�.. `z.,q ib•, a�'ray., `'�•�µC,.S w'.
.+n,••^,'7-'p `� 9e:'1 1 � Y ,,.lc
4:8.,.. a -'± ,�:,' n� z.m:.l KS...• t ...., 1 r . s t. ./ ,rr1. t h .fit ay. .rc•�..
.♦,,, •..N;,. ..; ..:�s �'."^ ..i^' s •;,,�'wt�`.�r;.,S:;Y°' �a J t: r✓� .::tr,z?rFN rs. 4 ' �. r, :>. :�2•+ -�, ��'.i^n:t�.
;^ sr%1"i's. �" 3 yds�f/y gx�+''0.i;5. 4" .;� tr ,,,,+• 3k
� �!
� � ^ d ,i .ts � �t_. y2 ,2' § �S � e 15�, r��' tkz z / �C 1 t,i a r<'� } r.Y f _ r"e s i� 1 r w�'t l•
[ �qtIf
i�
:i. a :: ^S'•• p r1.i i� 5 z ri, z.0-fzbti x? tP �r-1 t' i rJk Glx 1 * f� } :aft Ar i'.
t If 141.11.1 1 flit
t'�,r. r r }rt t r .� n:. r �1 :+rr +� t iad;r�T S� XS` vh }•rifri,.,. §,sa<�t 7t ry S � � „ri't ,r'r� 4 y +1s"- �r w. t
�e h
rr�i
R.
i
r Wit,
N
:1
ty;
..syr-• i,�..
Jnr tirg.
k
e)
a
=,r1
is C'a
st:tr .... ,_,_. Sr ,r mss'. ^t,m�. yx i "r'K r'-,�'�z iy'Y cw x a s.,cu,� sr �•,� [-tU st +f:'�� yy yC v�,tAi>at�"t.'jir
4.. .: ..•. -:,u,..-. x. •:: ..,,r f:e„a .;-;��,. '�:t�.,;,.•:,r!�s ,. `..,;�•��'x*��,1, "x 'fi; '°sJ>i i ry+l$�, Y'.�5;:�'` �t�r 5 L�.f{'t" r.sa ,,x'ai, ht Yj„� �y rkp, ,a 1:i't°�;sro.t Cd,�,
i
i
�Ijj IN
,' .�"1Ji �y1•i' g.:..!S"., .."t3'"'4rS•",;.• '+uyY '.S�os-. #`•4, r >' .;}7'ck)�.1`D �• 3 ' ,�, .,
M•� '�dY ����.;Sl�}< � �i a �'S '�s. °fir K 3L �.:'S`tr l,�t.C. ,° 1c v a zP > R i 3 � f t X .1.G � i. 4.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tare Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 13,1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Austin,Harris,Mahoney,Roberts,Chairman Dayle(arrived 6:50 p.m.). j
i
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development, Colin Jung,Associate
Planner,Bert Viskovic.'n,Director of Public Works,Ciddy Wordell,City Planner
ak City Planner.
Consultants present: Terry Bottomley
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS- None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR-None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Ms.Nancy Burnett reGu,-,:9d time to speak on behalf of CURB
on the Heart of the City Specific Flan.
CONSENT CALENDAR-None
PUBLIC HEARING
r ,
1. App;icationNo.(s): 81,152.and 9-EA-95
Applicant- City of Cupertino
Property Owner(s): Various
Location: Properties along or near Stevens Creek Boulevard from Highway
85 to the eastern City limits.
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN: Review draft specific plan and make final
revisions. Adopt an environmental recommendation and the specific plan.
F.NVIRONMENTAI.D1-TE..RivIINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
TENTATIVE CI'T'Y COUNCIL.HEARING DATE-: To be determined.
CONTINUED FROM TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20; .
1995.
Staff presentation: Associate Planner Jung reviewed the attached staff report and outlined the
discussion fQr the meeting, which would include finalizing the doc.umtnt to move forward and
Y
r v s>�y� � s f ren✓ nx r ;s LSf Y Yui ' '! 4 t_
L ?rE3fC 4 , ux nr; Y4 yY�$ 4 i
-Planning Commission Minutes i July 1 1995
the City Council. He reviewed the three staff'
sabmit�a recommendation on the Plan to
recommendations as outlined in the staff report.,
The Planning Commission d.iscusscd the Heart of the City Plan.
Page 19 - Referring to an overhead of the landscape.renderings; Mr. Jung discussed the
consultant's recommendation of the Four Seasons Orchard design concept for the southeast
quadrant of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Blvd. He also discussed previously submitted design
options for comparison purposes.
Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to delete the language on Page 19, (last three
,x lines of fust paragraph) "Commercial space should be......Square".
Discussion ensued regarding the Four Seasons Orchard design concept, wherein Mr. Jung and
Mr. Bottomley answered Commissioner.' ' questions. Mr.Bottomley suggested uplighting the
trees,which would add a very dramatic effect.
In response to Chairman Doyle's question,Mr.Jung stated that the Planning Commission should
r
decide on a design concept for utilization of space as a recommendation to the City Council,
A discussion followed regarding the concept of the orchard theme which included types of trees
to be planted, the possibility of having fruit/flower carts and a farmers market. Mr. Bottomley
pointed out that a drawback of fruit trees was the need for spraying, use of pesticides, etc. Mr.
Cowan commented that the amphitheatbr area was presently under-utilized and might he
Aft incorporated into the plan..
{' Chairman Doyle opened the hearing for public comment. As there was none,he closed the
public,input portion of the hearing.
Chairman Doyle stated that he would recommend what is seen in general terms and potentially
recommend a way to take the next step,whether it be,he Fine Arts Commission to take a look at
some recommendation or some public input organization take the project to expand some of the
concepts discussed. The Planning Commission will submit general directions and have the City
Council make a decision.
Com. Austin stated she supported the four orchards concept and the idea of a farmers' market.
She suggested the idea of the "adopt a tree" concept. She re6dmmended that the Fine Arts
Commission review the sundial and any other art work involved. Com. Austin suggested a
+ mustard ground cover for the area as it was reminiscent of the original valley floor.
Com.Mahoney stated he didn't see it as an active area,but a quiet area to stroll around and sit in,
but felt although the busy intersection location didn't lend itself to people casually strolling. He
- said he tentatively supported the orchard concept, but was concerned about how humanized the
area could be as an active place for people to sit in. He recommended that the Fine Arts
Commission act in an advisory role, not choosing, as the basic layout of the area will ultimately
return to the Planning Commission.
is Com.,Roberts stated he strongly supported the four seasons orchard concept. He said it was an
integral and crucial part of the campaign to attract pople to the City, and if there were places
iffm RISEN
W_ . �
T,
i
1 Jt 0.��fr�`LT����fr�.�µ,y"'v.'➢�'^Ya.'4v�T���F;�tc SAY 4 J�� ' Yt ' '�..� �r. � } ,.� r � Sir' �-Lr y .>*a �' �., 7 �r ,ttt
g t
Planning Commission Minutes
s quay 13, 1995;
for the people to purchase lunch or see other exactions,more people would linger and enjoy the
area, Re compared the busy intersection to Memorial Park,stating that it attracted a large crowd
of people in spite of its busy location. He recommended a fountain or similar water motif in the
center; which would detract from the traffic noise. He supported the Fine Arts Commission
a input on the sundial and the layout as well.
Com:"Harris supported the idea of a park with a large,scale formal strolling garden,and said that
the tree illuminating at night world give the auto driving by the benefit of the area, and also
present a magical image at night. She said she did not favor the concept of four uniform sections
for different seasons because only one of the seasons would be highlighted at a time. She
suggested incorporating the four seasons concept throughout the garden so that at all times all
areas of the garden would be pleasing. Com.Harris said she preferred something less water and
it orchard and didn't like the possibility of rotting fruit and using
maintenance intensive than a fru
y pesticides . She said fruit :,.:nds are temporary and look temporary, and suggested carts would
be more creative and att►�,:'.i,: She supported the idea of including a farmers market but not
t. necessarily at that locati.•;. , (,m.Harris supported a water fountain in the area as long as it was
a season of no drought. S:..: agreed that the Fine Arts Commission should be involved in an
advisory capacity, but not design.
Chairman Doyle stated he did not support the full orchard concept, but preferred the concept of
low trees interspersed:for aleasing effect throughout the area. He recommended the Fine Arts
Commission take a more active role and that the community'be involved in input on the
the lighting concept and'fruit/flower carts, stating
conceptual look. Chairman Doyle supported
that it would be something to draw people.
Chairman Doyle su,amarized that there was consensus on the tree concept and noted that further
discussion was needed. Mr. Bottomley suggested placement-of the trees for a bold effect as it
was a highly visible site. There was consensus to support the concept of a bold, eye-catching
area.
Mr.Jung summarized the recommendations on the four seasons orchard concept:
;t + tree intensive,but not large trees
* leaning toward orchard setting that would provide a passive area
* should have seasonal color but be attractive all year round with some seasonal
interest as opposed to having three bare quads and one showy quad
+ pedestrian paths, benches, pedestrian features and art work or Nvater feature
within the park itself;a water feature that is pleasing without the circulation of water in
the event of a drought period.
* farmers market associated with the park or a people magnet such as fruit/flower
carts
+ the concept of fruit trees or"adopt a tree"to be explored with a horticulturist
Chairman Doyle palled the Commissioners for their input on what level of participation the Fine
Arts Commission should have on-the project.
s Commission should be varticipatony but tint contr-illing;acting in
Com.Harris said the Fine Art
an advisory capacity.
V-
P lanning Comxrhission Minutes July 13, 1995
Coms. Roberts, Mahoney and Austin agreed that the Fine Arts Commission should act in an
advisory capacity with regard to all aesthetic aspects of the project.
Chairman Doyle agreed that the Fine Arts Commission should act in the capacity of public input.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
Ms. Burnett addressed the Commission on behalf of CURB, stating CURB was not unanimous
regarding the sundial and suggested consulting a local artisan to come up with a unique design
for unanimous approval,with the sundial as a fallback position.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Mr. Jung clarified that a landmark artpiece would the suitable for the center area, and the Fine
Arts Commission should be involved in the process. There was consensus for support of the
sundial.,
Mr. Bottomley suggested that there be a thematic link between the logic of the planting plan for
the design of the park and the artpiece, and pointed out that any artwork considered should be
linked to`the overall planting theme of the square.
�.
Mr.Jung stated tti_it the next item for discussion was the development trigger for the Heart of the
City landscape requirements. He reported that staff has had a great deal of discussion with the
Chamber of Commerce and its main concern was the level of improvements required.
A lengthy discussion followed on the parkway.landscape easement language as set forth on Page
29 of the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public comment. As there was none, he
;Y closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
There was consensus to recommend a 25% trigger, with the time period undecided. Mr.
Viskovich pointed out that the ordinance applied to single family residential remodeling and
there was a need to be consistent throughout the different uses. He stated that a one year time
period worked well with single family remodels. Following discussion, on a vote of 3:2 the
Planning,Commission recommended a period of 24 months duration.
The Commission discussed he banner sign and monument sign criteria.
In response to Com. Harris' question regarding banner sign. width, Mr. Jung stated that the
dimensions of the sign would be limited and would have to be located in the curbside landscape
sth ip and be at least 30 inches away from the curb and a foot away from the sidewalk,put in at 6-
1/2,feet.
Com.Harris said she would like:to reconsider the banner width after driving down Stevens Creek
Boulevard andviewint;banner signs 6-1/2 feet wide. She noted that they were much larger than
she originally thought,and would like to consider 5 feet.as more appropriate.
i� Amok
lt'
1
+Y
l 1.
7,1 j
Planning Commission Minutes s July 13, 1995
AIL
Chairman Doyle opened the hearing for public input. As there was none, he closed the
y public input portion of hearing.
Com. Mahoney commented that pole mounted signs have to be differentiated from banners'gns.
Following a lengthy discussion,there was consensus that the banner signs be 13 x 4.5 feet and 9
feet above the ground. Mr.Jung stated that the dimensions may discourage the tenant because of
wording difficulties on the smaller area.
There was consensus to amend No.9,page 34,pertaining to neon signs,to contain language that
neon not be permitted on banner signs, and state"for only building mounted signs". There was
consensus that on Stevens Creek Boulevard there should not be neon except on wall mounted
signs.
The preferred implementation option was discussed. Mr.Jung explained that the option included
two alternatives: Alternative 1, the Public Improvement Priority; and Alternative 2, Center
Heavy Approach. He reviewed the option as set forth in the Heart of the City Plan.
Com. Mahoney questioned Phase 1, Page 47 wording "street improvement funding from City
,n
Center property owners".
Referring to Alternative 1,Mr.Cowan clarified it as pay-as-you go. He stated there may be very
unique situations where there is a gap in improvements and the City fills in the gap in a 100 foot
stretch of road that has to be done. Option I is where the city fronted the improvements and it is
then reimbursed;however, that is no longer the case.
Mr. Jung stated it was his understanding that there were some Council members in vm5ted in
fronting some money to do spot changes. Mr.Cowan cited a Swenson project as all exaalple.
Following a brief discussion,there was consensus not to change the wording.
t ,
There was'a brief discussion about"Description of Activities"on Page 47, 4th paragraph (Phase
I1). There was consensus to delete the last four lines beginning with "City-funded street ...."
from Description of Activities(Phase II).
:Y
" . In response to Com.Mahoney's question regarding Phase II, Mr.Jung stated that there would be
reimbursements in the center heavy approach.
Com. Harris stated that an indefinite period was inappropriate and recommended a cap that
would pay interest to a maximum of ten years, because she added,the amount of acquisition and
development of the property gets too high. Mr. Viskovich explained that it encouraged
dedication. Discussion continued wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions.
i Com. Roberts supported consideration of a lower interest rate rather than change the terms.- He
said the inflation rate could be considered. .
Com. Mahoney did not support putting a cap on the rate. He said he would not support the 7
�r
inflation rate,but use a prime cost cf capital rate.
I1A
f'
,:�, r .,� l t`,` , ...lx� i. � .� •r�,��I.r?al';�$ � :' r �:;` Y' t �„ Sr n.. a 1.-r y � ?�r)Yc��}�35'�'�7' ,�'�f`�o s`dtsj`S� v'� .�'r.^. � �� ['S i..,,�
t VS.
t )
f�` x�t�# • x t a 1 ! - 1 _ t i...�,1 >I ti Y5 a 15 y yet iy� r�la,�, �fi 4
PlattPin Minutes 6
July.13,.1995
Com.Austin commented that she understood the goal was to acquire,io have them dedicate and
not pay'interest. She stated she concurred with Mr.Viskovich.
Chairman Doyle supported the 7%with no fixed cap.
:"age 48: Com.Harris recommended that the median with the flowering pear trees and flowering
shrubs be continued. Mr. Viskovich stated that staff discussed the removal of shrubs already in
the wider areas and recommended that the wider area have the trees and shrubs.
.j -
' Harris recommended that the final decision on rail fencing be removed from all sections.
The Commissioners stated their recommendations for Alternatives 1 or 2:
Alternative 1:'Com.Harris,Roberts,Austin; Alternative 2:Com.Mahoney,Chairman Doyle.
Chairman Boyle opened the public hearing for public input.
Ms. Burnett, sN :aking on.behalf of CURB, read the attached statement,stating CURB's position
on the trees.
' Chairman Doyle closed tate public input portion of the public hearing.
Com. Harris commented on the public input statement. She stated she had felt the same way the .
last time she voted, that the trees were preferred. However, when confronted with the financial
aspects and the fact that the City would not be able to advance the funds for the trees along the
?; boulevard, she said she was reconsidering her original opinion. If there is adequate money for,
medians, gateways and landmarks, Com. Harris supported spending the money so there is
uniformity along the boulevard, ideally, all the trees. She said she was leaning more toward
Alternative 2.
Com.Austin concurred with Com.Harris.
Com. Mahoney concurred with CURB's statement as presented. He said he favored more trees
in a shorter space on both sides of the street rather than spacing them further apart.
8 Mr. Jung stated that public opinion may change depending on how well the Whole
Foods/Fontanas Restaurant comes out because it will be the full streetscape improvements and
how well it is perceived may create some willingness to do.some additional improvements on
:i the Boulevard.
r Chairman Doyle said he agreed with Alternative 2.
Chairman,Doyle recommended sending the recommendations to the City Council, indicating that
r the Planning Commission was split on which alternative.
Mr.Jung noted that Com.Harris,preferred Alternative 2,Alternative 1 if it were feasible.
s
Rails:
f!
i
Ki: .. b� w!"u-•yRc.fa..e`.W at
w
tij � a F
r..x s: S f�' i:;r to ,' • .`Y?Sa �,.rat °: i+'C u.+ r'^f,''°`�.r Yrl�r 2 s$,.:;'� '�."4. , '�c,- '`.,�c a...7.t � .�zjv1Y 'tr* '' ?h� .�,,v.� A x� .� .
M��t�' ix,`�k'.�{r�l�•�~r�`��y� L(I
S
. ',�
Planning Comartasston'Iviinutes s a ",
July`13, I995' .
Using overheads.Mwr.Jung reviewed the three design options at the landscape edge,as outlined
i in tk staff report.
r:
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input. As there was none,the public
input portion of the public hearing was.closed.
Com.Harris supported Option 2: hedge. She stated she was opposed to rail fencing.
i
Mr. Cowan stated that a maintenance agreement between all the property owners would be
needed.
In response to Com. Roberts' question, Mr. Viskovich stated that from a maintenance point of
view,Option 2: hedges was more favorable.
Com.Roberts supported Option 2:hedges.
Com. Mahoney supported Option 2:hedges.
Com.Austin supported Option 2: hedges.
Chairman Doyle supported Option 1:rail fence.
On a vote of 4:1 Option 2:hedges was deemed favorable.
Am
e There was consensus that the hedge would be for parking lots only.
r
Chairperson Doyle declared a. recess at 9:00 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:10 p.m. the same
members were present.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
i
Ms. Burnett complimented the Commission on their efforts. She presented the attached
n statement from -CURB. She reviewed CURB's comments on two specifics regarding future
development which would adjoin residential property: building height maximums and setback
from residential. e
Referring to building heights, she pointed out that the maximum height was 3 floors or 36 feet.
Duringthe proc:ss.of creating the 1993 General Plan, in which CURB participated, it was
specifically agreed at a Council meeting, that Stevens Creek Blvd. properties which back up to
the residential properties should be limited to 30 feet. The General Plan statement 2-23
described the height range as 30 fret to 45 feet to the top of the parapet depending on the
distance to residences. CURB members believe that the city should not deviate from the height
limitation in the Stevens Creek Specific Plan. She stated that CURB suggested the following
wording "Maximum building height is 3 floors no higher than 30 feet." Furthermore CURB
` does not support exceptions to the height limitations for any reason on properties which adjoin
residential buildings.
k
G
The .other issue is setback to residential. CURB urged the Commission to adopt the same
standard for multi residential development which is another section within the draft.
s-
7
I
,y
" .a t,hi r�,". �`.X �,Ti r,�.�i* �� pi'�''Yr� ,g� � rir,✓ 4 e�"t�..,tal x i .� r � � :,'�; ,
s . Iuly 13. 1895
Planning Commission Minutes
Ms.Burnett stated in the area of residential development,care"must be taken to assure that future
housing development density will be spread as evenly as possible along the corridor. CURB also
recommended that affordable housing should be a part of the residential mix everywhere.
In response to Com. Mahoney's request for clarification, Mr. Jung stated that the setback was
applied to commercial properties such as loading docks and was not applicable to residential
properties., He stated that it was staff's understanding that the current height limit on Stevens
Creek Boulevard was 30-45 feet depending upon the distance to residential.
Discussion continued regarding building height. It was CURB's recommendation that 30 feet be
thelimit if adjacent to residence. Mr. Cowan explained that the General Plan language was
meant to be the highest point of the building.
The Commissioners reviewed the Eleart of the City Plan in detail.
Page b-Following a brief discussion,there was consensus to delete the entire page.
Page-7- 1 st paragraph,second last line: delete"oriented"and substitute"inclusive".
i
j Page 8-No changes.
i
Page 9-Renumber policies.
f
jPage 10-No changes.
Page 11 - Com. Harris stated that she heard at the Council that they might want some public
funds for pocket parks. Furthermore, we said public funds should be expended at the Collins
School site to beef up LI and L2 which is in the area. Therefore the language is not adequate.
Recommended amending the wording, top line to read: "Generally, the expenditure of public
funds to acquire and develop typical neighborhood and/or pocket parks not be endorsed". Add
the following sentence "School site locations in L1 and L2 should be considered for public
expenditures as well as c creekside park and linkages."
Under CirQfllatQRTadd '-2nd sentence: should read"Maintain or improve transportation level
of service(LOS)"D or better".except..."
{ Under polices - Com. Harris suggested all references to "pedestrian" be changed to read
"bicycle and pedestrian. " Com. Mahoney objected, stating he did not support pedestrian and
bicycles in the courtyards.
Under drat.eaies_4th item: add"and passive rest areas".
for icyes and one for
Chairman Doyle expressed concern about
saying
two paths.
muchone
as pos bblecl The fifth bullet
s pedestrians. He said bicycle access s p
pertains to bicycles.
Page 12 In response to Com.Harris' question,Mr.Jung clarified the item.
1
11161141111i 11111112
dl
i
�; 'f fs{t� r�,<ci��'r�pg �yh`�;;�• �,..'in ^st'.Qr"'a'.��,�" �hrn..�5ir ;1 �r{..,��'°c�er�"6r'��".s 'c 'i5� a .,� w,. -t ��hh�. <"�g`�t,a:, w.i?y r;�f'3K;.:f
' c \tf' w rti. i��+ tai 1 yt�'i Yc� , Yh?? ] 1 f x�. i, i r 's 5 fr ,t�` 4� 5 �1 ♦ 'T ft n 1 -
t.• ., '( � "4 � ;� -_ r ,9
Planning Co"in
'Mission Minutes'
-Page 13 - Following a brief discussion'there was consensus to not change the wording of the
fourth bullet.,
Page 14-no changes
A, brief discussion ensued regarding the land use map wherein Mr. Jung answered
Commissioners' questions.
Page 15-In response to Com.Harris request for clarification of the third sentence in the second
paragraph, Mr. Bottomley explained that frontage conditions vary for getting in the curbside
planting strip on the sidewalk.
Page 15-No.2):after"Frontage"add"passive rest areas."
Y� Page 16- West Gateway- 3rd last line, after"material", add "where appropriate". Delete last
two sentences.
Page 16- Town Center- 4th line: After"median." add sentence"Flowering shrubs could be
r planted in the medians where appropriate."
Page 17-2nd paragraph,2nd last line: delete"well
I
Page 17 - 5th paragraphlast line: add sentence "There should be no removals if the current
,
space is less than the design."
ith a future pian to implement the full streetscape
Page 18- 2nd paragraph: after"walk"add"w
t plan upon redevelopment."
Page 18 - 3rd paragraph: after"row" add "will a future plan to implement the full streetscape
plan upon redevelopment."
Page 18-5th paragraph:delete last sentence"If funding.....development:'
Page 18- 6th paragraph: second line,delete"bus shelters"; delete"street"and add"sidewalk";
add"and trash receptacles"after"street lighting.
Page,,19-Completed at beginning of meeting.
Page 20-No changes
Page 21-Delete:"5)"- entire sentence
Pages 22 and 23 -No changes
v Page 24-There was a discussion about the maximum building height. A vote of 3:2 supported
the 36 foot height. (Harris: 32 feet; Roberts: 32 feet;Mahoney: 36 feet; Austin: 36 feet; Doyle:
`
36 ft).
n
"L'!; l' t.{V� .1
N
"Plsiming Commission Minutes to July 13, 1995
p
Page 25-Last paragraph,second line: after"fence"add"masonry wall or hedge';delete"and a
maximum of 48" in height" from third line. Compose and add sentence at end of paragraph
pertaining to Stevens Cfeek frontage.
Page 26-No changes
Page 27- Previously dealt with reference to 5 feet.
a
Pages 28, 29 30, 31-No changes
Page 32 3rd paragraph, line 3: "and"should read"with".
Page 32-4th paragraph,line 1:delete"such as gables,turrets and towers". ti
Page 32-5th paragraph,last line: add"and quality materials."
Pages 33-No changes
Page. 34-Banner sign section amended earlier in meeting.
Page 35-No changes
Page 36-3rd paragraph:delete"such as gables,turrets,and tower elements".
Pages 37 through 45-No changes
Maps-No changes
Com. Harris stated that she was unable to find the building coverage ratios and floor area ratios
section. Mr. Jung responded that the General Plan eliminated floor area ratios for commercial
development in lieu of the development allocation systems. For office buildings the floor area
ratio will remain the same,.37. The floor area ratio for office is on Page 24,retail,is D1 and D2.
n '
Pages 46, 47, 48, 49 -Changes reviewed previously.
Com.Mahoney stated that a price was needed for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
w Page 50-4th paragraph: A discussion ensued regarding trash and recycling receptacles. There
was consensus to add that the trash receptacle should be capable of recycling if at all possible.
Page.51- 1 st paragraph,last line: delete"such as red or off yellow".
<k Page 51-3rd paragraph-Gateway Signs-On a vote of 3:2 it was voted to leave the language as
t
is.
Page 52,First sentence:add"and the five year capital improvements program."
Page 53-No changes.
}
i
u
.L4„rt�l`�1,y' i..�4���
..1^ .it i P'S” R 1 F?.,.�. .,.>,t.i-+',f'y�+,zLi 7�'r y,` q �a�` :. -�e ����r �uff�"}:. �,�,.�� ��i ,,1 x'`�)'�.�t�;�5,,,,'`�i .`� ��e�. ��L,'".'� •c�r�-1..�::',iI'�...
i. �i., t acs; � r�<"!'� a �' ti�i,��� -�r �{>'x�,� ��tiv:i c�i`'* ��� `�aQ 4-te�,�' iS� .a•;�,�ae E���=:,;'tK f�-,�x'r'k r {���sl s�,�s'�"���"`s�' ' .v;'a
",:z } � r .° r;r 'r ' +s:,. t,, j I -s r >z*,� � �� ?•�}r�t t�,.,'), q��`•is)'`�P}''��ir
-, Planniag Cosnm�ssirin Minutes i i_ A -
Chairman Doyle opened the public heariag for public input. As theta was none,the pu6Qic"
F,
input portion of the hearing was closed
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve the Negative Declaration(9-EA-95)for the
draft specific plan
SECOND: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed
5-0
b
Alm
� I
1
Qk
I•
i!
.k
1;
A!
S
T
yl
y.
4 -
Y
'C
:5
4^ xr.r f c'ir,t �' .x4' .cY's.srir ;wax' � ,c""s'° ...�s. >•vtD 'r' lV."'t^,ar n,cu„�'. ;. ''4T��q 'si'.Y7 t_,
`, :.r ,} ,�' r +`ti•� {1 c'-�',° - ..x 'r. �1, r ..; J'r t ttia;..4rrc. ..,t� JziC >`::y i1tf=al.. T.{. � cry »Wki',�.:• rc?;
t""j
_ 't •..�y9 IrS� ac t k. t t.," 4i�: r r t a a^�i '''q+v::`i i` =y tr�>�"�d Ki. ,
;' t r�� , ,• ars t' f�� .r s�, a i4�
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300'Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULARADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON JULY 18,1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
x Commissioner present: Austin,Barris,Mahoney,Roberts,Chairman Doyle.
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner,Bert Viskovich,Director of Public Works;and Charles Kilian,
Attorney.
f. ,
Consultants: Donald Wolfe, Donald Sidnner
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letters from R.Cobb;I I.Goodrich,City of Los Altos,E.
Warren.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
p
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No.(s) 1-GPA-93 and 6-EA-93
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose
} Property Owner:. Diocese of San Jose
Location: Assessor Parcel Numbers 342-52-3,342-5-54,-56,.-59,-60
Located south of 1-280,west of Foothill Boulevard and north
of Rancho San Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek
Boulevard
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from very Low Density
Residential 5-20 acre slope density to Very Low Density Residential Foothill Modified '/2 acre
slope density with a cap of 293 units.
The Diocese of San Sole applied for the above General Plan Amendment. The City Council
directed that a total of ten alteratives be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared. Ten'
alternatives were evaluated. Significant impacts identified related to loss of and intrusion into open
space lands; elimination of potential park lands; loss of and intrusion into natural vegetation,
z
PER
Lr.
:: 1,• i t e ti. o rw 3,.-» �.v i. � x?y° ''. Ira C s b'" .''. K'a.ami r 3.�`ii.fi "4 r s7` a Sex 4ic'v s + 4A� ,� „+c7'�.':,
.�iia`+ i, l�,�fy�'yr'8,� "�<s (4� '������d s ff,4 4�'t-- u"ri"�.n"d(.f j.F -. z.,`"S �.< i �,hrj Kt`i'a�''., a t:�'��xl.t.�•t 5 ^dy T�ia'� �t'�: ,f�3��•w
P 8 CcanmussWn Minutes z July 18, 1995 '
wildlife habitat and wetland areas; e,.posure to adverse geologic conditions; storm run-off erosion
and pollution;wildlife hazard,visual impacts;water tank failure and Ieakage; and safety of school
crossings. E
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION' p:egative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CTTY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 31, 1995
Staff presentation: City Planner Wardell reviewed the items for discussion as outlined in the
attached staff report and reviewed the background of the public open space issue. Referring to an
overb^_ad of the Diocese of San Jose Specific Plan (Exhibit A),Ms. Wordell pointed out areas of
interest relating to public open space which the Diocese has volunteered as part of their preferred 1
alternative. She illustrated the areas of interest to the County.of Santa Clara,Cupertino Parks and
Recreation and the City of Cupertino. .
In responsa to Com. Austin's question about parking, staff stated that the small parking lot would
be at the base of Cristo Rcy.
Ms.Wardell reviewed the two alternatives to be considered at the meeting.
{ Com.Austin asked staff to clarify if public lands are not offered.by the property owner,could open
space in the General Plan Amendment be private with development rights dedicated to the city or
some other tool such as private open space zoning district. Ms.Wordell explained that the zoning
district specifies what use's are available if it is private open space;it would not be accessible to the
public.
Mr.Kilian explained that normally dedication of development rights is intended not only as an open
space tool but to protect other property owners within the development, i.e., in a condominium
w development normally dedication is required of development rights so that later development cannot
intrude on those open spaces that are meant for the residents of the development. He explained a
`} more appropriate tool would be to zone the property as a private open space which could be Q
changed in the future. He stated that the dedicztion of development rights is more appropriate in a
condominium development where the city is acting as a trustee.
s` In response to a question from Com. Austin, Mr. Kilian explained that if the City Council decided
to sell,public open space, some of the dedication would go to the County and some to the City and
public agencies could go through the process of abandonment.
Com. Roberts expressed concern that only mo altermwves were presented from the prior Planning
Commission meeting. He stated it was his recollection that a 90 unit alternative had been presented
with two supporting votes. Ms.Wardell explained Chat the two alternative conclusion was a re•tult
of a review of the tapes, and stated dint,:if in doubt, the other alternatives could be proposed ,
again.
Chain-inn Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
` Mr. Michael Bruner, Sobrato Development, representing the Diocese of San Pose, responded to an
earlier question of public open space. He pointed apt that.if a deed is given to a public agency for
park use,whether the city or the county, thea:are strict requirements in Perms of•be abandonment
process that make it virtually impossible to change it to any other use in the future because a
ri.. a
}_ r'i o�-r a� .//r. r 7 ?. S.>'•
•. �r JAb 4" vi
3 July I$, 1995
Platlning Commission Minutes
f le
finding has to be.made that it is r-Needed as park use,and if there area lun�ted number o poop
at the public hearing, it is forced to a two thirds vote of the public. He said that unless the piablic
ultimately decided on a two-thirds.basis to convert it back to some Other use, it is doubtful that
once it becomes public open space that it would be anything but public open space.
Mr. Bruner commended Ms.Wordell on the staff report. He reviewed the contents of the attached
July 18`h letter to the Planning Commission. He urged the Planning Commission to consider the
applicant's proposal.
in response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Bruner stated that the 8,000/SF lots would have
3,000/SF houses on them,but because of the larger lots,the visual impact would be different.
A discussion followed wherein Mr.Bruner answered Cornmiss:onetsquestions.
Com.' Roberts asked Mr. Bruner for clarification on the applicant's position of the 25%
development area. Mr. Bruner stated rthat applicant's decision 'is the result of an exhaustive four
year process that started out with building.on the entire site subject to seismic regulations and
going through a process from 192 uuts to only 36 units on 10%. He emphasized that the applicant
bas worked diligently with everybody, and constantly modified the plans to address all concerns
and come up with a balanced proposal,and felt 50%was more appropriate.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
Rev.Ward McCabe,SL Jude's Episcopal Church,Cupertino,suggested the equitable balancing of
prrherty rights and environmental usage. He pointed out that the air quality in the county has
improved greatly in the last 37 years. Rev.McCabe explained that as an owner of 300 acres of
land in Kentucky, he maintains an interest in.the development ani use of hes property,and has an
agreement with neighboring farmers that if any of them sells they will only do so in 30 acre parcels
to preserve the character cf the neighborhood. With this in mind, he rated that the proposed
compromise presented by the Diocese has reached a point of equity,a.point of balance between the
common;interest in a wide variety of directions.
Ms. Marilyn Howard, 867 E. Estates Drive, Cupertino, representing CURB, presented the
attached position statement related to the Diocese issue,.and summarized CURB's endorsement: (1)
Public open space would be preferable to private open space; (2) Any number of housing units
above 36 specified in the General Plan should be accepted only if there is additional public benefit;
(3)Dedication of the land contiguous to present open space or near the riparian:corridor would be
beneficial to people and wildlife; (4) The number and size of visible dwelling units are important
considerations of enjoyment of open space; (5) Release from the Williamson Act would be of
benefit to the Diocese and should be awarded only if there is compensating public benefit;(6)Strict
detailed architectural and landscaping guidelines with provision for ongoing public review will be
an `;important factor for the success of this project; (7) BelowMarketRate housing twits are
encouraged; (8) Transfer of public open space to an accepting agency must be done in a timely.
manner to assure actual completion; and (9) Guidelines for future occupants of the,home are
essentia!to help preserve the natural habitat.
Ms. Rebecca Hickman, 27140 Moody Road, Los Altos Hills, representing the Los Altos Hills ,
Horsemen's Association, stated that the Association has been actively involved with the Diocese
land issue for over five,years. She stated that the Association felt the most recent proposal which
. 4
't
7 .�tir_..?.rcic5.ratHr_'�:Gh4' R�... a• f.., �.^.�`xn*1'1� ..;�^ry r `��w- n„?tk �'yr a�s A; 4 i r ,.,.r 4{''t 4k ,?a uc3�P�„'9 �,Y"'i,{,� 4�"4� 1�t^' -t,�„.. tc. .ya, �} r..�f �s�'`
`q PlannutComnnssron Minutes4 July 18,^1995
g
dedicates 65%.of the land for public open space was approaching a conclusion. Initially the 293
unit proposal on 208 acres meant no trails or open space for equestrians.end the public. She felt
the present proposal is an open space development proposal, the first of its kind for Santa Clara
County'and one in which the Association sees as a historical precedent for other land development
projects in the future. The recetat proposal limits the number of homes to two major development
(Mvelopes using'only 50 acres for development and assigning the remaining acreage as open space
area. She stated the proposal equates to millions of dollars of open space being donated to the
publics" The Association strongly feels that the current Diocese proposal,is one that will insure
open space access to future generations; hence,the Horsemen's Association actively supports and
5 endorses the proposal and urged others within the community to do so.
r
Ms. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oak Way, Cupertino, read the attached statement from Oaks
LMV Sierra Club,regarding the Diocese issue. She also addressed the Commission regarding_her
personal opinion, stating that she desired preservation or at least conservation of wildlife habitat.
She said the best that both sides can do is to cut their losses,pointing out that both sides have given
up something. She expressed concern that the proposed public open space brings up questions
which public agencies will take responsibility for, such as which parcels, areas, who will monitor
water quality in the creek,etc. Ms. Smith also expressed concern about the impact on bird, plant 7
and amphibian life. She stressed that"less was better and urged that the Planning Commission
an,or if not feasible,a modest amendment.
recommend
no amendment to the General PL
Mr. Greg Schaffer, 10190 Byerly Court, Cupertino, stated that he lived near Rancho San Antonio
and Fremont Older Preserve. He said he is a proponent of open space as Rancho San Antonio is
becoming overcrowded. He stated he supported the proposal for 178 units and the 65% open
ioned the definition of affordable housing. Chairman Doyle
spacer In closing,Mr. Schaffer quest
and Com. Mahoney stated that the City Planner's office had a document which defined affordable
r
dousing,stating it was not high density and the units are to be compatible with the other units.
Ms. Diane Haze,22681.San Juan Road, Cupprtino, stated that she felt the General Plan needed to
be amended to achieve a new public open space corridor to`Rancho San Antonio which would
`i. allow a multi-use trail to improve the quality of life for both humans and animals. She said the
available land, through amending the General Plan would provide a unique opportunity for
Cupertino.
Mr. Clyde Armstrong,2465 Cristo Rey Place, ur;ed an alternate exit out of the parcel other than
+• Cristo Rey. He pointed out that traffic often travels at an unsafe speed on Cristo Rey and hoped
that a plea for speed bumps would not be necessary. He asked the Planning Commission to help
seek a solution.
Ms. Pat Wood, 10656 Amulet Place, Cupertino, spoke on behalf of the Committee for Green
Footlills, and reiterated that the Committee continues to support contiguous public open space.
:t The Committee believes that dedicating open space to the public preserves open space; private
` opewspace is reserved and with private open space there can always be some future change. She
said that the Committee is concerned with the environment and with the dedication of private open
space,because development in the entire area ould occur in the future with a serious impact on the
environment. In closing she said that the Committee supports public open.space and feels that j
Cupertino will benefit as well as others. She urged the Commission to consider the benefits..
la
TA
'•; 'yc'f
' + f n•�. �'�y&�R r �y ?t'�'"� j �•'�� � a £t't { 4�.3�. 4,'�r� t ar 4 � :l l t i�: a e,t �t5€''�X,� .��q � J"y t^,
M1 ��1.� l (5:. ....ti �ff1 r t44 k_•i.� y� ..i ,
Planning Coanmission Minutes g July 189:1995
Mn Steve Haze, 22681.San Juan Road,Cupertino, stated that a letter was sent to appwximsteiy
5,C00 Cupertino residents seeking their input on the Diocese issue. He presented in excess of 500
postcard responses received in two days from the residents, 99.9% of the responses indicating
support of the proposal. He highlighted a postcard from a young child supporting the proposal.
Mr.. Haze said the postcards will be available to the Commission within a week. Mr. Kilian
suggested that Me.Haze pass the response postcards on to the City Council.
Mr. Haze presented a letter from Ray,Murray, National Parks Service, endorsing the knoll
protection and public access portion of the proposal. The letter stated that although it was not
appropriate for the National Parks Service to take a position on the other aspects of the Diocese
proposal,they looked forward to working with the City of Cupertino to recognize all of the Juan
Batista DeAnza national historic trail within the city limits.
Mr. Haze explained that hr, was the founder and the first chairperson for the organization
advocating keeping St.Joseph's as open space(OAKS). The community has been grappling with
the issue for five years and it is a testament to the.community°effort of'coming together and is
symbolic of the historic knoll,the wildlife corridors,and the red legged frog.
Ms Joyce Eden, 10213 Lockwood Drive,Cupertino,said she supported the clustered concept.She
expressed concern that when Cristo Rey was expanded, no bike trail was put in, and urged the
t Commission to put in a bike trail if anything is done further or if another access is added, ivls.
Eden expressed opposition to parking on Stevens Creek and stated that it should be kept as a walk-
in or bike-in area. She addressed the issue of native plants and animals which are threatened by
development. She said the pet issue and exotic, evasive non-native plants should be addressed in
deed restrictions so it is clear what the issues are now as well as in the future. She said she felt
that dogs should only be allowed if there is an enclosed yard or dog run for the dog, because they
` present a threat to the wildlife and could also be in danger. She urged that because of the unique
area, native plants be used. Ms. Eden clarified that the recommended proposals were all deed
restrictions.
A brief discussion ensued regatding bike paths,wherein MsAVordell explained that the issue could
be addressed in a later phase.
Mr. Randy Anderson, Planning Manager,Mid Peninsula Rggional Open Space.District, presented
the attached letter and acknowledged the careful study the Planning Commission and applicant
devoted to the alternatives. He pointed out that the letter addressed the diagram illustrating the
open space areas to be dedicated to public agencies.
Corn.Roberts clarified that on Page 2 of the letter reference to D and C should read"B and.0".
Corm. Mahoney asked Mr. Anderson what the Open Space District's bottom line on B was. Mr.
` `Anderson clarified that he was referring to residential area 2, the 12 units. Mr. Anderson stated
that B accomplishes the job of avoiding construction on that land and on the frog habitat which
s must at minimum be avoided. He said it was part of a valuable, visual and access corridor
between the urban area and Rancho San Antonio Park that would be substantially enhanced by
avoiding residential development in Area 2 and putting the 12 units somewhere else. In response to
Com. Roberts' question about open space A, Mr. Anderson explained that Area A is an
appropriate buffer of the development from the creek and given that it will be developed, it was the
appropriate thing to do.and given that the political climate could change, there are ways of
ensuring that it does not get developed either public.or private. What is important to the Open
1
1
4.
tS 5v,.+ '�. '� 5+r ,c.��,i'dthl�oh i e 5 e e u 1 9 +•r :+;. reY ,r:'`.�, `1 ,c �"� y„ t �t ' j
5 `�"c cr ea � '4 i€ `rkf.g¢M1 k i.�"y, a 5 Fr k �3°'iYj�a ,` y 1� .n, ���*.•�as� ar ' ' J k tr�tjtt}}�f>4,�,4'4 \ ..jT.g;S.'"A . Bryk 4.r*.tis'+K� �� ;fin b�� t,?,
xr *4 (r }S
Planning Commission Minutes' 6 July 11;, 1995
k ,
' and that the le responsible for it
Space District is that the land is managed properly peop p
:. and the residents have shared expectations about doing it properly.
In response to Com. Austin's question, Mr. Anderson clarified that Area B open space would be
expanded to both sides of Cristo Rey Drive because of the visual and habitat impact- Mr,
Anderson stated that the Open Space District is speaking as a concerned public agency.
Ms.Wordell pointed out that when staff looked at the various areas,they felt it was a possibility
that Area B could be city; if area C was city;Area B was a possibility as well, and it may not be
crucial that the Comity or another agency commit to having that be in their jurisdiction.
Chairman Doyle questioned how the management plan for the open space is typically addressed.
is
Mr.Wolfe stated it would be handled as a condition of approval of the final subdivision if there
going to be private ownership. If public ownership,the agency that ultimately receives the marsh
Cristo Rey area would be required to produce its own management plan. It would be part of the
agreement with the recipient agency. He stated it was not necessarily a part of.the EIR process.
s Mr, Ed Bloom, 22150 Wallace Drive, Cupertino, said there were more than two choices available
stated it was important to realize that the proposal is a
that are being presented at this meeting. He
development profit issue and the profits were in the $10 million plus range. He discussed the
A following points: (1)The Forum is already on the property; (2) Kaiser and Maryknoll- 10 tim3)
this property. The result of the present proposal will set a precedent for Kaiser and Maryknoll;(3)
Recently the Los Altos exit was given up. This is the Cupertino Planning Commission,not the Los
AWL
Altos Planning Commission,stating that it was a minus as far as this development;(4)The mailing
had two choices: (1)no public land and(2)public land. He stressed the importance of keeping all
the previous comments in perspective when voting on the proposal. He, said he welcomed a split
decision from the Planning Commission. ,
In response to Com. Harris' request for his personal opinion on the resolution, Mr. Bloom stated
that it should be less than both the proposals; as he couldn't understand how such,a development
could be approved on the particular parcel of land.
Mr. George Cardinet, Executive Director of Heritage Trails Fund, read the attached statement in
support of the Diocese development. Steve Haze distributed a packet on the Juan Batista DeAnza
National Historic Trail. Mr.Cardinet intrc4uced the DeAnza Lancers and.pro,6ded a brief history
of their organization. Mr.Haze noted that Page 4 of the booklet contained a notation of the March
;x}
25, 1776 93'd Encampment in Cupertino.
Ms. Frances Coolidge, 2215 Clearwood Court, Cupertino, spoke about the veterans' cemetery
adjacent to the Cristo Rey parcel. She questioned the footage between the proposed housing units
and the cemetery. Com,Mahoney clarified that a specific number wouldn't be known until there
was a specific plan, and explained that general areas of development and numbers of units are
being discussed at this stage. He said that before approval of a specific plan, that element would
be investigated. Mr. Cowan explained that the cemetery personnel could notify the families
involved when a plan has been fuualized for the units. Chairman Doyle suggested that Ms.
Coolidge contact the City staff for further information.
111111111Z 6111
M-10 NOM-74 ally
n`+
t
r t
R
F�
Y?'�.:Ykv.t 1: i.i � '�Jf�ty%:,�♦ '` L., i -r, .y1 <t , ti y:.` i J ^.;tit ty.t },.r'+FJ{�' f (-.:.,`. .
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 1Alh 8, 1993 Y
Mr:.Melvin Caldwell, 10300 E. Estates Drive, Cupertino, noted that when the proposal
originatal,the Diocese parcel in question was shown as developable for 292 units. City Cocincil at
the time when the General Plan was changed made the proposal 36 units, and invited the Diocese
to return and go through the process asking for a General Plan Amendment to increase the number
of units from 36. He pointed out that the Diocese was not requesting an increase of 400%in units,
but in reality a 40%decrease in units from the original 292 units allotted. He stressed that it was
appropriate to keep in mind the public open space issue. 'Ile property has been divided and
reduced until the bottom line of 178 units was reached in order to get the public open space. He
said he felt the query about how much profit the applicant would make on the project was
inappropriate. He stated that what should be the main focus is w'-at is the ernnomic be to the
City of Cupertino and its citizens. Mr. Caldwell noted that 178 units would show a positive cash
now to Cupertino public libraries, schools, the central fire district and the city, and getting the
number down to 116 might not show a positive flow at all. He pointed out that the additional 62
units would provide a tremendous sales tax increase and urged the Planning Commission to think i
about the economic benefits to the city.
Mr. Craig Breon, representing the Santa Clara Audubon Society, complimented the Planning
Commission for the level of detail and analysis and contributions from the public on the issue. Mr.
Breon stated that the planning principles behind the project should be the major issue and not he
finances. He discussed the zoning of the land and what it means to have a zone that dictates
developing on 10%of the land, leaving the.remaining 90%of the land,as either private or public
open,space. He reviewed the values of public open space and private open space. Mr. Brenn
pointed out that whatever standard is set, .vill be used in the future. He summarized by stating that
the Audubon Society, while not opposed to a General:, Plan Amendment, is opposed to this.
particular General Plan Amendment.
In response to a question from Com.Harris regarding the public good in preservation of lands from
development,Mr.Breon stated that the mechanisms of private open space are sophisticated enough
that they can preserve land from development.
Ms. Diana Cooley, 10346 B Alpine Drive, Cupertino, discussed the merits of public open space
and urged the city to consider the valuable offer to have public open space and move toward
guaranteeing that the land will remain open space and usable.
Mr. Richard Robinson, consultant to the Diocese,emphasized the benefits of revealing the bottom
j line, which is the honest approach, and discussed the advantages of public open space for
preserving land for future development. Mr.Robinson urged the Planning Commission to approve
the Dioceseprowl.
Mr. Bruner reiterated that the Diocese felt strongly about the dedication of the public open space
and is willing to work on the 10%private open space for different alternatives if different people
} would be willing to accept it. He stated that one way to make sure that the private open space
doesn't get developed is to dedicate it to a t drd party so that it is not in the city's hands.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 8:90 p.m. The meeting rc convened at 9:10 p.m. with the
same members present.
�"�qCi;Hca'�.�'€k'�'�'�f� ;� r F��; iso y.e�`.��,,c�R'.,z w'hj '�'� �+y�# r � v � F✓., .,, ° �+ _'x ,,;,� � �'� �. �'.
Planning Commission Na viten a July Ig,I�tS
MOTION: It was moved by Com.Roberts to close the public hearing.
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE. Passed
Mr. Wolfe reminded the Commission that an action to approve the EIR does not constitute
approval of a project, or any action on flint project; the EIR could be approved and the project
denied. He explained that CEQA prohibits any recommendatory action until the EIR is found to be
adequate and complete and prepared in compliance with the CEQA. Mr.Wolfe pointed out that
CEQA states that the EIR need not constitute an exhaustive analysis of a project. The only
requirement is a demonstration of a"good faith effort".
,{ In response to Com. Austin's concern about two exclusions from the EIR, Mr. Wolfe stated that
f the conclusion in the EIR indicated the wafer tank was a significant adverse impact and cannot be
mitigated.
Ms. Wordell pointed out that in the list of policies for the General Plan Amendment, there is
wording that other locations should be explored. She suggested that it be added.
Discussion ensued wherein Mr.Wolfe answered Commissioners'questions.
In resporze to concertos expressed by Com. Roberts, Mr.Wolfe stated that Exhibit H will be used
as an"au!line for the final wording changes in an addendum to the EIR that will be part of the final
Elsa,containing all of the amended mitigation measures and all of the differcn.actions taken by the
Planning Commission. He reviewed the documents to be forwarded to the City Council: the drag
a EIR; the supplement to the Elss:, continents and responses; Planning Commission minutes; and
changes made to the EIR. He pointed out that the final EcR cannot be put together until the
Council closes its public hearing. Mr.Wolfe assured the Planning Commission that the consuitant
will work intensively with staff to make.certain the nomenclature and numbering is consistent in
the final documents submitted
Mr. Cowan reiterated that a critical factor is that there is enough information in the PlanniL9
Commission's hands to be able to make a decision on the adequacy. Com. Roberts stated that the
$ representative from the Open Space.District pointed out the need for a management plan for the
marsh red legged frog habitat. Mr.Wolfe responded that the need for a management program for
the open space areas is included in the wildlife section of the original draft of the EIR Mr.Wolfe
clarified that the EIR does not differentiate between private open space and public open space; it
has to apply in bo;h cases.
Mr.Wolfe stated that the concern of the Open Space District was a valid concern and shared by
the biologist that there be a resource management program for the area. Referring to Exhibit E,
Mr.`Cowan pointed out that policies are recommended in the General Plan in the section pertaining
to maintaining a management habitat plan.Chairman Doyle said his interpretation of the comments
presentative was not that there needed to be a management
made by the Open Space District rc
plan,but that the management plan needed to incorporate some financial plan.
Referring to Exhibit F,Com.Harris stated Page 3,mitigation measure 3-I4 appeared to be missing
some language.Ms..Wordell stated that the entire sccbnd sentence°should be deicted.
r�
st
. Plailtirii$Commission Minutes . Iuly 18, !�S
Cam.Hearts stated that mitigation measure 3-21 on Page 4 is missing. Ms.WondCU SMW that it
would be added.
Com.Harris pointed out in 5-8 the word"encourage"is the appropriate word in 5-1, delete"get
revised wording from City;" in 5-4 similar reference "Check with City on revised wording" be
deleted; 5-6, last line: "wild" should read `wildlife"; also in 5-6, add sentence "Fencing in the
&-velopment area of a lot is not precluded."
Com.Harris concurred with Com.Austin that mitigation measure 11-5 should be added relating to
the water tank, and suggested the following warding: "Explore other possible locations for the
water:,tank that will meet the te�-bnical water distribution requirements without as strong a visual
impact." ,There was consensus to add the mitigation measure as stated. Mr. Viskovich cautioned
that the strict specifications regarding the elevations for the water tank narrowed down the possible
locations that the water tank could be moved to.
,t
MOTION: It was moved by Corn.Mahoney that the Planning Conunission determined
that the EM.is defined as adequate and complete and was prepared in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 .
Referring to Page 2 of Exhibit E, Com. Harris stated she concurred with Com. Roberts that the
wording"for t?nat area and the wetland area"be added under Wildlife Protection,last sentence.
There was consensus to add the suggested wording.
Referring to Page 8 of Exhibit H,last paragraph. mom. Harris recommended that the language in
"C. Action".echo the language in the General ?Ian Amendment,which is shown on Page 2 under
'Tree Protection". She stated that since the summary document would be the outline used for the
General Plan Amendnent,the action s!iauld be specific.
Referring to Page 2 of the General Plan.Artiendrnent,"Com.Harris stated that the five paragraphs
contained very specific language and the sentence"provide a realistic balance of existing ..."was
vague and could ahat the word "realistic
bort everything outlined. Mr. Wolfe agreed t
"should be
removed:-
Coma Roberts questioned the refere=to disex1 or unsafe mature trees in the same section and
asked staff to investigate further. Com. Roberts recommended that the wording be changed to
"within the development area." Following a brief discussion,no agreement was reached.
Referring to Exhibit E, General plan Amendment, Page 1 "Access", Com. Harris recommended
that the language needed to be specific regarding bicycle and pedestrian traffic and should state
"project access other than emergency pedestrian and bicycle".
Referring to Exhibit E,Page 1 "Piparian Corridor Protection", Com. Harris requested revision of
the wording on the reference to fencing of lot lines in the last Be. Following a brief discussion,no
changes were made.
' question regarding invasive landscaping materials, Ms. Wordell
In response to Com: Hams
explained that it referred.to non-native plants that take over native plants,such as ivy or bamboo.
w
6
y
IN 11
K(aryx'� �, yrYGti ytnx sir °;� 4yr * w�; rt iz3��t 1i�swr�� y .'�es�k err ,sf,
�_ -� .., i yr. � .��f�a�i-�� i �,.� v"�'� r n•sE � -�.« ,°y` }�5 2 R 1gx 1'12..� � Y y�,"'`�>.;•
.yt ry �ft✓2. R �.1� ..r
PlaConimission Minutes i0
aAing July 18, 1995
Mr. Wolfe clarified that typically one of the conditions of approval of a project is the requireinent
to provide a landscape planting plan for the homeowners and in general drought tolerant native
plants are included on the fist. There was conscn--us that the worrdirg was appropriate.
Referring to Page 3, Visual Considerations, seeond paragraph, Com. Harris questioned if the
statement "require architectural review for development that incurs where there is significant
impact"could be required under the RHS without PD zoning required.
'1
Mr. Cowan responded that it was not appropriate unless there is a slope condition that warrants
that or a substandard lot. Ms.Wordell explained that the matter related to the wording on Page I
referred to earlier. Following discussion there was consensus to reword "Land Use Intensity"on
Page 1 of Exhibit E, to read: "Regulate residential land use intensity.according to the RHS
ordina•ice unless a planned development is adopted for this area.': She stated that it would provide
the ability to have architectural review through a planned development. Mr. Cowan pointed out
that if architectural review was needed,it should be stipulated that there be a planned development
approach. Mr.Wolfe clarified that the zoning,whether RHS or FUD is not relevant at this level of
the GPA and that th:re would be another application for a tentative subdivision map at which time
consider the conditions of approval of that map;which may be independent of the requirements of
the zoning ordinance.
Following discussion,staff recommended that Page 1 be amended to read"regulate residential Land
use intensity through a planned development zoning district." Mr. Cowan said that if design i
control wps designed,you would have to include a planner!development stipulation. f
Mr.Wolfe stated that the Planning Commission could'add the requirement for architectural review
for certain lots or houses that experience a significant impact. He said that the guidelines or
requirements of the RHS zone could also be added.
Mr. Kilian suggested including in the General Plan that the zoning for the property will e: xr by
RHS or Planned Development and that decision would be made at the time of the zoning change;
theta when the zoning comes in, a decision can be made whether you want individual architectural
review of individual houses or not.
Following discussion,it was decided to add the wording on Page 3 (Visual Considerations)"at the
zoning stage,consider architectural review...."
Following a discussion of Page 4 of General Plan Amendment, under "Housing" there was
consensus to leave the housing mitigation manual language as is.
There was a discussion regarding the reference to public open space contained under "Parks and
Open Space." There was consensus to amend the sentence to read: "Public open space shall
consist of 65%of the land and public open space."
A lengthy discussion.ensued regarding the use of public open space wherein staff answered
Commissioners' questions. 'Mcre.was a staff recommendation to amend the first paragraph under
Paries and Open Space,referring to public open spate,to add the statement"the concept of the use.
of the public open space use is passive,such as trails and vista points." It was recommended that
r
,ux
T,y,�.A;4`+' N .."''4", q]C.>til�tif
iZXS,
tzY
0
g ,C�tanissiote 141' tt July 1t1.1Q9S
Wutes e
the second sentence refearing to public open space be amended to read "Public open space areas
F
appropriate for City ownership may include...".
Referring to the staid'report,Com.Austin questioned the cast impact of the two park options. She
also.expressed concern regarding the impact of public open space on the residents of the
development. - Mr. V'rskovich stated that there would not be playgrounds with active play
equipment in the open space area,only in the housing development arra. Discussion ensued about
the cost impact of the two park options,which was minimal.
In response to Com. Austin's concerns expressed, Ms. Wordell stated that language could be
included stating what the intent was for passive recreational uses.
} Referring to the staff report,Ms.Wordell addressed the alternative of 116 units, with 86 units on
the seminary property and 30 on the Cristo Rey property.
x A discussion followed regarding the alternatives listed below.
Total Senn C/R Pu,lic Open Space
Alt A 116 86 X No
Alt B 1 178 116 62 Yes
Alt B2 178 95 83 Yes
Alt B3 178 82 96 Yes
Alt C 192 116 76 Yes
Alt D 90 60 30 No
F Alt E 36 6 30
4 Chairman Doyle summarized that decisions were needed on the development density options the
Planning Commission is willing L handle. He stated there were two parcels that the numbers were
based on. A determination of the value of the open space was needed and the ramifications it has
on tlr numbers proposed.
Com.Austin stated for the record that she previously supported the last alternative and was open to
other alternatives. She stated that the hillside ordinance should be maintained and the Cristo Rey
allowing 30, taking it off from the other which would allow 60, for a total of 90, which was her
{ prior vote. She had indicated she would look at the 116 propobut was not totally convinced of
sal
it: Com. Austin stated that she felt the applicant deserved reconsideration,that the proposal is an
irirprovement of the prior proposal,and that open space has a high value. She expressed concern
' about the footage from the development to the cemetery as mentioned by a prior speaker. She said
she was concenzed.about precedent setting also.
Com. Austin stated she supported Alternative A of 116 units,with 86 on the seminary parcel and
30 on Cristo Rey with retained private open space with trail casements..
=1' Com. Mahoney stated he would support B 1 or B2,but preferred a 178 cap with a 116 cap on the
seminary, depending on what is learned about the configuration; a 178 cap with a 20 unit swing
between the parcels based on a specific plan.
5
R
r �
"`` -`,'s. e�4 i�.y,-`� '•y +�§'°�?• t iil�,. Y'l''+ 'Siy`•LS o� y4y -'uyT'd ?yM""`'.s1k vw � i t-+ i aa.,�.
tv �g,.+�., e44,.,. e � .w iva �,��yW T e+ .1 4)c l i�. 'i� t` a ,.v r�ti;•1,�tj "`"} 3 -ar4t �+'+'..�^ -G`.'r S'[ ��1'1 ��A i�+ 3t alt tt e1
Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 18, 199
Com. Roberts stated he agreed with some of the speakers that the City would be ill advised to
abandon the General Plan with regard to the Cristo Rey parcel and that he agreed with the logic
about conceding more development on the seminary parcel.
Com. Roberts stated that Alternative A without some dedication of public opera space was not an
acceptable alternative; and said that tinder Alternative D, it would be conceivable that the city'
could negotiate some concessions in the form of trail easements and limited public access which
would be fitting in terms of permitting an alternative that allows 2-1/2 times as many units as the
General Plan. He stated that his choice would be Alternative F, which would be to abide by the
General Plan. He added that within Cristo Rey any alternative that envisions development on the
portion adjacent to the Marylcroll center, between Cristo Rey Drive and Maryknoll was
unacceptable.
In response to a question from Com. Austin,Ms.Wordell stated that if the open f,;:ce was public
the easements would have to be volunteered.
a Following a brief discussion, Com. Austin modified her decision to support 116 units with trail
easements and private open space;otherwise the 36 units.
Com. Harris explained that previously she supported 86 units or, the seminary parcel and 30 on
Cristo Rey with no dedication because she felt%the Cristo Rey parcel fits into the RHS standard for
the city. She explained that the public input had a significant impact on her decision to change her
support to a total of 148 units, with 86 on the seminary parcel and 62 on the Cristo Rey parcel,
with dedication of open space. She stated that residents of the Forum urged that the units on the
} seminary parcel not exceed 86 units. She summarized that with no dedication other than private
open space along the seminary parcel, she supported 86 and 30; and with discussed dedication of ;
public open space on the Cristo Rey parcel,she supported 86 and 62.
Chairman Doyle stressed the value of open space to the community. He stated he was in the
ballpark of 166 units,with 116 units on the seminary parcel,with 1/4 acre lots. He said he felt the
Cristo:Rey parcel should have the minimum number of Parcels because it is the one with the most
t^ impacts. He supported 50 units on Cristo Rey, with no development west of Cristo Rey Drive.
Chairperson Doyle stated that the 116 units offered variations in densities and different price units
4 other than 3,000 square foot units. He stated the importance of open space, value to the public,
and housing mix.
i
Mr.Kilian recommended that the Planning Commission present two proposals to the City Council.-
one
ouncil;one with dedication of open space and one without dedication of open space. He clarified that the
recommendation to the City Council should assume no dedications other than what would be
normally required in any development for dedication.
A lengthy discussion followed wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Chairman Doyle
summa
rized that there were 3:2 vote for 116 units with no public space,with 86/30.
4
MO'T'ION: It was movtd by Com::larris to recommend a General Plan Amendment which a
would provide for extraordinary open space normally required for other
a developments. The Planning Commission,to also recommend that there would li
be an increase from the 116 to a higher number,not to exceed 178 units, if there
�u
,,o
•Y 51
Z
` '} '4`§N`�,"F 1a� .�Y� 5� } i+hY.��yrk '4s�h `G-Y,�S� rY� �1�"9 �-4 q 7?L"'.§h. .t`cf f 5 `r � ar4n."•_ ^'..` t **}�+..:,t
Planning Commission Minutes 13 GJuI I8 '1995 .
y� s
was dedication of open space by the applicant. Motion failed for lack of a
AM
second.
Following a lengthy discussion wherein the proposed alternatives were discussed, Com. Hands
presented an amended motion. e
MO'T'ION: It was moved by Cam.Harris tc raco,nrnend a General Plan Amendment with
148;to 178 units with a maxim of 55 units on the Cristo Rey parcel assuming
dedication of the public open spaces. Motion failed for lack c)f a second.
Discussion continueL the alternatives.
There was a lengthy discussion relating to the statements of overriding concern as outlined on the
attached resolutions,wherein saffanswered Commissioners'questions.
Ci.?ern was expressed regarding the language pertaining to housing opportunities in the third
oveiziding concern outlined. In response to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Wolfe stated that
there is no precedent implied by the action on the individual application. He suggested including
language in the text of the General Plan Amendment that the action taken is not intended to be
precedent setting becauseof the uniqueness of the project,and list the reasons for its uniqueness.
Mr.,Wolfe statad that on the housing issue;the provision of the BMR housing might constitute a
significant public benefit.
® Com. Harris suggested additional language relating to the improvement of the area in terns of the i
tree reforestation. She stated the need for a series of valid overriding considerations for this
alternative that excludes providing the additional housing cpportuaities.
Tlere was consensus to reword the housing finding to state "provide additional housing
opportunities as required to meet Cupertino's housing goals."
There was also consensus to reword No..2 to include specific constraints.
Mr. Kilian clarified that the Planning Commission was being asked to approve an amendment that
specifies that the 7 or 8 impacts will not be fully mitigated. For that reason the Commission has to
indicate why the amendment should be approved in spite of the unmitigated negative impacts.
Mr. Kilian stated that by providing"open space more is being accomplished by not amending the
General Plan. He suggested adding language to Number 2 indicating that special constraints were
being,added that were not included in the former General Plan for development, such as special
environmental constraints.
4
�- In response to Com. Harris' request for clarification on the wording of the first paragraph on the
second page of the resolution for .116 unit amendment, Ms. Wordell stated that the intent was that
the impacts in that area were not as great given that there was existing development. By replacing
` existing development,the environmentall impacts are less because the existing development already-
had impacts. Ms.Wordell stated she would clarify the language.
.J
{ 5 C t .,x',. Y i i': {fIA 4�7 1 �� .f i "xR t r} 54 A `: t P I.. t1—ro4 (.
.w r 'b[ i t >i' -d .� f't � 'F5 ri i yr ':4• ,
ti rl r ry,. 4 Y l ( 4.�.. iw Cdr i r i�^/6 4, /'(��/ �°x � 4 r,�+ly J •' t'y
i�,�„ �Y �; v:ef , ��� t s_...4 a � '1?�i rrp tl r�t*��;`C,.17fr,rrz4isi f� i. ,Yr'7�fr° 42.,"w' i+,rY r3-..,v �. yar y "'.y c, I ��.
#^" � F nC 1X�`F +ft n 1 t.. 44 M: ,. >r nK I-� f J x � •sr I �{ i
r. a a -� fit a i < tlr � �ti Y �}.�. � r •r 4 i r,.
1 a 4 x� � S I ": i. 7S t4' v ��r+'' -r )r,� � r ,� 7 r e F
-yi t 4 a -.d r # t r ✓y xT rxC r t y S r'r: t S}Y r •f - -.1 d.. .+ t i 4 r -.1 {'
yrs t v I 'G. I �y.tY ��, s a .t r ! ! 1x k&X Rv s 4 sav *�"7 ti �a ! f �> rl a15i t. ° .:,r YJ�
X f 7 f C, f1� a-' i C St ^, s *�,� s J �n s t ��ka ✓r r r- "z t r++'s w.t �: r � s.
9 }
s.,:r „, '. � r .. -r� 1+4 i- 4� r �� a � 4 t jj r ti�r r/r: a1 w ri �. Y tt[
^:i a �..a a M,.fg ? -a C.e Si � �iz 7 Azo � t x '.� °C aX", r` � ` { �_1 +" t n
d � d � 3
r `Cjy, � Ip,r.��* ,�(»Y"�i' �� ab �:yc zf�?` ry'�`Ntf'kY.,_. d� .$h'�',r'�., �'��'i✓i r "'tffi:�,u� S�iFa''i rS�'I*}» �,d;9w°ni'.�r�� e i;�'
S 'hJ� � � � 4a ie
.,
h�K:�
{ �y;.
(•.
l t i
1 rp Y'►•ry '.u. v/',� .pro- 1. I'4.�`r.
_r 2:
>��,
f
.. :rl - ' .' 1�1: r�.
,� • . �i 1 • • + Si
/r
�^ r.l r... 1.• _
x�i
� 1 . -
�.s
' �,,
� 1 1 ..11 � 1.1-
r` �ti�.
• -� x3.
� :.
��,��;
�• 1 . 1 _ 1 _ . � i�`
1 1 '1 1 1. 1 1 � � 1 iii;�?,
. 5 v„�5
� zr'�'
�f;i,�
I }
M1I
7
,' f �d�
,�Z�FtiY
�..
Y��
K 1 A I .w
r•. f�,
z�
",Gin
�r
�„,�
1.1 w h
^K�;s;�
!t`
R\ G
J�. �w'.+���
� �.
Vw J .
l*kG rt
l�
�a.,:„��
it
a.�t``i.
����'
tl •(
ti }
�.
WW1
z��;s,'
aha
.3 ,
,n.�.
�£��i
,Slj?�,
a�i�ta
fX•'%k�
G�y°��
��t
*l�
F >il'
°,�jr�,
s
.��f
,F�„a
rx �s,.
ry.. fl... ,�*�_.,
° .
." `?;�'
'« ,.
,r *S�r i
,, d,sa, ,.
��� ,..ar...: w .,. ':1 ,.. -:tii'�`Tr' eh'.,..`;r� 4 .'•.r�,R �";Ctt Curd' �r�M inn"'f Y Jr[r,. Z.��'�`�` �� �''X'ne�,��zk� i*1"r4 ,[} Sjt�u�Y:jyRA�°N't S
'... .:..'.r ., �.:,., ,, � S .,Xr;•1•a� r, v,r�s„gySxr��}zl�r .a?i..{�4�5:5,>�¢' ,�dw" -C,..�t�4�aca :r�;i: ��'" ��hw,M ''f�`�.r �,,,� .; ,yIYM�
.c..r �. �... .4 � ..a. ..� �. ....`'..y..v v 4 .4,....-:k.. .... .��. -., ,r i.L. .N'k,r..Y..r..,,E l...,«{..;iY'W'I�}. H ti'�' dh a �}'.nve?ry t n ,tR\a ,'{y�..,,..�,+Z�.
/ 4 4� 21
1 f
i
i t .:,b4 s�1,+'s.i 5�.,1.• as ,r.h4,# xn,r a ,NFW,1
..��J 8;r
• I , ! , , 7 � '$, �,�h': 4 . s � > , 6 • 7 4f�£'� ,s�,r}5�z ri� e t���. etas,
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014 1
(.
.(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COM1011MION MELD ON JULY 24,19515
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
Commissioners present: Austin,Barris,Mahoney,Chairman Doyle.
Commissioners absent: Roberts
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy
Wordell,City Planner,Bert Viskovich,Director of Public
Works;and Michele Bjurman,Planner II.
i
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION: Corn. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of the June 26, 1995 meeting.
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSTAIN: Com.Harris
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-0-1
The.June 29, 1995 minutes were amended asfollows:
Page,9: Second last paragraph"176 plan"should read"178 plan"
Page 10: Fifth paragraph from bottom,last line"80 and 30"should read"85 and
Y, 30,,
Page 11: Third paragraph:Com.Barris requested that the sentence be deleted.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the minutes of the June 29, 1995 meeting as
amended.
SECOND': Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-M
The July 10, 1995 minutes were amended as follows:
' Page 4: Second paragraph"some of the area"should read"some of the Phase II
area"
Page 12: Second paragraph, reference to"buying into".should be changed to
"paying a fee to use the improvements"
Second paragraph,last sentence: "buying into"should read"contributing
or use of the Phase II common improvements"
4� 5
Y.
�L
� T?
Ay
^°.: .r. :a. 5 •'c"'fY y /S`!c, '" i'. � � e�s§lt� `�n [ : .-a i1 6%'• 4e�n..*F ✓..lsG , �.si�,� r �"' �M `f
a�.• '.a.. ,>t fit.§_.: e 'YFi,r'x�'r a,y v..1'i'xt' '"'�.j hem. .�. � 3 1., i'` zk. F ., r ,r �i. f-.:
,a� .k ,�t,trn r54�4 '��uy'y..h`''� `�' -�� t#"}P�..�^'l�'.;I.a.G "•^}{..s bl t* d t°I" i-•;•'tea 8' d4'"..
sx f } cs sW s Iere >.,�. r��' fi r'Ct 'ra C J✓ � l'i h trt..s ✓,�'!
4 '•• v Y .Y �"� •� * Pry S s 11 m ) C j l t t I T ,t
�c<' � j ✓ ✓ :s •� m § r c-4 s �[k §a #1St 1 Sy}y.�✓y �k� *C•r;u i ts§•- �t- { r S r { ,� u,< !
:n n � t F '�'I t e a4 t\ s �s t ,t ••� }' '1
5 }`..i .1..• .4' 7,•�: If.!:..r§ n si. !Y .f,; .T,=. 1.;s�(,:��'�Y .4 u ,cel 1,�; <ty 4 •';;r 1 t I G, i5 .7 y;t� �{',p
t Yrt
•i.I LXZ
'YIP Ji
*1.. '•:! 1 :i1 11.` •Ir ♦.. IIF ►•i .1 :•:y' • '1., 'r 1. «.1 �}rr} y(.;,.,
1' 1 ..M 1.•. �:! 1...•♦: 1'•. 1 1. :1'1`..11 • d � i�>'
1 1 �: r,=' 1• !I:i•�'. ;,;1.. 1,1 i' ::..i 1 '.,§ fN
• • ;.1 1 V!'1,. • 1. .n•• 1'1 '1'11:. • �• _ V.h:: 1 1-.l::' A" 'Y r;`�7
1 ♦Y }. h
u3
�c
:i
.s.....y;y i
It �'
,r
.sY
� a �
tiw%!h'� C
�I
,.. .v. �'. H •c. -::•. �:?:.+n't 1.../%2.5++},< r,,.,;;1r °r Nki: ,ta 'EN�d�!'�i-. yll"f3r ..f�'{r*�dI:.y7,' 6< »:,..T uXy��:M'. RC1 fit.. t aR., t,s �. rr -1 ✓. i Y .r^f'4a�^}'�n�r�..:;�r?a #•�(Y,w 5�'t�,sr%r". '� 'N' ,'4!'x (( "'..',11�1.. �+!•a��.5vl Qk t,�;',+Y rsl�.t7y��uN_4. �k yf` S
��::�:. � r ..�F 4• '< y iYJk..."'4'� .:,.,rSW Yv' ry ..Sv \ x" Sir},�.>< '{ Ua7ff .k\ f} X. .l rti-".• 1 .{M. titl. T}^•kl' f'!
! .•,r t.<}S + '.lr.•fs's•�df-.%r' •nl'. X15.' s ,u.' .sr ,_#! va a I ,7 .. .` 'vNt
' ,+,.�� L l§ 5.�.. .t7�' �.�=••° rke 'rl i �.�.ts -''k;.•t
gsa 4� § S sy C,�" �:"-cwt 'l4, 'g�. ,+,«+.a�:�``• 4;^•'f .� ':S e-'\G-
•""'a � ,w"k,,+ti3. A"`"" y'` ,,�'�';?,•q' �� 12��' r>°'-t tir 1. ��aw'.
"; s i :. r � :r" +r ^x•. � �;��,t �-c•c �! 4 ;,t � ��+r��;x L� r t ;yr<�,F';r' � cs ,kt•�.'- s<t,t; 5 wt,.et r
.,y:.t•.-,.,. :'-r �.",' �' }... .:.. ¢ >^;t \1.,. ,� { 't' .F ,i_�'`t' ry3fi :'S*C_�. 3 4k`?�� f i,.,ty:r,,,.��'i3+ !'i< ?�,. � ',7� �e �`t{. � i` x �'�.."�'.b'..
,.2-, ..,a .'?>r,.2. e ,,:�§,.ci'a..� §�'.. .A" .x s:: ,.h x.- �r ,..�i�'�,, .� ..,d- r,�.I:.,f•R.a ..+
!I imam
..Flarming Commission Nlinutes 3 ;
July 24, 1995
NEW BUSINM:
1. Application No: 10-U-94
Applicant: Community Housing Developers
Property Owner: Community Housing Developers
Location:
Southwest comer of Stevens Creek Blvd.and Tantau Ave,
Recommendation from the Planning Commission for an administrative approval of a minor change
in a project in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
t PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 10, 1995
Staff'nresentation: City Planner-Wordell reviewed the staff report, stating that the itern was
continued fiom July 10"4 to allow modifications to be made by the architect. Using overheads, Ms.
Wordell illustrated various drawings and discussed different options.
Mr. Mathew Thompson, Thache: & Thompson, Architects, reviewed the side yard setback
modifications. He explained that the 10 foot setback was achieved by redesigning the floor plans
Of the units. He confirmed that the entry`drive portal was a requirement of the Central Fire
District. Referring to the architectural drawings, Mr. Thompson illustrated the proposed entry
drive portal and stated that the design was consistent with the proportions of the arbor that will
have the trellis work.
In response to concerns raised at the previous meeting about:themixture of materials on the front
-1 building, Mr. Thompson distributed photos that illustruted a palette of colors similar to those
s recommended for the development.
In response to questionc from Com. Harris, Mr. Thompson stated that the recommended changes
were made to the stairways,and explained the color rnges and textures used on the buildings. He
pointed out the use of espaliered plants and trellises against the walls as part of the landscape plan,
Discussion continued about the roof composition, i
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input. As there was none, the public
input portion of the hearing was closed.
g
Chairman Doyle summarized that the issues to be addressed relative to the proposed development
were entrance,setbacks,materials mix and colors.
Com. Austin stated she favored the straight edge for the entrance, and use of the trellis for the
entrance. The setback at 10-11 is acceptable;the materials mix of stucco and wood is acceptable;
and the colors acceptable with the exception of the roof, which she.preferred to be weathered
wood.
Com. Mahoney stated he preferred the straight edge for the entrance, with or without a trellis; i•
AFA
mixture of materials is acceptable;setbacks acceptable and colors acceptable.
ti
h,
i
t
15
d Commission in u* tes
.Jstly?A;.199 ,
Cont. Harris stated she also preferred the straight edge fbr the entrance, with pillsLra and avi is;
setbacks acceptable;applieast to work with staff on materials and colors to arrive at a satisfietory
solution. She stated she supported the two similar colors with different toom. Caere. Harris
recommended the roof color not be the color ulustrated on the board if matchM with the gram
She said the redesigned stairs an the left entrance were an attractive solution.
Chairman Doyle stated that the straight edge entrance was acceptable; 10 foot setbacks were an
improvement; mix of materials acceptable;and applicant to work with staff on the colors and roof. .
He stated that the trellis was acceptable,although he did not have a preference.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to accept the application 10-U-54 as modified with the
incl6sion of a trellis.
h SECOND: Com.Harris
Following a brief discussion,the motion was amended as follows:
MOTION: Com.Austin amended the motion to accept the application 10-U-94 as modified
with the inclusion of a trellis and to include the modified stairs as pr,,ented at dw
July 18`h Planning Commission meeting. Applicant to work with staff on colors
;. and materials mixture.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
1 PUBLIC HEARING:
3. Application No.(s): 3-TM-95,6-z-95 and 11-EA-95
Applicant: Marguerite V.Roberts and Blanche Grose/Leroy Grose Trustee
Property Owner. Margucrito V.Roberts and Blanche Grose/Leroy Grose Trustee
A' Location: 11545 Upland Way and 11371 Upland Way
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide two parcels totaling 1.97 acres into six parcels.
Rezoning to assign a minimum lot size(10,000 sq. ft.)or ether appropriate zoning designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 5, 1995
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1995.
Staff'pMigncnntation: Michelle Bjurman, Planner 11, reviewed the staff report. Referring to the
tentative map she outlined the issues for discussion. She distributed the RHS ordinancc, reviewed
the handout,,and answered Commissioners' questions. She stated that the RHS ordinance is
relatively new and is being applied to the remainder of the lots for subdivision in the hillside. She
said it was apparent that the RHS ordinance was designed so that the front of homes is facing
downhill whi.h is not the intent.
Ms.Bjurman reviewed the second floor setbacks contained in the RHS ordinance.
i In response to a question from Coin.Austin,Mr. Mary Kirkeby,Civil Engineer, explained that the
AIN overall slope of the parcel is 7.52%. He stated that°if Upland Way was excluded from the
calculations,the total slope density fcr the remainder would be 7.59%.
ik
S;V
i.i 1.;'�$z� t 3if GY !t•�- `1..k�4ry1� ��t. *i^<s€ .f' l raw r Ir�j Ai.,i i t. �� 4�h vk�•�1��4 f.;�.s y'a+ t� b • T.�.�.1 a�� -�1`�° 1t }5 t$3R..2a��• ,k�. e 'S�� . . '
Planin w Commission Minutes` s July 24, 1995
Referring to the staff report, Coen. Austin expressed'concerns about removing 12 trees without
extensive background information fi=n an arborist. Chawman Doyle stated that the 12 trees wore
removed to get the 6 parcels. Ms.Bjurman explained the status of the 12 trees in question.
Mr. Steve Stern, Stern & Champion, 21730 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, reviewed the
background of the projectand addressed the site grading, downhill elevation setbacks,and special
treatment. In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Stem stated that the average square
footage of the homes to be built was 3,250 to 3,500 SF. He said that most homes would be single
story homes.
Com. Harris asked for clarification on staff recommendation regarding step pads. Mr. Stern
responded that step pads fit in with the intent of the hillside ordinance. He statmi applicant favored
step pads. Discussion ensued wherein Ms. Bjurman and Mr. Stem answered Commissioners' .
questions.
Mr. Stern stated that the proposed ordinance conforms wi4'r the application, which is what the
applicant is requesting.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Bjurman clarified the difference between the
ordinance as it is written and what is being suggested. 'She said that the setback for the second
E floor from the first floor relates to front and rear elevations. Discussion continued wherein Ms.
Bjurman answered Commissioners'questions.
A discussion followed regarding step pads. Mr. Stem clarified that applicant preferred single
family homes on flat lots,not split level homes.
Mr. Kirkeby commented on split level pads. tie pointed out the locations of the retaining walls or
the wall maps.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public comment.
t; Mi. Charles'Yee, spokesperson for UrIand Way and Rainbow Drive residents, addressed tha.
Planning Commission. He summarized the c'oncems expressed at the June 29 and July 10 meetings
held with homeowners regarding the proposed development. He reported that the group of
homeowners stated a preference for one story homes on 10,000 SF minimum lots, limiting 2 story
homes�to the 2 deeper lots; and discussed other issues of concern. He urged the Planning
}; Commission to work with the developers and the residents in good faith.
Ms. Marguerite Roberts, 11545 Upland Way, stated that she had resided in the area 40 years and
has always been cooperative with the developers. She stated that property owners should be
f
allowed to develop as they.see fist within the guidelines of the City or County, and that she felt the
} development was advantageous for Cupertino and the: Upland Way area, and supported approval
of the development.
Ms.Marilyn Grose Encardona,resident of.Upland Way,distributed photos showing the view of the
roaming hills of the Upland Way area when her home was built in 1954. She then showed photos
Aft
of the present view from her home,which consisted of large 2 story homes.
s
"x
�yy,�` ",4 ys"x�;,d�,�."^^ �}t}3LA4 �d �c�'����><w�"S'x "�, tf ✓p��Yr{1�"? ' �1ry s:a�J`J'! ai'�J12" 2y.,'s ��7:">� i z..^, ft }k y,7�H{, �.
- ' � t. ,,,+ �.r' t sa,�J1 � L . t..; 1 � y.•; r t �n nS4 �jF..
�on�missioa�Mmutea July 24,4"S
Auk
Mr.14?W Grosc,resident of Upland Way,stated that the family home and lot were bei4 sold to
finance'health care for his mother and Larged the PlannnigCommission to act on the proposal.
Mr.Yee reiterated that the neighborhood residents were not opposed to the development and were
eager to work cooperatively with the developers.
Mr. Michael Pachetti, developer of the North parcel, summarized the neighborhood meetings. A
brief discussion followed.
z In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Mr. Cowan explained that the proposal was a
conventional hillside residential zone with no design control. He said if an exception was required,
F•
if the lot was substandard, or the slope was over 30°/., a design review would be required;
however, in this particular ease there would not be any individual designreview; therefore if there
is any voluntary control by the development in the ncighbo..-hood, it would be strictly a voluntary
question. A requirement for one or two story cannot be stipulated, unless there is rezoning of the
property-
Chairman
artyChairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Ms. Bjumuan summarized the issues: the environmental review issues, the tentative map being
categorically exempt, and making a recommendation on the zoning. She stated dw the tentative
map issues related to whether or not a grading condition would be created and the•ove.rall lot
grading being naturally contoured. Another issue related to zoning and the concept.of adding an
Alk "I"designation which was not discussed in the staff report.
A
Chairman Doyle summarized that the issues to be discussed were zoning, step pad contour, and
ordinance intent. „ d
Corn. Harris stated she supported the RHS 10 zoning; she did not want to implement a grading
condition in this particular development, which is virtually flat. She said flat pads make the best
use of the land and she did not oppose a small amount of grading and a minimum number of two
foot.walls and raised turf on the Upland Way side. She stated she supported maintaining
19.40.070 as is. Com.Barris suggested that further discussion on the setbacks be held at a future ;
meeting.
Com. Mahoney stated that the grading was acceptable; flat pads acceptable; he commented that
problems;could be solved with setbacks. In response to a question from Com. Mahoney, Ms.
Bjurman said that the advertisement was RHS to assign minimum lot size, therefore it would have
to readvertised for some other zoning. Com. Matmey stated he supported R1 for zoning, no
limits on grading,and ordinance intent.
Com.Austin stated she supported RHS zoning;grading was acceptable;and ordinance intent.
Chairman Doyle stated he did not support step foundations,that flat pads were appropriate; he did
l not support retaining walls; zoning 10;000 was acceptable; concurred with Com. Harris on
19.40.70 with old RHS front rear description being appropriate.
ask
{ Com.Austin stated she concurred with Chairman Doyle.
P
i
:z
I
s Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 24, 1995
Ak
MOTION: Com.Hams moved that a Negative Declaration on the zoning be granted.
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 44-0
MOTION: Com.Harris moved that the parcels be zoned RHS-10,that flat pads be used
instead of providing a grading condition that requires step pads; maintain present
design standards 19.40.060 and 19.40.070 for applications 3-TM-95 and 6-A-95.
SECOND:. Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
4. Application No.(s) 4-U-85 (Modification)
Applicant: Ola Hassan
Property Owner: Tandem Computers Incorporated
Location: 10905 No.Wolfe Road
Use Permit Modification to allow late evening activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETEP.MINATION: Categorically Exempt
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 7, 1995
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 10, 1995.
y
Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the staff' report and background of the issues. Mr.
var Co-.van explained that the extension of hours to 5 a.m.was for food service only and to alleviate the
prior problem of having customers leave at the same time, sometimes causing people to linger
around the area. Staff is recommending condition I be modified to show the hours of operation and
condition No. 3,be amended to reference"establishment continues to operate smoothly..."Staff-is
S recommending an additional six month trial period for the operation as long as the operation
continues to work in a manner that is acceptable to the Sheriff Department in terms of normal
types of issues,involving late evening and drinking establishments.
Discussion continued regarding the hours.of operation wherein staff answered Commissioners'
questions. Mr. Cowan statim that staff recommended approval with stipulated conditions.
Chairman Doyle opened the hearing for public input. As there was none, the public input
portion was closed. r
MOTION,: Com.Austin moved to approve the use permit modification for 4-U-85
with suggested redraft conditions.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney -
ABSENT: Cam.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-M
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 8:55 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:10 p.mthe same
members were present.
:r
st 325MI, MMEM-1
7
t�
i
P
h
Plaiwng Commission Minutes E
} July 24, 1995.,
All
6. Application No.(s):. 26-U-86(Modification)and 13-EA-95
r Applicant: Tosco Northwest Company
Property Owner: Tosco Northwest Company
Location. '21855 14omestead Road
I
Use Permit Modification to expand the existing retail space by approximately 100 sq. fl~ and
construct an 840 sq.ft.car wash.
3 �
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended o
TENTATT T CITY COUNNCIL HEARING DATE: August 7, 1995 I
Staff oresentaYion: Mr., Cowan reviewed the staff report. Using overheads, he referred to a f
diagram showing the location of.the gas station and the allotted parking spaces. Following a
'€ review of the staff report, Mr. Cowan stated that stall'recommended denial of the application for
the proposed car wash facility based on the loss of parking spaces on the site if replaced by the
carwash.
Mr. Cowan explained that the application was for expansion of the service station facility to allow
a freestanding carwash and slightly modify the food mart. Mr. Cowan expressed concern about the
displacement of parking spaces if approval of the car wash facility was granted. He said staff has
worked with the applicant and offered suggestions to modify landscaping treatment to allow for
more parking spaces. Based on conversations with the applicant,there is reluctance to change the
r landscaping to accommodate more parking and therefore nafl''is recommending denial of this phase
of the application. Mr.Cowan reported that staff supports the expansion the food mart.
Mr. Cowan stated that a noise study was not relied upon. -The city's noise ordinance should patrol
any obnoxious elements should the application be approved. Staff recommends denial because of
the parking issue;there is a resolution for review for approval of the project if needed.
Discussion followed regarding the parking concerns wherein staff answered questions. Mr. Cowart
stated it was important to consider that one of the traditional concerns of the Planning Commission
't
has been the organized parking on service station sites.
. Mr.Tim Shively, representing Tosca Northwest, reviewed the application and pointed out that the
application was not requesting an increase in the usage of the site. Referring to the diagram,'he
illustrated the proposed mij►imal building modification of the food mart. He pointed out that die
car wash facility was a critical issue for the project in keeping up with the competitors.: The retail
is only adding 115 square feet for the food mart.
Using architectural drawings, Mr.Shivcly,pointed out that the proposed car wash facility was not
the standard BP structure, but a custom&sign in keeping with the design of the present structure.
He emphasized that the applicant's willingness to work with staff on issues relating to the proposed
development.
Chairman Doyle opened the hearing for public input. As there was none, the public input
portion of the hearing was closed.
Com.Mahoney stated he supported the car wash facility with 1 I parking spaces,
5.A
'i
's
.f i exp e r r 4 t i p
f ,
plani ft Commission Minutes s July 24, 1995 ,
F ,
lift
Com. Harris staled she supported the car wash facility. She stated that the inside restsioom were
an adm-,hve,feature. She pointed out that it was a reality that People parked in the bays which
cremated a need for less payidng spaces in the lot. She said I I parking spaces were apPrWriata, i
with 7 in the front area available. Com.Harris stated that the landscape portion of the facility was
an attractive feature and said it would be detrimenW to the suing to remove the landscape portiw
for mere parking spaces. . She said sire supported fire application but recommended language
pertaining to.the windows, sloped roof, and worlring with staff on the design be included in the
resolution.
Com.Austin stated she supported the BP design for the car wash facility. She commented that gas
a stations were becoming an endangered species. She stated she did not have a preference for the
windows,brick,or slope roof. Com. Austin stated that the landscaped portion of the facility was
an attra6tive feature of the facility and could be n•.criified if more parking was needed later.
]4 "
Chairman Doyle stated he concurred with staffs recommendation. He stated he supported the car
wash but was concerned abort the placement of parking spaces in the lot. He emphasized that i
• strict guidelines be enforced for the control of parking spaces.
Mr.Cowan recommended the following modifications to the resolution. (1) Change title to include
the approval of expansion to existing retail space and installation of a freestanding car wash; (2)
Change Condition I to recommend approval based on sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4; (3)Modify Condition
No. 4 to read: "11 parking stalls should be provided per sheet 1 with exception to parking next to
the filling pumps. Autos must park in the approved parking spaces as depicted in sheet I,which is
rthe overall site plan"; and .(4) The applicant shall modify architectural drawings to include
windows and other architectuial detailing to make the car wash facility consistent with the main
building; (5)Indicate applicant will work-:with staff on design of wiridows,pitched roof,brick.
' MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve 26-IJ-86(modineation)Draft Negative
rX
Declaration and 13-EA-95 to include languzge recommended by Mr.Cowan.
SECOND: Com.Austin
u ABSENT: Com.Roberts
1,
VOTE: Passed 4-M
A
7• Application No.: 4-TM-95
3' Applicant: Emily Chen
Property Owner: Enrigue A.Alvarez
Location: 20810 McClellan Road
Tentative Map to subdivide a.5 acre parcel into two lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
$tall nresenta ion. Ms. NVordell reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff Y,
report. A brief discussion followed wherein Ms.Wordell answered^Commissioners'questions.
Ms.Emily Chen, applicant, stated she was pleased to see the remainder of the project coming to a
<1
close. In response to a question from Chairiman Doyle,Ms. Chen stated tht the home has been at
the location since 1989.
r
r�
r.
i
ff { z•.gy ` ;4.: -•.^.� H!r.a`t' .7.p"'Ld�,r R• h's �'�"� ,. 7..•:.3 St�'^,h 4 cam. n!' tW )�vf.a ,�'t
te: e 4 i'2 ck u+ �• � ..�� r.a...�r.# '"` �; i W{+�i. +. r 1„9`� Y'tY..•a'l t y. ' *•... y, S tf • L Y' �Y!�.�C g`i }:.^ '� '`,1✓'�+'� 4' y
.
uta''✓`" .ra r d"
-+; q: a r:�t '• �... "�.'�1� � i�,l h i gyp. .« } - _; e�'. t', ..z" r k.. j r-c 3i't, ''tY.. ��5 t
. 4 L k .•, 1 4 C 1 tf a 7 k.�2r f ><?'.�f ; }5 -.� r. i {, f k:-;Y� j};a,
N Planning Commis- Minutes _ to duly 24,135
Chair man Doyle o dthe public hearing for public input. As thee was none,he closed the
public input portion of the hearing.
Following a brief discussion,the following action was takes.
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve the model resolution for 4-TM-95 to include
definition of front and side issues.
SECOND: Com,.Austin
ABSENT::; Coen.Roberts
NOTED: Passed 4-0-0 '
8.. Application No.:` 5-TM-95
Applicant: Emily Chen
Property Owner. Dar Wei Chu and Chin Yun Wu
Location: 10382 and 10400 Stelling Road
Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels totalling 1.02 acres into four lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
-PLAANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff pmcntation: Ms. Wordell reviewed the attached staff report. She pointed out that
application was for the northerly portion of the parcel. Discussion followed regarding the
condition and disposition of the trees on the property. Staff recommends that the trees be replaced
according to the arborist's report.
Ms.Chen reviewed the application for the northerly portion of the parcel.
Chairman Doyle opene4.the public hearing for publiic'input.• As°there was none, the public
mput,portion of the heaing was closed.
Chairman Doyle summarized the issues of concern: disposition of trees, flag lot and facing of
houses.
Cqm.Austin stated,she preferred replacement of the pine,tree with a minimum of two smaller trees.
She;stated she preferred the hammerhead reciprocal flag lot, and the houses facing Stelling Road, .
and.No. 1 house facing the access road. She pointed out how difficult it is to find an address when
the front of the house does not face the street.
Com. Mahoney concurred with Com:Austen.and stated,he supported the arborist's report.
Com.Harris stated that.the tree should be replaced with a 36 inch box treee, not a 15 gallon tree.
She stated that she favored the orientation of lot 1,on Stelling Road, and lot 2 should.face the
ceess drive. ,
Msdet.Chen
d in the last problems associated with the trees. She slated that the tree m question has
Ms.Chen discussed the r
years
a
�5 .r�� ,�cy' n k"t§,'3"Fri 5��a q.v"r4 ."'+a.•.i t oP'- ;. � -71 f n 'l..ry�x K 1e.rhli°� SY,Pk� F.y 24�C ,S`� ,:t%j i.",fr °`x,.d A,..:{,?[ '�.
.x C
Planning Commissim Minutes ,t July 24, 1995
t' MOTION: It was moved by Com.Mahoney,to approve Application 5-TM-95 per the model
resolution with the addition of the appropriate staterriedats of reciprocal ingress
and easement creating a pattern of a hammerhead driveway,using two 15 gallon
trees.
SECOND: Com.Mustin
AYES: Coms.Mahoney,Austin
NOS: Com. Doyle,Harris
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Motion flailed 2-2-0
Com. Harris stated her concern related to the cul-de-sac appearance of the curved driveway at the
end and the orientation of lot 2 and eventually lot 3. Com. Harris reiterated that the City has a
commitment not to approve flag lots and it was the perfect oppomaaity to institute the policy. She
said a different kind of cul-de-sac other than the standard full size cul-de-sac was needed.
Chairman Doyle stated that he was opposed to removing the tree,and stared the hammerhead was a
good compromise. He concurred with Com.Harris'position on flag lots.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the options available. Chairman Doyle suggested
continuing the item to allow time for a detailed arborist's report to be submitted on the condition of
the tree in question. Ms. Chen stated that rather than delay the action on the proposal further,
applicant would agree to utilize the arborist's report and save the tree in question.
Mr. Cowan recommended adding a temporay easement that would be in place until such time as
there is additional access through a joint driveway if the property to the south develops. He
reiterate)that one of the conditions states that if the property to the south develops, you can shift;
the road t3 the south to make it work. ;
MO'T'ION: It was moved by Corr.Austin to approve application 5-TM-95 with the mad ficd
hammerhead d,ivmmy,and using the xrborist's recommendation to save the tree
in question.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
AYES: Com.Doyle,Mahoney,Austin
NOS: Com.Harris
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed .3-1-0 .
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
9. Following a discussion,there was consensus tc hold two meetings in August,one on
August 14 and one on August 28.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Com. Harris expressed concern about the recent approval of space utilization of Fontanas
Restaurant,noting she felt that the issue voted on at the Planning Commission was not the same as
i;
k
Oji '
Y.'T 49. #.. tw?.':;f .q `�`a+..lr y:;:;,�y . � . �, a.,Lpl ,� ',I, l.1��4�1[ y�.]s t Jy:" 'V„i na."i>J '^a: .y.• TF3 jY-�}r .
-.J; 'y 1 Y :.y•.d .� .,.7W. f 1.,..vt•., .��s.'W.k N.,.'rli A :S.S,� 11. _.N''•5 _g'7'4 q.^fesi �,-.�,'.'{ �..a.F, air+1 r.�: �+r...
..... �,r 5.^,,. k .,, ,.:+.., -..aif,:.�"x r ri. a t .. unn ff r'4",Ir, ..Yt..J �.aaww;.: o *�¢ ;�,. ,.•., •rivr,r n, ,1«4 �'.y;ev,= e. .1: : .`4-'�a, 3ri,/
). .. 4;i. .�...... . •S'.wt; { ,z G'�.�e,.y '�./ ..�'. N. y.i. .k,�. .} qt ..N..r Y. '.r.�VM �.: R.:s s i:�. ..1. t r�... ,,��yy M i'•-..n`t�ir
,,. 5 �:.. 41 z-.�" � y y x:t.:� ,r,..iS'ra�rt y'." a.. ;'�t �raa ,X!�: •Y y,p 9 ..��.,�- .tS. �.- A�” k+�f r ,w� � � +e� �.. x ,er
'? .a• i tap .�:� 1 i rCyP'.';::1� S7;r•:�x� ?;e5tk. v;A,,+.�'�i] yp.�1'?:.�'��rY •x��+�` 7,�{K}/ r�' q.�. v �4R>' w°"'•"Y'"3� ..r;.i Ch�m,•d S3 Saa'-va4-• P' ti'.9.�„';�x,
x'VI,z ;'.? ,r•:
.. .} '*:.':...•; �,,•.a. ':, r .�, [t .,:._q�e k i- y :. hti ,,cam" t k �i���> �,Y G � n rk .+
x. 1 -.,•5s ...7*���,'�{CF e,w.j {rl sr.�ry IµS ,+. *" r�'A. �>rPr"fk+',,i, 3Y ,�[�l.�a� k� .,�Y'jlts �� ��'�ly�`•r7�,�F.t 11•''r$ y5 v.�
;P
5 _
:try
.11.3`' 1 ,••1:•. � !
AHS 1. 1.' ♦ !. '.11... if 11 •. 'f.l \I.' / 1 •rti.
'S•,�: !•./.' 1-., • fl.' - ..�1 • 1f '1 ':\1! .. -:.\ ,1.., r•1;1..1 1'1`. •, \. '1.
i.
Y.••' '.. / • _ 1^' 1+� i 1 1 .4 • 'k 71 rh 1' 1" r:l' ♦ ?fit
4' •
f v"
" at
fif;' 'ry
t
%.rvrP•
y%
� 1
Ply n-<
G
Y+�`r
a
.P- � Y°r '.i'``d1'#�rv,._.,,,�. A�. xt'tYi
r s •�' 1 S; [ y �..e�+.,+>r rp y r {.1 ;[,.rY r e ..+_.:.#ex +>•;'�i / d a-' 1 a ?v� j- re.✓'
,F.;,• p. � - c i i.., ,, e�. �'� -.rr�?. 4`is,.S y:�q;, �,d,�+T,1 �t-...:+5'L fPw W` � ..1'3 �r " C �a�.� �` y5''e' 9><yr Y�.f a s fY •xh y fy::.ry�•Se,
*.Sr,, X ,,.., :. ;. ,` •...._..4,p .. ..,4d.4'� �:n;.ff k[y I :��v"1•:!'t,.•n 31�y,r>! yr�.'e�i.3y�t'# 7�r`k 5'' :'Lr 'hs�t.K,'�ry��..i" f ,R `H:X+, �..•Yt-» y.. �':'*i` �.rrl ray?'+ ��a:.?In
-' J• "! 7 90. 4� �.r. �.V: �4 , t,F f •7
,T'> a w" ki rl„ :4, vz'' 1,.t`�xat.•s a-rt"_"�•'-:."t �w'.,1r� etY'..�fr„t rta kFe 3..,.4.���b �cMa .3 Y IzF �: "�"�'` .:�A t� 7 r v,�,G iv x�_.,Y .4 4x':G S„-+"4pr
.'�'°a ^. '�` � [ ,lU [Y zf,r'_:t,h ��pp,,.r .yt �,;F NY i Ps�h.. +��;,sf��,i4. }'t e 1'k,Y ,rt'..i ,��w^y� x.�s,• �*,rf.r�t-y`j' �:”^Xd 4 "°, "i:...+�
.%a.X �,t •,�eY�� '' a,v � 4w: .G.,� >•..� a6° k',p�� sr'�Y fit•.>•.e,�.x, l�xrti;;�};YJ �Fi+r.,'Sxh'S'�yy y� 7t.:lrilj, 4t :rf t ,r:R;f✓'.v:'hi by -:r,.rr o {�:'t.. y Y .0+�r`t �,,,a yk;}1,, .
:.,. r i'�.. r.�' ,�,•,{•x �„ �.1 n t r..y}'�, �. ;:('.� s'$ � .t,4^ I-,w'. 4 - ti•�y,�'na y "..y o�y r,t� 3C Sl ,:s s'S' ,fid. 1
� � � � € ,t'�1£' �x��' i.x.e kS�• eu `�, �`:'i .•^•` .t r+'y, x s. 1 ,*r twy,:.`.. ��t•+'....!:' -s.:.;r '�l`'y `° ,
4±•'.± 3. r r r'` 's'r r k N _ a % v 'i r`a �t.-�: i a y;:( } a.r,} �',.'•kr a f's;ti,c g +x. +. "hT,
i.,' , t, a r •- C t 'J x•G �st i� f` tJ �5 x.:w t M1 x ,. i 'iN„,+ :�Y#a' �°,Q! 4.-
,
'�`�a;'' `a.. Y :�� a � —u z ,t`# � r St,�a,.,�,,. t,,i?a q1 ':;; -`�. � ,xr ;`4 ..y�Y ''� ;y-5 •tom,
.'!� t c t� ..Y«.�..:� �#r' ra t;..h,.., ,,�. �'�g • �'V s,,: �5+� .FLS. �.a 4:a�<t +�",,'4lz.vi.!`k`3W.u�t '.sis'�S t4 1'%^nyt Gfi.&}G.,,'_.,4lany�,ar'h`,�t�Y�'✓.a: .�
' f.. '< t i,. � '� +•w.q`t .�(� ;d ttJ � t k,
!J 'A• � is ii:. f 5'> °} t MY k dcr +x" -� ! ".... �±.� 1 X ��. s
' s� . x t! ,':a 4 � lz ,¢.•�. ''� J a $y,SS r.x t+zVt t tSi t„a-.!.• ! r � ,� 3Y t7 { r 7 x
'+�' A`^ a� �.,� � I r, .i..3,. � �♦ r,:^.st.� :ti� rtr s.��'� .��.,,, �•.a.d;`t t k r a 'r '1,J:={ x i.1.jr f .:k ° r'r rtgly��l�
`Xrr+VP e
r pyn
.r
t ,YJ 1 1 1 • *zr,�a�h'�
n•
1i 1� stk;'4if,
1 • 1 a
• • 6-1
7� 1
f'L
t
• •• 1 1 i'tr� ��,
r
r rdAt�f+4`:
yY
^tY}rt N�a'S�d
,+sir kepi'
• ' • a • P nt•ty`J�,
is ar"rF•,
• `f �Y tq
••
a.t•,
at
4 t ,�
xr�1 8 a•
'.tgu.•rte.
t '
r .r .{-. .•,ff,s�� ..,�.-. �- ,1;:n'ik3`«t.•1 n.,.°'. rt ::.,�..z.6 t A�•�:,�•, Kt r;.r..,7�ar t't;'t ra""t,v ".J,",,,t' '%Y ,n ,;,:.:,, ..,t.•..F„,n .r• ...: �t 4
�,M R '� .7 r +'.:•. ,�I,y°. .r,.;h,� .75,: .,.,. t•:. ,4'F 8 ,.� -•. .r''r.r. Y"•�� ...};s a�:+i fi�6 aC1t"�'.<. .y�,..•�'«,a"C ,..tn..N.v..ys M. .�-ic•. ¢: •� „I,n r
v<..Fv..�nr........is ..v. -v"�'�,. .. s.. !'C: w..,, ,.. v:. �rA�`.,..... �.,�r�;. �.,•. rF''rt? µ r.^,,.::y-' ,..fiSp".!'„ 3;�d. s±.,, t •�i� G a?7^'. 'f.� ir' S4,'1..r"'r'�.3,.
..,.. .s..rt �kn :t :.r r .:,rc i` -.,:.tir ?,..r3...t� .GT,�����'.u._ _ a v” �A� :+it:� 4� ,.r..G.. e 4 y,r r .•l�Y,.. a.r i,/ .,:.r.'»s �Ni�t qq} 4a nr.,t:� . .�
?.� r t. ,•,r. � .r.r i a ;.,n,,"-r,. -k..., ..., v.n�.a: 3 .......,,�•x"qt rC�.��,- r.r..,�,,,r ' ...4.`1�.,�fE.,sa., ! {.:-;c".-.,r,''k .d: nr, t:�jr_ °7'�:{:r�r 'S^.�Tg l�"'T> t R ;"; .�i{'
tR-•::nt Z ^,. ::r. ,y�. ,.€a.,6• }.k .<°:"il :x�dF`,+' C.+Y'Xr 5'Iw+; � ��R•s � ,�', •,l S.. •.r� .^'j,�yY'.kt rQ:� :}r��+ `tv.,t,l. a-�+, g'�.. d�,5. Y•� ;'S. fr+;.:,j.:�11`y
y.. � ��.,., ,�,:., tY.,.¢.; S'. '"w'"` s,�-.�...�. ..,..F}',.f'frY 'd,�. .,C.. .",�7},,; X% '�.ry� � a .,Fa }.� ,;.p.,.±r s�?k•.+ v",}'..`^,, �Sg r. '�,
,,, r .., -., }h'�ti r tr;� ,,.� k,,r.>Lv' ,f�. . .,,- v.- f��",. r.., x»� , w } nt3»,s:' i��?d.,,x +e.. rrzw"?v k ,t rf�t��rt�}R'b.tw•�,�.;;i'a� ,..��Ix!t,..
.�Y•..s ,. 3 _-,..,. a f a. ra' eF r-'e...i. ah ar�,1.w��.r�'.�4�' „d't`,. ';51 �'"'. i:'+i�s"S«.e". .„°'� :.u.,P '�;.,'r.-^�'s'T f Y':,�t. nY' :t- � V.` :' ,`f, •'fi
�l',4 f k t, b.",i .4 ri� .�C �' '�.: 8 ti y n aP z✓ri'i"F e � ��.. Y^ �.rt Y'�"�Y{1r +t/✓'fhr� �Y ;�"M, � �ryra':'y Kf a yn'T,+ Ge '� .ir'�Siri..
{ . ° ,>r •y, "ft ,"y„r."�><6,.•g,,y'y.'� .r q�,✓_� � r.�� ;7 ` ,^ i k T t ��retCcs 7.??'F” r 1 �'1'u l{ro t y i..,- `,rt Sa'(,,.vC•w i +7? f>JI r.,:�,+,
rr
� t .+�n 3 -t'+ .# "t I -} , t j r..; f > �•, t-. r + lr } � Y5 �< �'�`�t
• f .. `,: t .., s ,, ' s f t.� z ty+ 4,i ti - i � ri U+{7:ty vtW, T)y �.
Planning Commission Minutes Aueust 29, 1995
r
;VIOT'ION: Com. Mahoney moved to postpone Item 4 to the September 11. Planning
Commission meeting.
SECOND: Com.Harris
ABSENT: Coms. Austin and Roberts
r VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
5. Application No.: 1-TiVI-95
Applicant-. . `laximo Perez
Property Owner. Some
Location: 21221 Rainbow Drive
Tentative Map to subdivide a.49 acre parcel into one lot and one remainder parcel.
ENVIRONMEi`TAL DETER .TNATION: Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
APPLICANT REQTESTS REi4IOVAL OF ITENT FROM THE CALENDAR.
MOTION: It was moved by Com.Mahoney that Item 5 be removed from the calendar.
SECOND: Com. Hams
ABSENT:. Coms. Austin and Roberts
VOTE: Passed 31-0-0
ORAL COIi IMU`'ICATIONS
Ni Fari Deboo, 10257 Vile Drive, addressed the Planning Commission regarding extensive
condominium repairs in newer complexes resulting in numerous lawsuits against the developers.
He questioned the inspection process ;:ollewed and expressed concern about the length of time to
resolve issues. He cited examples of water intrusion and poor workmanship in two differi
complexes.
Ni Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, explained the process followed, stating
that once a project is finalized, there is no additional review of the particular project unless a
i particular issue is brought to the Planning Commission's attentiori. He said that when inspections
! are conducted, safety issues are the primary concern.. Mr. Cowan said he would discuss the
matter with Mr. Deboo and other property o%rners and report to the City Council if necessary.
S Chairman Doyle requested a copy of the criteria used for each of the inspection levels. Mr.
Deboo re4uested a summary also.
i
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
1. Application No: 4-ASA-95
Applicant: Mary Lasagna-Schnapp
j Property Owner: Same
Location: 3131 Park Villa Circle
Architectural site approval to construct a patio cover in.a Planned Development.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COivtivilSSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
I
JIM IIIIIII—II ' l
xiN s ' a k' r vi y Ixr r n. ,
r Planning Commisston Mtnutcs' a . August 29; 1945
Staff presentation: Ms. Anu Natarajan, Planning intern, reviewed the back- ourd of the item as
presented in the staff report. Using overheads,she pointed out the location of the patio enclosure.
Ms. Natarajan stated that it was staff recommendation to approve the permit for the patio
enclosure as the construction is sound and meets the UBC standards. She said the only criteria for
denial of the solarium presently is the architectural design and placement. Ms. Natarajan
t
distributed photos of the solarium..
Ms. Lasagna-Schnapp reviewed the history of the application for the building permit for the patio
enclosure. She reported that as a result of arbitration in February of 1995,the arbitrator ruled that
as long as the patio enclosure complied with Cupertino's building codes, the patio enclosure could
remain intact. She said that the homeowners' association was opposed to the enclosure based on
parking. FIs. Lasagna-Schnapp-stated that she wished to be afforded the same opportunity as the
i other property owners relative to major improvements.
In response to Chairman Doyle's questions, Ms. Lasagna Schnapp stated that the solarium was
constructed by a contractor, and said that despite denial of her application by the Board of
Directors of the homeowners' association, she had the solarium constructed.
Mr. Sam Isaac, Presideru of the Westmont Homeowners' Association, explained that the
construction of the solariwu was opposed because of the additional living space created and the
resultant effect on parking spaces. He said it was important to consider the other residents of the
complex. In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Isaac stated that the arbitrator agreed
that the homeowners' association had adhered to the regulations, but that the unit was already: in
place and was architecturally sound and could remain in place.
Com..Mahoney stated that although the solarium was constructed without a permit, it was not
visible from other areas, and it did not constitute extra living space; therefore he would support
that the solarium remain.
F' Com. Has concurred that the solarium was not visible, did not constitute extra living space and
Harris
did not impact the parking,and the arbitrator ruled that the homeowners' association would not be
maintenance and repair;the
was in favor of approving the request.
responsible for its ma
Chairman Doyle approved the request for the solarium to remain intact, but expressed concern
that the homeowners' association should have the ability to enfott-its titles.
A brief discussion ensued regarding similar construction work being done without the proper
permits. Mr. Cowan pointed out that violators are reported to the State Contractors' Board.
Chairman Doyle recommended that appropriate action be taken against the contractor responsible
:F
for the construction of the solarium in question.
MOTILIN: it was moved by Com. Mahoney to approve 4-:SSA-95 per the,model resolution.
SECOND: Com. Hams
ABSENT: Coms. Austin,Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
Mr.Cowan noted that the action was subject to appeal within 14 calendar days.
a
J
�y
E.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 .
} August 29, 1995
2• Application No.: 6-ASA-95
Applicant:PP Maxim Property Management
' Property Owner: Same
Location: 1001 North DeAnza Boulevard
Architectural site approval for a sign exception to exceed letter height in accordance with
Section 17.24.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. I
a
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA,,ION: Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED,
t ffP==nta ion• Mr.Tom Wiles, Planning Intern, reviewed the staff report. Using overheads,
he indicated the site plan and location of the proposed sign. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission grant an exception and approve the application based on the findings and conditions
specified in the model resolution. A discussion ensured regarding Chapter 17.44.040 of the sign
code.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Mr. Wiles stated that presently an address sign
existed as well as an illegal sign on the same side. Referring to the overheads,Mr.Wiles pointed
out the location of the present signs.
Mr. Jeff Bullacks, Architect, referred to the overhead of the site plan. He stated that the
applicant had followed the sign
process with the city to establish what would be
allowed for project identification such as building address and name of project, i.e., DeAnza
t Plaza. He pointed out that some tenants have requested signage and have put in unapproved
signage. He explained the reasons for the request that the rule exception be approved.
Mr. Albert Hoffman, resident, suggested that because of the many exceptions to the sign
ordinatice,.the city examine the ordinance and liberalize the regulations. Mr.Hoffman noted that
some of the facade bricks on the building in question were loose.
Mr. Bullacks stated that the building owner was concerned with the brick problem and was
embarking on a program to repair the building.
In response to a question from Com. Harris regarding the_architectural attractiveness of the
building, Mr. Bullacks stated there are plans fo%r planting on the third floor balcony. Also, he
stated that the removal of the existing awning on the building facade is being considered,
i Com: Harris stated that normally she would oppose an exception to. the sign ordinance, but
i' pointed out that the proposed sign was smaller in length,and square fotage than allowed, was
tasteful,and the bronze color was acceptable.
Com.Mahoney and Chairman Doyle concurred with Com.Harris.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to approve 6-ASA-95 per the model resolution.
SECOND: Cort.Mahoney
ABSENT: Coms.Austin and Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
Mr.Cowan noted that the action was subject to appeal within !4 days.
Y
h
Y
e1 �
tyy r�z.tip., '•'^rt2r ++�s.ri �, y�'Sfi „•x a]r ,,+n, +,hzr
a 'Planning Commission Minutes ` August 29, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Application No.: 9-U-95, 8-Z-95 and 16-F.A-95
{ Applicant: Classic Commurities, Inc.
Property Owner: Cupertino City Center Associates
Location: East side of Torre Avenue between Stevens Creek Blvd. and
Rodriguez Ave.
Use'Permitto construct 24 single family homes on 2.41 acres. Zoning to allow low-to medium
density residential development.
:t
ENVIRONMEN,7AL DETER'li'lON: Negative Declaration Recommended
TEN,7ATIVE CITY COL-NCEL HEARING DATE: September 5, 1995.
j
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANT NNG CONINIISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1995.
Staff presentation: NIT. Cowan reviewed the background of the application and discussed the staff
report and attachments. He explained that the action requested is to change the zoning to allow
the residential development, allowed by the general plan. Referring to overheads, Mr. Cowan
pointed out that the project is consistent with the general plan but is not consistent with the
Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council for the specific pl-in. In the context of
the specific plan the recommendation was that the densities for properties be 15 to 35 units per
acre on a gross basis, which is 8-1/2 to 9, denser than w6t was anticipated by the
recommendation to City Council, not yet adopted.
Mr. Cowan discussed the issue of open space. He explained threu different options available: (1)
for it to be privately held and available for the owners within this development period; (2) the
' Planning Commissior: 1 ecommend that the open space be held by the public. He stated that the
3e cost per square foot of maintenance would be extremely high. It would not serve the general
public. (3)to have a hybrid situation where there was both public and private participation in the
` cost of the particular property which would have to be negotiated between the city and the
developer in terms of what proportion of the cost would be borne by the applicrt and by the city.
The Parke and Recreation Commission reviewed this and determined it would have limited use for
the general public and would not recommend that it be a publicly acquired and maintained facility.
ivlr. Cowan stated that staff supported the architectural concept of the development recommended.
;j.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Mr.Cowan stated that the lots ranged from 2,000
square feet to 4,900 square feet, and the house sizes ranged from 1;700 square feet to 2,200
' square feet. He stated that the single family detached home has a wide degree of acceptance in the
market in Santa Clara County.
Mr. Scott Warren, Classic Communities. Inc., encouraged the Planning Commission to endorse
the staff recommendation to approve the use permit for the community of 24 homes in the Ciro
Center area. He reviewed the background of Classic Communities, Inc. Nir_ Warren discussed the
r proposed development, stating:that the proposal is a creative optimal solution to a challenging
property and stated he was encouraued that many members of the community agree with the
assessment.
y Mr. Deboo, presented a petition and reviewed letters contained in the staff report. The tetters
urged the Commission to explore a more balanced residential developmer, along Stevens Creek
! 4 a4 z ti� t P! s�L �r st t b.x.f t'i ^r t. a �� Cr
1 2' {. H r l- 1lV + ! '�n. ! 4"v� !# '�r Cts�'�� t r i� ,4 v�'�sr�',ti-�J,
LTi ' ��' 1 >, Y .F 'F �'�r r �, ti� r+l .d � c !' t
;fir � 1.._ $ �
i Planning Commission Minutes G August 29. 1995
coc'dor and to explore residential development at some of the other sites identified in the Stevens
Creek Specific Pian. Mr. Deboo.said that concerned residents were opposed to anv development
at this time.
There was a brief discussion about the 1983, letter from the.City of Cupertino to Promethius
Development Co,wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions.
p
Tit. Randv Schwartz, 10233 Nile Drive, stated that he was included on the petition opposing
development on Torre Avemte. He pointed out that the density was shifted to the 8 story building
complex on the corner and now Promethius is asking to gain the value on the property in terms of
the building complex and trying to sell the other unit at a premimn cost for a developer to come in
i and create profits for themselves. He addressed the potential traffic problems created by the
addition of the 24 homes. He expressed concern that as a homeowner he purchased his property
A in .1986 with the recognition that the Torre property was labeled open space and the visual
obstruction will now detract from his assets. He said he felt that for Promethius to transfer its
:y density allounent to gain value in its building complex and be able to gain value on the property
r with a change-in zoning ordinance seemed to be an underhanded operation. '
Mr. Albert Hoffinan, 10209 Nile Drive, stated that he sighed the petition also. Referring to the
overhead of the elevations, he expressed concern about the "wall of development" image of the
proposed housing development and the lack of park space in the area of the proposed
development. He stated that the traffic issue has not been adequately addressed. He urged the
Planning Commission to consider the staff recommendations which called for the need for further
architectural modifications.
Mr. Jim Yee, Steinberg Group, architects, suw-nmarized how the proposed project fits into the
Y neighborhood. He pointed out that it is a unique site because of the variety of existing buildings.
In terms of the site plan, the lighting of the homes are on a 90 degree grid and create a triangular
corner consistent with the buildings down the street. He stated that the firth is eager to work with
staff on the architecture of the buildings and will address the items of staff concern to work out an
amicable solution.
F Mr. Yee answered Commissioners' questions about the architectural and landscape details of the
proposed development.He also explained the proposed color schemes for the homes.
itils. Caroline Ban am, 20290 Pintage Partway, stated she opposed the development because of
the potential noise and pollution the,new homes would create. She expressed copcern about the
parking for the extra cars, as there is presently a problem with sharing parking with the other
buildings in the area. MIs. Bangham pointed out that the building she presently resides in
experiences problems with the type of paint used as it absorbs dirt and it would create more
problems for'the complex she resides in. She asked what the per square foot sale price is of the
properties, excluding the BMR units. vis. Ban ham expressed concern about whether the new
develop inent would be it)competition with her.development or devalue it.
Mr. Tliomas Tavlor, . 20330 Pintine Parkway, addressed the problem of increased traffic on
Pintage Parkway. In response to Mr. Taylor's question about Ptomethius' approval for on
additional high rise, Chairman Doyle explained that any development they have currently planned
would have to have Commission approval. N;,lr. Cowan pointed out that it was not a mirror image
design and approval has not been granted.
f -
jh
1
1
Y'
.4
,.J
!rl
.. H5 4�•.V °• a y xxir.•n'{f��i 'i. r '�''i'ii.5*+: :, ;q Y g 3^ t`ay" 1^' ..r°`,r'
i � �v.lt:k� t r .• 4 r rMV, 41r•� 1',;{:jv c r.1'" t'3.'"f„"'.i,,fi i.'J¢zn''r,+t �i;�,;{w ru ;' .s,�("• r.
ti ? 19 roh i It 7 LJ h;=,L 4°✓ Y'ly't}''p_ 6 Y 7 F , v '�'f 'F:`,`�y ,1 rT ..,;h}, r= t Y.:�3at'(��nl �r � .7 �NJ t,GL1�'r
'.5u t ,t4lrktr3 i ,, i , 'r
•, r ,t t }} r t r r
f r r 4 p
Planning Commission Minutes 7August'9,.1995
is Mr. ,Warren addressed the Planning Commission again..and stated there weretwo BMR units
incorporated in tate project,which complies with the city's mitigation requirement. He stated that
with respect to traffic, the project has been analyzed in terms of the trips generated by the project
and.the potential impacts on the as-built projected buildout or the City Center complex, and it is
clear that a development of this size has virtually no impact on the levels of service of the nearbv
intersections. With respect to trafTic safety issues. Ire said it was important to point out that the
points of connection for the private to Torre Avenue have unusually deep setbacks because the
city has a 10 foot public use easement over the Torre frontage and the buildings must clear the
easement. He pointed,out that the Santa Clara %•tanufacturer's Group is very supportive of the
project because the availability or lack of moderately priced housing in the area is a deterrent to
economic growth.
Mr. Warren stated Chat it has been documented that the Promethius Group at one point notified or
disclosed to the developers of the adjacent properties its intent to develop the site and the
disclosure obligation with respect to potential utilization of this site was then transferred to the
developers of those properties.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Com. Hams asked if the Heart of the City streetscape would apply. Mr. Cowan responded that it
did not apply to the streetscape itself because it applies strictly to Stevens Creek Boulevard, but
that the design guidelines apply.
Mr. Cowan stated that the conditions of approval for the project suggest that the Planning
Commission approve the use permit but that the architectural details come back to the Planning '
Commission.
Com. Harris asked if the Planning Commission forgot in the last general plan that the
development rights from this property had been`transferred to allow i ie towers to be built. Mr.
Cowan stated that the new general plan allows up to 141,000 more square feet for the overall area.
Com.Harris asked if it was evident to people who were approving it that this was a site designated
because its development rights were transferred to allow greater density on another piece of land.
Mr. Cowan responded that it is primarily a transfer of office development rights, and stetted that
the general plan always allowed flexibility in terms of housing.
Chairman.Doyle asked staff if there was enough buildable space in the City Center area to meet
the 130 unit needs if the units were not developed. Mr. Cowan stated that if a radical approach
was assumed such as building over parking lots.
Refeirine.,to a chart, Mr.Cowan pointed out the potential areas of buildable space.
Com. Mahoney stated the two separate issues were(l)should there be development there;and (2)
if there is development, what should it be? If it is residential developatent, it is the appropriate
density and is this a reasonable approach with this density?
Com. Mahoney stated that it would not be a park therefore it has to be developed: He stated that
residential was appropriate. He stated he utitialiv favored higher density;but now feels that if it is
going to be developed the people would like to see it as low as possible. Com. Mahoney said he
AML supported the density proposed. As far as the specific design, it is a high risk/high reward design.
It could be really effective or not; therefore he supported staff recommendation to look at the
r.
f
q_ R41 re; :Nk p��,'�F.^,�':v'^�'}i�M1..`�ti��iu..r";�`"�1,�} +'�Y�q',3;L$i �t'tiv,a,�,y�'.� 'q�,y y�}rf, Crt•i°sts•:. .M.vf �>- ,,Lk�x.�ti�&C! xy+;'�,�:n *,�.w;rr f - � "'? :.k'. .:� �i r�_..�.,,
Y,
r P�lannrnL Commission Minutes R August"9,'1995 i
Aft
architectural details again including all the issues about how you get in and out, where there are '
r walls and fences, because it is different. He stated it wou;d be beneficial to see some of the
developer's prior projects through a field trip or by video camera.
Com. Harris.stated she was opposed to the "voodoo aspect" of transferring development rights
and then passing a new general plan not taking into consideration that property was developed
based on the fact that the rights were transferred. She stated there.is a general plan that has
residential which has been approved. If the property transfers, the new owner will have the right
to use their land to the.general plan requirement. Com. Harris supported the lower density
because it vrill have less impact on the neighborhood and fewer traffic problems and offer a more
pleasant place to live. She supported changing the 15 to 35 Specific Plan recommendation to 10
to 35 so.it would be in compliance. At the time the others were approved at 40 units to the acre.
the Specific Plan had'not been approved and it is now approved. She stated she would rather it be
in compliance rather than be,an exception. She reit-crated that 10 units to the acre was acceptable:
3 units to the acre also acceptable. .She stated that she favored the approach for a City Center
housing development; we have a small City Center, it is a,small development and the park area
and houses facing Torre will be an attractive addition to the community. She stated she supported
the S350,000 and 5400,000 which is the closest to new houses in Cupertino and it will make it
affordable for people to buy in Cupertino. .
Cam. Harris Gated her support of.the project. She recommended a change in the model
resolution. On Page 3-3, staff listed problems. She recommebded adding language listing
k: decorative details that n;ed to come back to the Planning Commission for review. Third line from
the bottom in the first paragraph, after "varied roofing designs" add "front and side wall
articulation and garage modification of building plan E",because those are specifically mentioned
in the staff report
M
Chairman Doyle stated he was opposed to the development based on the original agreement. He
stated that there were many City Center projects and there are many layers of issues with a wait
and see attitude on some of the development partners to change the agreement as it goes along,
s and it seems that this is another example.
' Com. Mahoney asked how it would relate if in the general plan there was additional commercial
space of 200,000 square feet. Chairman Doyle stated that the genend plan gives an envelope in
Xwhich to plan for long periods of time; it does not preclude the Planning Commission from
making,decisions on specific,elements as developments come before the Commission. He stated
that the general plan specific for this site was correct. A brief discussion followed.
Chairman Doyle stated that any time the Planning Commission is put in a position to give
development credit from one parcel to another it is leaving it open to revisit it in five years
completely out of content in some cases, potentially making different decisions that cumulatively
could have a significant effect. He stated that the one in question should be left in the original
agreement form.
a
Lvlr. Cowan explained that the legal status of the open space might be productive to discuss.
Should it be held in commcn, or should it be a publicly owned space? Staff recommended that it
be private. The idea is that it be held in common by the property owners and not be a public
facility., You could not put houses on it next year unless you went back and changed the plan.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that nobody has the development,rights on the parcel in question.
. J
I
gg!l " #p a ...#H} �.•q ,,x v
)�� av�3°c7'F/A } t ,fmilF tG l.' ��{d!{ ,'� M h4.T � Y; '"`� u, A., i i^•t
•f •„r��,.„ - , S i< �' 1�, �t� .: . '1 r'lt 7.. r ,,,'�� Y� �,i. ,°y�� 'S t7 k` � � �#'d:.tr l #,l%'.r l,,#S-z,�Vs �4ii Yk"'1v4•Fir�. .�`. l.� J�' tt+t'U:r`a:�„• -
.,y
Yt
) _: ' 1 �{ t', S , � i, t. � .t1 tit j #.1 1� t7`._S •£r�'�' �� ua'1e
t
Planning Commission Minutes 9Aiigust.29, 1995''
Com. Hams pointed out that no one said when the development rights were transferred that this
it was said it would not be developed. Rights to
had to be a park or it had to be green space;
develop the parcel were traLblerred to the towers which was developed at a higher density than
was allowed by that general plan.
ivIr. Cowan stated that the problem was that the tern open space was put on the parcel. Com.
Harris stated that the same owner still ovens the property; the entity still holds the towers and this
f
parcel.;'Fhe towers are a higher density than what was allowed at the time in exchange for not
developing this piece and not having the ability to sell it as office land, high rise land,etc.
Com. Mahoney stated the recommendation was private. Com. Harris supported private; Com.
Mahoney supported private.
Mr. Cowan stated that the common area in condition 6 could be elaborated to be explicit.
There was consensus to add the language to Item 6 of the resolution "to be held in common and
maintained by the homeowners' association.” Mr. Cowan stated that the PI�nnut9 Commission
could suggest to the City Council that the general plan be changed to make it clear it can't be 1
developed; it can't be left in limbo. At present the general plan allows the property to be
developed.
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve a negative declaration on 9-U-95
SECOND: Com. Doyle
ABSENT: Coms. Austin,Roberts
NOS: Com.Harris
VOTE:,i',: Passed 2-1-0
MOTIOiti: CorrL Mahoney moved to spprove 9-U-95 and 8-A-95 per the model resolution
and changes recommended by Com.Harris"front and side wall articulation and
the garage modification of building plan E being added to item 2 after varied
roofing design"
5 The motion failed for lack,f a second.
&IOTION: Com. Harris moved to dery 9-U-95 and 8-2-95.
SECOND: Chairman Dovle
ABSENT: Coms. Austin, Roberts
NOS: Com. Mahonev
VOTE: Passed 2-1-0
Com. Harris stated that denial was recommended because this property previously and the current
zoning for this property shows it as open space .and the development rights were transferred to C
allow the towers to be built at a density that was greater than would have been allowed in that
general plan, and that the commitment should still be maintained.
Mr. Cowan.stated that the recommendation will go to City Council on September 5, 1995.
Chairman Doyle explained that the item wouV be discussed at the City Council meeting of rf
September 5, 1995 at which time public input would be heard and a decision rendered on the h
application by the City Council.
i S l R f ff7
Planning Commission Minutes to August 29 1995
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 9:25 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:45 the same members
were present.
o. .'Application No.: , 3-Tit-94(vtod.)
Applicant: Ju-Ping Chang(Emily Chang).The E&H First F.L.P.
Property Owner: Ju-Ping Chane(Emily Chang),The E&H First F.L.P.
Location: 19340 Phil Lane
Modification regarding tree protection bond.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt.,
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 5, 1995
CON INUED FROM THE PLANNING COyGV:ISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1995.
Staff presentation: �-Ir.Cowan reAewed the 1, wound of the item as out1L-ted in the staff report.
Com., Harris stated she would not support the item and would be voting no on the item because
she felt ar. arborist would not be able to-determine two years later that the tree was not healthy
because of construction activity.
Chairnian Doyle opened the public hearing for pubic input. As there was none, the public
?k. input portion of the hearing was closed.
Coin. Harris stressed the need for the arborist to examine the trees after sir months to determine if
any tree damage was a result of construction activity; and stated she would support holding the
Aft
bond up for two years if needed.
Ni Cowan suggested that the condition Could be modified to state that the arborist would review
the conditions of the trees prior io occupancy.
a A.discussion followed wherein the advantages of a s.x month inspection versus a two year
inspection were reviewed. Mr. Cowan stated that it was staff recommendation that the arborist
^s inspect at the end of construction and thea again in two years at the completion of the bonding
period, and then prior to occupancy to determine if the damage was done by the contractor versus
m
the homeowner.
In response to a question from Com. Mahoney, Mr. Cowan explained that the two year condition
adopte3:;regrires atwo year bond after occupancy of the house; the assumption beim¢ that there
may be
:'some damage and it might take a couple of yeirs for the damage to,he detected. He
Y stated that it is difficult to get a two year bond but the bonding companies will agree to a two year
bonding period if there is clarity that the original developer is being protected, not a future A
homco%mer.
� r
N Chairman Doyle questioned if an arborist could determine after two years whether it was
- construction damage or post construction damage killing the tree. Mr. Cowan stated that for
protection purposes, two inspections would be recommended; one at the end of the construction
period and one at the end of two years.
Com. Harris suggested the wording of the second sentence of the second paragraph of"Tree
AIM
Preservation" of the resolution be amended to read "prior to the certificate of occupancy being
• r
a
Y. pI
,r /W
f�(arintng-Commission Minutes t t August 29, 1995
issued and following a period of two years after the houses are finalled, an international arborist
shall conduct a visit....... She stated that it would require a second visit.
' MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve 3-T.%1-94(Mod)per the model resolution
SECOND: Chair. Dovic
ABSENT: Coms. Austin and Roberts
NOS: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 2-1-0
Coin. Harris requested that staff contact an arborist to research if it would be possible to
determine two years later,with no prior visit_ if the damage to the tree was a result of construction.
t
OLD BUSINESS
7. Housing Mitigation Manual
Staff presentation: Nls. Vera Gil, Planner 11, reviewed the staff report, and referring to overheads,
owli^pd the major amendments. ,Lis. Gil said that the item was being presented to update the
Cor-.;.:i,;sion on the progress at the City Council level.
Mr.Cowan pointed out that the issue would be discussed with the Affordable Housing Committee
and the City Council in September or October.
Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public input.
Mr.Dick Schuster,777 Stendahl Lane, expressed concern about the staff recommendation related
to the lack of mitigation requirements imposed on builders of one to four houses. He stated be
felt there was no rationale for the policy, and that it would be precedent setting and would put SI
per square foot to shame. There would be no developments of five to nine units. More
importantly,he said,affordability is not a function of who builds the house or how many are built,
affordability is a function of the cost. Mr. Schuster said he did not understand the rationale on the ,
caps imposed on size, cost and rents, and pointed out that it encouraged builders to construct
multiples of four unit complexes as large and expensive as possible. He explained that the
position of the Affordable Housing Committee had to dowith the fees imposed being equitable
with the BMR policy of the City,providing 10%BMR units.
Mr: Schuster clarified comments contained in Com. Hams' letter. He stated that her reference to
the Affordable Housing Committee wanting the fees 'to be punitive was not mentioned at any
meetings he had attended. He clarified the statement in the last paragraph that the Affordable
Housing Committee does not believe-that BMR units should be built offsite was not correc!; the
Committee be'.ieves that the BMR units should be built onsite. He said that the second part was
that all BIR units should be the same as market rate units regardless of size, cost or location. It
may not have been clarified or articulated adequately in the recommendation from the committee,
but he stated that was not the;committee's position as he understood it.
Mr. Schuster emphasized if a develop:r builds 'e: 7iLi:m units, at least one member of the
Affordable Housing Committee does not believe. •hat n -zecessary for the developer to provide a '
Sl million unit for 5250,000. r^:n. vialionev said it w•,.:his understanding that would have been
the direct result of the A iorwii: .- Housing Committee, which is why the caps were put in. 'v1r.
Amok
Schuster said that was a miscv ira ;unication and a tacit of understanding on his part.
i
f•
�qyiF.Y''. re a4.�: 7s,$:lit.:. i'�55t�* rh�� 'i�iY(�../?. `u+ -. `Y'c'� }�:.4K•.7 <..{{��<}'i' '"h�e`x`?.:v•..,,`� �",�.�,",jj y)4.x x _ r
Planrunb,CotttmissiAuLust 29, 1995
an
Com. Harris reiterated that the comment about the punitive issue was made in a subcommitee
meeting on the subject by a committee member. She said that the Planning Commission does not
agree with that concept was not aware if the position was put forth as an independent position or .
as the committee's position,but that it appeared to be the committee's position.
Mr. Cowan said he thought the concept clearly was to make the fees high enough to encourage
people to'provide units as opposed to the in lieu fee.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, ivir. Cowan said the purpose of the discussion
was to highlight the activities. The Planning Commission could have a representative at the next
} City Council meeting for further discussion of the issue. Ms. Gil stated that Com. Austin was the
representative who would be invited to the joint session.
Com. Harris commented that when the document was last reviewed, she had numerous comments
regarding the industrial section, but was informed that discussion would pertain to the residential
section. She said it was apparent that the Council would now be addressing the development bank
and it has not been discussed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Gil stated that a member of the
} City Council had expressed interest in discussion of the industrial section.
Com. Harris suggested that if there are issues related to the entire document, the Planning
Commission's input would be valuable to the City Council. She requested that the letter-he wrote
be included in the City Council's packet for their next meeting and asked that it include Exhibit C
from the Affordable Housing Manual that shows the caps and the BMR dollar amounts(item 7-33
Aft from,present packet).
Corn. Mahoney said that he felt it was a valuable document and that Com. Harris' letter is a good
statement pulling it together. 4
In response to a question from Com. Mahoney, Ms. Gil stated that the single portion was
addressed. Both tables were'examined and it was noted that Cupertino's fees were high in relation
to other cities.
Discussion ensued regarding Exhibit 7-4 total fee comparison survey for single family dwelling.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Joint Hillside Study Work Program
` TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 5, 1997
Staff_presentation: City Planner Wordell reviewed the stafT report explaining that the purpose of
the agenda item was to recommend endorsement of a proposed work program for joint hillside
planning review among the jurisdictions of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara
County.
Mr. Craig Breon, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, reviewed similar agreements throughout
the county. He urged the Planning Commission to take an active role in the outcome of the
AOL
program.
a. 1
j.
d
;y
1H+u k
P�
Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 1995
Referring to the staff report, he questioned why Saratoga was not included in the list. Ms.
Wordell responded that Saratoga should have been included in the list.
A discussion followed regarding the proposed.work program. %Ir, Breon referred to the Planning
Area section of the work program, and questioned 'outside city urban service. areas", his. i
Wordell responded that the urban service areas-is the dark line and it means it is committed to
urban development and would not typically be hillside development. She said it was appropriate
to maintain it as outside city urban service areas.
=' Mr.. Breon stated that it was important to maintain flexibility in ;lie area of modification of the x
fvarious plans. iVls. Wordell concurred with Breon, stating that the cities and the county have
mostly compatible policies that are supportive of hillside protection so that the foundation is there
and would not preclude identifying changes.
Referringto !tem f n g'e 4 of the draft work' rovr Mr. Breon recommended that o paw p � am, iat funding
opportunities be sought for those acquisitions as well as the land that should receive consideration.
but also potential funding sources. "
;vis, Wordell pointed out that there would be further opporunity for public input on the draft work
program.
Com. Hams suggested deleting the phrase"not to replace or modify them" from No. 5 in the draft
work program,page 3. She recommended adding reference to considering sources of acquisition
as suggested by Mr. Breon. Com. -Harris questioned if mention could be included in the �
background area that the other cities were welcome to participate in the program. T1s. Wordell
responded that it was included in the staff report and that it would be discusser-[ with the other
jurisdictions; a recommendation could be made to the City Council and the Council could
recommend it to the other jurisdictions to officially invite the other cities to participate in the
program, Los Altos Hills and Palo Alto declined at the time they were initially invited to
participate and would be the jurisdictions that would have to be reinvented to participate,
In response to Chairman Doyle's concern about implementation options of the program, FIs.
f Wordell stated that the implementation options would be included in the strategy. He stated it
was important that all participants have a goal and it is clearly understood what is trying to be
accomplished in the program. Chairman Doyle said he did not have a clear understanding of the
outcome. Ms. Wordell stated that the outcome will be part of the project and implementation will
occur before the finalization of the project and would be discussed as part of the project as it
progresses, Chairman Doyle proposed that the implementation take place earlier in the project so
that participants would be aware of the flexibility.
j'
ra vls. Wordell summarized the Commissioners' suggestions: (1) to invite Los Altos Hills and Palo
Alto; (2) ask the other jurisdictions to include Los Altos Hills ..rid Palo Alto; (3) build in
implementatlOn at the bevinnin5z of the process;and(4)look into the fitnding for acquisition. u
A brief discussion ensued wherein`-is. Wordell answered Commissionersquestions.
u
�x
,t
s i
'�Z��t°;n �,�..a ..F`t` i'Vx ♦ �P''_'L ;,t",}t ,� y' CNA F:: d y, ,- e,,,.En � - �,
\->» ,z H.�t+,r+t `r.:.hk�'1W rl .v ��.:nt3n `•5.,n„-, �'�� ..;CS',n'i+,"'j�'+!''. ' `�Y.-�X,`Magr ,f �n„ ,�,,ea.R;;hr�t�f 4��t�,j�P�pt_..?4�y� �w.'a4�y' 'n�Af^%..y 3�7�yc=_i. Yr.� u.�,ii��f ;��;'..
Planning Commission Minutes a August 29. 1995
NIOtION: Com. Harris moved to recommend that the City Council endorse the work
program as described for the joint hillside.study,with comments suggestions
listed to be included.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
ABSENT: Cons..Austin and Roberts r
VOTE: Passed
9. Set public hearing for municipal code amendments.
Section 19.120 regarding noticing for zoning amendments; Section 19.48 regarding
procedure for modification of a definitive development plan in a Planned Development
Zone, and Section 14.18 regarding tree removal procedure.
Staff presentation: Nts. Wordell stated that the purpose of the item was to ask the Planning
Commission to set a public hearing for three amendments to the municipal code to help expedite
matters. She reviewed Section 19.120, Section 19.48 and Section 14.18 which were the three
amendments for consideration.
'r Com. Harris stated she would support setting a public hearing for Section 19.€8 and Section
14.18, but not for Section 19.120 regarding noticing for zoning amendments. She said she,felt
notified, of zoning amendments, City Council meetings and
strongly that the public should be
hearings. Cupertino is a small community and should be responsive to the public. She said there
are many factors involved, such as changes in meeting times and locations and it was important to
h, keep the public informed.
Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Harris,stating he questioned the timing,and timing between
planning. He stated he would support the economics costs of doing it, as they seemed minimal.
11r. Cowan explained that it was not the practice for a number of years until the ordinance was
modified.
!' MOTIOI : Com.Harris moved that Sections 19.48 and 14.18 for public heating concerning
s possible modifications be approved.
h SECOND: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Corns.Austin and Roberts _
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
REPORT OF THE PLANi`II IG COi UMISS1:ON
r
Com. Harris reported that in preparation for discussion of Item 2 relative to signs, she perused the
signs on Dee+nza Boulevard and found a va►iety of 29 situuific.nttt sien violations. She pointed out
that there is no enforcement setup to review sign violations and suggested that the 29 violations be
reviewed with follow-up action taken and that every six months 'an assigned person dive the
major arteries and look for major violations. She said it was the pl,ming department's job to
write the ordinance and code enforcement's job to enforce the ordinance and would have to be
decided between planning and public works. She presented the document and requested that the
items be pursued with a semi annual review to avoid the carnival-like atmosphere of mixed signs
and banners in Cupertino.
r,
3
iF
f"
Fit
r �,
OMA_f "Yr k..G r r v �`:.' ••<t•:::
t
.�,•x,f:, ,:.k` .x p, yMi,,, -F3. .,� ? .Y', ,� !:. «Y.
r,
s .ir.'+• .`�`, rrnx"S<«. "'n • � r'te *'a ,r "9^•4'•};� i
.,. -z..-_«'• y��','� Ory .:. -..; , to•}: +5,..."#a.�.. ,i+v ]?y,. ,. :x. . P, •�:...rtS. ��+-'t�.�" � ,;�i•*. .r,t } xt,:� i ,r'�fi , � ;•R,•t .,,fFf
Vie,. w1 *f"t i.. 'A` •., ,�4r,.e�b'.� ,_ y"7;- f v'�a
f, ?..,t ':a ,s..;x x.•..�,, bit .;.a;�- ry.,, �.'f'�. •R7'.. �h,Y g i...�, �t� ,r:+'. yf,��: � ,� SY,:.
u.
•„, •, y>. ...4.w,. ''-- >.., ....«. �,'a t��.W�u `...”!
«c:kf 7 a.. ' ..r? ,�_..a•d r �':;.., arc.4;`,gf�..a,. ......,{ 3 4. ��., .. ..Y. ���`' r..t'4t;` ';E;. �^�•�-..a�'� fr. •i,... :r a -.+7',.
aq..�, � �,,.y,^t � �.� ,., .4,.. + ,r,a,`�"r..�} _kt �.n,.... ,.r ,.,..-4,j .e �..... .. x �'.1.Y `+x.�.,t. � 1.. .:,.. i .•a, ,a t`R,rf• T t r'.�"'.: a+. 7.. !.-r,., .:G
'-�}7ryf + :4 �;t. '�. y5k •x` 3d r.'s G..,,,i33 Ynq 4.:.J' a#�'ri^.,,tt t �<,�.� .�«�r.&4"'L r„ .�. .,.Ty:;..;ly�}�7'r�t+� `rE,Yy a s�y;.d���,e.'s:tr rr.� „Jiq� ti, c'.f",;�.„ sy".✓"..
a.t.. u«. {;:+.r ,4.< e A a+ ;t `w,^ .yt y vf�,!n n'""�: •l r + M�.+��f�l�,�� C/r��.::�r✓y, i � Ct,.+}ye xi L a�+ .{. "k7`�• y ?S •,�, Y r �., x�a;
,�-.. ,,t,r Ps .,,k �, a6 '-;: £h�.,..µ'..x r i. `l fir..m as � �;„n,,,3Sxl��„d a rf"� r.,,r ��.�<� Y•�....h''} ff S:. 5 iY $ ?T 1 '�• sq tiY,+LS� + .!s <r�.:
�� .�;;• .ya: ,i;h; 7� � '+.• ".tp7 r, � ", �d1~;a."' + .,. r is#r. y/f v �• « ,�, �, �t ✓7 ti. .?y x �. . �'
i.1- P�a•...•- "t..- t to i �-iTl �«� .>y:q�" �:i.5t"'9tt ,'5 �:.-,�..3,�F��y';t��"t•Th,9;•,�f �it tr y�`.:,,ri"ydb�v��.a'•'•"�"..r.91�'�.s• .,a�'.dt� ��i�j'•' ,n T.'iS �'4 �v
'•• •• • • 5,41
9A =,
M�yw
�JA
4�
{
�9.
t
"Nlti.
tits
r., 7
l�� 1
x�*y
J ti:' �, -�.:. .x•, ,t :.:..:rr.• "'' -,,;�1' :v .v:�:.��� W.1k:''-w•xFy'�`s`.C+•"a!,i iy,.'r'-#t?:'x. fe,��;t.��'6.,n K+, KR��i.k&tr r-=4i..fx a^'af'-1=. 7 �7 ; -.�tt iw �y��
�:;i;; r,•. x,i,'�J.,,' y^..,� .•",.�.r'.a,;.+. ,+r dT?"'r+" •ar rtf 'fir`✓'.� ,., a a. ,.�1 .Ki ',": +.� l s i r.l,. } iN. ^7 H. c
i7..:x. < •.7 y t ,..:S,x; Yet ,y„r E } '•;..,.+`x ,t'✓l.w n• ”' $uc.4J f .w�u•• Rc r?."' fr" ,e1'i �.,r: ,.%S rt." r 5:�' .,Y't f l rat' C r .•se �t! !
'.., h Z\ ,,.,,7 -•.-t' w ..v.;� �.ie .A1e ,A•,.. � •,;.;L;' y,�'yy,.,,t":S u.=6;�>i?f.rux�f+?''�t�A' ,.��t'r�'"�Fr�!+},,:rt.L,Y... -�,.��ta b•.l,. S"•r r.L:.e,�+:�+, r,j,G V; :�.•`�' r+ktr , 4'f F $:-�
lg :..ti»� + r xe. +$i" •r p X r t -s ., ,e, x a '^e < !+ i Y� Y r 43>*SX f r "k ,
.afir„. Mk .,.;a Lr >nw•✓*;".a='a >.'1:.:qf"\}'*`..+�:$ •,5'r�y• n..{•%• va,f+
_4S.Y.o. th,..t". +..••J .i..,t w.t.om;.:..wa.:+.. ,�s,..._.,�wQ.t.• :+-.v+.�'.At .3'C;:.a.FT E`�r•.�\.,Y:�7°r3,,.�-r;,tce".a,as.":L1."�. • 12 1a ".:T'k�nX1l••:rf.�d 5f,
,4';;,'tY'k9t `,5+ L7w '?'.d 'tra!7f.;.A.. 1 :t1rt,�,t. 'n,;'t `�'+t• d•�2 z:s,�.r•#i)r.,'Ay..�.Wr.•,,.
7
'.o""a-+x{."•;,t�ix +i.!J�.`i•��, �3st�y%!Ca f ♦ ."t ..s ,:•s�«t.t. t�.�\., >k.`��.
- f
a� t
f
i `9 NI4
rdrdP�
"Age ,b,y�y/ { ..
'a
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELI?ON SEPTEMBER 25,1995
g
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Austin, Hams, Mahoney, Roberts,Chairman Doyle
r Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy Wordell,City
'. Planner Charles Killian,City Attorney.
s�
APPROVAL O ;`r,MUTES
August 29; 195- k.1.""Itc?s:
Com. Harris requested the following;change on Page 4, Itecn 2, 4th from last paragraph on page:
After"proposed sign"insert"was smaller in length and square footage than allowed,was tasteful,
MDR and the bronze color was acceptable." .
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve the August 29, 1995 minutes as amended.
SECOND: Com. Harris
ABSTAIN: Coms.Austin,Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-0-2
k WRITTEN C0MMUMCATIONS: Nony
Y. POSTPONEMI ENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
I. Application No. 7-ASA-95
Applicant: Hunter Properties
Property Owner: Hunter Properties
Location: 23000 Homestead Road
Architectural site approval for a sign exception to exceed the:.umber and height of allowed wall
signs in accordance with Section 17.24.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
x
REMOVE FROM CALENDAR
i
III: ME
_ �,
1�
,j
1
Planning Commission Nfinutes 2 September 25, 1995
2. Application No: 8-U-94(Mod),6-TM-95,7-Z-95 and 18-EA-95 x
Applicant: Citation Homes Central
Property Owner: Citation Homes Central o
Location: Southeast comer of DeAnza Blvd. and Homestead Road
Use Permit Modification to construct a 140 unit (for rent) apartment project. Tentative map to
subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 18 lots:- Zoning to rezone a 5 acre parcel from P(RES-20-3 5)to P
(RES 10-20). "
ENVIRONIv[ENTAL.DETERIvIINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended i
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 1995
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 9, 1995.
MOTION: Com. Hams moved to remove from the calendar Item 1,,Application 7-ASA-95,
and postpone Item 8-U=94(Mod.),6-TM-95 and 18-EA-95 to the October 9,
1995 Planning Commission Meeting.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
r VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
1
OLID BUSINESS
3. Application No.(s): 9-U-95, 8-Z-95 and 16-EA-95 Cupertino City Center Associates.
Use Permit to construct 24 single family homes on 2.41 acn-s located on the east side of
Toga Avenue between Stevens Creek Blvd and Rodriguez Avenue;zoning approval toAmh {
allow low to medium density residential development. Referral of application to Planning
Commissian to consider merits of development applicatiou and report findings and
recommendations to City Council.
Staff presentation: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, reviewed the $
background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. He explained that the zoning and
R use permits had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council referred`.the
matter back to the Planning Commission for a report. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the Planing
;a
Commission was being asked to consider the actual design proposal of the development, not the
f zoning.
Referring to the preliminary landscape plan, Mr. Cowan summarized that the development was a
24 unit single family detached development next to the Waterfall development on one side and
Pinn Brothers developed property on the south side. He stated that the houses were 2 story
homes with a park area and a single private driveway that links the property. issues of concern
were the public versus private park,(those commissioners present at previous meetings agreed that
the property should not be publicly held space)as a park area that would serve the immediate area
:3
residents; parking;setbacks;and unit height limitations.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Cowan said that staff reconunendcd 20 foot
setbacks for the development.
} Mr. Scott Warren,Classic Communities,encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the use
permit for the 24 units. He stated that the application is being presented to evaluate the project on Y
the merits, that is to evaluate whether this particular type of residential use conforms wz the
requirements and standards of the General Plan and any other cognizant city plans, namely the
Heat of"ie City Plan, and not to evaluate whether residential development is appropriate for the
�'
old
a arr a i
-
Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 25, 1995
site. The 1993 General Plan established the residential use of this site as appropriate. Ile stated
x the applicant believes the plan integrates the project into a neighborhood context that features a
mix of land uses and development intensities, and the.project adds to the variety of housing stock
and provides other choices in the area.
L
Referring to the rear yard setbacks, Mr. Warren explained that it was determined that by taking I-
2 feet of depth out of the homes and by taking 1-2 feet of width out of the private drive, the 20
foot rear yard setback will be attained, and stated a commitment to making those changes to fully
conform to the Heart of the City Plan. Mr. Warren indicated lots 16 through 24 were typically,
urban row homes,and lots 1 through 15 were more typical of suburban single family homes.
Com. Mahoney addressed an earlier concern,about traffic patterns in the development and asked if
' staff had addressed the issue. Mr. Cowan responded that there was a posed condition to,require
final precise architectural details come back and Com. Harris had additional elements particularly
for Plan R, Page 5-52 and 5-53 contain some summation comments made. .
In response to a question from Corn. Harris, Mr. Warren-illustrated that the front parking area.
would be 18 feet wide,7 to,8 feet of the area being devoted to providing 7 parallel par.Id
ng spaces
that will face the garage or front door entry, to the project as a whole and to the units that align the
t park.He said the objective is to have some buffer that is created by a continuation of the sidewalk
and planter strip along the face of the project so the problem of the bus duckout alternative is
avoided. He stated that on-street parking was not permitted.
ra .Mr. Jim Yee, Steinberg Group, architect, referred to the architectural drawings and addressed the
units, facing onto Torre Avenue, in particular lots 24 through 16. He illustrated the different
elements of the architecture such as hip roofs, rusticated base, and the fence and trellis element
which provides a perception of the house front even though it is the back of the'hotue. Mr. Yee
pointed out the variety of gate treatments,and said the fences are set hack about 4 feet.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about units 1 and 15, emphasizing than model F glares out as
being different from the others and appears to be jammed in at an odd angle giving the plan a
jumbled look. Mr. Warren explained the layout of the site plan was to sli';g into account concerns
about taking access for lots 1 and 15 from Torre Avenue as well; that 'he objective was to have
only 2 points of access from Torre Avenue for the entire project, thi! fazing the point of entry for
those units. d
Com. Hams stated she had a similar concern about units 1 and 15,and asked if consideration was
given to realigning the lot line between lots 14 and 15,which would eliminate the extra large yard
in unit 14 and make room for unit 15 to be part of the triangular area with a unit A, B or C,
blending in with the remainder of the units. Mr. Warren stated that it was conceivable to
' accomplish it with a C unit,but not A or B. He said it may be feasible for lot 15,but not lot 1.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the views of the various units from different points of entry
.f
into the development. £
3
Chairman]:Doyle opened the hearing for public input.
Mr. Farokh Deboo, 10257 Nile Drive, said he was also speaking on behalf of Mr. Alfred
Hoffman, and stated that both the General Plan and the City's Stevens Creek Specific Plan needs
to be viewed in a balanced approach. Using overheads, he referred to a previous letter and
I
1 .1
t s SJr 2�r�'M-:1{'ZInY tktt v.t`r Lir J�i eF y�'th '.v�" ''�-.L'4 S 1 ?r y• tyf,r, Lt •z.xt.:! -0 r3.:'h ''v,%r y�:..'� p4 i'�a "S,t eN. T. '"•' 4,.1 �•'r ,_
' Planning Commission M'uiuies 4 September 25, 1995
petitions signed by residents opposing the development. He remarked that the Ptaii:!ing
Commissica was considering approval of the application before the City Council has approved
any deve',oament in the area.
In response to a question from Com. Austin, Mr. Deboo stated that he and the concerned residents
would recommend that the land be left as open space and be left landbanked until :all the
properties in that area are further developed.
Com. Austin asked 1 Mr. Deboo to comment on the architectural plan for the proposed
development.
Mr. Deboo stated that if the development is approved, it shoule blend in. Many of the neighbors
feel that the development is boxy. Ileslid that originally the setbacks were 13 to 18 feet and have
z gone back to 20 feet and the group feels that for 2 story housing there should be more than 20 foot
setbacks. He pointed out that for single family homes the plan is fairly dense and said the amount
of tr zn shown on the drawings is more than should;be expected from the current plan. Mr.
Deboo mramented that the letter from the Carpenters Union in support of this application was
admirable, however he felt that a fair amount of jobs have been generated by the previous
complexes and he pointed out that $5 million has had to be paid in code violations and poor
-workmanship on prior developments.
Mr. Deboo.requested that the Planning Commission issue a recommendation to the City Council
that the use permit be denied.
Ms. Caroline Bangham, 20290 Pinntage Parkway, pointed out objections to the development.
She stated that the noise level was a concern, the swim pool backs up to the complex; the dust
S that would be generated sticks to their buildings because of the poor quality of their paint on their
buildings; the traffic which also results, in additional pollution; lack of adequate parking (the
present complex already shares a lot with Semantek during the week). She urged the Commission
to revert back to the General Plan.
.ji
} Mr. Jerry Hoopes, District Council.. of Carpenters, stated that he supported more housing in
California. He pointed out that the businesses and housing generate funds through taxes for the
' City of Cupertino. He said the proposed development was suitable and supported the building of
the units. y
J,
ex= .
Mr..David Townsly, Cupertino Waterfall homeowner, stated that the 1993 General Plan did not
specify zoning for this particular parcel or site but only a general density target for the City
Center,;most cif which has been allocated for the 120 unit apartment complex yet to be built. He
said that in previous meetings, the particular area was declared as open space, not suitable.for
development and many residents used this to make decisions about purchasing homes in the area.
He said he felt the development seemed crowded at 10 units per acre and is ntcre crowded than
any other single family homes in the area. The park in the plan is common backyard area for
residents. There is insufficient setback along the neighbors property lines; the overall plan puts a
street through the middle forcing houses toward the property lines. He stated he felt it was a very
poorly designed development with small backyards, no room for a swim pool or rzcreation, no
4, protection for the trees along the Waterfall property line; setbacks are less than surrounding
Waterfall areas,the blocky design looks very wall like and roofs are close to each.other. 9
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Mr. Towrsly stated that the trees are not protected
in the application,and are located on the applicant's side.
_ 5n _
�L A
{b saYF3 J{F fi a s i''
.
?" Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 25, 1995
4
?. Mr. David Gates, landscape architect, stated that the artist's rendering was incorrect 'because
parking spaces have since been included. He stated that the redwood trees and alder trees,will
both benefit because construction is not near them, but they will benefit from the additional
`{ moisture. He pointed out they were the only vegetation on the site.
Mr. Cowan stated that according to the grading plan, there is a foot of fill around the trees and
l asked Mr. Gates how it would effect the trees in question. Mr. Gates said that it was critical that
the trees be protected and a guarantee would be included for their protection, as well as the
installation of a protective fence around the drip line of the tree as work is being done on the site.
Mr.Gates explained that applicant is not doing backyard designs.
Ms. Sally Larson, 10220 Danube Drive, commentedon a prior project by Wilson school where a
$10,000 bond was put on the trees prior to construction. She noted that only one tree remained
and questioned whether the applicant forfeited the bonds on the oak trees. She stated that she
purchased her property on promises of renderings such as those being viewed which showed the
triangle as a greenbelt with trees and it did not come to be. She questioned why the parcel was
being developed before the mirror image building which was to be completed many years ago, or
the parcels Mr. Deboo mentioned. She commented that removing units 1 and 15 would still leave
the complex claustrophobic.
She urged residents to visit the development by the former Wilson school to see how the buildings
are jammed together,one is a flag lot and two other homes aren't accessible from.either street.She
cautioned that what you see isn't always what you get. She suggested that if there was no other
' recourse,the number of units be reduced by one-third and possibly one-half.
;,.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting.
f Mr. Warren responded to concerns expressed. He stated that the recommended density for
i properties in the zone is 20 units per acre and the proposed development is S units per acre. The
development is similar to the Corsica and Coventry projects iu Cupertino. It is an excellent design
for children, providing a protective play.area for units 16 through 24 that align the park. He
noted that Mr. Hoffman toured the projects and had his questions responded to. He pointed out
.1} that the setback drawings from the Heart of the City Plan were for commercial uses which are
substantially more intense than residential uses and this is a single family residential use. Mr:
Warren said that there are existing alders and redwoods that align the perimeter of the property x
and provide a very effective buffer to address some of the noise and dust issues that were raised.
He said it was applicant's intent to preserve all the trees, with the exception of two of the alders
that are along the easterly property line.
Mr. Warren pointed out that the potential use of the property was disclosed to the original buyers
of Waterfall and Pinn properties. He encouraged the Planning Commission to heed City Council
direction to focus on the merits of the project. He emphasized applicant's willingness to work
with staff to address the site plan and architectural issues and asked for the Commission's support. `
Corr. Roberts asked to what extent the streetscape design guidelines of the Heart of the City Plan
were relied upon.
Mr. Yee explained that it was the developer's goal to-fit into the neighborhood context, which is a
mixed bag with some very intense commercial uses taking place together with some stark
institutional buildings. He pointed out that the residential projects adjacent to the neighborhood
are substantially higher density and in some cases attempt. to effect some California
Mediterranean styling. Mr. Yee emphasized that in this particular project, the street is an
important resource, the units are fronting on the street and creating a central amenity that aligns
1
'4.
�3„K'S'r,P�"kJ sr.� SSi tr•yrr t n�
r
Planning Commission Nfinutes 6 September 25, 1945
U
i
the street that fits this project into a sequence of space that leads from the intersection of DeAnza
vp Blvd.and Stevens Creek Blvd. and meanders through the commercial portions of City Centex. He
said the applicant was mindful of the flow along the Heart of the City and supports those kinds of
t relationships.
-,Com.. Roberts commented that in terms orthe architecture; the°development looked somewhat
more`old fashioned than its surroundings. Mr. Warren explained that the neo-classical traditional
style was.adopted to reflect the classical massing of the commercial buildings with the horizontal
hipped roof treatments'on a residential scale.
Mr. Yee stated that the site was a very unique center,with Cupertino City Center across the street,
and also backed by the Waterfall project. Referring to th:� aerial vicinity map of the area, he
}` pointed out different buildings illustrating the varied features which complimented the style
chosen for the residential complex.
u
He explained that one of the starting points was the perception for the need to use hard surface
materials because of the adjacent commercial uses which use hard surface materials such as tile
roofs and stucco siding, leading to a California Mediterranean treatment.There is a fair amount of
that in the neighborboed; the Corsica project follows that tradition and it was felt that the
neighborhood could support a different look. Mr. Yee said that the Towers are relatively modem
' buildings and the developer felt that a modem new production home would be a high risk. We
wanted to find a design style that is rooted in a real tradition that utilizes those hard surface
materials and is a little different from California Mediterranean.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Warren stated that the objective was to maintain
AdIkL
the pattern of street trees along Torre Avenue and stated there is an area with respect to the
setbacks that provide for the planting of additional trees in the front yard areas. If apnrorniate,
new trees would be plant,:l. He said that sycamores were planted in the public right of way.
A discussion ensued regarding the replacement of the alder trees, and the potential location of
hedges and fences.
Chairman Doyle summarized the major issues: �0 foot setbacks; 30 feet between houses;
boxiness of units; number of units; protection of trees, design of units facing Torre Avenue;
design guidelines; private or public park; architectural style; lots 16 and 24; lots 1 and 15; unit
design E; and accuracy of sketches.
Com. Hands said she supported 20-foot setbacks; number of units acceptable at 24. She stated '
X that tree protection needs to be a condition, with a SIf,,000 bond per tree, with a maximum of
$50,000 for the site. She remarked that she felt it was not a reason to get rid of an alder tree
because it is out of row with the others. Com. Harris said that unit E for lots 1 and 15 was not
acceptable as it looked like a boxcar. She said that it was important that Torre Avenue presented
an attractive image as it is Cupertino's City Center street, and the appearance of the units on Torre
Avenue was an issue because of that. She remarked that a great deal of architectural interest exists
in the fronts of the units and the developer went to a lot of trouble to make the backs of the units
look good.as well,and units 1 and 15 do not fit into that mold. She suggested that unit 15 outline
could be realigned and a different unit put in;Lot S is very large with a B unit, if it had a D unit on
z it,there would be room to move the whole row down and realign lots I and 2 and put one of the
other models on lot 1 that would fit into the rest of the development and look attractive from the
street. Units 16 and 24, sides that face Torre Avenue need to have the same attention paid to them
that were paid to the backs of the units along the inside street. They need to be made to look like
a front as they face Torre Avenue, and the same thing':would apply to whatever units are chosen
ON
• j,
Planning Commission Nfinutes 7 Septa.y -,er 25, 1995
for I and 15. Com. Harris emphasized that the changes should be incorporator into ti:e
conditions. She said that although she prefers modern buildings, the architect has put much effort
into seeing the character of the street in its multi-facetedness and selected the elements that go
with certain buildings; therefore she finds the style acceptable. She stated that if there are
discrepancies in the plans when presented to the Council, the changes should be explained to the
Council. Com. Harris stated she supported private parks, which was voted on previously.
Overall,Com. Harris supported the project, design wise.
Com. Roberts stated that the site was a difficult one to design and the architects and designers
accomplished a reasonable job. He stated he was concerned with lots I and 15,and 16 and 24
primarily from the standpoint of their appearance from Torre Avenue and from the City Center, i
and about their odd angles within the property,which presents a jumbled look, as units 16 and 24,
model Care pushed back and don't really face the park as shown. He stated that the visuals
misrepresent the appearance of the actual product, and said the project should not be approved in
its present form for that reason. He suggested if lots I and 15 were eliminated and the other
properties were stretched out, it might make it easier to satisfy the 20 foot setback constraint and
would permit the inner triangle to loosen up so the houses on 16 and 24 could be moved forward
Al
so they would actually be more abreast of the other units 17 through 23 and look more suitable.
He said it appeared that the units were crammed to accommodate the extra two houses I and 15
and it is unacceptable. The architectural style, long narrow designs, boxiness, etc. unless great
care is exerted doesn't look good but stated the architects and planners have given it a great deal i
s�
of thought.•
Com. Roberts pointed out that he felt the critical issues were the disposition of the units on lots 1
,y and 15. He referred to an earlier comparison made to the Summerhill development, stating that at
sm the time the comer houses were a concern and the development was approved. He said that
having seen the final product,the approval was a mistake and the same type of mistake shotkld not
be made again. If units 1 and 15 were removed, some other adjustments could be made such that
16 and 24 could he moved into a more harmonious disposition._ He,stated he could not support
the proposal in its present fort but slight modifications along the line suggested would be
acceptable. He said the 20 foot setbacks arc acceptable;number of units at 22;and stated that he
was not in favor of replacing the trees with more attractable trees if that is what ;s there; but the
alders and redwoods should work well in the confined space. Private park is acceptable.
Com. Roberts stated he would like to see the modifications before approving the proposal.
r
Com. Mahoney stated he supported the architectural style; boxiness was not a concern; 20 foot
setbacks acceptable;tree protection as discussed is acceptable; units 16 and 24 are not a problem;
concurred;with concerns expressed about units 1 and 15; sketches should be accurate or 'at least
pointed out to the Council where they are inaccurate; private parks vs. public parks; number of
units: 24 assuming it is workable. Com. Mahoney stated that once the concerns about units 1 and
` 15 are reetifed, he would support the project overall, �
Com. Austin stated the setbacks were acceptable; referring to the boxiness, she stated she would
like to see awnings; number of units are acceptable; units l and 15 are a concern. She suggestedg
changing unit 15 to C style and said it would be helpful to see the model of the units in a 3D t
version. The architectural style is acceptable; number of units acceptable; parks should be
3 private; current,sketches are difficult to maintain because of changes occurring. She stated she
was in favor of the project generally with tree protection. She said she would also like to have
included a proposed condition of approval limiting second story construction on model D,AM $
' adjacent to the park,to limit the impact to light and air in these yards. °,
glffiJifli
-
f4 n �-�� 5 C st,C.�1f 111 1' rrt n„mx' ✓'•.^`.•L"F xk, Y � y �'r 11..4 t t a ,''F e �.�'xy{y�,,,'tf Yk� 4tr�' ur a r.r t � c7`�.fiy , S. a5 '.F s� _.r7 ,S> .�' 1 N . '
• 5. tf `.4 t`1fr4.J,dt_
Plamfuig Corntnission Minutes 8 Septembee,23 IM
Chairman Doyle supported the 20 foot setback;he said there should betr'Ore side variability to
combat the boxiness; number of units may depend upon how the problem is resolve on units 1
and 15 and 16 and 24, number of units: 24; tree protection should be covered with die standard
tree bonding and would recommend better clarification of the vegetation plan for the edges
between the alders. For units 1 and 15 there needs to be something done to handle the height;
fencing and the way it projects out;units 16 and 24 should be set back to allow some str'eetscape
to allow for more appeal;sketches need to be updated for a better understanding of the end result;
architectural style acceptable;private parks. Chairman Doyle said he would support the proposal
overall with the modifications.
Chairman Doyle summarized the main issues of concern as units 1 and 15; units 16 and 24;
s sketches should be updated for the City Council; tree protection.
Mr. Killian clarified that the item could be continued to allow time�to deal with issues mentioned.
'r
He stated thaf City Council can act on the zoning at their meeting and continue other issues.
Discussion ensued regarding the courses of action to be considered.
Chairman Doyle suggested reducing the list down to the concerns about lots 1 and 15, and 16 and
24 and returning to the City Council, stating that the proposal was acceptable except for the
concerns about the four lots. Discussion continued wherein the following concerns and issues
w-re discussed:
Lots 1 and 15, 16 and 24-PIacement and choice of units.
Number of units
Protection of trees(band)
Setbacks
Fencing
Spacing to wall-4 ft. to 10 ft.
F
Mr. Warren stated that the applicant was eager to move forward now with a recommendation of
approval to City Council understanding the issue with respect to lots 1, 15, 16 and 24.
x Mr. Killian clarified that the Planning Commission'was not pmpnred to recommend approval at
A this time, and asked if applicant would agree to a continuance to address the issues, rather than #
make a recommendation to the City Council for denial based on materials before than.
i
E Mr. Cowan stated that in his report to the City Council he would report than there is general
support of the concept but explain that there are problems with lots 1 and 15 ar.d perhaps 16 and
24 in terms of design issues.
c
ti
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 9:10 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:20 the same member,
1
t4 were present.
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to continue Application 9-U-95 to October 9, 1995.
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
t
ry 4. Report regarding tree removal for Application 1-TM-92,Cupertino Road and Stevens
t
Creek Boulevard.
Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan presented a report on the loss of trees on a'subdivision currently
under construction at Stevens Creek Boulevard.
ti
�J���
.f,y-.cM1Is .W
Planning Commission Mnutes 9 September 25, 1995
Referring to the overheads, he illustrated the Iots in question and location of trees. He reported
that a 13 inch walnut was lost on Stevens Creek Blvd., a 13 inch oak on the northern edge of the
property and a 15 inch, multi-stemmed oak tree. He pointed out that the 13 inch oak tree was
leaning heavily but that the 15 inch oak should have been saved. He distributed photos of the site.
He said the extenuating circumstances indicated removal of the 15 inch oak tree was in conflict
with the approved plan. He explained that the city employee responsible was no longer employed
,g with the city,therefore the circurnstances were not known. Mr..Cowan recommended the solution
was to require the oaks to be replaced by 3 or 4 trees. Mr. Cowan distributed photos of trees
that the applicant would consider planting.
Mr.Cowan explained that new procedures such as bonding requirements,grading plan and public
"t works involvement will help to simplify procedures and prevent unfortunate occurrences from
happening. More detailed records, including evaluations, pictures, acid videos will also be
instituted.
z
a Mr. Nick Garry, applicant, stated the tree,was multi-stemmed, growing low to the ground, in the
center of the lot. He stated that it was his understanding the tree was going to be removed.
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to affirm the negotiated settlement of staff with the owner.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
NOS: Chairnism Doyle
VOTE: Passed 4-1-0
Chairman Doyle stated that he visited the grounds and viewed the area in question. He said that
the tree was in the middle of four lots with no conceivable way to build on the lot without removal
of the tree. He said it was evident what happened. It seemed a more economic tradeoff.to
remove the tree and suffer the consequences. Chairman Doyle recommended a stronger set of
restrictions for future.
Ms. Wordell stated that at the time of the subdivision, Mr. Jung spoke to the applicant and they
responded that they were not the developer and said they would say that they would save the trees.
It was not a detailed approach to the exact trees and their merits or demerits.
t: NEW 13USLNESS
5. Request to set a public hearing for city-initiated rezoning of areas north and east of
Regnant Canyon to RHS Zoning District.
f
Staff presentation: Ms. Cidy \border], City Planter, reviewed the attached staff report. Com.
Harris stated that a planning session was held where the Planting Commission looked at basement
areas and it was agreed that the definition of basement areas had to be revisited. She suggested it
be handled first because it effects every property built on the hillside. She suggested that staff'
work on the basement issue along with the rezoning issue.
Com.Austin agreed. `
Mr. Cowan stated the law requires the zoning to be consistent with the General Plan.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to set the public hearing for a future date in the fall.
SECOND: Com.,Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
t
r
,y
3.
,r9 { � ��t �� .l��Jr�$Y'�Y�,� '� �t�� 3 � sWAt tn�� >;�w fi�("�L�y`id<,,,.i�^4 t. > �y:.M �as•.�tt � } ,�,; Yi � d"},J y ijR y:a¢-:� t ��'+$ 3,t.\
-.4
Planning Comm soon Minutes 10 September 25. 1495 ,
Cowan-We have direction from you. We have a couple of workshop sessioias and as a mmilt of
that we will come hack and draft an ordinance for you:
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COI1+MSSION-None z
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-None
k DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS-None
ADJOURNMENT- The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.to the regular Planning Commission•
meeting on Monday,October 9, 1995 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
i
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretory
a
A$
�t
l?4 '
S
b
'e
s s'
I
i' " u r £ri. {E'er, �t,�l M.,�'��'�:�-.ti.,. .."�' - ,.7X. 7 s;,:.:ry. �+r4��•iz }"?:ai r'r- . .,d�!. ; z°;, " 'a,.r;� .:..:v.t.� > >t:; f* n '.r't^,v��t` :ri .i ,; I
MY OF CUPERTINO
t 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING CON[MISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11,199S
- d
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
y
Commissioners present:Austin,Harris,Roberts and Chairman Doyle.
r Commissioner Mahoney arrived at 7:08 p.m.
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner;Colin Jung,Associate Planner;Vera Gil,Planner 11,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 5, 1995 minutes:
1
MOTION: Corn.Hamas moved to approve the amended minutes of the April 5, 1995
meeting.
SECOND: Cam.Mahoney 6 d
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
1 5
August 14, 1995 minutes: As the minutes of flee August 14, 99 meeting were not included in the
Commissioners'packets,the approval was postponed until September 25, 1995 meeting.
res ,
w WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Noted letter from Swapan Ghosh concerning 25-U-90.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
y -
4. Application No.(s): 8-U-94(Mod.),6-TM-95,7-Z-95,2-GPA-95 and 18-EA-95.
Applicant: Citation Homes Central
Property Owner: Citation Homes Central
` Location: Southeast corner of DeAnza Blvd.and Homestead Rd.
Use Permit Modification to construct a 140 unit(fa,rent)apartment project.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 16, 1995i
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO THE PLANNING COMhfSSION MEETrNG OF
SEPTEMBER 25, 1995.
f f�
. t
�x
'4 d .GrriY i1 �"7rE^Y1,�'�`}1✓.atia1 1
�r�?�'au7 ,` a ..• it a:• t
Planning Commission Minutes 2 &-ptember 11, 1995
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to postpone Item 4 to the September 25 Planning
Commission meeting.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
'ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:
1. Application No: 7-ASA-95
Applicant: Hunter Properties
A Property Owner: Hunter Properties
Location: 23000 Homestead Road
Architectural.site approval for a sign exception to exceed the number and height of allowed wall
signs in accordance with Section 17.24.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL.DETERMINATION: " Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the
attached staff report. Referring to the site map, she illustrated the location of the proposed sign.
She stated that staff recommended approval of the sign exception based on the findings in the
model resolution.
Mr. H. A. Inthout, 2295 Home^tead Road, addressed the Planning Commission, stating his
opposition to the sign because of its proximity to his living room window. He questioned if the
sign was a flashing sign and asked if the sign could be lowered to a height of six feet.
Mc. Wade McClure, representing Blockbuster Video, responded that the sign was not a flashing
sign and pointed out that the sign could not be lowered to a height of six feet, but suggested a
rd
compromise of 2-112"feet. He suggested the sign be turned off at 9:30 p.m.
'u
In response to a question from Com. Han is, Ms. Wordell stated she was not aware of any
monument signs on the site. Mr. McClure responded that Blockbuster Video was not permitted a
monument sign,because there was already a sign facing into the slopping center-md a sign on the
front of the building. He stated however that he was not opposed to a monument sign.
Ms. Wordell reviewed the background of the sign ordinance relating,to monument signs. She
pointed out that monument signs were permitted where there is a minimum of 100 feet of frontage
with a combination of street frontage and building setback totaling 150 feet. Chairman Doyle said
that potentially a monument sign might reduce the need for this sign on elevation A and reduce the
:3 issue of the visibility on the front on elevation B.
Com. Austin stated that she supported the 9:30 p.m. shutoff time and suggested that lowering the
sign 24/2 feet might be a sufficient compromise. She stated that she was not opposed. to a
monument sign.
Y.
r�
}
Planning Commission Minutes 3 Septembtar 11, 1993
}
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Mr. McClure stated that if limited to two s Sm,the
sign on Ylae front of the building was necessary. He pointed out that the'code stipulated that it
would require an exception to allow the monument sign.
Mr. McClure stated that he was willing to explore with staff the possibility of the monument sign
for that location,and if not feasible,discuss mitigating measures to satisfy Mr.Inthout°s concerns.
Com.Harris stated that if it was accomplished and was not an exertion,thio Planning Commission
would not need to sze it again.
s
}r MOTION: It was moved by Com.Harris to continue the item until the September 25, 1995,
meeting to allow applicant to discuss mitigation measures with staff.
SECOND: Com.Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0: M1
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. Application.No.: 1-EXC-95
Applicant: Carrasco&Assoc.
Property Owner: Prakash and Sujata Bhalerao
Location: 11837 and 11841 Upland Way
EXCEPTION to construct a new residence and grade a driveway on slopes gteater than 30%and
r to exceed the grading quantity in accordance with Sections 19.40.050 and 19.040.060 of the
r Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL.UNLESS APPEALED.
r. CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 24, 1995. a
Staft presentation: Planner II, Michelle Bjurman, referred to an overhead map illustrating the E'
square footage of properties, and reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached
R staff report. She stated that the subject parcel was created in 1989 as part of a two lot subdivision,
and the exception presented was for the residential hillside ordinance to allow construction on a
30% slope and to exceed the maximum grading and maximmn house size called for in the �
} ordinance.
Following a review of the staff report, Ms. Bjurman sununarized that in March 1995, a tentative
vote of.the Planning Commissioners was taken which included Corns. Mahoney, Roberts and
r.
Chairman Doyle recommending approval of the application,.and Corms. Austin and Hams voting
no. The primary concern from Coms. Austin and Harris related to the architecture and the
massiveness of the house. Ms. Bjurman stated that staff'was reconnding that the proposal is
v consistent with the findings required for an exception under the RHS ordinance and recommends
approval subject to the conditions outlined in the morel resolution.
n
Com. Harris requested clarification of the reference to the 1383 square feet exclusion from the
building area calculation.
Ms. Bjurman responded that under the RHS ordinance, gross floor area, which is the floor area
.` ratio, excludes basement area, "basement" being defined as that portion of the building between
,iy y 9✓x{i
A7 r'h�N 5�# t ie�i�x.. P'" t t r.t� ^a i a a•:a{t - '
Planning Con-unission Minutes a September 11, 1995 §
floor and ceiling which is partially below and partially above grads,but so located that tite vertical
distance from grads to the floor below is greater. Ms. Bjurman explained that the direction from
the Planning Commission at the workshop was for staff to return with a recommendation on
3 optional wording and modification of the ordinance.
- Com.Harris said in reality the square footage of the house was 5977 plus 1383 for a total of 7360
square feet, including the lower entry area and the garage and whatever else is submerged. Ms.
Wordell stated that the calculation was correct based upon the building square footage. A
discussion followed wherein Ms. Bjurman answered questions about the subterranean part of the
building.
x Coir.. Farris noted the error on the resolution on page 2-17 indicating that Coms. Austin and
Harris abstained. She requested that the error be corrected to indicate Corns. Austin and Harris
voted no.on the issue.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Wordell stated that the firm of P-irceli and
Rhoades was the private geologist in this:matter. She stated that approximately 12 reports were
completed and she selected the most pertinent ones to be included in the agenda packet.
Com.Harris requested clarification on reference to the,stair canopy in the resolution.Ms. Bjurman
responded that when the project was renewed, the canopy was not included in the model, and the
change*w- made without discussing it with her. She pointed out.that it wa3 not her intent to have
a structure higher than the existing structure, and she instructed the architect to design an
alternative to be flush nth the roof line.
Com. Harris asked. Ms. Bjurman to comment on the statements contained in William Cotton and
?r; Associates letter of May 8, 1995,pertaining to potential landslides. Ms. Bjurnian stated that at the
time the statement was made there were significant problems in the field such as severe erosion,
severe nflsite sedimL'ntation, etc., and it was Mr. Cotton's opinion, based upon those site
characteristics,that given the continued landslide potential without having the corrective measures
done,that have since been recommended and are since being corrected in the field,he felt it was not
a buildable lot. Ms. Bjurman added that the letter from William Cotton, Exhibit E, discusses in
detail his comments on previous reports about what needed to be done and how the private
geologist is creating a variety of recommendations that can in fact be done in the field
' Com. Harris pointed out that it stated in the letter (Exhibit E)`that l.ot 3 was not evaluated. Ms. i
Bjurman clarified that the reference was likely to specific items addressed in previous reports and t
'T} additional analysis on particular subject matter needing to be evaluated. r
Chairman Doyle questioned grading quantity; .the statement"she grading.related to the half of the g
driveway serving this lot is 1870 cubic yards, meaning that the actual grading for the driveway is
3740 cubic yards." Ms. Bjurntan confirmed that the calculations were correct, stating that the
other half of the square footage would be allocated to lot 2. The grading of the driveway puts it
1200 over the 2500 cubic yards maximum.
ii
Mr. Tony Carrasco, architect, responded to Com. Harris's concern regarding grading and
driveway. He stated that the August 10 summary from Purcell and Rhoades indicated that the
stability as well as soils conditions are acceptable for the plans submitted. In addition a reply from
i
1. ' �',,+t�✓$5en'`Su`����#d��ary���Cs��:.,1r"�A t a ,r�--r wi Y z #�. #:.,; - .. r..' ; : i
Planning Commission Minutes
s September 11, 1993
1.
William Cotton indicates acceptance of conditions. Mr. Carrasco :DIsunersied that they kava
completed several successful projects with sod roofs without leakage.
Referring to wall drawings and the architectural model,Mr. Carrasco pointed out that they felt the
most important aspect of the hillside ordinance was to integrate the house into the hillside as much
as possible. He distributed and reviewed the list of the improvements made. Mr. Carrasco
explained that although it was more costly, cuts were made into the hillside which is beneficial
from a stability point of view as well as from a visual point of view. In addition to cutting into the
hill,deep ot,srhangs on the second floor have been provided,the objeetive being to cu to shadow
to blend into the darkness of the hillside. He reviewed dee materials and colors to be used, oral
noted that they felt that the stucco would blend into the golden hillsides during the summer and be a
hardier material during the winter.
Mr. Carrasco stated that related to safety, Earthquake Technologies, the structural engineer,have
reviewed the plans and are confident that the house will sit in the hill and will be more stable than
most other houses that sit atop the hills in unstable conditions.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Carrasco said the storage arm is unfinished
concrete. He stated that it could be used as a family room; however, there are no windows' He
' stated the area would likely be used for storage of Mr. Bhalerao's business records. Mr. Carrasco
aicd the green color for thevoof.area. He noted the corner
passed out a color sample.which ilium
area of the house that would be visible, stating there would be a trellis with planting material,
blending the house into the hillside.
Ms. Bjurman presented an update from the city geologist,whi assessed the bat as buildable. She
consultant has revie`xed parcel 3 development plans. and has
said the applicant's geotechnical
determined that the proposed development is feasible provided that their updated recommendations
and recomm4ndations from previous reports are included in the development prawns and adhered.to
i during construction.
w
Mr. Dean Affelt, Parcel! and Rhoadm, stated that the firm completed extensive geologic work
dating back to 1990 for the project. Recommendations were made and the project was approved as
r, far as grading and mass grading of the roadway and the repair of the initial slide area. He reported r
that the heavy rains initiated an earth flow along a portion of the slope which was outside the
boundaries of the earth fill repair that was installed.
sociates letter of May 8 outlined their initial review and
Mr.Affelt stated that William Cotton&As
s addressed the City's questions and concerns regarding the stability of the site. A July 20 rxponse
and report was made by Affeit's office and submitted William Cottons & Associates and he
d to
responded with his letter of.August 7 (Exhibit E)explaining that the investigations on r`re O
x. and most of the concerns were addressed. Purcell and Rhoades prepared a repo gust
with regard to review of the proposed development plans for Lot 3, and William Cotton's letter of
Sept.I describes the feasibility of Parcel 3. Mr. Affelt stated that the recommendations contained
f in the August 10 letter were presently in progress.
In response to Com. Roberts' question, Mr. Affelt stated that he had no objections to Lhose
conditions stipulated in Cotton's letter of September. 1 being incorporated into conditions of
approval. q
4
IF
f
_ _ _ { :•U
f C
� 3 ' . } � l � 4'• as y"..Y,Hi '��'a, v,-,
. y
Planning Commission Minutes G Scpternb$r It, 1995
Com:Mahoney pointed out that the otter eortsultant detenn!ned that the project was feasible.
s Ms. Bjurman explained that the City is involved typically at the onset of a project, physically
visiting the (field and developing a scope of work for the private geologist to do his/her analysis.
They then do whatever the scope entails,which could be borings and research etc. In this particular
case, the City geologist went beyond that and was present during.the physical borings that the
private geolcgist did and has since gone out on several occasions during the rains. In his final
;s recommendations the City geologist recommended periodic visits as well and in this instarnoc he is
recommending additional dvork beyond having the private geologist present during certain aspects
of,the construction.
Mr..Mory Nelson, Civil Engineer, responded to Com. Harris's concern about the slopes, stating i
that their plans showed that the average scope before grading was 38,6%. At the time Mr. Cotton
wrote his letter, the.site had been graded, and then the storms in January and March happened.
There were some slopes, called cut and field slopes, which are slopes that are generated when the
driveways are graded, that were 50%. Some of the slopes were cut excessively which may have
attributed to the secondary slide occurring in March 1995.
Mr. Nelson explained that all aspects of the grading on this particular project have beta studied
' and the areas with identified problems were being corrected by extending storm drains_up the site.
y Construction is ongoing and improvements will be in place by mid-October.
Com.'Harris questioned the least slope in existence now and what the greatest slope would be after
correction of the grading. Mr.,Nelson responded that the cut and field slopes are 50%(2:1;2 f&--
horizontal to 1 foot vertical,) 'Those are the slopes that have been cut at 55%to 60%, which was
referred to in the report. 'Inose slop= will be adjusted back to the 50% maximum that is the
standard in the city, and will remain as the steepest portion of the site. They extend up the slope
20 to 30 feet,extend down the slope about the same amount. The flattest portion will have a slope
of 5%to 6%and will be related to the parking areas and the turnaround areas used for emergency
vehicles: Their grade cannot be more than 5%by the ordinance of the various emergency people
h such as Central Fire District.
y,
In response to Chairman Doyle's questim Mr.Nelson said the size of the flat area for the parking
area in front of the house was approximately 40 by 60 feet,to allow for parking and turnaround for
emergency vehicles.
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Mr. Nelson stated that 30 foot cuts in the bedrock_
material would not require blasting.
Com. Roberts asked if it was determinable when excavating if the situation might be disturbed and
new instabilities created. .
,. Mr. Nelson explained that they anticipate that groundwater could obe encountered. The cuts are
reinforced with retaining walls and the geotechnical consultant,structural engineer, and Mr. Cotton
come up with specific recommendations for the retaining walls. Behind the retaining walls will be
drains consisting of drain rock, surrounded with geotechnical filter fabrics and perforated drains,
which will relieve pressures causing the instabilities. the drainage plans are prepared to deal with
the water that has to be taken away.
i
M1. .Lh Jy�..'�"t* d y\y-'� 1r< " G a w �1+. t ., §'y7r ^ '.,•.
� E K� � y� '<t' {rya w tt „< i i-. ,,`"! •s+:.� Y� '.. -c* i''.��P' M t u•E;'3 r.; '1 els , r ` �) p�
.` Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 11, 1943
In response to Com. Roberts' concernabout avoiding an incident similar to last year, Mr. Affelt
stated that the retaining wall will be installed. As far as capturing the subsurface water, it is
extensive and if any water is through there,the drainage will capture it and the retaining wan will
retain that hillside. The wall is an extensive wall with tie backs associated with it,tying it into the
'hillside.
Com. Harris referred to the comment in the May 8 letter "We are concerned that nearly 30 cuts
into the bedrock material may create an unstable slope condition..."and asked for clarification.
Mr.Nelson responded that the excavation and the construction of the retaining wall will have to be
carefully scheduled so as not to create an unstable situation. He stated the excavation will occur in
phases to approximately one-third of the height of the retaining wall, followed by the retaining
wall in place to support that, then additional excavation will occur. He noted that Mr. Cotton's
concerns were being considered,and reiterated that a representative of Purcell and Rhoades would
:4 be on site as well as Mr. Cotton making periodic investigations during the construction.of the
retaining walls and the remainder of the grading on the site..
Com. Harris commented that Mr. Cotton was concerned in his latest letter that the cuts into.the
bedrock would create an unstable slope condition after the residential construction.
In response to Com. Harris' comment, Mr. Carrasco pointed out that the issue was raised in a
previous letter'and was apparently no longer a concern of Mr. Cotton's. He explained the basic
{ issue was to keep the hillside continuous until the retaining wall, stressing the importance of not
disturbing the hillside.
Mr. Cogan explained that the important concept is that Mr. Cotton is saying that it appears as
though tl;e pr;vate engineering geologist's plan is feasible but they don't want to spend money on
the final construction drawings until they rceeivc approval, it is a catch 22 situation as there is a
tremendous cost involved for final construction drawings. As drawings are developed and as
constraction begins, it will be tested all the way, Mr. Cowan stated that there is no way of
knowing what is down below and possible problems may surface and will have to be rectified as
they come up. The goal is to have additional work completed during the detail design work:and as
construction begins.
,w
In response to Com. Roberts' question if the remainder of the site is being protected, Mr. Cowan
_Y explained that corrective action is being taken on probimis existing last spring.
h Mr. Nelson responded that the repair of the problem that he and Com. Roberts visited was being
.;, done and the extension of the storm drains up the site to catch the area of concentrated water and
repairing the gully were priorities being presently worked on. He said there was no grading being
done presently on Lot s,all the work is being accomplished on Lot 2.
Mr. Peter Sliaw, landscape architect, explained that the landscape design was simple and with the .
hillside design of the architecture and engineering, there is actually the least superficial
displacement of soil as"possible. The previously approved plan had more superficial grading
change. This plan preserves the conditions of the existing soil plains and the renovation of the
vineyard in the rear, with a fruit tree orchard in the front. He described the landscape plan as
100%6 native plant material,no lawn„and a very organic and natural landscape plan to mitigate anyASh
y
of the impact the house will have on the property.
r'
r
*R
_b a 1 ` w s^•*� t i C':. R,t `^ �' r� ti,ES '� yc �,pv ar `.a.,r .,•tis +y,�s efqjq tidy: H" 1� c
q
s, Planning Cmmission Minutes 8 September 11. 1995
Com.Roberts added an earlier concern of soil creep. Mr.Shaw responded that the graaling an$
engineering of the site addresses soil creep. Fie said that the landscaping would help to stabilize it,
even though it w.;a a siperficial aspect.
Mr. Shaw stated that vegetation does help arrest soil creep. He explained chat soil creep happens
on steeper hillsides with expansive soils,particularly if there is clay in the soil.
When the soil gens
wet and because of gravity, it pulls,it down,dries and sinks down, repeating throughout the years.
He said that is the reason for the grading controls as far as how steep a slope should be grad. He .
noted that drainage will prevent excessive erosion.
Chairman Boyle summarized the issues for discussion to be: visual impacts, grading volumes,
housing floor area mio,average slope issues,and hydrology.
In response to a questioh from Com. Austin r4arding the adjustment tea the ICA lines, Ms. Bjurman
illustrated the lot lines, notingthat it
yielded a required exception under the slope density
calculation of approximately 1200 square feet not including the '
ccepted square footage. In order
to be closer to a non-exception request as far as house size is concerned, she said applicant wanted
to add through a !(Z line adjustment additional square footage which results in a 346 square foot
exception,not including the basement.
:1. J
Mr. Cowan stated that in terms of lot line adjustment, even though it is normally a staff"decision, t
the Planning Commission would be making a def uAo decision. If th-exception is approved,the lot
lines per this drawing will be approved.
Com. Austin's conclusions were summarized. no problems with visual impacts; the grading
volumes are acceptable because it is a tradeoff; !rousing and FAR or the size relative to the lot are
Opposed; she would like to see it 300+feet; and the line would have to be contingently adjusted;
concern expressed with the lot slope average of 30 to 65%. Com.Austin startedshe would support �
the application if house size was reduced.
a
'Corn.Mahoney stated he supported the visual and the grading and was comfortable with the slopes
and the hydrology and the stability. He said they have done as much work as are going to and are.
building this on the least steep part of the lot; there is nothing less than 30% for construction so
they are picking a good part. He stated he vacillated on size but was inclined to approve the
exception on size because it is only 342 square feet.
Com. Roberts stated he supported the architectural and landscape plan.. He pointed out that the
Planning Commission previously gave direction that trey would like to see a house that didn't
ti come in:over the allowable square footage, and even making generous concessions on what is
underground, applicant did not come in under the maximum allowable. He concurred with Corn.
Austin that the house sire should be reduced. Com. Roberts said tic visual impacts were
acceptable;grading volumes were too high; (a tradeoff between putting the house into the hill,and
are reasonable) . He said he would like to see them comply with the city's criteria on house size.
On lot slope average,Com.Roberts said that,gives that the lot is steep to begin with and they have
chosen to recess the house into the hill it is a consequence.
Com. Roberts stated that if the Planning Commission approves the
application, all theconditions
including those in Mr. Cotton's letter are incorporated.. He said that overall he would lilce to see it
back at 5631 square feet.
D
- _
i
r
„�� a t✓'ti� � tM� }c cw �, � F� �", {5s-� _ � , 4' r s a f_. t�34 n,.'k-n tri^�":i`1 , u
Planning rAmunission Minutes 9 September 11, 1995
t, Com. Harris commended the architect on his efforts to make the house fit in. She stated she felt
the house was too large and added that some of the area is not counted as living space and weeds to
be included. Com. Harris pointed out that it was recommended in the planning session to change
how basement areas were calculated because they didn't represent the Planning Commissioners'
thoughts on the subject. She stated that she thought the slope was a risk. She added that Mr.
Cotton has been pressured into responding to the application and he has continually informed the
Planning Commission of site problems which have not been resolved yet. She would like to hav$
the items discussed in the Cotton letter completed before grading is permitted
it
Com.Hams suggested that text be developed regarding the bedrock risk because after the house is
developed there might still be instability. She said that she felt the ridge line problem did not affect
the house because of its design. To the extent that the grading vohmw is to set the house into the
hill, it is acceptable and to the extent that it is to provide a reasonable driveway. She stated that
fi she felt the area,could be smaller unless required by die fire district;and commented that the slopes
trave been a problem. She stated that she was not satisfied that the health and safety issues have
been resolved and expressed her uncomfortable feeling approving the application for that reason.
G Com.Harris said if that'were dealt with and the house were reduced in size she could support it.
i
i
Chairman 1k:)y1e summarized Com. Harris' comments. visual impacts: acceptable; grading:
acceptable; size: too large; slope: average; mitigations/drainage plan: not satisfied; overall vote:
no.
Chairman Doyle stated that the visual impacts are well addressed within an architectural design;
the grading volumes arc done very well relative to the house;it's good mitigation. He said he had a
problem with the grading in the driveway. He said-he-felt there should not be an exception for
house FAR. Guidelines have been set up for the basements to be exempted from the square
footage. He said the original numbers on the lot slope average were important; some grading has
to be done. Chairman Doyle'said he would support acceptance of the proposal as stated except
reduce the house size to be within the exceptions.
Chairman Doyle summarized that four commissioners supported the proposal if the house would
come in the guidelinesand if not reduced, they would be one in favor of approw and four no
votes. He requested input from the applicant as to flexibility. We need some input from the
jt applicant as to the flexibility;do they want to revise it and take it to the City Council.?
3 Discussion fcillowed regarding the potential vote. Chairman Doyle stated that Cam. Austin said
that size of the house reduced would make it acceptable. Com.Austin said she did,but she did not
like the slope.
Chairman Doyle declared as recess at 8:25 p.m. When the meeting reconvened at 8:38 p.m, the
same members were present.
f
Mr. Carrasco stated that representing the owner, they would accept the reduction of 342 square
feet,thus bringing the house into conformance with the new hillside ordinance. He said applicant
`s would work with staff to modify the plan in order to accomplish that and request that the Planning
Commission grant the rain cover above the stair which is shown in plastic, in order to prevent the
rain from coming into the living area.
3,
El
MEW
ammm4maim AM
.1
:y
Li ,1
.H .�
T
ii
i
PVI
Planning
� ',, � , � e�..,.. :; .; •, r.� is� �
Planning Commission Minutes 10 September I I; EQ9S
Mr. Cowan stated that the reason for the house reduction was the visual rmming, and questioned
how the applicant would achieve the 342 square foot reductions.
Chairman Moyle polled the'commissioners on their preference of digging the structure further into
the ground or just reducing the square footage to comply.
Cont.Austin laid she did not have a preference about the roof element,and relative to reducing the
size,she did not care what was undergound.
Com. Mahoney concurred that he did not care what was underground, pointing out that it is not
totally underground,it is just a definition;he was willing to have them work with staff on that.
Com. Roberts stated he would like to have a general idea; tlr„ idea would be to-reduce the visual
mass of the house,not simply re6ice the ground level.
Com.Harris stated that the house size should be reduced and if reduced it would be acceptable to .
her. She said she had some issues about the stability of the property and suggested including it in
the condition.
Chairman Doyle stated visible mass was the issue and needed to be addressed. He asked applicant
what space r tight be reduced. Mr. Carrasco stated that at the presept time they had no conclusions
and stating it.took a long time to get to the present point. Hc said they would have to be.more
creative and work with city stand£sant a way to reduce it.
Com. Mahoney said he could support the size to be 5977, less 342 square feet, and state that the
subterranean part stays at the current.
}
Mr. Cowan said it was feasible,and stated there were two ways to reduce the visual mass. One is 4
to cut the length of the buildkig,or cut 2 or 3 feet of die width,while still being able to see the full
,j
face of the building.
MOTION: Conn. Mahoney roved approval of I-EXE-95 with the deletion of the exception p
for the house shoe olid also per the latest geologist's recommendations not
in the conditions,-. .,intaining the maximum floor area of the house at 5,535
} sq. f.
SECOND: Cum.Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-M
Mr.Cowan noted that the action was subject to appeal within 14 days.
3. Application No.(s):. 1-DA-95:and 20-EA-95 f
Applicant: Hewlett-Packard
Property Owner. Hewlett-Packard
Location: The Hewlett-Packard site contains approximately 95 acres and is
bounded by Homestead Rd.,Tantau Ave.,Pruneridge Ave.,and
Wolfe Rd.
OWN
i 42
6.
\ \ .I
b \Fir tSr Y '1�'L 9 t y
tt 5 1 C
r
P mining Commission Minutes 11 September 11,Aft
I995
A public hearing to consider the approval of a Development Agreement to permit Hewlett-Packard
or successor in interest,to construct new buildings and develop a master site plane based upon the
entitlements contained in the City of Cupertino General Plan.
ENVIRONWENTAL DETERMINA77ON: Negative Declaration Recommended.
'a TENTATIVL CiTY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 2, 1995.
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1995.
Staff presentation: Mr. Cowan reviewed the attached staff wort, noting that Hewlett-Packard
was requesting a development agreement merely to lock in the existing general plan and are not
seeking'approval of a more precise use pernut plan. He stated that there were no plans to be
adopted in conjunction with the agreement other than an illustrative concept plan indicating roughly
how it can be developed. These plans do not have the same force as a use permit drawing. If this
�F
development were recommended by the Planning Comndission and approved by City Council, the
applicant would.still have to go through a use permit approval for any subsequent building.
Mr. Cowar, stated that applicant has modified the draft to give the city the same discretion on
1passignability as they have on Valico Fashion Park. The City council would have to approve
assignability.
Referring to Page 7 of the Development Agreement, City Attorney Kilian clarified the use of the
word `city" in pace of"project" in Section 2.1. He explained that generally a development
agreement ties in all of the approvals and requirements of the city at the time that the agreement is
approved rather than when the building permits are issued. In this situation, one of the exceptions
is if the city is required to comply with some federal or state mandate,the agreement provides that
the city may exercise its discretion to impose conditions on any new development,approval for the t
p%esl which would enable, the applicant would like to have the word to enable the project to
comply with any federal or state law, and it would be better from the city standpoint to have the
option to allow the.city to comply.
Mr. Cowan noted the wording of Section 4 of the Development Agreement required modification to
allow protection for H-wiett-Packsrd from all new fees that might be applied to them alone. Mr.
Kilian clarified Lnat the language would have to be changed to say that"all the fees and the charges
assessments and exactions and dedications and taxes are those that are payable at the time of
the building perry?t provided that no.fee charge or exaction etc. can be specifically charged to the
HP development,and that demlopment be discriminated against."
Referring to Appendix`' Mr, Cowan nou-4 that the invent o:the general plan is to lock in a FAR,
.33 FAR times what you are allowed to have, and based on the development intensity ma ual,
re&., v extraordinary an.enity space Y.4uch is part of the general place. The main thing is to lock in
existing rias and e- )w you c ftulate space. We should lock in the rules and not necessarily the
square`ootages. Mr. Cowan rated that tier 2 could be eliminated from.Exhibit.C.
Mr. Cowan sta;1:3 that the•cnvironmenta:l review,committw, and staff recommends approval of the
application.
Con. "w ris noted a corroction to itern F, Page 2 of the Development Agreement. "Willing"
should be un'":rlined and the word "willingness" struck out. Also on Page 3, Item G, the word
`wiilinness"should be undet lined,and the word"willing"..struck out..
i
a.
I I
N frt n, T ) 1
� '+.
1
�S
:i
Plannuig Commission Minutes - 12 September 11, 1993
N
Corn. Harris specified that when the Council acts on the Affordable Housing Manual, whatever
rules are enacted for industrial property get applied to tine said project, even though this agreement
is going in effect now.
Mr. Cowan stated that the mitigation fee would be covered. He explained that-the City adopts a
mitigation The by a resolution which establishes a mitigation fee and establishes all the rules and
that is an appendix to the existing general plan. The question would be if that existing general plan
appendix is modified,does that modification apply.
r
Mr.,Kilian responded that it was covered under Paragraph 4 of Fees, Assessments, Exactions and
Dedications on 1;'.age 9 of the Development Agreement.
Com. Harris stat::=' the agreed with the staff report about the new fres and was glad HP was
willing to pay new s applied on a citywide basis.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, regarding the 90,000 square feet, Mr. Kilian pointed
out that the definition was clearly defined on Page 9 of the agreement. Com. Harris suggested
adding the word"additional"following"at least"on Page 9,top line. Following a brief discussion,
was agreed to put the wording in as cumulative and ask'the applicant.
Com.Harris suggested deletion of the language(Page 9,last line,continuing to Page 10"provided,
showever; .,...in the future." Mr. Kilian suggested deleting"Except as provided"in the stcond line i
of No. 4, Page 9. Mr. Kilian clarified that the language had to be changed in view of discussions
with Hewlett Packard.
In'response to Com. Austin's request for clarification on ability to assign the agreement, Mr.
Kilian pointed out that one of the main arguments that a development agreement would be
advantageous to the City is to retain the:presence of HP and any of the other big three companies in
the city.The city should have input because they are granting this special type of vesting of rights
to say that we are granting it to HP and not somebody else. Mr. Cowan stated that part of the
Tier I space includes a 50,000 sq. fl:, component granted not to a land area but an actual company.
A discussion followed wherein staff answered Commissioners'questions.
In response to Com.Harris'question,Mr. Kilian stated that the law mandates an annual review.
Com. Harris addressed the issue of enclosed corridors and cafeteria spaces. She stated that if the
enclosed'corridors cannot be converted to office space, she would agree the square footage should
not be counted. She stated that cafeterias should counted in the square footage as they can be
convertcd to office space.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that staff has not revised the manual which is in the work program. If it is
the appendix to the general plan the rules are in there and cafeteria space is in fact discounted. "
Com. Harris questioned if a fixed percent could be discowrted. as she was not comfortable
discounting the gym,day care center and cafeteria.
Mr. Kilian clarified the rules for exemption of Commissioners from voting. He.explained that if
= there is a financial interest that creates a conflict under the fair Political Practices Commission F
e
gpi
Fit ns1"lal. kt � £ �,.E-t i s�k+.,Rts 't I{&irr ay'4`"kk`tS,r+` tin, 1 '? ... r li: Ni .. r ,+r A•. s i,t�it 5'
Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 11, 1995
s
then you are precluded from voting. However, if there is no legal conflict,the Commissioners are
fres to vote. Employees are not precluded from voting unless they own 5%of the stock.
"s
` Mr. Doug Aikins, attorney representing Hewlett-Packard, said be has had extensive discussions
with staff about language revisions to the agreement and have succeeded in keeping it as simple as
originally tended to be. The concept is to freeze the current general plan of zoning regulations
without attempting to go beyond them and without attempting to unduly constrain CuperiLno's
future discretia-i on both fees and physical characteristics of development. It is important from HP
perspective to do this not fmm the standpoint of escaping regulations but simpiy to stabilize the
land use regulatory clirnate so that it can implement its long term growth policies.
Referring to the Development Agreement, Mr. Aikins discussed the issue of "city' versus
"project". He stated the purpose of a devAopment agreement is to obtain a'vesting entitlement.
California law enables a property owner to obtain a development agreement so that long term large
investment projects can be built out under a. stable climate without fear of being interrupted or
harmed mid way through an integrated development process by late arriving regulations.
He clarified the difference between the proposed and suggested revision as if a new state,federal or' 44
regional regulation were to come along and say that the new city average FAR cannot exceed .37,
I
at that point if the city language were ther:,Cupertino could come to HP and say your FAR cannot
exceed,..., (it would not be constiained to .37, it could be .15, .25,etc). It is a crucial purpose o€
the development agreement to prevent Cupertino from changing its regulations, in fact to obtain a
vested entitlement from Cupertino. Mr. Arkin stated that if HP didn't want the language that said
}° "project to comply,"it vrouldn't be before you wish a development agreemenE request;but this is a
crucial policy purpose of the entire agreement, so it is important as Mr. Kilian mentioned and the
policy issue to you is "is flus site in fact the place where development in Cupertino should be
µ concentrated;is it the right site,the right FAR,the right set of regulations expressed in the cui,ent
general plan of zoning or do you want to take a change on that formulation and concentration of
uses, intensity,etc. could be changed by some future regional, state or federal regulation?" From
j,. HP perspective,it is crucial that the language remain as drafted and enable the prgject to comply..
A brief discussion ensued wherein Mr. Kilian discussed a hypothetical situation relating to "city"
versus:"project".
{ In response to Cam. Mahoney`s question, Mr. Kilian stated that a vested tentative map or
development agreement under California law is a vested right to build.
Com. Harris stated she didn't have a problem with locking in their development right based on
discussions, but other things that could occur is somethira life a- mandate that industrial .
developments provide child care at a ratio of one child care space per every 56 employees. Mr.
Kilian responded that it would be covered and the company would have to comply because it is a
r direct regulation. Only where the city has the discretion to meet a federal or state mandate in some
g fashion is the city's discretion more restricted by"project"instead of"City".
Mr. Aikins discussed a hypothetical situation wherein a state law would be passed stating that
within cities not attaining a jobs housing imbalance ratio that is acceptable to somebody,no further. .
office or industrial park building permits should be issued. In response to Com. Harris' question
7' about the counting of cafeteria and recreational space in the FAR, Mr. Aikins stated it was the
purpose of including an-Appendix C;there are two issues raised by the term"net".
d
i
R
r
i
;a. ,..�J:,4.,;" k, A';'' MYy R.,. Af 3F+a'C -S,Ki1w xne.#;g FS ,{�✓,! k ,���`_Y.`'A.. .:�( .� �.. w ..,, ��.e�.Xf P'��it;S 9�•rr.F�iYl�'' }�.tf,,^Sk.,y; Fs Ztr��t� y,{.. •'.F)r..� - „i 4+ ' R ..v�.�'ii
i( .;.. � ,,.. 4 ,.1+'>f' J.r � rhe._ .t d . - .t r..a 3....�r �.ay✓t ry'�nrh. ��..��}s C�#oPT�'72 any 5�:.."
$ Planning Commission Minutes14 11; 1995
4
Agh
Discussion continued wherein staff and Mr.Aikins answered C:omn-issioners'questions.
Mr.,Aikins pointed out that from a simple perspective, it will always be 1995 for purposes of
implementing the development agr t. He said it will always be the current general plan and
the current zoning regulations for purposes of d tmuning aesthetic physical features,massing,etc.
All discretion currently retained will be retained into the future during the life of the agreement.
Mr. Aikins addressed the issue of fees, stating at the changes suggested by Mr. Kilian would be
th
acceptable, and in a simple, cxlnceptual sense; city-wide fees would apply to the project and site
specific or project specific exactions not authorized by the 1995 land use regulations and 1993
current general plan regulations would not be authorised, so that the purpose of the agreement is
not to evade fees but simply to stabilize land use regulations. If the fees don't exist now, they
r
would not apply if they existed in the future. New ones that apply city-wide, taxes, will apply to
this project.
x
! Mr. Kilian clarified that should the City in the future decide to apply park dedication fees to all
office buildings in the city,that would be applicable to HP. In response to a question from Com.
Mahoney,Mr.Kilian stated that if it is a legitimate application of a new fee or exaction or program
that is applicable to all similarly situated properties in the city, it would be covered by this
agreement.
y Mr. Aikins stated that the question raised by Com. Harris on the affordable housing manual is
covered by the general discussion on fees, intending to,apply as explained by staff. He stated the
issueraised by Com. Harris whether 190,000 square feet was cumulative or additive and was a
t change that resulted from the Commission's earlier discussion of the agreement. The originally
pace was 25[),000 square fees. A brief discussion
agreed additional increment of developed s
-$� ensued wherein it was clarified that the total for the first ten years should be 250,000 or 280,00
not 190,000 total.
v.
k Mr. Aikins stated that one of the physical constraints'on growth is the existence of currently
obsolete buildings on Elie site which are large and costly to demolish. Site planning may dictate the
precise sequence of new buildings. He explained that Hewlett-Packard's policy dictating its,right
to assign freely is largely an outgrowth of modern business practices whereat becomes academic to
define what is HP. 'While its position has been to request broad flexibility to assign to tenants
Allied Companys and quasi-HP companies;-that position was:founded on the presumption that it is
more important technically that the growth be concentrated on the site where it is more suitable
than g:,:;-.th be concentrated in any particular corporate entity. If Hp's position had been that if
the sit-.;.,.erfonros like a HP concentration of operations that addresses Cupertino's legitimate land
use concerns and priorities. The city can have approval as specified in the language proposed.
Com.Mahoney commented that the entire discussion assumed that after 1995 things could possibly
1y become more restrictive which accounts for the desire to freeze it. He questioned what would
happen with the deveilopment agreement if in fact floor area ratios were.5 in the General Plan.
Mr. Kilian responded that under&,e circumstances, the agreement would have to be amended, and
if it wasn't amended or agreed to,it would he a restriction. If the general plan became,more liberal
in development and the City refused to amend the agrel to conform to the then new general,
plan,HP may elect to not build and therefore it would rescind the agreement.
i'
'qt �
f r
Planing Commission Minutes 15 September 11, 1995
Ahkw
Discussion continued wherein staff answered Commissioners'questions.
Chairman Doyle opened the hearing for public input.
Mr. Albert Hoffman, 10209 Nile Drive, expressed concern about the tax scenario and questioned
who would pay for a new school if needed. He cited an example of Intel Corporation in New
Mexico where the building of the new plant overwhelmed the school system and Intel'Corporation
financed a new high school.
Mr. Kilian explained that the school system in California was fimded differently. He said any foe
that was common to similar situated properties would be chargeable to HP and if the need for
school was only created by HP's development and tt.ere was no way of financing the new school,
the city could deny the use permit based on health and safety issues.
' Mr.Ailcins commented that the intention of the development agreement is to constrain the City only'
by the limits of the current general plan zoning and by otherwise applicable state law.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Chairman Doyle summarized issues of concenm: city wide fres; elimination of tier 2 from Exhibit
C; and ability to assign agreement; 50,000 sq. R. development rights to HP; amenity space in the
agreement;wording of"city"versus"project"and the restrictions it puts on the city as the resu,t of
the agreement;90,000 to 250,000 levels.
City wide fees applied to the project: Chairman Doyle asked if the wording in the application met
the requirements. Com. Mahoney said he understood the attorneys would get the correct wording.
Mr. Kilian stated that all the fees, exactions, charges at the time of the building permit would be
F%
applicable to this project with the exception that there will be no special fees impose simply on
HP. There was consensus that the wording was acceptable.
Ability to assign this agreement to other entities: Mr. Kilian read Section 11.1 as amended.
Coms.Austin and Harris said it was acceptable. Com. Roberts stated he favored delet.:ng the part
of enumerating what comprises a reasonable basis, stating that the City mir' reasonably have
other grounds such as a complete change in the. nature of the business. said he felt the
' allocation to the three companies is really specific to the three,companies to the kind of
corporations there are,which is restricting ourselves. Mr. Kilian stated that it cuald be handled by
eliminating the following language: "In addition to any other reasonable basis, City may withhold
its consent"although it says"in addirion to any other reasonable basis".The vote was taken for the
x ,
present language to remain status y::o.
Com. Harris— yes
Corn.Austin— yes
Com.Mahoney— yes
Com. Roberts—no
x8
Chair Doyle— no
Com.Harris referred to Com. Roberts'issue,stating that the 50,000 square feet goer to companies
of a specific size. If HP wanted to assign its rights to a company of lesser size, they would not get
;u f
ry II,
ly
9
1
: ;Planning Comnnission Minutes 16 September 11, 1995
do 50,000 feet. Mr. Cogan stated that there was more than 50,000 square feet involved. They
wouldn't necessarily get the right to develop under the development agreement. Mr. Kilian
explained that there should be separatelanguage regarding the 50,00!;square feet, not included in
the assignability section of the development agrcc hent,but an additional clause.
Com. Roberts stated that it is known how HP and Apple operate and they are companies that we
want to keep in Cupertino and presumably it would extend to related companies. and could
reasonably be extended. -Com. Roberts said he felt the City should:not have to prove that it has 1
reasonable cause. Pollowiag a brief discussion,there was consensus that the wording be changed
to "no assignment except with written consent of the City". Com. Harris said she favored the
present language, and suggested that it say "it should not be unreasonably withheld". Corn.
Roberts recommended deletion of the wording "In addition to :....or manage the Project." He
suggested also removing the`which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld"phrase.
Com. Mahaney staters if it is a common term and routinely judged on, the warding should remain.
If you leave it in,the second sentence should be left in.
Com.Austin agreed with Com. Mahoney.
Chairman Doyle agreed with Com.Roberts that the wording be changed.
r
On a vote of 3:2, it was decided to leave the wording as is. Chair Doyle and from. Roberts voted
to change the wording.
50,000 sf of development rights to HP only: Com. Mahoney stated that it shorlld be locked into
the agreement; Com. Austin agreed. Mr. Kilian referred to Page 4 of the development plan
stating that it includes the. provision in the general plan relating to the 50,000 square feet.
Referring to Page 5,(1.2)fourth line:"policies and development density regulations set forth m she
General Plan"add the following phrase"this includes the 50,OW of the 150,000 that is generally
applied to those three companies in the general plan". There %vas consensus to add the above ;+
m language.
Cafeterhi space and amenities: Mr.Cowan stated that it would be adopted as part of the package
and will be locked into place. INIen an individual application for development the decision can be
made based on the three criteria. Corm. Austin stated that she agreed that the cafeteria space and
amenities should not be included in the office space. She said current rules should be adhered to. a�
. Com. Mahaney stated that the current rules should adhere; Chairman Doyle stated that the current
rules should adhere; Com. Roberts said it should be consistent with current rules. Com. Harris t
stated that she had a problem with it.
'The following vote was taken for the"city"versus"project"wording: 3:2 for city
Com.Harris: project
Com.Roberts: city
Com. Maloney: city ;
-Com.Austin: project r�
Chair. Doyle: city
d'
112
'1111! 111''Pul
IOWA M!
h
•
W.
i
r 5: 45 ` { r-• ,r.;.i 4 $`n•,,y!j iY 6&�J SFa sG'it d»" �n A`t` 'te p
yy
Planner Commission Minutes 17 September 11, 195
Chairman Doyle expressed cxmc=that restnetons were being put on the city for the futon;for the
next twenty years and stated he W a concern about making this type of conuni mart to one
company, putting that kind of liability on the city. No matter mvinat happens in the environment,
restrictions should not be put on the state or other agencies; we cannot get a development
agreement with them and it is not appropriate to tie our hands for the future.
Mr.Kilian pointed out that it was a policy decision with no compromise; it is either for the benefit
fi
of the city or the benefit of the project. We are at 100%odds with the applicant.This would only
take effect if there were some regional mandate that required us to exercise our discretion to do
something and therefore the city would have to use its discretion the best way it could.
Fo;lowing a lengthy discussion,Com.Austin changed her vote to"project"stating that she felt if it
was the project's responsibility to comply with federal and.state law,it eliminates that third party.
Chairman Doyle stated that the concern was if there was a mandate given to the city in future years
that the property would be exempted from any impacts that those restrictions may inflict upon the
city, so we would have to go to other possible developments in die area when those carr;up and
restrict them even more because the space has already been allocated.
Mr. Kilian explained that a better way to look at it would be if you used the term project the
assume that the buildings are already up and the city could not use its discretion to require any
other requirements of that project. The buildings are already tip based upon the project definition.
�t
A discussion followed wherein staff answered Commissioners'questions.
Com. Han is cited the example of the use of the sports field on the school district site issue where
the city says they are willing to speed money to develop the school fields,but you have to say you
won't take the-land away from the city in 20 years if you decide to add on to the school district.
The issue is a good faith issue on two.sides. She pointed.out that was the reason she favored
"project".
Com. Mahoney stated that he was changing his choice to° "project"
He stated he concurred with Con. Harris, as per the agreement Between the city`and ITP, stating
{ that it is exactly the spirit of the issue.- The issue on the table is what is the flexibility of the city if
a third party,i.e.,state or federal government,is not bound by the agreement.
Mr.Kilian stated that the discussion should be amplified in the record for the City Council because
it is a classic decision that the Council will have to make by way of policy as.thcre are arguments
on both sides.
Chairman Doyle stated that there was consensus on all the items except this cne and this one needs
clarification. He explained that a motion to the City Counc=l will.be put forth and have
clarification on the"city"versus "project"wording and the ability to assigns.. He cmpinasr xd that
as a group,the Planning Commission is very supportive of this development agreement, and there
are two policies that had some significant difference of opinion.
a MOTILIN: Com.Harris moved approval of the reaffirmation of Application 20-EA-95
h SECOND: Cam.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 f
�M a
IMENNUm- Efflom Ell NMI
it
r
Plarrni.^rg Commission Minutes [s Sept.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to support Application 1-DA-95 as drafted with two
- PIm
cone,namely the assignability and the wording of"city"versus`°project"•
SECOND: Com.I-WTis
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Com°. Harris recommended that the record retied.how the group felt in the majority. Mr. Kilian i
stated that there were some modifications in the drafted language that was voted fora Fees will be
fixed,the cumulative will be fixed, and the 50,000 square feet will be added.
Because of the changes of votes on the wording"city"versus "project",the vote was ameaded as
follows:
Com. Roberts:_ City
4 Chair Doyle: city
Co t.Mahoney:: city
Com. Harris: project '
gone. Austin: abstain (earlier to meeting Com.Austin voted "project')
r
5. Application No.: 25-U-90(Mod.)and 19-EA-95\
App!acant: PG&E
Property towner: Same
Location: 109M No.Blaney Avenue
Use$ermit Mfocifica6en to iiztali a soils recycle power screen.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
PLA►INING�COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
CONTWU�ED FROM'ITTE PLANNRIG COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 1995.
St
ff grP tatiQp: Ms.Vera
Gil,Ham=II, referred to the site plan and reviewed the�acicground
of the item as premited in tlrc attached staff report. Ms. Gil reviewed a list which contained the .
major environrrser,tal impacts to considcr and PG&E's proposed mitigations.
She noted in addition to tl a ndtigations stipulated in the staff report,PG&E would apply additional
landscape treatment to the empty field where the current recycle power screen is located to help
limit the dust beiig down.,iver the!%-Al to the neighbors.
Ms.Gii stated that staff recommends a Negative Declaration and that the use permit be approved.
9
Mr. Dave, McKirurarr, PG&E, revi,.wed the neighborhood meeting held on August 21 to discuss i
?' concerns about the soils'recycle powerscreen. Using',,an overhead map of the PG&E site, Mr.
McKi = reviewed the proposed mitigations and the suggestions made by neighbors. Mr. 9y
' McKinnon reviewed the soil recycle process followed at the site. He pointed out that with the
process,. landfill waste has been reduced almost 100%.
In response to a question from Com. Roberts regarding the plans for the existing soil recycle area,
`{ Mr. McKinnon stated that there are no immediate plans for the area, but it would remain as an
unpaved parking lot and used to hold extra crew and materials during a building boom period:
s- -
;a:
a
4
�• SEL f �r1,�4!' .}�P'i E•�y{yy,N�7 \M1`f l At CEJ t . l i+ C7 .,G 1 pt. l J: r IM. 4 t f i#Z', ,y
z Planning Commission Minutes 19 September 11, 1995
Amok
Mr, McKinnon discussed a purposed irrigation system and the use of a layer of drain rock to
minimize the dust from traveling over the wall to the neighboring yards. Com. Roberts suggested a
line of trees along the access road.
In response to a question from Corn. Harris, Mr. McKinnon referred to the final it= under
"installed dust control measures in open field area" as the i"-n that would be proposed for the,
sprinkler system and the drain rock option. Com. Mahoney asked if any other area in a different
location was considered for the project. Mr. Mckinnon responded that three different sites were
k. investigated but non were feasible.
Mr:David Harrison,PG&E, stated that there were other sites investigated,but because the trucks
and equipment are based on the said site, efficiency would be lost considerably by going to other
sites. :
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Gil stated that the hours of operation evere from
7:30 to 1:30 for 5 days a week and could be added to the conditions. Com. Hams suggested that
the items be added to the conditions.
Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Swapan Ghosh, 1767 Heron Avenue, Sunnyvale, addressed the Commissio:% expressing
concern about the noise and dust pollution caused by the operation of the PG&E site. He
j questioned at what time of day the noise study was conducted. Mr.Ghash pointed out that the
repair station is in operation from 10 p.m.to midnight each night creating a high level of noise. He
said that the trees planted by PG&E are dying and of no use. Mr. Ghosh said that the dust hazards
cannot be eliminated. He stated that the facility creates a visual impact and has devaluated the
nearby residential properties considerably. Mr. Ghosh urged the Planning Co_•snission to
understand the problems that the neighbars are faced with and Put grant the ape,;:.auvn to PG&E.
Mr, William Henry, 1773 Heroa Avenue, Sunnyvale, stated that he resides in a two story home
that overlooks the PG&E site. He questioned why PG&E could.not use the site located at Blossom
Hill Road and Highway 85, Mr. Henry stated that his property v~,Jue has decreased considerably
3 in the last few years because of.its proximity to the PG&E site. He railed that the PG&E lights are
on constantly in the yard which illuminates the neighboring yards and the neighboring yards are
constantly dust covered..
k' Mrs. Paulin Henry, 1773.Heron Avenue, Sunnyvale,explained&h t the problems with the PG&E
facility have been ongoing for over twenty years. She noted particularly that the lights have been
an ongoing problem and said that Mr. Mckinnon has been attempting to work on the light
problem,but it has been sporadic. Devaluated property values make it difficult for the residents to
sell their homes and move out of the neighborhood. Mrs. Henry suggested that PG&E move the
facility to a more secluded area. "
M Mr. Tim McMannon, 1737 Heroin Avenue, Sunnyvale, commended PG&E for having the
neighborhood awareness meeting and also for proposing the plan to put iz the rocks in the unpaved
area. He pointed out that the second sound wall should be helpful. He stated that there would be.
a noise measurement process carried{out within 30 days and the noise levels would be evaluated to
see if it falls within Cupertiro's agreeable numbers. He expressed concern about the lack of dust
s
IY
:i
1
i
s •
{
Planning Commission Minutes 20
September 11, 1995
.
s• Admk
mmsurearacert for the site. Mr. McMannonsaid he was opposed to the location of the proposed site
and suggested the site by Highway 280. Hee stated that there was a Cupertino Sanitary District
sewer easement and that PG&E already had an indemnification agreement with therm for some
other means.He questioned if an agreement was discussed with the Cupertino Sanitary District for
a location closer to highway 280 away from the present location. Mr.McMannon questioned of the
hours of operation would be restricted to 7:30 to 1:00 as specified. He noted that various activities #
occur during other hours presently.
Ms. Geor-gc Wong, resident, 1776 Heron Avenue, Sunnyvale, stated that the noise level from the
PG&E-is high and creates a disturbance. He suggested PG&E locate the facility at another
location rather than a residential area..
Mr. McKinnon pro—,-...ed a history of PG&E operations on the site which commenced in 1954,
stating that the site has been used for utility operations since 1954. He explained that since 1966.
ih,�trench soil has been brought to the site and moved to landfills after being staged. He clarified
th;issue of the trees, stating that it was a requirement for the substation. Thirty-three trees have
planted and six or seven trees have.been lost due to spraying and shock. He said that*he trees
have been replaced.
Mr. McKinnon stated the Cupertino Sanitary District h•.,:r- allowed PG&E to put the equipment
on the sanitation line and he assumes they will not alle...- ;.-v sand sorter on the line also. Mr.
McKinnon explained that th;;re was a gentlemen's agreemcm to keep the lights off and r oc enitly a i
change of employees in the substation maintenance department caused the lights to be on again.
There is a CPUC requirements to keep the facilities well lit and the employee was following
requirements. ` Mr. McKinnon said in summary, that if allowed to make the improvement, the
permanent improvement will be made and the site would not have to be used for fill. If not allowed
to make'the improvement, then the normal operations of stockpiling spoil pile in the area and
continuing operations would resume.
4
In response to questions from Com. Harris, Mr. McKinnon said a weed spray chemical
accidentally killed some of the trees. He indicated they were being replaced. Mr. McKinnon
stated that signs would be placed,b� the light switches, and policies and procedures written
regarding the lights at that particular substation to prevent the problem of the lights occurring
- again. Mr. McKinnon stated that the Cupertino Sanitation District would probably approve the
processing plant along Highway 280 but would require a no building clause built into the
agreement. Harris-would there be less impact if placed on a sewer line. Referring to a drawing
of the facility area, Mr. McKinnon illustrated the activities taking place and the impacts on the
neighborhflod. '
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Mr. McKinnon stated that contaminated materials
were not brought into the facilities. He explained the handling of hazardous waste materials.
Referring to a chart,Mr.McKinnon explained the recycling process at the Cupertino site.
e Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting.
t Chairman Doyle summarized the issues as dust,noise and..visual impacts.
T
1.5f
1
�P
f f 1
3 �?. - � w� y�F�@@�",,{{� :;okf ; � �h � °*�� fl.+- �'#C�,,'� wS� '* °�"•�S1 �„''aR u`b'S•r z +zS 4 5�'�.{• y a dap j�'yft ;d.Cs4}C}�f 1"t, -ta y
,f• b•f{t t-,i 5 S-.F � h 1•y� �'S1Y l' 1� � .��Y�7.# �i��+ i�1. � t a 9 lYt.S,A a?( Q].r ♦��i 1,C
L r $$ t
. 1 • . , C r t 1 x,j r'1 4
Plaing Cmfin"non Minutes 2t
nnScpt�rabec l I9 19 '.
Com: Austin stated that all dm elemwts pr=ntod impam and sta g that the amity wo
inappropriate for a residential area. She stated that sly opposed tine application and would not vote
in favor of it.
Com. Mahoney concurred with Corn. Austin, statM that it is a quasi-public institution zw*,7
He pointed out,that it would process 112 million pounds of dirt per year. He applauded the-
concept
heconcept but said it would be raaore appropriate at a quwTy.
Com,Roberts concurred that it was unsuitable for non4ndustrial land use classification.
a
Coat. Harris applauded the recycling concept and the positive befit derived. She stated that ihr,
facility began_as a customer service center and is now an industrial operation which dog not
belong in'a residential neighborhood. She suggested that if the application was appear:a the
conditions and agreed upon items be ash to the conditions Including the reclamation of the
existing site if they move it. She stated she would oppose the arpplic-, on.
Chairman Boyle stated that he supported the application,with a six month review pe►iod. A lot of
issues brought up by the neighbors were issues not directly a result of the equipment in question. If
j we would grant approval of the application for six months, do all the abatements they agreed to
and try to take that action I think it might give us some le%vrage.
I
4 f
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to deny application No.25-L1-90
SECOND: Cont.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration
- SECOND: Cum.Mahoney
NOS: Coms.Harris, Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-2-0
Mr. Kilian stated that applicant has the right to file an appeal with the City Council within 14
calendar days.
Mr. McKinnon commented that without the opportunity to make the improvement, he felt the six
month option was intriguing; it would give PG&E She opportunity to make the improvemrsats to
see if it would work. Without the opportunity, normal operations will commence.; trade, soil will
now go unconditioned back into the same corner. Mr. McKinnon stated that he had hoped that a
' solution could be worked out.
I
1
Mr. Cowan stated that the existing equipment will have to be moved out and the old method of
handling dirt will resume. Chairman Doyle stated that the press can be appealed to the City
Council. If there is no appeal,the Planning Commission action t<�rken is final.
i OLID BUSINESS:
MOTION: Case.Austin moved to continue Item 7 to tlxe September.25, 1995 Planning
°i
1 Commission Meeting.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-M
f k
I,
4
� 'q
i
.'C �Aij y,'.-c:Fd§FSC b>�#;it �� +'b�' Zt^`Y.....��1'� i •°,Rd,„i//rlf'lrt )''I 4� 'C 1., a1 fes. t qa ;.a Yu � ..., y z � c A ,
Planning Commission Minutes 32 Sq*mbgf
Sdam
-
Mr.Deboo requested that the item be addressed following the City Council meeting. W stated that
he felt the Commission was considering an application before it is deemed worthy of building on
the propenly.
Chairman Doyle stated Haat the Planning Commission needed the flexibility to take action as
directed by City Council between the time of their last meeting and the next meeting,therefore the
policy issues will be addressed at City Council meeting.
7. Application No.(s): 9-U-95,S-Z-95 and 16-EA-95-+Cupertino City Center Associates.
Use Permit to wnstruct 24 single-family homes on 2.41 acres located on the east side of
Torre Avenue between Stevens Creek boulevard and Rodrigues Avenue;zoning approval
to allow low to medium density residential development. Referral ot'upplication to
Planning Commission to consider merits of development application and report findings
and recommendat;on to City Council. P
6. Application No.: 10-U-95,4-EXC-95 and 23-EA-95
Applicant: San Jose Water Company
Property Owner: Janet M. DeCarli ,
Location: 11640 Regnart Canyon Road
ii Use Permit to locale a-replacement Nater tank in an RHS Zoning District.
` Hillside Exception to locate a replacement watertank on a prominent ridge-line.
z ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration Recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
Staff D?-,:i9n i n: Associate Planm:r,Colin Jung'reviewed the background of the item as outlined
in the attach staff report.
5
Mr.Jung, stated that staff recommended a Negative Declaration on the project and approval of the
use permit and hillside exception applicationsrdiug tothe model resoludicnrt.
In responsc to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Jug stated that the retaining wall is a crib lock
retaining wain that surruturds the tank,with a height of 4:o 5 feet.
Mr. Bii?.Moore, Property Manager, San Jose Water Company, explained that tl+e retaining wall
was concrete,crib lock asad is a wkt of icsterlockmg to hold dirt and also to allow natural grasses to
grow back on and over it. He pointed out that as per tl a Cotton repo:% the crib wall and the tank
have gone back td the tank manufacturer,and the e t gincer on the wall fhr additional seismic testing
ev:n though they were designed it a higher anode than was mquired. ltifr. Moore explained that
temporary tanks will be installed with a special -piping system for the purpose of fare fighting
during com--tinction period. He stated that no trees will be removed; the landscape plan is quite
extensive and more tre vz;will be planted. He said that the new tanks will be less visible than prior
tanks.
MOTION: Com.Austat moved to grant a Negative Declaration on 23-EA-95
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Pass:d 5-0-0
e,:{1 t.
S,. ti.-••+ u:, s,., .r.xh, �.: rh +,4 '�c*xb a`
,"Sr t M1 .r':. ! :L, .V ..� .,✓° r=�-• � tYt�. � r ti.. 1 1_. "Cb. JM" X,�,A.,3� m �;y.i .h.,{t '�t�'�. .Fi.�..
^�°.
.,r. ,.J. ) 'tx � �7r•:ar �'�f>,N.^..�,.r'�.•� .'-'t:i`, zf .sr3 A r., *� •u., ,}4 7. .,j.. i""a.', rd'ir <k. y M rtN"''"M...y.� ,.r,,,!�.... 1
A•,.: rot '?^ y 4>� S ", f' .^;* Y:x.. �•Y{+r i....rf• : �'n.7fi�l�,,,.v'G.>' 4 �'r`�: • sWr t•. r' 5 a e„y-«�� use;��`'Y�Fi -d I r,!',. +r', '�;C�.i/f
rvr �w..,.a c..,r: .e-. n a:., tf,,.,fir a..3 't� +af'f,:`"i.a-yyam�.. �$�:I-�'t, :�,r, �.,...,c� w ,�.r��,.,t�'tr°"s ��„�„t,+`� H a' ?:` !i'Y t't'+.'3..!:•�
"E,+� ,..s ! N r. --C ,+ 1��. ..,�:b >.'..,::{ w. "'.,, }, �.^FicY "�` 5?r, Pfi�r'1.r'g r �-; �t. <3 ui w'rT,�' �''Y�f�,tQ5rt7"�i S�✓, e7 Fes' ri�xr'!t *��S�.+{�.,v,�
y�,-. \aro ,,. ? V!:'�a 4:•.. ,'da.1�••` a �.� � r f.,,r;k!'r1 v�`,rz: �"�� :`�Y 1 '?.�fYG"�' 'y�,'t ,ra.� pr:�,t Y rw.Gra3rw j {i:y+(�,h y n' r— 4 .fit �J cy: ,ar'�Y
�. ..�, . ...,�,�r, ..,s .sas ••lap.::�4s.., c ...'^"a +'..}"':"fir„,:. ,,e�'7:�:.:6 �e�`::h�a1.*�.�?e��r'L, "t. ,!r�a 'f<,.�.t� � ,{,�`vY.f.c.. �•J,.rH� sEi �rC{,h.`�.',r:*h�,7';�y�ai,
J
r1 � •” 1 I:.t' 1 '1' • ;.•• • 1•. .! 1.' .i1 •i1.1\1 1'1 M!.'1 \... ♦ ��!;
F
r w,
f
�L y:
X'
!i�9
• 1 i1 {,�"1 r
9/Jy
YYy7
�2r f
r'Ei d,
P
yr�
1
I•I `I I I •I ♦ ♦I f f f `sf3�r41,`�!.
s
A?
f., w '.r „5 ,Et;r "s><•t n, 'a^r •�''rcy! ,t3 �"5^"
+ � .! Y c,! ,'�t�.^a'•t �,.;.�'w,,f4c.�.,d".,t��'' ,,:,� �r Ae^"'.:��t• nU�t�w'' u.,r 3.�' s'•i,u.;".-M•\i�;�.'r' tt1�+'ti 4f,�.s,aieV a� r���rs'� ,i. 1 � 4_'F; * .�.� �x.,r,.
,h.v it' 1 ;, �. �,.:st..�+,v'� ! ��i:. �.: � ky., .,u��. 1w4L mg.•1•°sr 8 ,y,3+yd�'' :ri+;,.s.l .,1.'�•. U .,.r.N'r^J�'- '� t'•;�"`-�.
33
� a
.4:... :. d x t sti�1 itr.•'�$ .:� 1 r� �' r ..fit.'•s .}.� xc.?r�, ,C rz� t� s r ..;",•�,
..�: ":«:.. s7 �r.z 7 }l.n._.: r f e:; 7 Ja! ..-..�." "L p ?,r• .. .,,,ea7;.cty,r,,.;x. f se �.`�'r3 x1.:r .: i't"3�'y s�-;a t S�if�x h.'� .s •Ao a.. x+�n- S s.
�,.... r -..,_.: 5... 5.,,.., ;..'1�, Xy�,, b,r c .,. �.� -s�.�='f;+. r.,, .,..�J�.k r:?a. .,>ra'.�,�,w.,:•',�?.. ,,,�j.a ,.:' .r+d+sa,,,'�"7 �ri� !ir'�:�,y. ''a�' .,:,.�,i�v+k .r >4 ,r' �'�+
...r a 'I' ,�.. .....,.,,r.. 4i-�.rf•.. a,s .....,,t,,. ,�^.tA� -• :'+i,. s�4•y.trvd:'.�'t c}f:. >. � -.1 •.__���� C?�'''•2'x x,� .•,r �. a:'s I�' "�..* � .�?.- Gn'S'rx Bey;' ..•/i�`fG'iL '
r f i. s:r•4''_�, v a'•1 t•. 1 �,..,�}�Y�}� � 7,,�}:..�ry 1.C::e>sl, .'. `."�,.,' p,N.y A t... -t`„.t r? +;y,�' sx .k a ;.y1 �t� �, >� :3{� "�'w`+• k••. :r.. c ?. ""!i, a,;ts±:7aC
,,+s ,t } f�P� :� wM"4� rt'�Ixa R �j ,�. .dam, � y lvC.r' „fr r,,,«•w �+ri'''•'� �1,�5 11.,::"�Lrt•kk•�'v"��'
_r:.. S- �� tx�7'. tti �'� ,:��fi�L,�t s�2?'.,. j..''�sr�„c�7^' �-.�:.� t yr„�c,�w ka�v.�+�,rPr f�."f� Yah'a�'b.=L�"13��8�t1,'�c�'`�4��.c �.:,�x�''.`ua: i.%��* •A e� '+�;ie!g` ..�
n -
CITY OF Ci1PERTINO
10300 Torre.Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 !
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL '
Commissioners present: Austin, Harris,Mahoney, Roberts,Chairman Doyle
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy Wordell,City
Planner; Charles Killian,City Attorney. . .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .
August 29, 1995 Minutes:
Com.Harris requested the following change on Page 4, Item 2,4th from last paragraph on"page:
After "proposed sign" insert "was smaller in length and square footage than allowed, was
tasteful,and the bronze color was acceptable."
MOTION: Com.Maher*ey moved to approve the August 29, 1995 m inutes as amended.
SECOND: Coin.Harris r
ABSTAIN: Coms.Austin,Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-0-2
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
1. , Application No. 7-ASA-95 !t.
Applicant: Hunter Properties
Property Owner: Hunter Properties
Location: 23000 Homestead Road
Architectural site approval for a sign exception to exceed the number and height of allowed wall i
3 signs in accordance with Section 17.24.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
I,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
i PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
REMOVE FROM CALENDAR
2. Application No: 8-U-94(Mod.),6-TM-95, 7-Z-95 and 18-EA-95
Applicant: Citation Homes Central Y '
a
r
h
1,
f .l. 1
-
t,
i`
A
Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 25, 1995
s
Property Owner: Citation Homes Central
Location: Southeast corner of DeAnza Blvd.and Homestead Road
Use Permit Modification to construct a 140 unit(for rent) apartment project. Tentative map to .
subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 18 lots. Zoning to rezone a 5 acre parcel from P(RES-20-35)to 1'
h (RES 10-20).
s
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 1995
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO TI4E PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
6' OCTOBER 9, 1995.
s MOTION: Com. Harris moved to remove from the calendar Item 1,Application 7-ASA-95,
and postpone Item 8-U-94(Mod.),6-TM-95 and 18-EA-95 to the October 9,
1995 Planning Commission Meeting.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-070
OLD BUSIlYIESS
3. Application No-(s):9-U-95,8-Z-95 and 16-EA=95'-Cupertino City Center Associates.
Use Permit to construct 24 single family homes on 2.41 acres located on the east side of
Torre Avenue between Stevens Creek Blvd.and Rodriguez Avenue;zoning a.pproval to
allow low to medium density residential development. Referral of application to
Planning Commission to consider merits of development application and report findings
1 and recommendations to City Ccuncif.
Staff presentatian: Mr. Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development, reviewed the
background of the item as outlined in the attached staff report. He explained that the zoning and
use permits had been.reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council referred the
matter back to the Planning Commission for a report. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the Planting
Commission was being asked to consider the actual design proposal of the development, not the
r
zoning.
Referring to the preliminary landscape pian,Mr.Cowan summarized that the development was.a
24 unit single family detached,development next to the Waterfall development on one side and
Pinn Brothers developed property.on the south side. He stated that the houses were 2 story
homes with a park area and a single private driveway-that links the property, issues of concern
were the public versus private park, (those commissioners present at previous meetings agreed
that the property'should not be publicly held space) as a-park area that would serve the ¢
immediate area residents; parking;setbacks;and unit freight limitations.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Cowan said that staff recommended 20 foot k
setbacks for the development.
4
Mr. Scott Warren, Classic Coitrmunities, encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the
use permit for the 24 units. He stated that the application is being presented to evaluate the
project on'the merits, that is to evaluate whether this particular type of residential use conforms
with.the requirements and standards of the General Plan and.any other cognizant city plans,
namely the Heart of the City Plan, and not to evaluate whether residential development.is
t 2
�t
3.
,y�'•-}qu1y, ,71.,5•,.! y� �' �r '��7r y� r} .� t;^ -$. x;�, '�� , f CY 1's. '�- Y( •"; 1
, w+,�?� �'� �c, ty y ��+ �" `•'� •� .. -, � �:' -.,r, r ?t+r�N� ��E� dry:P + tr yr r 1 •r,-�.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 Septemher 25,'1995
appropriate for the site. The 1993 General Plan established the residential use of this site as
appropriate. He stated the applicant believes the plan integrates the project into a neighborhood
context that features a mix of land uses and development intensities, and the project adds to the
variety of housing stock and provides other choices in the area.
:Referring to the rear yard setbacks, lir. Warren explained that it was determined that by taking
1-2 feet of depth out of the horses and by taking 1-2 feet of width out of the private drive,the 20
foot rear yard setback will be attained, and stated a commitment to making those changes to
flily'conform to the •Heart of the City Plan. Mr. Warren indicated lots 16 through 24 were
typically urban row homes, and lots .I through 15 were more typical of suburban single family
homes. : .
Cam. Mahoney addressed an earli;r concern about Traffic patterns in the development and asked
if staff had addressed the issue. Mr. Cowan responded that there was a posed condition to i
require final precise architectural details come back and Com. Harriss had additional elements f
particularly for Plan E,Page 5-52 and 5-53 contain some summation comments made.
, Mr. Warren illustrated that the front parking arca
In response to a question from Com. Harris
W would be 1.8 feet wide; 7 to 8 feet of the area being denoted to providing 7 parallel parking
spaces that will face the garage or front door,entry to-the project as a whole and to the units that
align the park. He said the objective is to have some buffer that is created by a continuation o1'
the sidewalk and planter strip along the face of the.project so the problem of the bus duckout
alternative is avoided. He stated that on-street parking was not permitted.
Mr.Jim Yee, Steinberg Group,architect,referred to the architectural drawings and addressed the
units facing onto Torre Avenue, in particular lots. 24 through 16. He illustrated the dificrent
elements of the architecture such as hip roots, rusticated base, and the fence and trellis element j
which provides a perception of the house front even though it is the back of clic house. Mr. Yee
pointed out the variety of gate treatments,and said the fences are set back about 4 feet.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about units I and 15, emphasizing'that model E glares out as
being different from the others and appears to.be jammed in at an odd angle giving the plan a
jumbled look. Mr.Warren explained the layout of the site plan was taking into account concerns
about taking access'f®r lots Land 15 from Torre Avenue as.well; that the objective was to have
only 2 points of access from To
Avenue for the entire project,thus fixing the point of entry for
those units.
Com. Harris stated she had a similar concern about units I and 15, and asked if consideration
was given to reatigning the,lot line between lots 14 and 15,which would eliminate the extra large
yard in unit 14 and make room for unit 15 to be part of the triangular area with a unit A, B or C,
blending in with the remainder of the units. Mr. Warren stated that it was conceivable to
accomplish it with a C unit,but not A or B. He said it may be feasible for lot 15,but not lot 1.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the .views of the carious. units from different points of
Y entry into the development.
Chairman Doyle opened the hearing for public input.
'le Drive said he was also speaking on behalf of Mr. Allred
.Mr. Farokh Deboo, 10257 Ni lx
Hoffman, and stated that bath the General Flan and the City's Stevens Creek Specific Plan needs
3
' 1
,5
1
t x
nn?•� 1C1,`'.<�`'�•$��+F,9wy,"���t��t'.^.+,. ,�kt"'.�t,`°2' t`h�A rrT?'s�m N't icy�r >.4x'/tdea +�. e.+ �•
h"t lc"Y� C"i fsahx 4 ti is -„ 5i S �' t rp) t�r,A
tx 1.
P➢arming�..onienissiorti Msnutes 4 Sct►tem(iee 25; 15
to be viewed in a balanced approach. Using overheads, he referred to a previous letter and
petitions signed by residents opposing the development. lie remarked that the Planning
Commission was considering approval of the application before the City Council has approved
any development in the area.
In response to a question from Com. Austin;' Mr. Deboo stated that he :,nd the concerned
residents would recommend that the land be left as open space and be left landbanked until all
the propertt,s in that area are further developed.
Com. Austin asked Mr. Deboo to comment.on the architectural plan for the proposed
development.
Mr.Deboo stated that if the development is approved, it should blend in. Many of the neighbors
feel that the development is boxy. He said that originally the setbacks were 13 to 18 tectaad
have gone back to 20 feet and the group feels that for 2 story housing there should be more than
20 foot setbacks. He pointed out that for single Emily homes the plan is fairly dense and said
the amount of green shown on the drawings is more than should be expected from the current
plan, ' Mr. Deboo commented that.the letter from the Carpenters Union in support of this
i .
application was admirable,however he felt that a fair amount of jobs have been generated by the
previous complexes and he pointed out that$5 million has had to be'paid in code violations and
poor workmanship on,prior developments.
Mr-Deboo requested that the Planning Commission issue a.recommendat'san to the City Council
Ask that the use permit be denied.
Ms. Caroline Bangham, 20290 Pinntage Parkway,. pointed out objections to the development.
She stated that the noise level was a concern,'the swim pool backs up to the complex, the dust .
than would be generated sticks to their buildings because of the poor quality of their paint on
their buildings; the traffic which also results in additional pollution; lack of adequate parking
(the present complex already shares a lot with Semantek during the week). She urged the
Commission to revert back to the General Plan. i
'Mi. .Jerry Hoopes, District Council of Carpenters, stated that he supported more housing in
California. He pointed out that the businesses and housing generate funds through taxes For the
posed development was,suitable and supported the building o
City of Cupertino. He said the pro
the units.
Mr. David Townsly,Cupertino Waterfall'homeowner, stated that the 1993 General Plan did not
parcel•or site but only a general density target for the City
specify zoning for this particular
Center,l,aost of
which has been allocated for the 120 unit apartment complex yet to be built. I le "W
said that Jn previous meetings, the particular area was,declared as open space, not suitable for
development and many residents used this to make decisions about purchasing homes in the area.
He said-he felt-the development seemed crowded at 10 units per acre.:and is more crowded.than
an other single family homes in the area. The park in the plan is common backyard area for
y
residents. There is insufEiaient setback along the neighbors property tines;the overall elan puts a
street through the middle forcing houses toward the property lines. lie stated he felt it was a
very poorly designed development with small backyards, no room for a swim pool or recreation,
him no protection for the trees along the Waterfall property line; setbacks are less than surrounding
Waterfall areas,the blocky design !ooks'very wail like 0n root's are close to each other. 6
x a
i SS
1'
i
-
{
y�c y a.; 4� �� y i`,. ' s:r7 ��'vi a'�'i�'pe +'e'� ,t at?'+�'?��1yw "•„�K �td�r�a ✓'N J� �Ytk�'"a'
Planning Commission Minutes i September 25, 4995
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Mr.Townsly ;tated that the trees are not protected
in the application,and are located on the applicant's side.
Asir. David Gates, landscape architect, staied that the artist's rendering was incorrect because.
parking spaces have since been included. He.Stated that the redwood trees and aider trees will
both benefit because construction is not near them, but they will benefit from the additional
moisture. He pointed out they were the only vegetation on the site.
Mr. Cowan stated that according to the grading plan, there is a foot of fill around the trees and q
asked Mr.Gates how it would effect the trees in question. Mr.Gates said that it was critical that
the trees be protected .and a guarantee would be included for their protection, as well as the
installation of a protective.fence around the drip line of the•tree as work is being done on the site.
Mr.Gates explained that applicant is not doing backyard designs.
Ms.Sally Larson, 10220 Danube Drive,commented on a prior project by Wilson school where a
$10,001)bond was put on the trees prior to construction. She noted that only one tree remained
and questioned whether the applicant forfeited the bonds on the oak trees. She stated that she
purchased her property on promises of renderings such as those being viewed which showed the
triangle as a greenbelt with trees and it did not come to be. She questioned why the parcel was
being developed before the mirror image building which was to be completed many years ago,or
,. the parcels Mr. Debao mentioned. She commented that removing units I and 15 would still '
leave the complex claustrophobic.
s
She urged residents to visit the'de elopment by the former Wilson school to see how the
buildings are jammed together, one is a flag lot and two other homes aren't accessible Erol"
either street. She cautioned that what you see isn't always what you get. She suggested that if t
there was no.other recourse,the number of units be reduced by one-third and possibly one-half.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting.
'4y Mr. Warren responded to.concerns expressed. He stated that the recommended density for
a properties in the zone is 20 units per acre and the proposed development is 8 units per acre. The '
development is similar to the Corsica and.Coventry projects in Cuper!ino. It is an excellent
design for children, providing a protective play area for units 16 through 24 that align the park.
He noted that Mr. Hoffman toured the projects and had his questions responded to. He pointed V
which
out that the setback drawings from the Heart of the City Plan were for commercial uses t ich
^�
are substantially more intense than residential.uses,and this is a single Family residential use. ?
Mr. Warren said that there.are existing aiders 'and redwoods that align the perimeter of the �
property and provide a very effective buffer- to address some of the noise and dust issues that
were raised. He said it was applicant's intent to preserve all the trees, with the exception of two
of the alders that are along the easterly property line. ;
Mr. Warren pointed out that the potential use of the property was disclosed to the original buyers '
of Waterfall and Pinn properties. He encouraged the Planning Commission to heed City Council
direction to focus on the merits of the project. He emphasized applicant's willingness to work
with staff to address the site plan and architectural issues and asked for the Commission's
support.
Com. Roberts asked to what extent the streetscape design guidelines of the Heart of the City Plan
were relied upon. y
5
. s
,r
t
P t y� ,� �...,. `;�' i�i�q.t�:y, �{ ti.�j't ry'''• -�����f�' t'� y ,„��L.rY.�"'�ti 7
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 25. 1993'
L
Mr. Yee explained that it was the developer's goal to fit into the neighborhood context, which is
a mixed bagwith some very intense commercial uses takings place together with some stark
institutional buildings. He pointed out that-the residential projects adjacent to the neighborhotxl
are substantially higher density and in some cases attempt to effect some California
Mediterranean styling. Mr. Yee emphasized that in this particular project, the street is '-an
important resource,the units are fronting on the street and creating a central amenity that aligns
the street that fits this project into a sequence of space that leads from the intersection of Dc'Anza
Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. and meanders through the commercial portions of City Center.
He said the,applicant was mindful of the flow along the Heart of the City and supports those
kinds of relationships.
s ,
Cam. Roberts commented that in terms of the architecture, the development looked somewhat
more old fashioned than its surroundings. Mr. Warren explained that the neo-classical
traditional style was adopted to reflect the classical massing of the commercial buildings with the
horizontal hipped roof treatments on a residential scale.
Mr. Yee stated that the site was a very unique center, with Cupertino City Center across the
street,and also backed by the Waterfall project. Referring to the aerial vicinity map of the area,
he pointed out different buildings illustrating the varied features which complimented the style
chosen for the residential complex.
He explained that one of the starting points was the perception for the need to use hard surface
t materials.because of the adjacent commercial uses which use hard surface materials such as tilt
roofs and stucco siding, leading to a California Mediterranean treatment. 'there is a fair amount
of that.in the neighborhood; the Corsica project follows that 'tradition and it was felt that the
neighborhood could support a different look. Mr.Yee said that the Towers are relatively modern
buildings and the developer felt that a modem new production home would be a high risk., We
wanted to find a design style that is rooted in a real,tradition that utilizes those hard surface
materials and is a little different from California Mediterranean.
In yespo
nse to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Warren stated that the objective was to maintain
the pattern of street trees along Torre Avenue and stated there is an area with respect to the
setbacksthat.provide•for the planting of additional trees in the front yard areas. If appropriate,
new trees would be planted. lie said that sycamoms were planted in the public right of w.ry. q
A discussion ensued regarding the replacement of the alder trees, and the potential location.of,!,,
hedges and fences.
Chairman Doyle summarized the major issues: 20 foot setbacks; 30 feet between houses;.'
bexiness of units; number of units; protection of trees, design of units facing "Torre Avenue;., - t.
'design guidelines; private-or public park; architectural style; lots 16 find 24; lots I and 15; unit
design E; and accuracy of sketches.
Com. Harris said she supported 20 foot,setbacks;.number of units acceptable at 24. She stated r°
that.tree protection needs to be a condition, with a $10,000 bond per 'tree, with a maximum of' y
$50,00.0 for the site: She remarked that she felt it %%as not a rea::on to get rid of an alder tree
because it is out of row with the others. Com. Harris said that unit G for lots I and 15 was not l'
acceptable as it.looked.like a boxcar. She said that it was important that Torre Avenue prescritcd
an attractive image as it is Cupertino's.City Center street, and the appearance of the units'on : . 'N
Torre;Avenue was an issue.because of that. She remarked that a great deal of architectural
6
�r
;, ��• ..,*�`",� '': :�,���� .,�;��."-``• '�, tkk' i`�,5 i;�"����a�=y a�'r�- tit+t kit'' �`'..�"7,:�,'�:
q S� .f r X75 �i � ,1�.� I,t.�. �. } t d^• Y( W � '2' � G yFrl ik� �.1-ti 5 g d4 pr :'� k�,N C 4 x y f�r � �t4 �, y,�^�
' Y•
Planning Commission Minutes y
7 Septentbcr 25. 1995.
.interest exists in the fronts of the units and the developer went to a.lot of trouble to. make the
backs of the units look good,as'well,and units 1.and 15 do not.fit into that mold. She suggested
that,tinit 15 outline could be realigned and a different unit put in; Lot 8-is very large with it B
unit, if it had a D Unit on it,there would be room to move the whole row down and realign lots l
and 2 and put one of the other models on lot 1 that would fit into the rest of the development and
look attractive from the street. Units ,6 and,24, s'i.dzs that face Torre Avenue need to have the
same attention paid to them that were paid to the backs of the units along the inside street. They
need to be made to look like a front as they face Torre Avenue, and the same thing would apply -
to whatever units are chosen for 1 and 15. Com. Harris emphasized that the changes should be
incorporated,into the conditions. She said that although she prefers modem buildings, the
hrshitect has put much effort into seeing the character of the street in its multi-facetedness and
selected the elements that go with certain buildings;therefore she.fnds the style acceptable. She
stated that if there are discrepanciesin the plans when presented to the Council, the changes
should be explained to the Council. Com. Harris stated she supported private parks. which was
voted on previously. Overall,'Com.Harris supported the project,design wise.
yx
Com.Roberts stated that the site was a difFicult one to design and the architects and designers
accomplished a reasonable„yob. He stated he was concerned with lots I And 15, and 16 and 24
primarily from the standpoint of their appearance from Torre Avenue and from the City Center,
and about their odd angles within the property, which presents a jumbled look, as units 16 and
24; model C are pushed back and don't really.face the park as shown. He stated that the visuals
misrepresent the appearance of the actual product,and said the project should not be approved in
its present form for that reason. He suggested if lots 1 and 15 were eliminated and the other
properties were stretched out,it might make it easier to satisfy the 20 foot setback constraint and
VW would permitthe'inner triangle to loosen up so the houses on 16 and 24 could be moved forward
so they would actually be more abreast of the other units 17 through 23 and look more suitable.
He said it appeared that the units were crammed to accommodate the extra two houses I and 15
and it is unccceptable. The architectural style, long narrow designs, boxiness, etc. unless great,
care is exerted doesn't look good but stated the architects and planners have given it a great deal
of thought.
r.`
Com. Roberts pointed out that he felt the critical issues were the disposition of the;units on lots i
and 15. He referred to an earlier comparison made to•the Summerhill development, stating that
at the time the corner houses were a concerts and the development was approved. He said that
r having:seen the final product, the approval was.a mistake and the same type of mistake should
not be made again. if units i and 15 were removed,some'other adjustments could be mads such ;
that 16 and 24 could be moved into a more harmonious disposition. He stated he could not
support the proposal in its present form but slight modifications along the line suggested would '
be.aceeptable. He said the 20 foot setbacks are acceptable;.number of units at 22; and stated that
he was not in favor of-replacing the,trees with more attractable trees if that is what is there; but 4,
the alders and redwoods should work well in the confined space. Private park is acceptable.
Com.Roberts stated he would like to see the modifications before approving the proposal.
Com. Mahoney stated he supported.the architectural style; boxiness was not a concern; 20.1'oot
setbacks acceptable;tree protection as discussed is acceptable; units 16 and 24 are not a problem:
concurred with concerns expressed about units 1 and 15; sketches should be accurate or at least t
Allik
-pointed out;o the Council where they are inaccurate; private parks vs. public parks; number of
units: 24 essum;ng it is workable. Com. Mahoney stated that otice the concems about units
and 15 are rectified, ha would support the project overall.
v
t
zxa `ti �,�t N.?�+F`'�',a a� 'j. y��7�:'3�•kt.�l �j'rt d f4��.Cs±i 9'#s (:'F�*x �� i-...�"'y +'7' �ti t':�v'i�'�} yt�`. 7�7't"`"':y= 5".� '``«*}1 ,J �; ..,e u'i,:=c•.} l
"4'
Planning Carstrmiisskvi Minutes 8 Scpteretbsr 23, 1993
Com.'Austin stated the setbacks were acceptable;referring to the boxiness,,she stated she would
like to see awnings;number of units are acceptable; units I and 15 are a concern. She suggested
changing unit 15 to C style and said it would be helpful to see the model of the units in a 3D .
version. The architectural style is acceptable; number of units acceptabl^; parks should be
private; current sketches.are difficult to maintain because of changes occurring. She stated she
was in favor of the project generally with tree protection. She.said she would also like to-have
included ti proposed condition of approval limiting second story construction on model D"
adjacent to the park,to limit the;.mpact to light and air in these yards.
Chairman Doyle supported the 2.0 foot setback; he said there should be more side variability to
combat the boxiness; number of units may depend upon how the problem is resolve on units I
and;,15 and 16 and 24;number of units: 24; tree protection should be.covered with the standard
tree bonding and would recommend better clarification of the vegetation pian for the edges
between the alders. For units 1 and 15 there needs to be something done to handle the height,
fencing and the way it projects out; units 16 and 24 should be set back to allow some streciscape
to allow for more appeal; sketches need to be updated for a better understanding of the end
result; architectural style accepuble; private parks. Chairman Doyle said he would support the
proposal overall with the modifications.
Chairman Doyle summarized the main issues.of concern as units I and 15; units 16 and 24;
sketches should be updated for the City Council; tree protection.
t Mr. Xiliian clamed that the item could' be continued to allow time to deal with issues
p mentioned. He stated that CityCouncil car:act on the zoning attheir meeting and continue other
issues.
i,
Discussion ensued regarding the courses of action to be considered.
Chairman Doyle suggested reducing the list down to the concerns about lots I and 15, and 16
and 24 and returning to the City Council, stating that the proposal was acceptable except for the
concerns about the four lots. "Discussion continued wherein the following concerns and issues
were discussed:
Lots 1 and 15, 16 and 24-Placement and choice of units.
Number of units
Protection of tries(bond)
Setbacks
Fencing I
Spacing to wall.-4 f1:,to 10 fit.
M . Warien stated°that the applicant was eager to move forward now with a recommendation of
approva!to City Council understanding the issue with respect to lots 1, 15, 16 and 24.
Mr. Killian clarified that the Planning Commission was not prepared to recommend approval at
this time, and asked if applicant would agree to a continuance to address the issues, rather than
make"A recommendation to the City Council for denial based on materials before them. :
Mr. Cowan stated that in his report to the City Council he would report that there is general
' support of the concept but explain that there are problems with lots I and 15 and perhaps 16 and
24 in`towns of design issues.
r
�-
."�" '�''�•'�` ,r '� p .x1�� 2`• �����q�..3'Lx rf�6 Yr P'�t, �, ��� �{.a,r+,PSC ,-'r.:d baa ,._ ,.� r',r,.,s��
;4
-
1 l ,� •C1` 3rfr g' �t ' ,4 t k. l�FfY +ti 1. . w:'' j r r,� .•k ' r i✓iii}ice'i7'.et�tr£'w Y""'G'J k�,� S-.( r d apt: r�ri` �,F1•s" 1. ry > f.
ay ,
Planning CommissionMinutes g
September 25, 1995
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 9:10
ere present. P.M.pUpon reconvening at 9:20 the same members
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to continue Application 9-U-95 to•October 9, 1995.
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-0.0
4. Y Report regarding tree removal for Application 1-TM-92,Cupertino Road and Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
Staff a .ntation Mr. Cowan presented a report on the loss of trees on a subdivision currcntly
under'construction at Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Referring to the overheads, he illustrated the lots in question and location of trees. He reported
that a 13 inch walnut was lost on Stevens Creek Blvd.,a 13 inch oak on the northern edge of the
property and a 15 inch, multi-stemmed oak tree. He pointed out that the 13 inch oak tree was
leaning heavily but that the 15 inch oak should have been saved. He distributed photos of the
site. He said the extenuating circumstances indicatedremoval of the 15 inch oak tree was in I
conflict with the approved plan. He explained that the city employee responsible was no longer
employed with the city,therefore the circumstances were not known. Mr. Cowan recommended
the solution was to require the oaks to be replaced by 3 or 4' tree's: tuft. Cowan distributed
photos of trees'that the applicant would°consider planting.
ti
Mr. Cowan explained that new procedures such as bonding requirements,
gradin^g plan end
public works involvement will help to simplify procedures and prevent unfortunate occurrences
from happening. More detailed records, including evalus#ions, pictures, and.videos cvsll also be
instituted.
Mr.Nick Garry,applicant, stated the tree was multi-st._mrned,growing !ow to the ground, in clic
;a
center of the lot. He stated that it was his understanding t5e tree was going to be removed.
„ MOTION: Com.Harris moved to affirm the negotiated settlement of stafTwith ti,,a owune.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
NOS: Chairman Doyle
VOTE: . Passed 4-i-0 t
:i
Chairman Doyle stated that he visited the grounds and vicvvr-d the arra ir:;question. tie said that
the tree was in the middle of four lots with no conceivable way to bui,d ^rt the lot without
removal of the tree. He said it was evident iwhdt happened. it seemed a more economic tradco;f
to remove the tree and suffer the consequences. Ci..arman Doyle recommended b rtronker set o1•
restrictions for future.
Ms. Wordell stated that at thy:time of the.subdivision, Mr. lung spoke to the applicant aad they
responded that they were not die dev6!oper and said they would save the trees. It .-was no! .:s
detailed approach to the exact r;,ees and their merits or demerits-.
AOL NEW BUSINESS:
S. Request to set a public hearing for city-initiated rezoning of areas notch and east of.
i Regnart Canyon to R14S Zoning Dist.ict,
y
t
x+^"' t�, ..?Y ita Y ✓ .�^.is ( 4 t ' 1 k 3'_ R vh' i" 3-,R i i• Y �; "',
a'a
r
a rr
j bX
� 1
u r
;i ; i �'" ��.,�K'•t^a.,M"��;;`c.�c ia 9•„ �'�f�,t ,.`�ros1 � -n i` � bi�v.�. ".F °'� ,U� �,. gfv�} Y4� -' .. ���., t� '�''' r:
�t:.;< > � Y:, ��1a: }}• Y:ff C�}r�a• �'C"s;7.'tir,`.'7 kY,t�,w rtii z-7..v .,.5 �� .e ,�)1��„w z 4 ,.+.+;.�d .,rig Rrr °+ 'r °S 1 '"} -rr p z
-
�� � � l � _ �� Y t.�i`"51a.1y k .. 1.� y.t,.F'`L k)'rl .Y�iAf- .h-Y� n1 1 IS.•f!�' � 1.1'`��/Y �f� ;,Y?�Yi # .A� r { ki`{., f!
1 q� �', r ,,;..j t +..r�2T '�z ✓4 t! J,. 1 rt + �t 7 M � {rG��1'X'R 1 _
a $Corumisstun M'..ales t0 'j n 3 ;'
Pltinin
ff .sen etion: Ms.-Caddy Wordell,City. Planner, reviewed the attached staff report.' Corn.
Hanis stated that a planning session was held where the Planning Commission looked at
basement,areas and it was agreed that the definition of basement areas had to be revisited. She
suggested it be handled first because it affects every property built on the hillside. Ms. Wonkli
said both Item S and the study session items, including basement., were scheduled to be worked
on by staff at the same time as the Regnart Canyon rezoning.
Com. Austin agreed. Mr. Cowan stated the law requires the zoning to be consistent with the
General Plan.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to set the public hearing for a future date in the fall. "
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Mr. Cowan reported that the Planning Commission has had a couple of workshop sessions and
as a result of that will come back and draft an ordinance. `
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COIlI1VIISSION: None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CU. IPPINGS:. None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
meeting on Monday,October 9, 1995 at 6:45 p.m. '
Respectfully Submitted,
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretary
r.
3 ,
Minutes Approved as Amended: October 9, 1995
J
10
r�
P�':r.� �A.a.'E 1 i�j"'I4 §F y(:. k'. �''P L+ .'•sem it 'S,i x ycht uh - yM1 '. � µP( k.,� �, q'?f(..4 k
i
t
..'r'5��t "v '3 •C7'y•�f5p5,R}T{. ,c,�tci."J!tf„r1 },#-1<�r q Nk;`kc,-4u 3-..ri t "..: t#'?'`4, rr .;t i>.ftp} f t r t� t ": i 3. "r#,�;�• "�1
-. ,t y�rhil;�'S jX C v ;g r s, { �+.s n:<y t Y:y +• y i
' 7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
f
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 9,1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL ,
Commissioners present: Austin,Farris,Roberts,Chairman Doyle
Commissioners absent: Mahoney
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Cotrmu,dty Development;giddy Wordell,City
Planner, Michelle`Bjurman,Planner II;Vera Gil,Planner II,Charles Killian,
City Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 14, 1995 Minutes:
Com. Farris requested the following changes on Page 14, Para. 2, line 2: After "area" insert
"brought up by the public". Line 3, same paragraph, 'change,"if%to read"as". Live 4, same
araPBmPh: Mete "might have been ePfc tive in that region." and substitute "probably was
effective."
MOTION: Com.Farris moved to approve the August 14, 1995 muautes as amended.
SECOND: Chairman Doyle
t ABSTAIN: Coms.Austin,Roberts
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE:. Passed_ 2-0-2
September]], 1995 Minutes:
Page 14, bottom of page, reference to vete on -"city" versus "project". Following a brief
ney voted"city"and the correct final vote should
discussion,there was consensus that Cam. Maho
read as follows:
Com.Roberts— city
Chair'Doyle— city 1
Com. Mahoney— city
Com.Harris- project
Com.Austin— abstain �
Page 8;Delete last line on page,and substitute with: "she would like to have the items discussed in
the Cotton letter completed. before grading is permitted." "Cpm. Harris stated that she spoke for
herself and not the Planning Commission."
_
s }. yam, +ft yy t .,tf
r -g
Sw7r� `L .,t
�'t. �R1`
PlatlL9il!$COr!ffi11r:Aflrr MlnlDt!"i
Z October 9'{1995 r
Page 9,Dine 3: "on"sh iuld read."into•,. Line 4, after"acceptable"insert the wtord"and". Lire 5,
before"area"insert"driveway„
Page 22: under "Report of Planning Commission" line 4, insert the word "equivalent" before
,.openi
ng„
MOT tQN: Com.Austin moved to approve the September 11, 1995 minutes as
amended.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
September 25, 1995 Minutes: '
Page 9, under "Staff presentation," "Cidy" should read: "Ciddy" and "effects" (line 4 of staff
presentation)should read"affects". .Com.Harris requested that the following be inserted on line 4
of the staff presentation: "Ciddy Wordell said both Item Sand the study session items, including
basements were scheduled to be worked on by staff at the same time as the Regnart Canyon
rezor.
Page 9,:paragraph above"New Business"line 2,delete the words"say that they would".
;r Page 10,line 1: insert the word"lead"after"have"
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the September 25, 1995 minutes as amended. )
SECOND: Com.Harris .
ABSENT: Cam.Mahoney 4-0-0
VOTE: Passed
t. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENT'S/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
2, Application No. 3-U-90(Mod)
Applicant: Acel Realty(Crouton's)
Property Owner. Wells Fargo Bank
`Location: 10100 DeAn.-a Boulevard
Use Permit Modification to extend business hours to 24 hours, to allow outside seating area, to
1
reduceone parking space and to include;the sale of flowers.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
TENTATIVE CM COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 1995
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO THE PLANT; 1G COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 23, 1995.
4.. Application No(s):
Applicant:
r'•.�aton Oka(Yamagaini s) 1
Property Owner: - � :fston Oka(Yamagarai's) ,
�r
Ilk IN, 0
Eh 11 }
ds
^4 E k
-
ti.. N ,''�,, •i2`L` i�:�: rY:-,vm 't 6 ,r rtr 1a � .;
s^
I
+' .,'�r :j F._# ,t �'s ,�;v, } 5� ,. -;,NR. ° ''R7jtftfj,` .zfi'' .,Snv���Fs :I r J' k ...fir j'S'�.r'.a rAs :' ''-• ' r r
�..,r+.h' '.snk.:: .W6,.,...(. t, a/r�t` L. E�x y,t n t r*, .. •G., t g �:�i s `..', s t � s: � <r ., �� `,`.:3✓.. �� ":'Y='
Plasmin Coaualssion Mlntites 3 f ktobsr 9;1995 ''y
Location: 1361 So-Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road s
' F
}
Use Permit to expand an existing nursery and garden center.
Zoning to rezone a vacant 3,923 sq. ft. parcel fi m T (Transportation) TD P
(Commercial/Residential 5-15) 1
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 1995.
REMOVE FROM CALENDAR
MOTION. Com.Austin moved to remove Item 4 from the calendar.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms:Wordetl stated that YamaSanu's withdrew their
application for the addition to the nursery.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
s PUBLIC HEARING
1: Application No.: 8-U-94(Mod.),6-TM-95,7-Z-95 and 18-EA-95
Applicant: Citation Homes Central
Property Owner. Citation Homes Central
Location: Southeast corner of DeA,nza Blvd.and Homestead Road.
Use Permit Modification to construct a 140 unit(for rent)apartment project.
j Tentative Map to,subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 18 lots.
Zoning to rezone a 5 acre parcel from P(RES 20-35)to P(RES 10-20)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended d
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 1995
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPT.25, 1995.
Staff IpMentation: Planner II,Michelle Bjurman, reviewed the background of the item as outlined;
k inthe attached staff report. She explained that it was a four part application including a use permit
modification,*rezoning,tentative map,and a General Plan Amendment.
Referring to the overheads of the elevations,Ms. Bjurman reviewed the staff continents relating to
the right side elevation, rear elevation, and front elevation (interior courtyard). She passed around
the colored perspectives illustrating the proposed dark colors for the top portion of the elevation,
stating that s;.aff recommended an alternative,color be chosen because the two dark shades made
the roof appear too large and.bulky. .
Ms. Bjurman reviewed the issue relating to parking as outlined in the attached staff report.. She
explained that the proposals included at-grade parking, parking garages, and carports: She stated
that theordinance specifies 2 packing spaces per unit, and applicant. is.proposing 1.83_parking
spaces per dwelling unit, based upon two previously approved projects. Ms. Bjurman pointed out
•
5 �.,, },� ✓ L�
r :�'` '�, #.fir .t s�r"+`,a, � yd�M �F� � "r�"`';�'.,3y����as ' n',x t� f,�•" �;S
a s
t�
Planning Commission Minutes 4 Uctot�9, 1993 �
that the previous Forge project was approved at 1.96 parking spaces per dwelling unit xW .
although the City Center had been approved at 1.8 Parking spaces per dwelling unit,the condition
of approval required that when constructed, the parking spaces within the interior of the parking
garage be redesigned to increase that number,but did not specify to what. The said tha3 on-street
Parking is not available with this particularproject.
Referring to Exhibit E,Ms.Bjumaan reviewed the parking survey by Barton Ashman Associates.
The survey covered the existing parking spaces and impact for various existing projects. The
conclusion of the survey reviewed the 16 apartment projects and pointed 4 parking problems. Staff,
requested applicant to conducts its own analysis because of the length of time since the.study was
completed and because the number of dwelling units was not as comparative as the proposal. Ms.
Bjurman stated that stairs recommendation was to approve the 1.8 parking spaces per dall ng
unit.
Ms. Bjurman discussed the third issue of common area as outlined in the staff.report. Referring to
}` Exhibit J, Recreational Amenities, she reviewed the comparison between the types of recreational
activities proposed under the Marian project and the Citation project. It was concluded that the
original site plan would yield only one tennis court. leis. Bjurinarr aiscusscc the concern from the
Portofino homeowners that the Corsica homes had more bedrooms which would generate more
total people or potential users of the common area. According to the Building Official, the bonus
room would not be considered a bedroom because it didn't contain certain characteristics of a
defined bedroom, resulting'in the decrease in total number of bedrooms for.the Portofino
development.
AOL
Referring to the landscape plan, Ms. Bjurman stated that as far as the common area was
F
concerned, the original podium plan had more passive garden space than the at-grade apartment,
but the active space overall had not significantly changed;the mix of facilities had changed.
Ms. Bjurman discussed the environmental issue, which included an updated air quality report,
noise,analysis and traffic report. Both the air quality and traffic report summarized no changes
from the original approval and no sigiAcant impacts to the residents or from this project to
adjoining residents. She stated that the noise report concluded that there would be significant
impact or noncompliance from the standpoint of the riadway noise adjacent to the project to the
residents within the apartment complex. As a result, to bring it into a nonsignificant status,.glee
noise consultant required mitigation which included two parts; that the.original soundwail be
constructed and 'all exterior balcony areas affix a Laxen sheet (plastic-like material) for
soundproofing. Staff is recommending applicant consider other alternatives or remove the
balconies facing the roadway.
;i Mr.Bjurman.stated that staff supports the general concept of the project as it is consistent with the
recommendation for lower density. The conditions of approval are included. She stated that staff
recommends that applicant be required to appear before the Planning.Commission on architectural
issues such as better elevations for the parking garage and plans for the two story recteati6nal
�:5 building:'
a In response to Coninussioners' questions regarding parking areas along IDeAnza Boulevard, Ms.
AWk Bjurman stated that the parkinT spaces would not be visible from IDeAnia Boulevard because of
the place,fsrt of the sound and some of the parking spaces.would W two feet below the
elevation of the sidewalk; .Shrubbery will be placed to block the view of the parked cars. She
stated that the rooftop garden was situated on the top of a garage,not a dwelling unit..
sigil
.1
s
a >
I eE r - +.
� �';g
ga
t 7 `C
Planning Commission Minuted s '
(October 1 :995In `
response to.a question from Com. Roberts, Ms. Bjuri'nan reviewed that the Below Market Rate
.. housing and.roquir+emerrt for financial bonding as well,as the coenmon arca were contingencies
{ brought from Phase 3 arra Phase 1 over t4 Phase 2. She stated that those conditions were fakeer
into account in the present proposal.
Corn. Austin expressed concern that the density had not been reduced, but in reality had remain,d
the same,or perhaps increased.
Ms. Bjurman stated that the building coverage was higher. She pointed out that the staff report
explained that there wasn't a secondary calculation showing what was included in the coverages
area and it was questioned whether some of the building area was accounted for in that coverage,
which included the recreational building,the garage structure and the detached garages;therefore it
may be higher. She said that the rationale for spreading out the parking instead of underground
was because it lowered the height.
A
In response to a question from Chairman Doylc, Ms. Bjurman stated that the proposal is to divide
five acres into 16 lots,which is included in the model resolution.
Nis.Bjurman
Mstated that the use of the trellis is a questionable application to the building.
A discussion ensued regarding the noise impact on residents. Com. Harris questioned the
recommendation that all residents on DeAnza Boulevard keep their windows and sliding glass
doors closed atall times in order to deal with the noise. 'vis. Bjurman clarified that the units
adjacent to Highway 280 would be furnished with internal ventilation and with self closing doors
to comply with the noise ordinance, and the residents would be notified that the issue exists.
Cum.Harris asked if there was a possibility of situating the units so that the buildings would be on
the inside and not have the noise problem. Ms. Bjurman stated that,given the characteristics of the
city as a whole,'any buildings would be confronted with some degree of noise problem as do many
other projects in the community.
Com. Austin stated she would like to address the issue of security gates. 71ie General Plan
discourages security gates.
Mr. Juin'Sullivan, project administrator, Citation Homes, clarified that the original Marian
proposal consisted of 342 units which included 147 duet homes and 195 aparunents. When
Citation `Homes took over the project, 32 Portofino homes vrere,already constructed and the
remainiug homes were downzoned into the 84 tint Corsica homes. In order to meet th t General
Plan Arnendmeiit, the 31 units that were decreased on Phases I and 3 had to be transferred neer to
Phase 2, which meant that 31 units had to be added to the 195 units; bringing the total`to.226
a apartrixxrts on the multi-family site. Based upon feedback from the Vanning Comm;ssion and
City Council in looking at decreasing the density on the multi family site, sop°toast came up with
an at-grade development of 140 units. The total number of units proposed for the entire 18 acres is
256, %%iiich is 85 units less than the Marian proposal. Mr. Sullivan sL�%,tl he wanted to be sure
that the fezoning was for the entire 18 acre sit.:.. He stated in response to an earlier concern about
the number of bedrooans, the average number of bedrooms is 1.7 bedrooms per unit. He stated
applicant was willing to eliminate the security gate issue from its proposal.
• i
W102,105ME MGM
k
u
„, ..:.fi7wr,...;_ 3�£{' ,5''rn:"'`�•"'2c.r. -+ ,7:R'i.,Fx` a r.'x =irPa, „r->+ rw .. e r -"'" •,a;t tr xf "f• •iC� #; %<
W, Gr'"��' 7 r
4 � f=�7 X5r xa iiti h�L 3 t` t'xg ref ht 5': 7r arr tt -
r-. , s 5'^ , i t a i t1 ;; ,• r�. -cq t 'k txI ^C a - a '
pl -JI
Planning Commission Minutes 6 Cktatber 911 {
f
Mr. Pong Ng, architect, Citation Homes, referred to the overhead; of the First, second and third �
y levels of the proposed units and explained the design of the units. He pointed out that the parking l
garages face inwards so that they are not visible from Homestead Avenue. Tenants will sign an
agreement that their cars will be parked in the assigned garages and not on the streets.
Mr.Ng addressed various staff concerns. In response to staff concerns about the internal garage
units,.Mr.Ng stated that there were only eight units facing inward;all other units faced the outside
or a breezeway. Planter boxes will be provided for the tenants of.the second and third floors to
encourage planting of greenery. He said it was hoped that the trellises would alleviate the
k bleakness of the garage doors in the interior court. Colored concrrt=designs could be instituted in
the ground to enhance the attractiveness of the interior c ouriyard. Mr. Ng said that applicant
would work with staff on window treatments and varying elevations.
Com.Roberts expressed concern about the noise level and exhaust fines in the interior courtyards.
Mr.Ng;iesponded thatthey felt the enclosed garage might confine the noise from cars as opposed
to the open courtyards. He said.he visited similar developments in Southern, California and the
tenants provided favorable feedback. He stated that two main factors that made the units desirable
were the units were detached similar to a single family home and they had an enclosed garage.
Referring to the site plan a A the landscape.plan, Mr. Ng discussed the elevation views in detail
and responded,to Commissioners' questions. He clarified thatin the original Marian proposal,
the 43 foot height of the building was to the average height of the roof as opposed to the peals of
the roof Mr. Ng explained that the tennis court is being replaced with volleyball.courts, an
exercise area and a recreation clubhouse and 7 barbecue areas: With respect to the traffic and
circulation,the plan was reviewed by the city traffic engineer and has been endorsed by the Central
Fire District. He stag that there will be a barrier to cut off vehicular traffic from the apartment
side into Via Lombardi that would lead traffic down to Blue Jay Drive. A right tu.m in/right turn
out access point out will be provided for Homestead Road and DeAnza Boulevard.
k y
Com. Harris requested clarification on the roof garden exercise clush-r. Mr. Ng stated that there
were exercise bars for sit-ups and leg stretches provided on the roof garden exercise clusters. He
t said that it was applicant's proposal that the exercise,and recreational amenities be for the
exclusive use of this phase,only but that at this point gated access would be provided for key
holders.
In response to Com. Roberts' concern„ Mr. Cowan-stag that Condition fly roq!dres that all
residents have access to all common recreation areas. The Portofino Hii�,neowncrs Association and
Corsica developers are still.meeting to work out a proposal that would lead to the modifications of
the conditions to state that the single family homes wou'.d have one sex of amenities,the pool would
be expanded;and the apartment complex would be a separate entity in terms of its recreation area.
When an agreement is reached,the proposal will}nave tc be presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council to have the condition changed. Absent the agreement,the present conditions state
that residents of all phases,are entitled to use the amenities.
Mr. Ng reiterated that the proposed package of amenities would not change whether or not an
agreement with the Portofino Humemwners Association is reached.
Mr. Ng reported that in his contact with other apartment managers, they reported very few
problems with a parking ratio of more than 1.8 to one parking ratio. He stated that the City.'s
traffic engineer said that the requirement of 2 spaces per unit.was a. standard carried down from
-
`',a4 � ���. �'?�,� "L r i.•n3 e �:�,:.a*rr`:�.�+✓,s`k'i �.,. �� �., , �x� kr�o� e'�+�i z4rf� .=.` t
.. ,,'`�5+� S(� �'"R,�+�,�q 8�S"�'`d'S�J��1f'�`4�'GR��V"7ah Z., i w.a'�n n'S,� f"'4'd ''�t1 ro .e.'t t a ..� � r,,.. �r5'�•y
Pladning
Commission Nnutes 7October Sr, 1995'
many yem back and suggested that it might need to be reviewed and had no problem supporting
1.83 spaces per unit.
Referring to Exhibit L, Mr. Ng summarized his presentation, stating that the alternative to the
proposal;would boa 48 foot high, four story,podium project that would not be in Cupertino's bast
interest...He clarified that there would not be a park fee on the BMR units as they arc exempt.
Chairman Doyle asked Mr. Ng to provide later in the meeting, the total square footage of
recreational space in the original Mariani proposal and the present total in Phases 1,2 and 3.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
Mr. Mort Shore, Northpoint resident, stated that the Northpoint homeowners agreed with the
Citation plan and the density. He expressed concern abopt the traffic because Blue Jay is the only
a access road and the perimeter road, which is part of Blue Jay, is used by the community as a j
walking and jogging area. He urged the Planning Commission to take the added traffic into
consideration.
Mr. Tim ' Robertson,' President of Portofino Homeowners Association, reported that the
homeowners ass(-_i:;'iori was still in negotiation and pursuing a lawsuit with Citation Homes over
Condition 15. tuntil then; was'a resolution to the issue or a change to the definition of-
Condition 15, the.:.=°<:exists to ensure that whatever the recreational and open space in Phase 2 is, l
it be preserved so that it could potentially serve the entire community. '
Ms. Sharon Kohlmannslehne'r,.Portofino resident, referred to Exhibit K, the memorandum sent to*
the Planning Commission regarding comments on the bonus room and the recreational amenities.
She referred to overhead pictures of the bonus rooms,pointing out its small space.
She stated that the concept of recreational ari pity per unit is misleading; the bedroom count
}' change is not very great from the Mariani plan to the Citation plan'and in her opinion; and based
c-the information provided,they were looking at four tennis courts,not one.
h Chairman Doyle questioned if there was a number associated will: the number of square feet for
recreational space on that plan. Mi.Kohlmannslehncr stated that it was difficuit to differentiate ou
thc,scale if it was 1/10 of an Nch=20 feet or 1/4 of an inch=40 feet.
Dr. Frances Winslow, Portofwo resident, expressed concern over safety issues. Referring to the
overhead map, she stated that in the original Marian design there was to be an entrance street off
R DeAnra Boulevard Khat connected to a major strect in the Portofino side of the development. .She
said from a public safety point of view it is important because there is only one entrance for public
safety vehicles at Homestead and Lombardi, which is an cast,turn for fire or emergency medical
vehicles. The The entrance off Blue Jay is a difficult entrance because the street is on a considerable
angle. She said that the residents of Via Volante and Via Sorrento are especially at risk in the
event of;a fire because most of the homes are three story homes and the third floors arc accessible
only by 45 foot ladders which are not carried on the engines. She expressed concern that Lombardi
is the only entrance that the fire truck can negotiate at a code 3 resporfse level,and indicated"on the x
map the path the truck would have to take.
Dr. Winslow illustrated tl&at in redesigning the complex, Citation took the area intended to be the l
' access street and turned it into.the recreational'compicx, so the wide space fonnerly Via Portofino
;f
0111111111 1111111111121 11111111 IIA:!
i
-:p is�a .m"c,S :d�.L.', ''.'F_` .., i ti' t;?r "��,s°� , { t-,���, �Y'_�a�,;moi` ` ,�f. r' -�^v.4 •it , ..
Y
Planning Commission Minutes 8 QCtOber 9, 1945
now where the swim pool,tennis court and exercise building cluster are located,leaves no potential
for using the entrance off DeAnza Blvd. as a public safety response point. She pointed out that
the current standard for emergency medical response is 3 to 5 minutes and by adding 1 or 2
y, minutes to the response could mean the difference between life and death W somoone. Referring to
the overhead map showing the proposed complex, she suggested a demarcation on Palms to
discourage normal traffic but nuke it possible for emergency vehicles to get into the community
some.method for providing access for emergency
She urged the Planning Commission to find
vehicles in the event that Lombardi would be blocked.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle,Dr.Winslow stated that she drove the area,and as
the former Assistant Chief of the San Jose Fire•Departnle nt had experienced the problems
encountered when trying to get into facilities in emergency response vehicles.
Ms. Bjunman stated that it was correct that the fire access easement bad been abandoned. It has
been reviewed by stall'in conjunction with the Central Fire District. As a.result of Dr.'Winslow's
t the issue,the Centra
concern aboul Fire District took the 100 foot aerial ladder truck and reviewed
' the site access for the Portofino housing development at both Blue Jay and homestead, drove
throughout the existing subdivision as well as the entrances off Homestead and Blue Jay and issued
in writing that there was no encumbrances for emergency access to the housing development. They
felt there was no reason to have z ny access through the proposed development to the existing
residential corrununity and felt they could meet their cont=acted timing requirements with the
community given.the abandoned roadway.
Ani
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the.public hearing.
t Mr. Sullivan addressed comments and concerns of the public. He pointed out to Mr.Shore that h.
:would be addressing the Northpoint board of directors shortly. In response to Mr. Robertson's
comments, Mr. Sullivan slated that Citation ;is negotiating with Portofino Homeowners'
Association and sincerely hope to cone up with a settlement that will solve the problems of both
parties. Relating to the tennis court issue,t�Im
intcd.out that the area was set aside for one tennis
court. He pointed out`that the overhead slide of the bedroom Ms. 1Coh1nnarunslehner viewed,
illustrated the bedroom difference between the single family site, between Marian's proposal of
147 units versus Citation's of 32 Portofino,units and 84 Citation units.
Mr. Ng responded to Chairman Doyle's earlier questions about square footage. He stated that
Ezlritiit. L addressed the 5 acre'apartment site for the Mariaani project, 195 units total; the total
Th
recreational area is 18,897 square feet,which is 97 square fest per unit. e Citation protect, 140
units total,the.total recreational area is 16,550 squarc feet,which is.118 square feet per unit. .
Mr.Ng stated that the 18 acre site would add the pool and lawn area that existed in Phase 1. Tine
Marian projoct site has 29,197 square feet for 342 units, which is 85 square feet per unit. The
tY Citation project site,256 units total, has 26,850 square feet or 105 square feet per unit..
Mr.Ng stated that the recommendations to meet the noise requirement were to assume the windows
are closed at all times. In response to a question from Com.Hams,Mr.Ng stated that the window
manufacturers indicated the current technology could not handle the STC rating of 65 or more for
. Mr. Ng confirmed that the applicant would provide interior
a more soundproof window or door
sir conditioning of the units.
k4
gg 11
t
�,
r
+� - r.i ''""a ri•.: } y titINN, 'Mkke "71
Planning Commission Minutes g 1
October 9, 1995
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle regarding emergeady vehicle access, Mr. Sullivan
stated that they were willing to consider a crash gate if the Planning Commission and City Council
y deemed it necessary. Mr. Ng indicated that if a crash gate were installed, that it would only be
used for emergency.vehicles.
Com. Roberts questioned the height of the sound wall and asked how volleyballs could be
prw,-ented from going over the walls to the freeway. Mr. Sullivn asuggested a trellis or netting "
device to keep the'volleyballs from going over the wall.
In response. to a question from Com. Harris, City Plainer, Ciddy Wordcll, clarified that the
Cupertino General Plan element hada noise standard of 65 DBA as an acceptable exterior level.
There is no interior level in the General Plan. The noise ordinance itself relates to the level of noise
allowed to be produced. Title 24 has the interior requirement of 4S; the exterior requirement is a
level that triggers an analysis in order to know how much to mitigate for the interior. Eisen though
the Cupertino General Plan does not have;an interior ex
-, posure acquirement, Title 24 requires one:
We do need to comply with the 45 interior. Ms. Wordell indicated that the 45 interior was applied
to the project. Mr.Ng responded that if the applicant provides acoustical barrier with the Lexan,it
will meet the exterior requirements.
Chairman Doyle summarized the issues of concern: breakaway gates/fire access, parking, noise,
recreation space,architectural issues,streetscape.
Com. Roberts stated that Dr. Winslow's points were persuasive regarding theemergency access
road; however, if the Fire Department would stand behind their assurance it was acceptable. He
suggested that Dr. Winslow's points of concern be communicated to the Central Fire Department.
He said parking was adequate. .Com. Roberts expressed concern about the noise analysis; stating
- that there was no assurance that the standards could be satisfied. He said is was questionable why
the noise from DeAnza Boulevard is such to require a 370 foot protection zone, compared to only
117:feet from I-280. The mitigating Treasures may not be adequate to satisfy the standards
" imposed. He commented that the Lexan deteriorates.over a period of time and because of the lack
of experience with it, would rather not use it. fie stated that the recreational area was oddly
distributed, and questioned if the volleyball area would count fully becwm. of its location. Com.
Roberts questioned whether the rooftop area would be utilized, leavir,A only the central area. He
stated that he did not feel the overall recrea'.ioral arch would satisfy '.hhos�xs 1,.2 and 3, but was
adequate for Phase 2 alone. The architecture,.with the improvements suggested by staff, vas
attractive,with preference for a lighter color. He commented that the view from the street will not
look the same as the elevation and recommended that the elevations be updated for the presentation
to City Council Com. Robert stated that he would support t1w project overall.
Com. Harris stated she supported the lower density and three story units versus the four, even if
spread out over the complex. She stated that the modern amenities such as the weight room, roof
garden and clubhousewere very current features. Com. Harris said she supported the urban
quality of the units and the inner garage courtyards. She expressed concern about the parking,
stating that two bedroom units should have two parking spaces and one bedroom'units one parking
space, in her view, which only leaves 18 guest spaces for 140 units. She also expressed concern
about the noise issue, noting it was not an acceptable solution to assume that.all the residents
ivouLd keep their windows and doors closed in or&r to meet the law as far as the interior sound and.
said,in good faith she could not approve a complex based on that premise. She suggested better
windows and doors. She said that the Lexan is m an acceptable mitigation as it would weather
and deteriorate over time. Referring to the architecture, Com. Harris stated that Ms. Bjurman's
NEW
t
t :.; ;"� r �,:.� r � ".fr.ar'' �tan..y �` t`S a.Z, :.,��'�� �.�'i„a�'ctt :�� f 'µ""•nE" ��.. ,r a.
k
ii e xK
::�7 ,.;
Piarmning Commission Minutes 10 October 9. 1"5
Y
comments about the inner courtyard was valid, and suggested planter boxes, recessed garage
doors,and decorative aggregate, and said she was not opposed to trellises. She stated that a roof
overhang was needed and the window shapes needed to be changed. Applicant needs to work with
stafl'further on the architecture. A dark color on tine third floor is not recommended. Com.Harris
stated that although Dr.Winslow's points regarding the break away gate were valid,the Fire Chief
is intense••on their requirements and she would support the fire department's stance. The
recreational space is acceptable;streetscape is not an issue. Corry. Harris stated that she could not
y approve the project until the noise issue was dealt with, and stated she was still concerned about
the,parking
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle,Com. Harris stated s
rmhe would like to have some
structural modifications and not assume tho windows and doors'would be kepi closed. Discussion
continued.
Com. Austin commented on the noise level in different housing developments and said that
solution fr air conditioning for the units and learning to live with the noise with the doors closed.
She said.that she supported the lower density but was concemed.that the footprint was wider.
Com.Austin said that she supported the fire access but did not support security gates. She said the
;.,,acing was acceptable; and questioned whyunderground parking was not a consideration. She
agreed with Com. Roberts that the recreational space was oddly distributed and concurred that
' there was not enough space for all three phases. Com. Ai!stin supported the enclosed balconies,
whether it be L.exan or plexiglass and the use of double pane glass for the windows and the doors.
Other architectiral issues are accep'.1ble; strretscape net an issue. She said she supported the
project overall.
R
Chairman Doyle stated that he felt the breakaway,gate was.needed for safety vehicles, more
parking was needed. He recommended that the applicant prove that the noise issues could be
resolved by meeting the standards. The recreational area is adequate for Phase 2 only, but not
r enough to include Phase 2 and 3. Staff input on the architectural issues were acceptable; calors
can be left to the discretion of the applicant. He suggesled that the streetscape drawings be
:4
updated for the City Council. Chairman Doyle stated ire supported,the project overall.
i. Ms. Bjummatr reported that a review of the zoning application indicated that the zoning was for the
5 acre site only. If the,applicant wants to apply for the entire 18 acres, a continuance would need
to be approved. Mr. Cowan clarified that the.General Plan request before the City Council
involves the entire 18 acres. Discussion continued wherein City Attorney,Charles Killian,clarified
that the project could-go forward, and at some late.r.date do a city initiated clean up zone on the E
parcel,because the zoning in question is not dependent upon approval of this project.
Chairman Doyle asked if there would be any ramifications to the recreation space and the other
t linkages based on the action in question. Mr. Killian responded that if the Planning Commission
felt that the recreation space in the apartments'was not adequate should they be required to serve
more than the apartments, it would have an effect; otherwise if it was felt that there was adequate
recreation space for whatever comes out of'a decision of the parties or a court, it doesn't matter. If
concerned about the type and size of recreation and its access to the other parts of the development,
it would be a concern.
Chairman Doyle summarized that the options were to approve time project or, disallow it as n
presented or to continue for the zoning change.
ti
'
Y _
�4
.. v�!� �, .:d� Rt vT �t`1�.��Y ep a�+ �4 �.,2Rq ��t 4-�r�,`+ .t,:.t,,�'a.. syr it G�'aTt�`id'��_y�•f N.y� Rv}'. x ^4<C{r�.[..�)€c'ft �'F• yrfj7t3i.. � � a {'�
Planning Cammissaon Minutes 11 OCtalter 9,,1SM3
•
Mr. Kilian reiterated that the zoning would have to be miified whWwr in connection with this
application or at a f itum date. He stated that it depended on whether there arc other issues to
continue the application for more input from the developer and perhaps clean up the zoning at the
same time or is the odssting project acceptable to submit.to the City Council and clean up the
legislation on zoning at another time.
Chairman Doyle expressed concern that continuing the project with the existing zoning would lose
any link the Planning Commission had.between resolution of the Phase 1,2 and 3 open space issue.
Mr. Kiiian stated that the concern should not be, about a zoning decision affecting the recreation
space,but with whether the recreation space was adequate? If the recreation space is not adequate
for the 5:acre parcel, plus Phase 3; applicant would have to redesign it as it is conditioned on
everything else. Mr. KiliaL stated that a decision must be made at this meeting or in the
foreseeable future that the recreational space is adequate in the event the court decides the whole
area is to be served by it.
Chairman Doyle summarized that there were two commissioners in favor the breakaway gate, 2
said that it was acceptable as is; two commissioners said more parking was needed, two said it
was acceptable as is; noise presented a problem for Com. Roberts but not to deny the project;
Com. Harris said because of the noise issue she would not support the project; Com. Austin said
noise issue was acceptable with modifications; Chairman Dc;le approved noise issue if
requirements were met. Com. Roberts stated recreational space was acceptable for Phase 2 only,
Phase 3 was a_problem but world not stop hurl from approving the°project overall; Com. Harris
and Corn. Austin approved raorcational space; Chairman Doylc eoncuca-ed with Com. Roberts that
Phase 2 spacewas acceptable. Architectural issues were acceptable with staff and applicant
modifications for all. Stroctscape: two Commissioners said that City Council should get updated
elevations'and two said the current ones were acceptable.
Chairman Doyle stated that his vote would be changed becauv his original assumption was that
Phase.2 was acceptable today and the Planning Corrunission would go through and mitigate it for
Phase 3,but now it looks like if we do what we are proposing tonight and if Phase 3 doesn't get its
open space,those people don't have access to open space. Mr. Kilian stated that they would have
F access to it, but it might not be adequate. Mr. Cowart recommended that Mr. Kilian's suggestion
be followed: that we keep the same zoning; all the conditions still apply, approve the use permit,
and go back and do a clean up.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the Negative Declaration 1 S-EA-95.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-M
Com. Harris noted the amendments to the resolution. Under "Architecture." First item should
read: "The right side elevation, right end wall shall be modified to add a roof overhang," Com.
Harris requested that the language saying"all trellises shall be removed"be deleted;"the roof peak
in the ctriter being more prorniaaent be deleted;add"the third story will be a lighter color." Com.
Harris requested that all references that.indicate it will be approved by the Planning Commission
on the consent calendar be stricken, and replaced by "it shall be approved by the Planning
Commission". Add under "Architecture": 'The window sizes and shapes to be reviewed and
approved by staff." Regarding the issue of interior wirtyard, Com. Harris made the following
additions: "Planter boxes will be added to the balconies and the interior courtyards and the garage
door shall be recessed as the applicant stated." "The driveway will have an aggregate design."N 1111:111 111
.
i
- d ,•r:s rt�T+ "�;;- �,�y �'`��„^"��'�'}"§'�yy #c2wL uµi°r ° _} s i t ^.7 4'-:. a Fr " s � " "_-i ., w�
w i �. ,.4 b�"+�`�� � �, Yc y3'-���. t^L.t�'a'v � �3'{`�r-',em �.y�.'��''�� hr#,» "�'3°•?
c- m
S
S"
"
u� i c r ttv#.'�A'f3,�,�iSY:SJ
�' S r x}. t_Y �,;r 5 t aay t,t �t. x �. t 9 g•`t` �_ a�y�e E �Cr i�'� e�dro4jG.•n<'Gr �9Sr yL za .i ,
Plav�� i��uta, J.,
az
ti
v Corns. Roberts,Austin and Chairman Doyle said th'cy would prefer to have the issue on the t `
calendar.
MOTION: Com.Austin movcyd toapprove the use permit 8-U-94.(Mod.)and 6-TM-95 with
conditions specified. ,
SECOND: Com.Roberts
NO: Com.Harris
ABSENT: Cum.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 3-1-0
Mr. Cowan delineated the conditions that apply to the.use
co
map. '"71M7conditionsPest that also apply to the tesitative
regarding: BMR units, common area, conformance with ordinances and
regulations;grading standards;homeowners'amociation documents;the isngrmcs/egress msemerts;
the Parking agreement(there needs to be reel rocal arkin
P P g agreement); street wi • curb and
gutter improvements; street lighting: insulation; fire hydrant; triflic sign;
greet ftees; grading;
drainage: underground utilities and improvement
s P agreement and the transformers listed in the
dedication of water line; listed in your conditions for improvement of use permit should also be
applied to tentative map.
.MOTION: Com.Austin moved toinclude the above conditions
s SECOND: Com.Harris t
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
Mr. Kilian stated that ilr. item would be presented to the City Council meeting of November 6,
1995,
1995. Mr. Cowan stated that it could be presented to the City Council meeting of October 16,
� � -
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to initiate the zoning,cbange for the 18 acre parcel
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-6-0
' Mr. Cowan clarified that theu
p rposc is to bring the General Plan density consistent with the entire ;
densities,once they are established.
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 9:45 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10:001 p.m. the same
members were present. ,
3.. .: Application No.(s): !2-U-95 and 25-EA-95
Applicant: Rosalind Cardia(Plumbing Bank)
Property Owner: Alex Byer,Byer Properties
Location: 10594 So.DeAnza Boulevard
Use Permit for a plumbing business in an existing shopping center.
Am
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL.UNLESS APPEALER.
�1
� i
ti
i
e
of
Planning Commission Minutes
13
October 9, 1995
f
a Presentation: Planner II Vera Gil, reviewed the backgm.und of the item as
}
attached staff report. Ms. Gil explained that a condition of royal,of the use presented in the
x noise;wall be constructed for the three ad' approval permit is that the
Of approval is that the three t Pro�rtY owners. She stated that another eon&tion
Property owners sign the pleas in a.cep
tance of the wall. Staff feels
that it is necessary to have the written approval of the three property owners because of the height
x of the wall. Staff remrunends a negative declaratioai and asps that the use permit be approved
subject to the findings and conditions of the model resolution.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Gil sated that the each property owner opted for
a different wall height,ranging from 10 feet to 14 feet and will choose the interior color and texture
;? of the wall.
In response to Com.Harris'request, it was agreed to include as a condition the'hours of operation
Of 8 a.m.to 8 p.m.and 9 a.m.to 8 p.m,
x Ms. Rosalind.Cardia, Plumbing Bank, provided a history of the Plumbing Bank. She state)the
r" workers began work at 8 a.m..in order better accommodate the loading and unloading hours. She
F stated that she was expanding the business 900 square feet for storage purposes.
i4
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
�
Mr, Eugene Adrian, 7.0408 Clay St_ reet, stated that-the is..ue of the Plumbing. Bank doing
contracting dated back to,August 1992, and continued until 1994 when the city changed theordinance. Referring to the"exhibits,Mr.Adrian questioned the validity of the statement that there
was no;impact on the change in the land use when a period of 18 months and an ordirianae change
was necessary' to make the change. He briefly outlined the issue of the trees and the problems
encountered with the City in replacement and watering of the trees. . Mr. Adrian expressed
g frustration in dealing with the City over the
yrs regarding various issues relatingto the business
adjacent his property.
Mrs, Susan Adrian, 20408 Clay Street, inquired about the timeline for the building of the fence.Mrs. Adrian urged a speedy resolution on the building of the wall and urged the Planning
ry Commission to set a restriction on the rnaximurn amount of time alloyed to complete die wall. She
t also questioned how.to get results from the police when calling in violations because by the time
the authorities mach the business in question, the violator has left the location. She stated that
there are other noise vioMons-from the shopping center in question. She urged the Planning
Commission not to issue the use permit until;he wall was constructed. She said she did not want a
14 foot wall but that it was the only solution to the problem,and that she was not happy about the
length of tiuue to reach a resolution.
,f
Mrs. Adrian expressed concern that the application fee; for the Plumbing Bank was waived. Mr.
Cowan stated that City Council waived the application fec;as a result of the action of the Chamber
of Commerce and other divisions that it should be waived.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing,
Ms, Colleen Costello, Byer Properties,stated that it wi11 take from 60 to 75 days to build the wall.
She stated that the two of the neighbors have signed the papers approving the wall and one last
property owner will be signing shortly. She stated she was.eager to have the project-completed and
have a resolution to the problem.
I .
'r3
I
,1
4
1 a t�;f��}�t� }�..a e 4 Jy,I a yal^a�'x` ifiz dS{Y,t4,4g c ..r f��4"� "Ss � t:'. .r h's.� �,�C 1„M "4 :N 1r• x d Y ✓ J' is J+z' i.u+
�' Y ., + �r1 S i''M(¢ y y �d r ) t .y +,4 '- 4 •T' k f '!�''� Y� t' v fi .,f,`
fi, rt +-.FC r r,'4 d `� r ti i t + ��i � l a `it.���,,,,�, n t..r f i � *�'<,i wu ifi 3 f•.,�' x {
Plsausing Com�rmiasion 1Vs 14
Ms. Cardia asked for clarification on the activities allowed from 8 a.m. to 8 p.rn. Mr. Cowan
stated that the law states that pickup and deliveries are not pennitted before 8 a m. or after 8 p.m.
Employees are permitted to park after 7 a.m.
Following a discussion,,there was consensus to add a restriction that the wall.must be eomplded
within 75 days from the effective date of the permit. Language is also to be aside to the
resolution relative to the signatures of the three adjacent neighbors.in agreement of the building of
the wall.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to grant the negative declaration on 25-EA-95
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney ;
VOTE: Passed
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to approve application 12-U-95 as amended.
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-M
OLD BUSINESS:
5. Application No.: 9-U-95
Applicant: Cupertino.City Center Associates
Use Permit"to construct 24 single-family homes on 2.31 acnes located on the east side of Torre
4 Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Rodriguez Avenue. Referral of application to
Planning Commission to consider merits of development,application and report findings and
recommeatdaation to City Council.
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 16, 1995
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 25, 1995.
Stafforcmtati_on: Referring to ove wads of the modified site plan, Director of Community
F Development, Robert Cowan reviewed the background of the item as outivied in the attached staff
report. He pointed out that on October 2,the City Council approved the zoning request based on
a density range of 5-10 units per gross acre.
Mr. Scott Warren, Classic Communities inc., stated that the applicart has made an earnest and
successful effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding site plan,architecture,
landscape plan and grading. Referring to the revised architectural drawings and the overhead of
the site plan, he illustrated the sigraificannt.cbannges to the site plan, including the modifications to
the floor plan and the siting of plan E,located on lots I and 15,and plan C,located on IbU 16 and
24 as well as lot 20..
Mr.Warren outlined the modifications to Plan E which introduced a sawtooth edge to better utilize
the particular lot condition, and present more architecture to the,street, introduce entry along the
street;,and create mord definition with respect to Torre Avenue. ftui C was narrowed, and entry
fi
�. ' *,.e'„tr &�rf5 ,'#'m 5"5,n ,.�{`�<.'�C''�e"��(r�''t.wrlr"f �'f:4'• '' `':.': v�,t�f�;4..Y,Gs,� :,t�a..;e "."!e3 '�z ,u''.2 r�+rr �:,
7
r
r.Nrt
k
Planning Commission Minutes 15 Cdctober 9, 1993
was moved to the opposite side of the building. He poinUA out that all the units that grant Terve
lip I
A%=ue enter from Torre Avenue. Mr.Warm outlined the remainder of the modifications.
With respect to the landscape plan, Mr.Warren explained that the proposed walls along the Torre
Avenue frontage would be 3 feet high,except for the Freight of the walls in lots 1 ami 15,where a
-` portion of what is defined as a private rear yard area would be 6 feet high. He pointed'out that the
buildings are set baric 15 feet from fire property line with a 10 foot landscape strip and sides*ralic,
making the buildings set back about 20 feet from the back of the si&-walk. The distance
experienced at the street would be approximately 8 feet, which included 5 fict public planting
easement and 3 feet in front of the 3 foot wall on private property.
Mr..Warren reviewed the prefirninary grading plan, stating that the proposal was to raise the
grading 2 feet on lot 8 only. The finish floor height for lot 8 only would be approximately d feet
higher than the grade for the Waterfall units,which creates potential issue for approximately 6 or 8
trees at the comer of lot 8. Mr. Warren said that an arborist was consulted and recommended a
keystone or bulkhead well for those trees or installation of a mechanical =ration system which
would ventilate the trees. He indicated that applicant could retain the trees and accomplish the
drainage and grading without having to raise the pads beyond the existing;grade.
Mr. Warren emphasized that the Planning Commission's comments ,and recommendations for
adjustments were considered and attempts have beery made to respond to them. He urged the
Planning Commission to approve the use permit.
A discussion followed regarding the possibility of reduction of parking spaces. Mr.Warren stated
that they were not opposed to the reduction of a parking space as possible mitigation-
In response to Com.Harris' questions,Mr.Warren explained the progression of the wall height of
the.wall on Torre Avenue from"3 to 6 feet.
A discussion.ensued regarding lz;,dscape concerns, park access, and walkways, wherein staff and
Mr.Warren responded to Commissioner's questions.
In response to a question from Chairman Dovle, Mr. Jim Yee, architect, Steinberg Group, stated
that the buildings on Lots I and 15 are set back a minimum of I5 feet at the closest point to the
property line.
In response to a question from Corn. Harrit, Mr. Cowan said the final landscape and irrigation
plan would be approved by staff upon issuance of the building permit.
Ciairmmn Doyle opened the hearing for public input.
Mr. Farokh Deboo, 10257 Nile Drixw, expressed his opposition to the dwelopment and spoke on
' behalf of the neighbors who expected that more open spacewould remain in the area. He urged
the Planning Commission to be more cognizant of the credits being moved around constantly. He
expressed concern about the mitigation-from the construction, noise and dirt. He recommended
that some provision be included for rutigation assistance while fiction is going on.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Mr. Deboo said that in general, it.would be ideal
if the height of all the complexes were lower and uniform in height. It would be helpfui because
one of the main concerns is the downstairs residents lose a lot in their view. He said if the grading
Wffi Mfi
11 Oil
r
;,. ,.-.,a4;trt ,�� ie}ala�` } '�Wt w� ✓^� !�' 3 qtr �i33uiu�,.1r; rt�g ...r e '1,.. :,}. ^4 � -' r� rrl,.�.7"''e.# 3.,W�h y.�jti1+lv ��e.54;�,r�ta rt'6� ♦ ar'.,i 2 ,� gin_"!. ,
-
c ,.
Planning Commission Minutes, 16 9,`3995'
helped with the drainage as was pointed out,and if something'could be done with the profile of the
heights of the building, it would alleviate it looking much higher; anything to aurhats t&ho calm
four feet would be helpful.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that the Planning Conuoission should be aware. of condition. 8 whish
recommends that finishod floors in die building should not be grmter than one feet above existing
grade'. He said the applicant wants to put 2 feet of fill.on top of the existing material on the corner
lot.Mr.Cowan rerammended keeping it fairly low.
i
Mr.'Cowan stated the requirements fill construction were in the City's municipal codes dealing
twith heavy construction operations, grading equipment, and specifying hours of operation. He
briefly outlined the use of water trucks for dust control measures.
Chairman Doyle suggested that an arrangement be made between the developer and the
homeowners association so that during construction,when dust becomes an issue,the expectations
on both sides are known up front and a solution could be worked out to take care of the problem.
Mr. Deboo said that if there was any discussion about trees,he hoped it would be addressed in an
r adequate manner.
Mr.Albert Hoffman, 10209 Nile Drive, stated that it,was shocking that the applicant would try to
raise the hommites so'much, and said that`the plans shown in the office did not illustrate the
grading change. He pointed out that if the waits are higher, it is a significant intrusion in terms of
lack of light, looming mass and the amount of dirt and noise during construction. Mr. Hoffinaa
suggested that the Planning Commission put a moratorium on the area for the use permit for a
period of time.He expressed concern with the grading issue relative to lot 8.
;r Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
In response to Com. Harris' inquest for clarification on the grading issue,Mr. Warren pointed out
the grading hadn't changed since the submittal of the preliminary grading plan with the original
package,particularly lots 1 through 15. He also pointed out that the Heart of the City Plan called
for a 30 foot building height and the buildings in the development were only 24 feet high.
lliscussion continued regarding the requirements of Section 8 grading standards. Mr. Cowan said
}
staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the use pertnit.
Chairman Doyle summarized the issues of concern: grading; units 1, 15, 16 and 24; extra tram
adjacent to unit,1 to screen the building;deletion of one parking space to ease up lots 16 and 24;a
minimum 8 foot landscape walkway adjacent to unit 20; and a 3 to 6 foot wall along Torre
Avenue.
Com,-,Harris expressed concern about the grading, stating that a slab floor was not an appropriate ,
solution. She expressed concern about the trees also. 'Chairman Doyle summarized Com. Harris'
comments: units 1 and 15 acceptable; units 16 and 24 acceptable;extra trees on lot I acceptable;
decrease of one packing space acceptable; walkway access to the park: 8 foot minimum
® acceptable; and 3 font fence along Torre Avenue acceptable, progressing to 6 feet as it bende
around the project. Com. Harris commended the applicant for the excellent job of modifying the �
four properties. She said she supported the project overall.
'r.
MINIMIZE
i
L1
.Z
Planninitmmission Wmtes 17 -
olctcbei 9, Im -
i
Com. Austin said she approved the issues discussed and supported the overall project.. She sWed
that she supported the two foot grading if there was some way of protecting the trees.
i
Com. Robarts suggested that unit 1 be discussed further, particularly the view down from Torre
Avenue. He said he favored the special landscaping treatlrieatt. ' He concurred with all the
i
conditions except for the grading around unit 8. He suggested having the house at one level with a
landscaping wall so that the level goes dovm to the point where the trees are. He also suggested a
storm drain and said options to protect the trees were needed. Com. Roberts said that units 16 and
24 were acceptable; he approved of the loss of the one pau�irtg ;,*pane: and supported the 8 foot '
walkway minimum. The 3 foot wall along Torre Avenue was acceptable. Mr. Cowan stated that
staff would submit a recommendation for'the fence along Torre Avenue, noting that the
recommendation could be appealed if there were any objections.
CLairman' Doyle said relative to the grading, the trees should be prrvected; use other options such
as wells; units I and 15 are acceptable with the help of.the trees; loss of one parking space
acceptable;access to the park, 8 foot minimum walkway that's supportable. He stated he did not
support a 6 foot wall,that ale wall should be 3 foot across the entire front.
Using the landscape site plan,Mr.Yee.clarified the location of the 3 foot wall along Torre Avenue
and the 6 foot privacy fence for lots 16 and 24. He pointed out that the 6 foot fence would not be
along Torre Avenue.
Mr. Cowan clarified that the grading issue had to come back to the Planning Commission before
issuance of the building permit. He said thata technique was needed to protect the trees or the
whole site might be lowered back to the original grade instead of putting 2 fed of fill on top. He
said that it was the Planning Commission's objective to get the buildings damn as low as possible
and to protect the trees and he would work with the applicant to ensure that the grading,concept is
accomplished and return for final approval on that condition.
There was consensus to amend the wording in Section 8, Grading Standards, to read: -"Tlu;
Planning Commission shall review and approve subsequent building permit applications based
upon the Grading Ordinance regulations."
�A
MOTION: Com,Austin moved to grant a negative declaration on Application 16-EA-95
SECOND: Com.Roberts ;
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
I VOTE: Passed
1 t
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve Application 9-U-95 with various findings and
s
stipulations,holding Section 8,Grading,for future review upon issuance of
building permit.
SECOND: Com. Robert-
ABSENT:
obertABSENT: Com,Mahone
{
VOTE: Passed -M
j Mr. Cowan stated that the item will be heard by City Council at the October 16, 1995 meeting.
1
NEMIROW
k
t
.a .-a.ay :Yrn.tii`'. C\ Yj4,,,Y,y haat¢N`FLYy 1,M"y K...9ae t:{S'}}}.'iY,„}M•"ari`$ {' . `t`r D{'.` Pt N e' `F ry� F T k}'. i J '.(�f 4 } N� •�rq }Y +Y
•p. Y"Y -� �i � ar t+s{'a4` V�# S`i as u� f:., „��JC.> �ra�`w'-z {f '�aJ''efFS � t 'f��9<�1°t``,�'
' ���'� ���?'`;T",.T'�`��,�r�err•wk9.�'�� .�a{�*A *d+. ¢j�`n -t .AVT y ,4'1 s t _
T Y1 y t
Planning Conunindon mnute9 Z8 OdWbrr 0. IMI
NEW BUSINESS:
6. Annual General Plan Review. .
4
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: October 16, 1995.
Following a brief discussion,there was consensus to continue the Annual General Plan Revi.
MOTION: Com..Harris removed to continue the Annual G-e neral Plan Review to the
October 23, 1995 Planning Conunissiora nmeting.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
7. Set public hearing for amendment to second unit ordinance.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to set a public hearing to consider amendments to the second
unit regulations. '
SECOND: Com.Roberts
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
' VOTE:, Passed 4-”
i°
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
AOL
Chairman Doyle reported on a tree planting project on Foothill Boulevard. He stated that a
meeting is scheduled for Friday,October 13 at 7:30 a.m.to discuss various elements of the project.
He welcomed support from the community on the project.
Inresponse to a question from Corn.Harris,
Ate. Cowan stated thd the denial of the application for
the PG&E sorter/crusher at their recycling plant was not appealed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COM
MUIVIITY DEVELOPMENT: None
fl DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER C.LZPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
meeting on Monday,October 23, 1995 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eliza bc f Lillis
t
Recording Secretary .
Approtibd ofAmended�Wnutes: Ocloher 2.I, 1995
i
-
Y
. r.
-r
.�.♦•!�t=:►�;, is
LYS•
.r
r-l'.">'?,f'4 S.r� v Un`.,��'^.�,+"*'M, 'a`, " .rte y„ ,r� S; +v �4•ct s�"$r F3 rfi ^ ,} y ''x ;za r, aT
..ns.•. � rk" '1'.a.-' .{,���'L'+r £� v f w� ..�a fs...� v*ts rr� >.�`a.^��p+,,�."t"` "'�,t . Ci�:.. Y �^y:.x �f;
D,•
�i
11 �.
`�'�f��.iW,',�>•� �t. .`kr �'�.r�. r Tu 3���R'y. �r ;��-' 3{`. t1t x .�i� :.,f,,,-r ,�S{�qY � ;''L'. %i.�f b^t{i'n`"c4y.( @5+':. �a .i. 'm I E rl .st
_>..r. ? zi' f U y Y.NS.l� °•,1, V„ '�' '� {,F „RSt.f. �5-.'�#��{ ;•f. ..�.,...3 C..#,ri .f c x�':°r. � F, `Sr 4":n> . ..
ti y i�,c,'� s iy rlt k t r-. 7 1 j x Lw� his 'i•af
All
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tom Ave,
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1993
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG .
ROLL CALL
-Commissioners present: Com.Austin,Harris,.Roberts,Chairman Doyle
Commissioners absent: Com. Mahoney
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy Wordell,City
Planner;Colin Jung,Associate Planner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4
} October 9, 1995 Minutes:
} Com.Harris requested the following amendments to the October 9th minutes:
Page 5: Paragraph 6: Add"adjacent to Highway 280"following"units".
Page. 9: Paragraph 4,line 3: "interesting features"should be deleted;insert "very current
features".
Paragraph 4,line 5: after"one parking space„insert"in her view,"
Page 16: Paragraph 4,line 4: "access to the park in 8 foot"should read:"wallmay
access to the park: 8 foot minimum acceptable;"
Same line:"and 3 foot progressing to 6 foot...acceptable"should read:"and 3
foot fence along Torre Avenue acceptable,progressing to 6 feet as.it bends
around t1,.e project."
Paragraph 7,line 3:"height"should read"walkway„
Page 9: Last paragraph: Com.Austin noted that she recommended double pane glass.for
doors and windows,and'the use of Plexiglas for the patios,and requested that it
be noted in the minutes. Also the word"only"should be deleted at the end of
line 1.
;4
MOTION: Com.Roberts moved to approve the October 9, 1995 minutes as amended. .
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-M
All
s .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: ' None
z
fis,A , •3 ,y,2�,a �
•i r' .k s�;y Ar 7 y....'�6 zf v 1�5 aG� az e4 t"7;yS3, s --_c. i3 a +.��"�,•c r"'''Gt3.,� �s'�s.�' �j. A.�t'"nf .t .Y'ro } � ,� �. ,a, 3s��i ..
'y Jt.•1 �t X a �, !z. R t w s A t+s.... �.::. 'l x} Y i " fn •X,, `L v;1 � Fx t�4t r tih 9S} J. 41�"' J..,.,
Planning Connmissmon Minutes Z
AEL
,. J
P6STPONEMENTSIREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Item 2: Application No.: 13-U-81 (Mod.),5-EXC-95,27-EA-95
Applicant: TCI West'
Property Owner: United Cable Television of Cupertino
Location: Iwo Imperial Avenue
Application withdraw.-r.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved that Item 2 be withdrawn from the calendar at applicant's
request.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
n ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
,y
a PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Application No.: 3-U-90(Mod.)
Applicant: Acel Realty(Crouton's)
Property Owner: Wells Fargo Bank
Use Permit Modification to extend business hours to 24 hours, to allow outside seating area, to .
reduce one parking space and to include sale of flowers.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: , 'Categorically Exempt
' TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 1995
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 1995.
Community, Development Director Cowan explained that staff would be utilizing a new video
'r system which will simultaneously broadcast a pre-recorded video production describing the
application.to the meeting room screen and the viewing public at home. This will enable the
Commission to view the same materials as being cablecast. The pre-recorded report will:unction
as a project description, followed by a staff report consisting of project issues and solutions.
Eventually,staff will use a computer tonne tion to the.video system to type Commission positions
on the screen m"real time."
A#f arcs n ion: The ��deo illustrated the new restaurant,.Sirens, where the former Croutons '
restaurant was located and reviewed the thrry changes to the existing.use permit. The vidoo
presentation outlined the background of the item as contained in the attached s*-aff report. It was
noted that staff Nvas also requesting continuance of the public hearing item to a fidure meeting.
Referring to the site plan, Associate Planner Jung explained that the outdoor eating area as well as
the reduced seating in the interior of the restaurant conforms to the City's parking requirements as
the outdoor area has eliminated a certain number of parkingstalls. Mr. Jung noted that the area is
in the City Center area wHch contains high value real estate in terof d finish of the
quality an
ms .
building itself and staff is concerned with the appearance and aesthetics of the outdoor eating area
{
il
ri
i
Y
y.
Plaaninp Cansmission Minutes 3 Octai 23,
1945
with nursery plants on metal racks. Mr. Jung stag that staff'was not in favor of&e use of the
metal tacks for the nursery arrangements and was recommending continuance of the item pending
the submission of a more acceptable outdoor d=ign plan. He pointed out that the applicant will be 1
Presenting new ideas for the outdoor area.
j
In response to Commissioners'questions, Mr. Jung stated that the racks would be situated in the
outdoor eating area only. He responded that the nearest residentb I project would be the future City
Center,apartments JI. Mr. Jung described the prior problems encountered with eating
a establishments in the city, namely Taco Bell and ®hs'$. He said that the proposed Siren's
establishment was unlike the others in that it was a dine-in restaurant and did,not have live
entertainment in the evening hours. Cancers were expressed that the
Sirens establishment had
micro brewery on the premises. Mr. Jung stated that the applicant would address the issue in her
presentation.
Com. Harris questioned if granting the 24-hour use permit stayed with the business, or with the
site. Mr.Yung responded that the 24 hour use permit pertained to the site. Mr. Cowan explained
that.the 24 hour use permit would have to be used for the particular operation only; therefore if
another operator came in with a different format,it would not necessarily be approved.
Com. Harris said that the statement in the staff report referring to parking stated that a condition
had been placed in the model resolution limiting restaurant seating to conform to City parking
requirements. Mr.Jung explained that the condition was in the original resolution pertaining to the
former establishment Croutons. He stated that the parking regulation would be the governing
regulation for the Sirens operation,but if it were to change to become more of- "r-type facility,it
would be subject to a different parking requirement per the City code.
r Ms. Sophia Yang, Sirens Associates Inc., stated that it was their intention to provide an upscale
cafe envi,'u:..-^-st by upgrading the appearance of the buildings and utilizing the outside seating
area. l-.s.Yang saiq that she has worked with staff to coarse up with an alternative propc*al of a 4
foot high flat top gnxxs fence on the side of the parking-lot which is harmonious to the current
iandscaping. The fence would include potted plants to give the appearance of an outdoor garden.
She explained the use of large potted plants on the outdoor patio area which would also help divide
i the outside seating area from the traffic.area. She stated'that the original proposal for the use of
nursery racks to hold flowers was no longer being considered as City staff was oppos.xd to them.
Ms. Yang -explained that there was not micro brewery equipment on the premises, but that she
would be contacting Tide House and other micro breurcries to provide the micro brews for the
establishment.
Ms. Yang stated t;w.plants sales would focus mainly on dish gardens and large plants in pots or
baskets. `She said that herbal plants and floral plants would also be displayed.
Referring to the hours of operation, Ms. Yang stated that 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. would be sufficient in
lieu of a 24 hour operation, Meal service would include breakfhst, lunch and dinner, and the late
night specials from 1 I p.m. to 1 a.m. would include wood fired pizza, pasta and a salad bar. She
said that Sirens has similar successful operations in Tokyo.
i Referring to an overhead, Mr. Jung illustrated the proposed Sirens establishment relative to the
Cupertino City Center Il apartment project.
I
INNER
"FfJ'4)"'T ztj1 �S' rtg1
r
Planning Commission Minutes Oa�ober3, 1495
MOTION:. Com.Danis moved to continue Application No.3-U-90 per staff's
reconmmdation to allow staff to work out the final details with the applicant.
Item to be continued to Phunnirtp;Commission meeting of November 6, 1495.
k.
Mr. Cowan stated that if the only issue remaining is the exact design of the perimeter, the use
permit could be approved with the desired hours and come back for an ASA application for the
actual detail of the edge.
Chairman Doyle summarized the concerns: 24 hour operation;metal nursery racks;outdoor eating
design;nursery plants or houseplants;and parking.
'r.
MOTION: Com.Austin made a counter motion that the approval of the application be
granted except for working out the design details which would be accomplished
1 on a staff IJvel. Motion died for lack of a second.
Com.Austin stated that she favored the hours of 6 a.m, to 1 a.m. She said she was not in favor of
the Imetal nursery racks, and that Ms. Yang had stated she, would use potted plants and other
3: rolling carts,to be worked out,with staff.
Mr. dung cMC-zd that the applicant was proposing a green wrought iron fencing surrounding the
parking lot area, with plants on the inside and outside of the perimeter. He pointed out that there
was adequate information to make a decision on the.outdoor eating area in concept with further
architecture and site review, and it ww acceptable to staff to have a modification of the hours of
operation reducing them from 24 hours to 6 a.m.to I am.
Com.Austin concurred with staff's recommendation that it go through the architecture site review.
Parking was acceptable.
Com. Harris stated that she was opposed to the Sirens location being a plant nursery for pots of.
bedding plants and ground covers and stated that baskets of flowers,phu,ts or herbs,and blooming
hanging plants would be more desirable, and recommended that a condition be made stipulating
that it not be intended to be a nursery. She stated that she was opposed to a nursery operation,but
approved of hanging plants, floral arrangen!ents and dish gardens in the establishment. She
pointed.out that she felt it was the,function of the Planning Commission to decide if Cupertino
wanted a nursery at the corner of Stevens Creek. Com. Harris stated that the hours of 6 am. to 1
a.m wrre acceptable;the concept of wood fired pizza for the late evening menu was acceptable;she
approved of the concept of plants for sale in the establishment. She reiterated that staffrecommended a continuance of the item to allow time to work with the applicant on the outdoor
Wing area.' Com. Muris stated she was in favor of a large oradoor eating area as it exudes the
kind of energy that the City of Cupertino has been hoping for; but said that the aesthetics are very
important and recommended granting staff tbe continuance so that they could present a complete
proposal.
Com.Austin stated that she did not feel it necessary to distinguish between type of plants for sale.
She stated she was in favor of the project with architecture review of the landscaping and outside
patio area.
a5" ' A �'�irj:' ' 4,��v'r.csr'^ ' r.,�. .�•:� � ;Fr is idr" 's.r»a-°r �.�.^��Y,,�•�Y' a�rt'�4� ��tr�+,..a�,Y t... y �A, �.�•
}' �'" �et"'��S'�'�3�.h++,�'�,r'w Y`1x'".{�hs i siqxt S x .-'stt•:'p
s A '
Fanning Commission Minutes' 3 Oct 23.IM
AM
Com. Roberts asked if there were any proposed changes to the exterior treatment of the building.
Mr.Jung responded that the exterior of the building would remain the same except for landscaping
L
treatment.
:i Com.Roberts expressed concern that there was still not an overall plan for the City Center area,
yet another property was being considered.
Corn. Roberts stated hie opposed the 24 hour operation, but would consider an intermediate
compromise, with the maximum being the 6 a.m. to 1 am. operation,with a conditional approval
after six months. The metal racks(or what will replace them)together with the outdoor eating area
design, need to be brought back to the Commission. He stated he would like more detail on the
landscaping and the treatment of the plant bar. He said he was skeptical about a commercial
operation selling plants in connection with an outdoor eating are&and would tike to see more detail
on the operation. He said the--ale of plants;n the eating establishment did not seem like the type of
concept that would.work well; but if the plants were decorative elements and their sale was
incidental, it may be more acceptable. He stated he opted to accentuate the decorative landscape
function. Com. Roberts indicated that the fence proposal shown in the photos was acceptable,
although he would like to''see a sketch of the actual fence.. He said he was in favor'of the
decorative landscape'aspect. He expressed concern about the micro brewery image being that of a
livelier,noisier crowd,and would not be acceptable in a residential area.
i
Chairman Doyle stated he approved of the 6 a.m.to 1 a.m. hours of operation; the conditional 6
month use permit; outdoor eating area design should return as an ASA; as far as the plants are
concerned, Chairman Doyle agreed with Com.Roberts',statement that the plants displayed in the
establishments emphasize the decor or look and is aesthetically pleasipg and,that sale of plants be
permitted, but not turn the establishment into'just an area with,plants with price tags.' He stated.
that the lighting for the.site should remain on the site and not toward the future residences.
Chairman Doyle summarized the Commission's comments: All were in agreement with the 6 a.m.
to 1 a.m. hours of operation; all agreed on conditional use; all agreed that applicant work.with
staff on the outdoor eating area to come back with a proposal to look at as an ASA committee
review item; plants: all agreed that it was acceptable to sell plants in the establishment, but three
Commissioners indicated that the plants should not be nursery stock, but that plant sales as an '
extension of the operation were acceptable.. Mr. Jung stated that he would compose the condition
indicating the types of plants to be sold, means of display, fence design and permanent and
temporary Planting schemes identified. All agreed that the lightiig should remain on the site and
not toward the future apartments. All Commissioners agreed that the intent was to sell the plants
t indoors which docs not apply to ASA; the use is being changed from a restaurant to a restaurant
and plant shop. All agreed that plans should be submitted for the indoor display,which is not part
of the ASA.
Earlier in the meeting Com. Harris moved to continue the item so that staff could work with the
applicant on final details. .
SECOND: Com. Roberts
NO: Corry. Austuh
ABSENT: Corn.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 3-1-0
f, ............ �F ti`� st,�F ', -�,•.,J+ ���,�3,,....w 4 k-yrs s r �'t'"'° '.Y�``b y.?'t � f t N +f s � .„�r �1
i
f� rat• ht,;. �" c r �',h a t s v�1eL'>kr+t d�' X ,r ivh��-L�. *t ? .
Planning Commission'Minutes 6
Octot es 23, 19"
OLD BI>!SINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Annual General Plan Review ofprog ss in Gene;.al Plan implementation.
TENTAT{VE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November ti, 1995.
Staff Pres MI tion: City Planner Wordell explained that the Planning
review the General PIaP.annually. She stated that the Commission Plan, is required is
been built out in teems of residential units and non-residential asps of the Plan, how much has
on the implementation of the footage and also the progress _
Programs and policies that are included in the General Plan would be
� rivie�3md.
Ms. Wordell reviewed the
growth residential and non-residential development as outlined in the
attached staff report. She stated that the planning period, according to the State housing element,
was originally.1990-1995,but has been extended to 1997. Rcf ng to an overhead chart,
she reviewed the allocation system for new development.
Ms. Wordell reviewed the traffic levels of ser%ice on performance of intersections. She pointed
out that none of the intersections had decreased to an
unacceptable level; some of the Highway 85
ramps decreMed from the previous year. In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Ms.
Wordell stated that the planned reduction of traffic on Cupertino's main.strcets carne to realization
in some instances,but not enough to make a signiScant,difference.
Ms. Wordell reviewed the complete programs, as outlined in the implementation section of the
General Plan. Some of,the significant achievements'.included the Heart of the City Plan, the
Diocese project, the support of the affordable housing as well as some hillside General Plan
ordinance amendments.
Ms. Wordell reviewed some of the incomplete programs such as the Vallco area master plans and
for north DeAnza and also some promotion of affordable housing projects. M.S. Wordell pointed
out that the Affordable Housing Committee met with the City Council and have support to try to
set priorities for some of the programs that will be more promotional for affordable housing and
housing in general. The Committee will work with staff to carry out score of the
programs in the
corning year, She reported that the Affordable Housing Committee r�uested some changes to be
made to implementations that were coni&-rod completed and
They also wanted to set. some priorities for �'wanted to make them ongoing,
accomplished. She fnYi,n g out some projects which could be
reported that additional
Plan ca the Calabazas Creek Trail in that work was being done on the Creekside Park Master
area.
A discussion ensued regarding the decline in traffic as a result of the opening of Highway 85
'vhcr#ein staff answered Commissioners' questions. Mr. Cowan explained the various reasons for
the gap in the traffic, and stated that the gap is beginning to.fill in again as people ane changing
their routines to take advantage of the traffic now
gap. In response to a question from Com.
Roberts about what could be done to counteract the reverse trend, Mr. Cowan stated that it is not
;a within staff's control; other than to monitor tit annually. He explained the two monitoring
programs,,the Congestion'Management a
.; gency which looks for a level of service of D and better
(law states 1);and the local monitoring system. Mr. Cowan stated that staff would determir+e year
,u
r
9
i, �,f y
�i�F ?4v .y .fir nv
Planning�IPIR11S510[I"Butes ` 7
October 23. 1995
Aft
to year if the criteria is met and staff speculates that it will oonemue to be acceptable to the year
a' 2000;if it declines more rapidly,the General Plan would have to be amended. He stated that if one
or'more of the intersections did decline to the level of service E, staff would consider carroctive
action''either by changing the Gescrel Plan s4 allow a lower level of servlet or modify
developments. Mr. Cowan stated gnat City Engineer Viscovich,would provide a staff report at a
later date. Mr. Cowan reported that Cupertino's CAPC system haz been a model for Sara Clara
County as.a means of regulating traffic.
:Y
A discussion followed regarding growth in residential and non-residential development. Com.
Harris said that she would like to see page 3-4 total the projected 2587 units and the projected
difference between the current and the to-be-built ofl'ice!uulustriai,stating that it would be a useful
document. Com. Harris commented that.if another category is needed, (cal➢ed `�rmallocated" or
similar), the numbers should be available for a better understanding. She stated that the
information was not needed before approval of the report, but requested that staff presemt it at a
future date, and suggested it be accomplished for the City Council. Com: Harris stated she had
{ the same concerns regarding "undesignated,"and asked where the 15 units remaining to be built
were allocated. Ms. Wordell responded that the figures were contained in Appendix B.
Discussion continued wherein staff answered Commissioners'questions.
Cnm.Harris commented that she hoped the city would not have to change the General Plan to leve!
F for the allowable traffic, because if tine laws are written such that we carni require the existing
industry,to change their traffic use and flow, then our only alternative is to go to the General Plan
and say°F is acceptable. Com. Harris stated that she felt:level E or F were not acceptable. Coin.
Austin stated that there were others contributing ,factors such as DeAnza College and small
businesses responsible for the traffic.
In response to Com. Harris' suggestion, Ms. Wordcll stated that a paragraph on the Calabazas
Creek work could be added for the City Council and page 3-4 containing the counts shoule alert
s the Council to the incomplete number, Mr. Cowan stated that a spread sheet indicating the base
{ level and the incremental growth year by year would be compiled next
p year for a more
comprehensive understanding.
Chairman Doyle questioned if the City's housing element would be revised i)cxause of the results to
date, and if the State was likely to take any action because of the-progress made to date. Ms.
Wordell responded that the General Plan luad td be submitted, but that she did not anticipate any '
problems. In response to a question from Chairman Dovle,staff responded that the revision of the
rollup of numbers based on the actual densities that the City put on the sites vs, the projected from
the General Plan has not yet been completed. She stated that it should be completed, which is
Appendix B, the buildout of the sites, which hasn't been updated, Mr. Cowan explained that the
City,is required to show the State that there is enough land that is suitably set aside for housing;
the housing doesn't have to be built within a certain tone. :
Chairman Doyle stated that General Plan amendments have been made over time that have changed
the number and said he would like to understand how close the City is to its limit, a number that
was discussed relative to Citation. He said there were 500 units left in the residual and and would
like to se.the.deterioration of that number.
Y
li
''+ s'r, •13s cU,` It..M'�<4�,*' y„Gdr 9-. +, w;.yf' :��x.• .J.r;4e., r 7ia;, };,, ¢ ,
4^
9 r rc
rl.. t fa.�`` s� `ice ✓ t:':.t� Y 1C rx.x �,5 i t t,p5�p"rte Jti. '�y� ,
., 1 t f• •Y ' ry jYl1. 1M f Yep. C.. h s.d�e ^(��.: V4 '
k
Planning Canrmission Minutes 8 O 23.1995
Ms. Wordell stated that the comment on Calabaaas would be includes and the totals would be
included next year in Appendix'B, and any updates in the base development of Cupertsno also be
reported every year.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to approve the Minute Order Resolution reaonur ading
approval to forward the Annual Report on the status of the General Plan pursuard
to Government Code Section 65400(b).
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 4"
4. Consideration of cancellation of December 25, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Com.Roberts moved to cancel the December 25, 1995 Planrvng Commission
meeting.
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: 'Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 40-0
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Chairman Doyle reported on a Foothill plan meetu:g scheduled for Friday, October 27th at 7:30
a a.m..at City Hall. He invited the Planning Commissioners and interested public to attend the
ilow& meeting to discuss the planting of the medians on Foothill Blvd.
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT: None
Com.Harris commented on the video presentation and complimented staff on a job well done.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
u ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
MI-ethtg on Monday,November 13, 1995 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,,
1
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretary
Approval ofAmendedMinutes: November.]3,-1995
r
a
-};l`"f"£
f y ! iS v1 1fa ).iyf+k f_'r �,t, _
C17Y OF CUPER77NO
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Corn.Austin,Harris,Mahoney,Roberts,Chairman Doyle
Stailpresent: Robert Cowan,Director of Community.DevcloprrNnt;Ciddy Wordell,City
Planner,Colin Z ung,Associate Plarmer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 23, 1995 Minutes:
It was noted that it should be reflected in the mints that Com. Mahoney was absent from the
Octoba r 23, 1995 meeting. No other changes were made.,
'. MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the October 23, 1995 minutes as amended. 1
SECOND: Com.Harris
ABSTAIN: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-x-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ,
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Mary Lou Lyon, 879 Lily Avenue, Cupertino,addressed the Commission and suggested that
the City of Cupertino consider a Historical Commission for the City of Cupertino or have a
consultant available to consult with when similar issues arise.
� L?
Com.Austin requested that staff present a report at a later date.
CONSENT CALENDAR
w Item 1: Application No.: 8-ASA795
:Applicant: Doctor Antonio Q.Chan
Property Owner: Doctor Antonio Q. Chan
Location: 10615 DeAnza Boulevard
f'
st
IG
�7'Car���1 yv��r t�('�ir.�M''�r�'.��!�.o �`�i�j ^' `�"�e�'fsx�t1��� •, r a...� c ti:r 7 :f x -� r r i� n s t.7 r• i.�Jwc si.'
V
� L-t
Plamaing coaiMk-nu Minutes 2. November113,1993
t
Architectural review for exterior building and parking lot changes..
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:.Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
MOTION: Com.Austin moved that Application No.8-ASA-95 of the Consent Calendar be
approved. ,.
SECOND: Com.Harris
Passed 54W
W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
r
2. \pplication No.: 51,075.40
.►pplicant: Vallco L.L:C.
F Property Owner.. Same
Location: 10123 N.Wolfe Road
Request to amend the approved landscaping plan for Vallco Fashion Park by removing
trues located adjacent to a private street. Staff requests referral to City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERA41NATION: Categorically Exempt
TENTATIVE-CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 20, 1995
Staff mentation: The video presentation.reviewed the request to remove five ash trees located
along the private access road at Vallco Fashien Park,.as outlined in the attached staff report. It is
staff recommendation that the request be approved and that the Planning Commission's
recommendation be forwarded to City Council on November 20, 1995.
Coma Roberts questioned how the plantings in question differed from.!he plantings envisioned
along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Community Development Coordinator Robert Cowan responded
that the t-ees in question were planted in 2 foot diameter tree wells,whereas in other areas,there is
a10-foot parkway. He painted out that there were trees along Wolfe Road that were not causing
similar problems.
Mr. Cowan stated that he was concerned with the Coates report, noting that the trees do get quite
large in their present growing environment. He recommended that Vallco study an.overall plan for
their properties and they are willing to comply. Staff will work with the consultant to to ascertain
if the,ash trees are the appropriate trees,as they have indicated they are.
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Mr. Cowan indicated that there were no plans to
:4 replace the trees in question because of the grading, it is the arborist's feeling that the second
growth of trees behind the rows of ash will provide a tree canopy, although eliminating the
symmetry of the ash trees along the road. There is not enough room to put in replacement shrubs.
The sidewalk will be replaced,hopefully before the Christmas rush.
A .brief discussion ensued regarding staff's recommendation that Vallco Park Limited bP
encouraged to prepare a long term plan for the entire site. It was suggested that they have their
arborist examine.other potential problem sites and conduct a more orderly replacement or thinning
of trees,rather than wait for an emergency situation to remedy the irce problem.
uc J
y
d
•.... . •,,...+. a1F
.7 •,'-._>~ . .�. M:a �r',r} "r"a1p° ,r °a'!" r , e '7 t;.ar 'i •t �7. htu i� {£� r.l�".}a.�.m. }eh ".* 3 �w t
2�rJ"'•''�� �+r r .., � m kyr,
llf�i,�J yv,'y Z'ID 7t,1.r,S7
�: �FK ,AEYi•y, r.� F�a,xzM��C rpt ;,,. a � i
! !) f; i� � f �' a;. 5.; 1 ��ti it •
" Plannlmg Co6wolm
�'.ovcnber 13,1945 _
Ah
Mr. Scott Stevens, General Manager, Vallco Fashion Park, reviewed the overall tree program at
Vallco Fashion Park. He stated that three independent arborists have presented reports on the J
overall tree problem at Vallco;the concern being mainly the general health of the
trees. It is their
opinion that the shopping center area is overpopulated-with trees, arta given that,there are a given
number of trees in a small area competing for the same.amount of water which is contributing to
%1.
the overall decline of the health of the.program. Mr. Stevens pointed out that the tree program is
.vital to the property, noting that since 1998 no trees have been moved. He reported that
beginning.next year arbodsts wil: study the program and provide a solid understanding of what
needs to be done to maintain a healthy tree program'at the shopping center. Vere are 3200 trees
on the property and everything will be done to protect the program•
He noted that he would
continue to woaie with stIffon the important issue.
Mr. John.Statton, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, expressed his support for the appl'icant's
request, stating that the present state: of the site is a safety hazard because of the density of the
plantings in the area.
Com.Austin recommended that the applicant present a more comprehensive plan for the;entire site
that would provide a more orderly tree replacement or tree trimming program. She requested that
the recommendation be included as part of the resolution.
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve Application No.51,075.40
SECOND: Com.Austin 5-0-0
VOTE: Passe
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Application No.: 3-U-90(Mod.)
Acel Real Siren's)
Applicant: ty
g Property Owner: Wells Fargo Bank
Location: 10100 South DeAnza Boulevard
Use permit Modification to extend business hours to 24 hours,to allow outside seating
area,to reduce one parking space an to include sale of flowers.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
+R T.ENTATIVE.CTTY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 1995
CONTINUED FROM.PLANNING,COMMISS101;MEETING OF OCTOBER 23,
1995.
toff rg motion: Associate Planner Colin Jung reviewed the.background of the item as outlined
of the site I Mr. Jun illustrate the
in the attached staff'report. Using art overhead diagram P g
proposed landscaping option for the outdoor eating area. He also referred to Photographs which
p .
illustrated applicant's proposal for the outdoor eating area. Mr. Jung state that sof felt the
landscape design of the cutdoor eating area complimented the overall theme of the restaurant and
did not have any objections to it even though it is not a permanent improvement to the property.
Mr. Jung explained that applicant proposes to modify the restaurant to a self-service operation
ti which would reduce the number of employwYs needed'and increase the outdoor seating. He stated
t
e
WON M
0 ME HIS
.1
���v� ,�s.:., ,�.<..,n:F^"y;s�x a•u+,��' Mr>�?dl•; , ,�'K' �y{�7c"Wi �":: t d'"'r`" }.:r�. +s f e1 C3� � x `.+ 7 a,rv.€ g , ,.,� k4� °n�„�. s ��� « { �` n
'Nr F•S��k�tr�nn�v.:�rtR�"�i�'u.skYetiy � ' :T rtii 7`c 3 }� 5 s1K. n 'w* ! rr .4 i t 5 � + ' warts �`R�,?-,-I'�i S�' -• r�'� s.
I
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 13, 1995
that'statjF recommends approval of the appliration and noted that the application is exempt frown
environmental review.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr.Jung stated that the,outdoor eating area would be
used primarily during the daylight hours and no lighting was proposed for the outdoor eating area.
Coni. Harris recommended that the exhibits be dated November 13, 1995, and included in the
model resolution. A discussion ensued regarding the previous conditions of approval. Mr. Jung
clarified that the use limitation is in conflict with Condition No. 19 of the previous use permit,and
stated it was his understanding that the language "except as may be amended by the Conditions"
indicated Condition No. 4 supersedes Condition No. 19 on the previous use permit. He sale it was
appropriate to leave the wording as is.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Jung stated that the buffers are part of the
landscape plan applicant is proposing.
f
Ms. Sophia Yang, Sirens Associates, Inc.;stated that the eating area would be very attractive and
be an asset to the City. She thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their help.
Ms. Yang stated that the micro brews would be supplied by an outside micro brewing company
and would be covered under the beer and wine license. .
In response to Com. Harris'question, Ms.Yang stated that candles would be used on the tables to
lend to the ambiance of the outdoor area; outdoor lighting would not be used. Ms.Yang explained
that.the second floor space is used for meetings and. as yet the area isnot included in the plans.
Mr. Jung pointed out that the area could be used for the floral operation in the future. Mr. Jung
clarified that the parking requirement for the restaurant would not be increased as a result of the
second floor area. Ms.Yang commented that many of her customers were from Apple and nearby
companies and walked to the restaurant.
a Mr. Statton appeared before the Commission again and stated that Siren's would add a welcome
element to'the community in that it offers late night dining experience, which is lacking in the
community at the present time. He commented that the outdoor eating area would be an attractive
x addition to the area which is presently a stark corner. He urged the approval of the applicant's
request.
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Mr. Jung stated that the illustrated plans were-
adapted
ere.adapted from the preexisting plans approved in 1990, and what is shown.in the plan presently
exists. He noted the buffering is in the length of the landscaping itself.
MC' ,<0N: Com.Austin moved to approve Application No. 3-U-90(Mod.)per the model
resolution.
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-"
4. Application No.: 1 l-U-95
Applicant: Cupertino DcOro Club
Property Owner: Cupertino DCOro Club
Location: 20441 Homestead Road
�` w; z {' *f � ' 4; ,k.'.^x � Z`��;,},, �",p�r t...4.� S{y,,.•'ziF ''r�"#n.�i ,,v, xtiz $*��3,',F, 'k A a�a7w '`q
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13, I995
Use Permit to add a 580 square foot serving area to an existing club building.
ENVIRONMENTAL,DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL.UNLESS APPEALED
,S presentation: The video presentation provided a historical background of the DeOro Club
and reviewed the request for a use permit to add additional-space to the existing club building,as
outline in the attached staff report. It was noted in the video presentation that a decision on the
item will be final, and a recommendation would not be forwarded to the City Council unless
appealed.
Using an overhead, City Planner Ciddy Wordell referred to the site plan described in the video
presentation, showing the present building and the proposed addition. Ms. Wordell pointed out
that several of the major issues identified relate to the historical nature of the building,and the long
term effects. She noted that some concern has been expressed by the community that if the
building was listed.as a historical building, the proposed additions might jeopardize the possibility
of it being listed. .
Ms. Wordell stated that staffs recommendation to approve the use permit in spite of the concerns
expressed is based on the'fact that the DeOro Club is not,seekiig to fist the building in the registry
in the future. She pointed out that the building cannot be listed without the property owner's
permission. She said it is not known at the present time if the proposal would or would not fall into
Ak the stated guideline concerns and the application vrould either have to be continued or denied to
allow formal feedback on whether or not the proposal would affect any future historical listing.
Staff felt that because it was a small addition, it would not have a significant impact on the
historical nature of the building.
Ms. Wordell noted that the large oak tree to the rear of the building would not be affected by the
addition. It was note that removal of four branches would be require, which would change the t
appearance of the tree,but not be harmful to the tree.
z Ms. Wordell added that another condition is that a historical plaque'be placed on the building in
conformance with the new plaque guidelines approved by the City Council.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Ms: Wordell explained that the city's
responsibility was to attempt to maintain some historical integrity in the b,. ' "ng, but not try to "
make a final decision about a future listing. She stated that there is a stat 4 federal registry
with similar eligibility requirements for listing historical buildings.
Chairman Doyle noted there were two elements to be considered: (1) public safety of any
modification and meeting the planning restrictions of the community and (2)the responsibility for
ensuring the continued historical signifcancc of the community buildings. Ms. Wordell stated that
the General Plan wording refers to retaining their historic character.
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Ms. Wordell stated that if changes to the'building
r
are made,ADA requirements must be complied with.
r
. - _ .. ._, -..:.., � , .-•t` set:^ - 4 T„< 4r'S A .,,z a..<, f+ -L ,. _,.
. ”.g s e'*• --.,t„L y -:4 ft y r;..,pe�t t 4 rc. ',� ,�. ..tt nsf *;fA1.t .e``'
r
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 13, 1495
'4
Ms.Arlene Walton,5922 Castano Drive,San dose,Chairman of the remodeling committee, stated
MF that the application was to improve and enhance the clubhouse, not tear it down. She said the
conclusion was arrived at ollowing an intensive study and discussion.
She reviewed the process followed, beginning with September 1094 when it was requested by a
member and past president to consider remodeling the kitchen. An improvement committee was
K then formed and all members were asked for input. In January 1995 members were again asked,
for suggestions. After many meetings and polls, a notice was sent to all members notifying there
that a vote would be taken in April. A majority vote of two-thirds decided to remodel with the 10
foot addition. The improvement committee was dissolved and a remodel committee was fomaed.
On behalf of the DeOro Club, Ms. Walton requested approval of the application and invited
questions.
i
` In response to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Walton provided a brie`history of the building,
which was also outlined in the staff report. She explained the need for more kitchen space,
custodial area with a utility tub, and a dressing room. Ms. Walton stated that when the vote was
taken,there were 64 members of the 102 total prescnt,,:.51 voted to remodel with a 10 foot addition,
13 voted to remodel only.
Ms. Pat Howard, 20733 Meadow Oak Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the changes to the original Collins
School since 1921, remarking that the present DeOro Club building is not the old Collins
schoolhouse of yesteryear. She noted that several times throughout the years, an application for
possible membership in the National Historical Registry has been discussed by the hoard of
Ask Directors. The fear of res.trictions of club rights, invasion of privacy, and the loss of personal
control over private property invariably resulted in a decision not to seek such membership. She
pointed out without the hard work and dedication of the total membership over the last 75 years,
the DeOro Club would not still be in existence;.
In response to Chairman Doyle's question if the Board of Directors intended to have the facility
registered; Ms. Howard stated that the Cupertino DcOro Club Board of Directors do not plan to
have the facility registered and noted that the matter has not been discussed for a number of years.
.Ms. Mary Lou Lyon. 879 Lily Avenue, Cupertino, stated that she would like to see the facility on
the National Historic Register and expressed sorrow that there was 'so much fear of it being
interfered with. She explained that the National Historic Register does not govern what is to be
done,:nor does it keep people or organizations iiom doing anything. She said membership in the
National Historic Register has manyy benefits and that she would pass the information on to the
DeOro Club pertaining to the National Historic Register. She noted that the DeOro Club facility is
the only one.of four original schools remaining in Cupertino. Ms. Lyon pointed out that the facility
was eligible for the National Historic Register whether or not the addition -was made. She
suggested other ways of improving the kitchen facilities without the addition to the building, and
'r noted that if registered, facility would be exempt from the,handicap access requirement for the
restroom. Ms. Lyon pointed out that the facility is one of the few remaining historic facilities left
in Cupertino and urged that it not be jeopardised.
In response to Com. Roberts' question about restrictions, Ms. Lyon stated that if the facility were
registered with the National Historic Register,the facility could still be,remodeled, but the addition
ti could not detract from the original design. She explained that in the proposed -emodcl, the back
side of the building would be remodeled to appear similar to what exists at present, which is
E ,
1
i
i
:j
Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 13. 1995
against the rules of the National Historic Register which negates imitating the old with the new.
She reiterated that the inside of the facility could be remodeled without affecting the facility's
t
eligibility to be registered.
Ms.B.Jones,resident,pointed out that the 13 people who voted against'the remodel of the facility
were descendents of Cupertino pioneer families. She stated that the DeOro clubhouse is thelast
historic public building in Cupertino and it should be preserved by making the modifications to the
interior only. She requested that the Planning Commission consider a continuance on the item to
allow more study relative to the possibility of the facility being registered at a later date.
' Chairman Doyle questioned if the concern about the modification of the building was because of
the;.possible loss of national historic registry capability?
Ms. Jones responded that it was a oncem, and that the modifications could be made on the
..interior. She said that if the modifications were to the interior only,there could be a modification
for handicap bathrooms.
Using a slide presentation,Ms.Audrey Butcher,resident,illustrated the DeQro facility and pointed
out features in the design which would be affected by the addition. She noted that the gingerbread
design in the north corner of the building could not be successfully removed, because of its age,
and replaced on an extension. Ms. Butcher stated that the Historical American Building Survey
qI IABS team)took photos of the building in 1980 and wrote a description of the building in 1981.
In 1982 the California Heritage Council awarded the Award of Merit to the DeOro Club for
preserving and maintaining a historic building,honoring the entire facility. She said that to add on
the building would change the special relationships and symmetry of the building and the extension
of the north gable would mean the present decorations would have to be removed, a difficult if not
impossible task, losing the look of the original 1889 building. Interior changes could be made
which would satisfactorily improve the kitchen, reorganize storage space, and if the Planning
Commission permits a variance, modify the present restroom in the front of the building to a
unisex restroom that would comply with'preservation law. She noted that the club bylaws stated
that one of the purposes of the DeOro Club was to maintain and preserve the historic building and
urged that the plaridrig Commission deny the application for a use permit and grant a variance for
remodeling the restroom.
Ms. Jeanne Ryder,resident,requested the Planning Commission grant a delay until February 1966
on the facility remodel. She stated that the members of the Cupertino Historical Society have not
;+ been thoroughly apprised of the situation and because the Historical Society would not be meeting
until January 23, logistics do not permit dissemination of the DeQro Club's information. With a
membership of over 200 Cupertinians,the need exists to see the updated plans upon which to make
a decision.
q
Mr. Michael Horton, project architect for the DcOro Club, explained that the gingerbread trim
could be relocated or reproduced in the remodel of the facility. He said he was aware of the
opposition, but noted it was the opinion of the majority througi'', a vote that they wanted' the
addition and to retain its original character. He pointed out that as an architect he would not
advocate remodeling without'retaining the original character, to do sou would create an eyesore.
The proposed addition would be in line with preserving the facility's original character and could
be removed in the future and restored back to its original character. Mr. Horton said that the back
end of the building would appear similar to the present facade.
x �
ON
Y
.c 1711!' i� S. Ir+aa�. y �,rf � ?4l
�, A Yh' � S `i,
r ✓_ S. �;���y3�� } 3�, t a r71 � .. , ( ss � , ��}` k Z }� .�, 3 �f T1s --
,'
Planning 8,
November 13, 1995
In response to questions from Can.Austin,Mr.Horton stated that he was the architect responsible
r
for the rtixttodel of Fontana's restaurant and assisted with the relocation of Montgomery Place. He
noted that the proposal was an addition to a historical building, not restoration, and the DeOro
Club had voted to add more space to the facility.
r: Ms. Florence Lindsay, resident and volunteer with the Cupertino Historical Museum at Quinlan
Center and satellite museum at Vallco, noted that visitors to the museums express concern that
there is no little history left in Cupertino. She slid they-do mention the building on Homestead
Road that resembles an-old schoolhouse and said it was important to keep the integrity of the
building in tad. Ms. Lindsay noted that the facility was included in'a book published by the
American Building Survey. She reiterated that one of the purposes of the Deo
ro Club, ms
published in the bylaws,was to preserve and maintain the historic building, She expressed concern.
that if the addition to the building were made, the facility would not meet the National Registry
requirements for an addition and if the integrity is lost, the facility would become ineligible for the
National Registry.
Ms. Debra Newman, resident, expressed an interest in the issue as she and Mr. Newman were the
owners of the San Antonio schoolhouse, the only other original schoolhouse remaining. She
expressed opposition to tb..e application based on the information presented at the meeting, and
expressed concern about an earlier comment that architecturally anything could be replicated to
look like the original. She urged the Planning Commission to question the need to expand the
facility and discuss the use issue its more detail.
Ms.Henrietta Marcott,resident,noted that she attended the original Collins School. She urged the
facility be preserved in its present state, as a heritage landmark. She suggested a cornerstone to
illustrate its history.
ABIs. Walton explained the. DeOro Club schedule, beginning in October for a member only
. luncheon,followed by a meeting the third Friday of the month, and then the first and third Fridays
through the month of June, concladng with a closing luncheon. She stated that each of the
meetings,other than the opening and closing meetings, had a specific program. The first Friday of
the.month meeting is a business meeting; members are permitted to bring guests. She further
explained that the facility is also rented out to the public for weddings and wedding receptions,and
50th wedding anniversary parties. She noted that there was a need for a ramp entrance to the
building;and for health reasons,there is a need for a utility teb and.dishwashers. She stated that
the capacity of the building was 150 persons,which would remain the same with the addition.
Com. Harris questioned why the issue was presented to the Planning Commission as there was no ;
floor area,ratio or parking problems associated with it. She also questioned the authority of the
Planning`Commission to restrict a private entity adding onto the property for the public good.
Ms.Wordell explained that it was presented to the Planning Coinmission because the quasi-public
facility required the use permit.
Mr. Cowan.clarified that the Planning Commission was reviewing the use permit which allows the
ability to look.at the intensity of the activity, and to approve the architectural design of the
addition. He said the public policy issue deals with the public.attitude relating to strict adherence
to preservation goals. He noted it was unfortunate that the General Plan did not provide significant
f - ,
`r
- _, c 1,rN,V;.• c�'S lir f C��,y{"'f-T tr�k„€yr�;f'A�'a�y:*”4u'.x;€1 x:j%, �!r Y 1 Fi ! o � J 1F�n�K-`"-n"xi ti✓,.r ` -.ti. g4 '✓:,�7;t''^G4�r:
,'4`: V
ti
f"4 s5 •Yi.t � .g - S%x I'."f'.y.�4�L't d,•,, e' �^2a Pi L'd �i MrV,. + P�•?�,+ ".±.7�':: ik 1 "f.y}.S.`il ^.ta,�f 2 't a`�l C_;F'�. a J `{ i7n
^vfy t� €i� sft
Planiun8.
Commission Macules Y9 November 13,1995
guidance relative to the public policy issue, but addresses maintaining the dAract" of
Alldevelopments.
Chairman Doyle reviewed the issues, which included the planning portion and the historical
content. He stated the Planning Commission is faced with the dilemma of making a policy decision
relativa to the historical site and questioned if it.was trying to limit the modification because it
is wanted to preserve the ability to get the facility registered in the future, or because of the possible
negative effect on the appearance of the facility and its historic representation in the community?.
y Com. Austin stated it was her understanding that it was in the General Plan to identify and
preserve all historical sites as much as possible because there were so few remaining. Mr. Cowan
clarified that the Gcnerai Plan identifies and locates the landmarks and historic sites and contains
y
lanning Commission embark upon a creation of a historical zone.
suggested strategy that the P
Com. Austin pointed out that another issue was the possibility of continuing.the item to allow the
membership to work with Ms. Lyons regarding the issue of registering the facility with the
National Registry. Com. Harris concurred.that the possibility of continuance should be
considered. Com. Roberts pointed out that the preservation of the oak tree was another issue to '
consider.
Chairman Doyle polled the Commissioners relative to planning being an issue and whether or not
the modification was supported.
Com. Austin stated that at this point she was not in favor of supporting the modification, but was
in favor of continuing the issue to learn more about the historical character. She said it wasan
important issue,and time should be spent to research
more about becoming a national historic site.
She remarked that so many historical sites in Cupertino have been lost and the DeUro Club facility
should not be jeopardized.
Cam.Mahoney indicated approval of the planning issue as it was only a I I?,.,a,!ditioh and not one
to key core areas. He stated that he was not in favor of a continuance f the item as the
membership had elected not to seek registry of the facility because of restrictions placed upon the
organization.and he felt there was no constructive value to continuing discussion of the issue.
Com. Roberts"said he was in favor of continuing the issue to have additional time to research the
effect of the addition to the facility. He stated that the Historical Society should have the
opportunity to research the issue further and perhaps a compromise could be. reached. Com.
Roberts said he was cautious about statements relative to preserving the oak tree in a mcaningful
way and unless evidence could be presented assuring no negative effects from removal of the tree' limbs, he was not in favor of the limb removal.
r
Com. Harris expressed concern that Cupertino has t.xn lax in its attention to historic buildings.
She said she was opposed to a modem addition to the property,but that the architect's plan to add s
on in the same character was appropriate. She stated she shared the concern of the Historic
Society that if the addition as made the facility might not be able to be listed as an official
:v
historic property. Com. Harris said she was in favor of updating,the kitchM storage and
bathroom facilities for use especially since ADA compliance was included. She said she felt that
s ,
as a building in private ownership, how much authority did the Planning Commission have in
�^ - -•7S. .:.�� `;'}c 1Jp wis'�X u='bF``�4 t 1pa.:. r�r�i2,d' y o�� - 1F,A a 43.`'5�' xr .W *�. r' ;• a 'NLx ^kir i f i'i s `i ,.;
:� t ,,� �4 ; �Sa� sa"T? n�F'.,r; '"� s 1e�•u� ,, :�7r,� s" "�x'� 4' "'a rt^ s,
NO
�`s� fy+ .gq.is r'rn :a' 3�
ra.i.;, YJ' s ;" i"1..:? { YllSCedx
„w
°
ftY �F t,
as •t w x 5 v r x. Tx C i J.:=k 4r bra n e 'F. ^Nx.r }ny2a
rf s. t o ti,, 'F'Sa as . , +, t 3 ; -s t s 47 a4HLs'4.h2.ut ✓y+.a
-
s .Plannimg Comanission 1MIiautes 10 I 1s9,'1995'z
overlaying awe other coascideration, if the health and safety and city aisles ars maim. tae
stated that she remained undecided on the issue.
1
Chairman Doyle noted that the topic was very complex. He said he was opposed to 63 notion of .
the Planning Commission taking control of the derision based on its historic past. He mWestsed
' concernabout a decision the Pla.-aning-Commission may allow t,day may preclude any historic
raidific ations for the facility in the future. Chairman Doyle said lie favored a continuance of the. . . i
item to allow time for further research into the limitations on rstry�the facility for the fuMre.
egi
He said that if a decision is made on the remodel.that makes it impossible to regisr the facility in
the future, the situation is limited; if we can come back and say the.remodel doesn't limit tlie.
possible option in the future,the results of the decision will not have any long term cffocts upon the
property.
Chairman Doyle'sthat
ummarized three commissioners were in favor of a continuance of the issue.
One of the key issues is to establish if the modification as proposed.would limit the facility's ability
to be registered in the future.
M1
Mr. Cowan stated that staff would use the resources of the Historical Society and County.and
other historical commissions to ascertain the long terra effects of the proposed remodel.
A beicf discussion ensued regarding the apposition t''. remodel of the facility.
{ MOTION: It was moved by Com.Austin that Appircation No.. I 1-U-95 be continued for one
month.
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE:, Passed 54)-0
Cone.Harris requested that City Attorney Kilian be present for discussion of the item.'
,t
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
S. Application No.: 7-TM-95 and 28-EA-95
Applicant: Cupertino City Center Associates
Property Owner: Cupertino City Center Associates
Location: East side of Torre Ave.between Stevens Creek Blvd.&
' Rodrigues Ave.
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.41 acre parcel into 24 single family residential lots and
one common lot.
ENVIRONMFNTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Reconun:ended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 20, 1995
'" Staff�rese�rtation: Using an overhead of the subdivision map and tentative map, Mr. Cowan
reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attaclLed staff report. He stated that staff
recommended approval of the application.
€t � � 4..s��s+r 2+ '{,j"u;1•( 'ti4 �L + .i. K``w � �'ti.,�".E` i!x.. F n7 r
t x R{ i,4 .T s"Fe. £- �s i:"' orf r d r.,,i a E•5+� :1� tr,� 2 S.',t'�i��i Jit`+ 'a bar �""zJ Yd 7a5 yw �ftMif^
;1t
:('
,t. fyi�
mmissica Minutes i l Novernb�13, ,
Planning.Co
Lo_questions from Com.Harris,Mr. Cowan stated
that the resident might not have use
of p>
In Xsponse: , , own bemuse of the easement, similar to a zero lot line. He noted that the
w grading issue would be discussed further at a later date.
No. A, Pedestrianto
Id
of the model resolution. In response
Discussion ensued regarding that it would include the easemcnt.going from the back
Com.Harris',question, Mr. Cowan stated S d for the owners within the development. Mr.
e
portion to the front portion, but would be desi
clarified that to protect the easement over time for the residents of development,re was there
Cowan ration is finalized.
will be an'easement recorded when the final configuration s between tuuts 19 and 20.
` amend No. G Common Area including the A foot minimum
acres
4F Commission Resolution No.4640,Condition III.
reference to the Planning
olution wherein Mr-
ed 2 Lot Line Adjustment of the model res
Discussion ensued regarding
ssioners•questions-
Cowan answered Commi
to questions about the loss of one parking space to allow for additithat the onal
:a Mr. Cowan responded 9 He
in spa=in front of Lots 6.and 24,not vehicle turthe I naroun grading plan is approved-
landscap .$ P would be modified when
data reflected on the tentative map
Classic Communities, urged the Planning Commission to support the staff
Mr. Scott Warren, He stated the map is consistent with the
recorrunendation for approval of the subdivision map. Mr. Waw
General Plan and zoning as ratified by Council and consistent with the use Pe
regarding the elements of the map and said it is as the Planning
stated he understood the concerns reg ;r the transition of tentative to final
that the issues be resolved throug I and looked forward
Director indicated, typicallicant could comp y
said that he was confident that the app pedestrian easement pertains t3
map. Mr.Warren applicant' perspective that the
to doing so. He clarified from app of the CC&Rs established for the development. for
public ways and that would mean as Part rode access through lots 19 and 20 to the Park area
private int would be established to p
the benefit of the lot owners 1 through 15,
ertino stated that he has represented the Waterfall
Mr. Bruce Pass, 10272 Danube Drive, Cup the major reconstruction. He reported
homeowners association as the onsite coordinator.duri�ng
members of the association mere disappointed in the density of the development on the
that they felt no-consideration has been given along the
small triangle. He said that in reciprocity with rcsPco' to
of the association residences and the revv Le elrivacy,tand asked that the
property line thatprovide adequate p
is landscaping..He noted that the existing alders do not P �e fences other than poplars with
city consider requiring the developer to p1.1nt a tree line along
adequate
design of frets to ensure more privacy for the Waterfall residence and abate the
some eq
r noisy emanating from the new development.
'
pointed out that the use permit approved by City Council and
subject to the Plan
Mr:Cowan Po riar to issuaancc of a building pest.
i Commission's recomrendations stated' roomed by staff
landscaping irrigation plans should be app
ivlr,Warren discussed the arborist's summary report. He reported that the existing tree ever flh'
rarely is there the benefit of that kind of barrier to the extent however that
is outstand:.-►g;and said Y
it is possible to add trees to improve the barrier without affecting the health of the existing trees.
He.state he was willing to work with the neighbors.
r
:? „y t. i•r R.aF-+�„�"yW�.f r✓�'?i` k(4 Lt�:�C'- 5 2�x. '_y 1��+'�}+�(I t di-�Y� `..i.xr ��1_C 4:.'I a .'$>: i{ N...Z i(�t!,r.,':y����� �u1s N. v�h. .%"c�5 j^h \'::b�c �.,y
h./try � Vf`3 ri F t f ;t s: w r } rc � eS•,
�. u� s n�• f;�b f f.. �' + �,; r r t, t d 1�sl Y .r t.Y t i. w �. �tf{' l,cx.11 �' +I�.'x"" '� T
1XM
�„
fi- I .
;6• a t q c a ,,p v ..,k {t ,� E!i x �� �' hr'`9 4 �'+i FT1�d 3��
� � r ?j + r a �✓ f i r'-, t ice,�� �
Planning Canimisslon Mlmstes 12 Noveuaber'13,
Mr.Cowan suggested one additional tree per yard,strategically located to fill in the gaps.
Com.Harris pointed out that because of borrowed landscape present,one tree per yard may not be
necessary;two or three,trees might be require l in one yard and none in another. She recon ea fed
that the applicant present a proposal and work with staff on the issue. Com. Mahoney stated it
should be up to the individual homeowner as to what they want to plant and where. Com.Austin
concurred with adding one tree per lot. There was Commission consensus tofill to the gaps.
R
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to grant a Negative Declaration for Application
No.28-EA-95
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-x-0
MOTION' Com.Austin moved to approve Application No. 7-TM-95 with minor
modifications.
SECOND: Corn.Mahaney .
VOTE: Passed 5-M
6. Application No.: 1-TM-95
Applicant: Maximo Perez
Property Owner. Same
Location: 21221 Rainbow Drive
Tentative Map to subdivide a.49 acre parcel into one lot and one remainder parcel.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically,Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
SlgffBrese tation: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the
attached staff report.
Ms. Wordell referred to an overhead map to illustrate the zoning and square footage of the
surrounding lots in the area.
In response to a question fiom Com. Mahoney, Ms. WordeIl stated that the reason for the large
dedicated area was to assure future options. She noted that the City does have a Similar dedication
they have secured on the property to the west in the event Rainbow Drive was to be straightened.
Ms.Wordell stated that it vas a decision that if there ever was a need to improve the street flow,
k they would have the option available. A brief discussion followed.
Mr. E. Naffa,.project engineer, stated that they had fought with Public Works for the 30 foot
dedication requirement, which he felt was not needed as the street was already built. He said it
was discovered that.the street was built on Mr. Perez' property without his consent. Mr. Naff'a
stated that a 2500 square foot home was being planned for the lot.
Mr. Michael Young, neighboring resident, used overheads to illustrate lot line locations. He
reported that in January 1995 the initial lot was to be subdivided into 3 parts, but was amended to
the present configuration where parcel 1 is in.the front portion in August of 1995, close to
Rainbow Drive. He stated his opposition to the initial proposal of 3 lots because the neighboring
t
µ,
(. nS.tPi S,t,(` 'c,�k jr�.S'.d{:`U ;d`rt :r�� i... _.` '';O.P'`t";rti .:v'r?P,a,�, t..'4X .r(L• r r C-:( sE� ti.7£"1 h^"vJryr iia '4-'y�.'C,'."uy�,. ,<Y4'' ) a`r1 '�4` T
rh
?�
Planning Commission Minutes 13
Idovembsr 13`1995
homes are extremely close to Rainbow Drive and a sound wall effect is created because of the stop
sign at the intersection. '
y Referring to a diagram illustrating the neighborhood homes and proposed home, Mr. Young
suggested the 6,000 square foot be located in the rear of the lot conforming to the other homes on
Weymouth Drive and the.larger square footage lot located in the front. He referred to a letter he
had written which outlined his opposition to the proposal. He expressed concern about the safety
'issue with school children crossing the busy intersection and pointed out the line of sight issue if
the large home was built-close to the corner,with the potential of causing accidents. He also cited
the noise factor because of the heavy traffic. Discussion continued.
Chairman Doyle asked Mr.Naffs if there was`a possibility of changing the lot distribution. Mr.
Naffa clarified that the 6800 square foot lot wac prior to Public Works requiring a 30 foot
5= dedication;hence the lots had to be reduced to fit. He stated that the first proposal included 3 lots
F which included relocation of the house in existence. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Naffa
answered Commissioners'questions.
Com. Mahoney stated that if approval is granted, it should not have a building in it, but have all
the same setbacks, keeping it away from Rainbow Drive. -In the interest of the property owners
using it,he would recommend approval.
Com. Roberts stated that the main issue is what conditions to impose on the dedicated area to
ensure that it be maintained in an attractive way.
Ah Com. Harris commented that there were many parcels with similar setbacks, which was a future
planning issue. If the fence•is extended into the right of way,it changes the configuration slang the
street as far as the setbacks go. She expressed concern that it be attractive and maintained, and
that it be a condition of approval of the new lot.
Chairman Doyle suggested returning with a staff recommendation on whether or not to allow
fencing in that area.
Discussion continued regarding maintenance of the public area.
-i Mr.Cowan summarized Com.Mahoney's recommendation,stating that the issue was unique to the
area. IHe said the Planning Commission was iuit-=steel in having staff develop some means to
ensure maintenance, perhaps to allow some minor degree of encroachment, and staff will have to-
return to the Planning Commission or City Council to see how to accomplish this.
Com. Mahoney stated that if the purpose, separate from maintenance, of reserving the area is
merely to set it aside in the event the street needs to be modified at some future date, he was open
to having the property owner use it in as reasonable way as possible. Mr. Cowan stated that some
degrec'of continuity would need to be maintained; fences sh,uldn't be permitted to go too far out.
He stated that staff will return with a progress report prior to the map being recorded.
MOTION: Com:Austin moved to approve Application No. 1-'FM-93
k. SECOND: Com. Mahoney
Affilk VOTE: Passed 5-M
b
, -. ....r.. ,� t.9✓.,":,� e5, ,.. ,,+a z �,^'C isr n .^F'.� S ,... �n .? f k. - 4 a ! a
n
�. fi wfy4�XSa t r y �3.r2 `da vyrl ,r"q t t, q r;r l '`y f yt3°.0�. N!�}''•'sr 7d -e-a
.t
tit. ;f'y sy tv. vt 7c f: G3r... r a �, f"fS 'f 't S� fi r � •{ ?jS{✓.i 7±t` - ' tS y,x5�ia tl�;ci;�'sa°' 4a k. 6 .c 13Y .' tq..A" `l
.+,
- �:�,` .•.• ,.' -t°
Planaiug t�oautaission minutes 14 ,
IVcti+embr�;`1�.�4'993
kW BUSINESS
7. . Request to set a public hearing for amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino
murieipal Code
n
regarding
peeking regulations.
Staff prr -mWion: City Planner Wordell reported that in some'of the past applications, both in
residential and non-residentiai, particularly retail, the Planning Commission has received input .
from appli;ants that the regulations are not consistent with Other jurisdictions. She noted that past
practice, particularly relating to retail pwrking regulations, may be overly conservative, being
gearod toward,the worst possible demand. Ms. Wordell reported that staff is proposing surveys be
conducted of actual conditions and also conduct comparisons of other jurisdictions to see if st multi
family housing and retail parking need to be adjusted.
Com. Harris suggested that:small businesses, particularly retail in Cupertino be encouraged, but
noted that parking is very restrictive. She said that times of operations is not taken into
t consideration and a need exists to look at the uses and perhaps grant permits based on certain uses
for certain spaces to allow more parking. Empty parking lots discourage trade. Coin. Harris
suggested that the comparison be done during the normal times,and not at Christmas time because
a
it would result in more restrictive parking.
Chairman Doyle disagreed,stating that there ane many parking problems in the heavily used areas.
He said there are rules in place now that create numbers and he was in favor of the Chrishaas .
comparison to see if Cupertino is in the ballpark. He stated he was open to see the data but
remarked that overparking exists now. /
Com. Austin said she would like to see the Christmas comparison but also the everyday
comparison.
Ms.Wordell reported that a survey has been.completed before the.Christmas season.
MOTION: Com.:4ustin moved to direct staff to proceed with the amendments to Chapter
19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and set a public hearing date.
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE: Passed t 5-0.0
8. Discussion of Santa Cfara County referral regarding communication facility on Cristo Rey
Drive.
r. �ffpresentation: The video presentation rcvicwed the'`request from Cellular One to construct a
small building containing equipment, a vehicular turnaround and two 17 foot pole mounted
antennas on property located off'of Cristo Rey Drive, as:outlined in the attached staff report. The
review.of the application merely requires an endorsement because it is not in the City of CupertWo, i q
w but located within Cupertino's sphere of in-fluence.
In addition to endorsing the Cellular One application and requesting that more trees be installed as ;
a buffer to nearby Los Altos homes, staff'also recommends that the applicant also sign a deferred
AWIL annexation agreement. The agreement requires the property to be annexed into the City of.
Cupertino.
t,
V,yM1
� s+i- e M. +`a�h. ,.*`E; t a�"s.z•>�1,�h.-3E.r%.�.-";^#. �°f
:z
�1
ri n t..L!v 5 1e''tata„S 7S`r�° �a }K �a}tri i � a 'k t � 'a � i t a Y `^4 t�'a � F � 7v''' '}3 7 b? ��" •
$
Plpnding C.cm�oa Agdnutes 13 Nawe 113;;1945 .
Referring to overhead$ of the site plea, Mr. Cowan pointed out the location of the water tis
` which were not visible fram 'Cristo Rey Drive and noted when the two pole mounted antentms
would be placed. ,He said that the equipment building would be constructed on the lower part of
z the property screened by trees.
Mr.-'Cowan stated that the site was located in County jurisdiction within the City of Cupertino
sphere,. He said Los Altos.will follow the same process that the City of Cupertino is going
through.
Mr..Richard Weimer, Cellular One, So. San Francisco, explained that the proposed site was i&W
because it was isolated and faced down toward Highway 280 to send signals north to 280 to fill a
deadspot in their coverage; and utilities and road access wero already in plane. He,noted that the
surrounding trees will conceal the antennas and stated that Cellular One was amenable to planting
more trees if needed. Mr. Weimer reported that there were no objections to participating in the
deferred annexation.
Com. Hams requested that the issues be separated, namelythat the. Planning Commission
recommend that staff relay there is no opposition to the installatioln of the antenna and a request be
included for additional screening; and that the applicant be inquired to sign a deferred annexation
agreement.
Com.,Roberts questioned the reason for annexation. Com. Harris also questioned the reason for
p.
annexation.
Mr. Cowan responded that it was County policy to have all land within.public jurisdiction.
.
Chairman Doyle stated he felt it should be annexed.
,Y
MOTION: Com.Austin moved that staff correspond with the County indicating that the
Planning Commission was net opposed to the antenna installation and suggest the
Commission request additional screening be installed along the-east property line
to screen,the building from the Los Altos residents.
SECOND: Com.Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-M
MOTION: Con. Austin moved that the County be directed to require the applicant to sign a
deferred annexation agreement that would require the property be annexed to the
City of Cupertino
SECOND Com.Mahoney
NOES: Coms.Roberts,Harris '
VOTE: Passed - 3-2-0
Com:Harris requested that the record indicate:that her feeling is not that it shouldn't be annexed at
all from the County,but rather it be annexed to the-City of Los Altos. Com. Roberts concurred.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
ANIL
Com.;,Harris discussed a letter received from a student regarding the lack of bike trails in
' Cupertino. Mr. Cowan stated a bicycle safety-committee existed to handle such matters,as well as
.y. s �,�' z ?.,�'_.vk^r�."�,•.. ,t. ail;. �"n =:.�R � d: ,�':`^v..t`'fit ,.;y •rs+xk al
P
r`:ft\ � ,.:,�[ ,�.h .�' .3�'+�r��.y.,,)y �t� ���� ��e s,.�' ;° �l:t'. `Z h.:s rT a ti�'vrc..k-ap:^y��•'t� r. r`. :d-�'X�`'�c.�.,.� `..y,a�?�"rs�• : N� ,� r r!",
r€ .ar t � r'�'.sw7 .out..���'[ �4 ;,z..Ys.� ..q i'�Y..v..r� � �x^ay�i4,�Y:,,d�..�,...1 t:�-,,v"w y::2 �,cv,r-r`�- s;.,�.•�:..�a,,.. T. �:.L 4 xia,r-*���w'. `K[k7�ik r�.d #,
Pia`.man I+ utes :
,
,
, � Naroier�ber 13,I�9S I
a statement in the Gem Plan the bill.routes. Coen. Austin ood that nom►
1000 maps,•we . reproduced and distributed to the'scimols. Chairman Doyle suggested that the
b&e mutes'in'Cupertino be'published in the next issue of the Cupertino Some., Cosa. Hares
requested that staff prepire'a response letter to the student, including a bilm map, and khrming .:
him of the bicycle conaMIM' ion. `
A letter from Jonathan Camera regarding the Homestead issue was noted. Com. Harris remarked
that it fell in the same category where the Planning Commission has publicly acted on the issue. s
Com.Mahoney complimented staff on the video presentations.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Nene
i
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
F ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Doyle adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.to Monday,November
27, 1995 at 5:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Y ® Eli Ellis
Recording Secretary
Amended Minutes Appaovrd: November 27 1995
,r
of
y
s
f
e� d
i "''` - V `-i ,fir .Y try s•`.4.."A'�'t - r Ji>` y ,t-moi aita
'. �.' -� +.„f s, � rcrs�,+,i1�Y.'� t ',fsry' �i ' �k. ,�'�`� �"•'��-X. � 5.&�.;tr
d S 4 q y}{ F yEs v k 774 i 3lja yt 7d u c: a„ yYd #F i } fh t 4 AF,; t � h {# l 6 4n r x.N ;tt n
,S s . t sS+. s 2 i �. e zt rp...n s t ', r s •+Y « S.. �r•X'_3>ry r 4£...r" as•'��.;, � >.
i CITY OF CUPERTINO .. .
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO-THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
s
Commissioners present: Harris,Roberts,Chairman Doyle.
Commissioners absent: Austin, Mahoney.
Staffpresent: Ciddy Wordell,City Planner;Michele Bjurman, Planner II and
Colin Jung, Associate Planner,Charles Kilian,City Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINU'T'ES:
Minutes of the November 13, 1995 meeting.
Com. Harris requested the following core-tions to the November 13 minutes:
Page 9, second last'paragraph, line 6: After"for use" insect "especially since ADA comphimce
was included."
r
Page I1, last paragraph: Com. Harris pointed out that there had been a great deal of discussion
about trees on the property adjacent to the Classic Communities, wherein Mr. Cowan had
t suggested one tree per yard to fill in the gaps, and other suggestions%sere offered. She said there
was consensus was to fill in the gaps and it is not currently reflected in the minutes.
Com. Harris requested that the following sentence be added: "There was Commission consensus
;V to fill in the gaps."
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of the November 13, 1995 meeting as
amended.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
ABSENT: Corns. Austin and Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0 ,
a
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Letter dated November 20, 1995 feom Ms. Dian;
Piedmont regarding large houses on small lots was noted.
r
1111111111 11 vile,1111
1115
ERR
T
i
r, ate k.x7S,i7yYaT-. 3.,+w. 1:•..,zt S �tit�:^�j'�+`"' {L.:'v.�'^d3
y!17
f' .^"(M'a'
.......7 4
Platinittg Commission Minutes 2 November 27,1955
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
FUBLIC,HEARING-
1. Application.No.(s): 7-Z-95,6-TM-94, 10-U-89.8-U-94(Mod.),6-TM-95 and
I8-EA-95
Applicant: City of Cupertino..
Property Owner: Various
Location: Intersections of DeAnza Boulevard, Homestead Road,Blue Jay
Drive and 1-280.
k - Toning to rezone a 18 acre parcel from P(RES 20-35)to P(RES 10-20).
,i
Request to delete conditions regarding common area including the following City Council
' Action Letters: Condition No. t of 6-TM-94 dated October 5, 1994,Conditien No. 15 of
10-U-89 dated August 17, 1989,Condition No. 1 of 8-U-94(Mod.)dated October 5,
1994,Condition 1 of City Council Action Letter dated September 7, 1995,Condition No.
9 of 8-,U-94(Mod.)dated October 20,.1995 and Condition No. 3 of 6-TM-95 dated
October 16, 1995.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 2, 1996
taff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the request filed by Citation Homes to rezone
its 18 acre Corsica Portofino development located at the corner of Homestead Road and DeAnza
Boulevard to a planned residential development with a density of 10 to 20 units per gross acre.
The video presentation also indicated that the public hearing will include discussion regarding
which homeowners have access rights to certain recreational common areas within the single and
r> multiple family development,as outlined in the attached staff report.
t A review of.the history of the common areas explained that debate was held last summer over
whether residents of the 32 Portofino townhomes should have exclusive access to the existing
pool and cabana armand was carried over to an actual lawsuit at the Superior Court level in hna
The Courts supported the City stance that all residents should have equal access to recreational
areas and later granted preliminary access to the pool and cabana to some of the Corsica
ves of Citation Homes and the Portofino Homeowners
homeowners.' In October 1995 representati
Association (HOA) reached an agreement and asked the City Council to reverse the court
decision by deleting Condition 15.
ti The deletion of Condition 15 in effect reverses the concept of universal access to all recreational
areas on the Corsica Portofino development. A deletion of the condition also means that
Portofino residents would have exclusive access to the pool and cabana; Corsica single family
r homeowners would have no access to any private recreational space and Corsica apartment
dwellers would have access to a future recreational area on their site.. The deletion of Condition
15 and other canditions relating to recr -al area access is endorsed by the Community
Development Depiutrnent. `
i
'J3
A
u'�`RS'^J t'F r „"'w1.,• ,.+'4..' �,,'' 'k4.v
t
C'iz'?sn�+'i •� n a yT3 n't .,V4.s x"c.T�sy 3"y.;<.tJx .�1 i`^ c snrl
` 1
Planning}Commission Minutes 3 November 27, 1995
Ms. Michelle Bjurman, Planner II,reiterated staffs recommendation of approval of the rezoning,.
stating that rezoning would assure consistency with the General Plan sitewide. She repotted that
the City is.in receipt of a tentative agreement between-Citation Homes and Portofino HOA. I
However, the City Attorney is recommending that final recommendation to the City Council be 1
{ held on the issue to continue discussion of the item until such time as staff has received a sighed
formal agreement hrtween Citation Homes,Portofino HOA and Corsica HOA.
Ms. Bjutman said that during discussion of the deletion of the common area, it should be noted
that there was no,original provisions for any project sitewide to provide private open space,nor is
there an ordinance requiringprivate open space:or that if private open space is provided that it be
shared between sites and that the project applicants have in fact paid their park fees and have.
received no bonus for the-private onsite open space area.
" In response to Com. Roberts'request for clarification, Ms. Bjurman explained that it was reported
in the staff report that Citation Homes and Portofino HOA,reached an agreement to delete
Condition 15. However, it was not included in the staff report that the City Attorney is suggesting
after reading that agreement that there are provisions within that agreement that lead to future
agreement,', and that the agreement be fine tuned not to refer to future agreements but be
a. expanded to include the Corsica HOA.
Ms. Bjurman explained that staff is recommending removal of any reference to Condition 15
which is outlined on Page 1-1 in the application summary. She said it included the language on
Page 1-38 as well as other pages.
City Attorney Kilian stated that since he discussed the matter with staff he had further
communications with the Citation development group and the only thing the City had was a letter
dated Oct. 10, 1995, which was a b::sic agreement between Portofino HOA and Citation which
referred to removing the condition and dismissing the lawsuit, but it wasn't final. Since that time
they have a. more specific agreement and will present, evidence of the agreement tonight.
However, any.agreetnent executed by Citation must not only be executed'by the Portofino Board
of Directors, but also must be voted on by that homeowners association, which will take
approximately 3045 days. What Citation recommends is that the Planning Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council, but the final decision of the Council would not be effective
until there was'a vote by the property owners and an escrow deed and completed agreement, Mr.
Kilian explained that a docision on the rezoning could be reached before the issue of Condition 15
was resolved.
Mr. James Sullivan, Citation Homes, 404 Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, pointed out .that
. negotiations with Citation Homes and the Portofino HOA was nearing completion .with
contingencies relative to the deletion of Condition 15. He said it was a win-win situation for both
-parties, which would end litigation between the, saving costly litigation fees for the parties
involved. He:asked that a,recommendation go forward to the Council, and the Comtnission can
vote to accept or deny deletion of Condition 15, but do so contingent upon a formal agreement
being entered into between Citation Homes and Portofino HOA prior to the City Council taking
action. ,Speaking on behalf of Citation, Mr. Sullivan said .they would be in favor of such a'
decision.
In response ,to a question from Mr. Kilian, Mr. Sullivan stated that there was a Corsica
Homeowners Association and their role is that the City,would like to see a tri-party agreement
between Portofino HOA, Corsica HOA, and Citation. Mr, Kilianpointed out that since it affects
-
"iy{t... 5.5��.q°; ^,n ..k'i+ x,1 •;4 i x � r.P ,px-. "t.- ;d t a-ay.�yi «erY t✓y.C�
f
r �
! ti}.� �t fiC"P�" t�}•,y5'#, tarti�afe I yu,'S' �',"' ..^ Y yM1S°s x d''aK iu ',s 7*et?+•'.ta d.t` t eo�Yt-: s v4. A;.("t, i-s`iM t"�'t.:ifl •�hY. �- t �c� a? � .1 r "i'r
t 3- c ✓�.j�. 011 ��t�
� itT}
f
�+ �Plaaitiimig Cotsion Minutes . 4- • No��bes x71995
the rights of the future Corsica homeowners,it would be appropriate to protect them. Mr-Kilian
stated for,the reoord that the Corsica property owners and the Corsica homeowners had been
noticed of the hearing taking place this evening,.
Mr. Sullivan explained that Phases I and III were single family homes, Phase 11 was the apartment
site. Phase IA (Portofino duet-style.townhomes) has its own separate pool; Phase 113 and III
would not have recreational facilities; Phase If (apartments) would have its own recreational
amenities. He stated that the potential homeowners of Phases IB and III have been informed that
Citation was unaware at the time whether they would be able to obtain legal access to the pool
area,in question. ' He pointed out that a problem encountered in opening up the recreational area
for all devrlopmenrs is having reciprocal maintenance agreements. He stated that it was Citation's
recommendation to delete Condition 15 to allow Portofino HOA to retain its exclusive access to
the pool and allow the apartment owners to have access to their recreational facilities.
Chairman Doyle questioned the feasibility of Citation Homes putting together a proposal stating
after Phase I and III of the development sold out,that there would be a potential for a vote to see
if the homeowners would want to have access to Phase II of the open space. Mr. Sullivan
{ Tesponded that if residents in Phases.1 and III Would'.want access and there,was availability of
shared'recreutional space to be shared by more than just the apartment users, it might be a
P0 but he could not commit Citation Homes at this time.
Mr. Mort Schorr, 20151 Northwood Drive, representing Northpoint Homeowners Association,
stated that Northpoint HOA concurs with staff recommendation of deletion of Condition 15. He
stated that Northpoint is an open community with large common areas and would like to see that
the recreational facilities remain within the confines of the Northpoint complex. The Northpoint
Aft,
HOA did not favor foot access through the Portofino apartments onto Blue Jay into Northpoint.
He stated they also favor the lower density within the zone.
In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Schoir,stated that Northpoint has swim pools, tennis
courts,small playgrounds and a large grass area for residents of Northpoint.
;p Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
Mr.Tim Robertson, 20395 Via Volante, representing Portofino Homeowners Association, stated
that Portofino HOA was in favor of deletion of Condition 15 as well as the downzonir+g. He
reiterated that there is a preliminary injunction against Portofino HOA and because of the high
cost off irther litigation,there is motivation from both parties to reach a resolution,
Mr. Robertson reviewed that originally the development was 18 acres with free access and open
space. As time went on, the City approved individual changes to different portions of the.
complex,voiding the original concept of Condition 15. He also pointed out that in Phases iB and
III, Citation;has gone ahead and paid for the park fees for the homeowners and has been upfront
with each one regarding the CC&its and the expectations set for the access to the amenities
throughout the complex. He stated that the membership will vote on the agreements in mid- .
January.
Dr.Frances Winslow, 20405 Via Volante, Cupertino, stated that originally staff recommended the
deaetion of Condition 15 when the issue first came up. The reason the recommendation didn't go
through immediately was that the developer said that since they discovered a new right to exercise
for marketing purposes; and for a period of time they were not willing to have Condition 15
a
RoomI '
I
I
IN 1111 i
�}} aa` .rF l! °?�`r5 .� 7F-s }.ri •,�; a k.: 4`��.>y 1�"p,.u'kk v r ,,:,�;.i itvr'(yi+ti+?.d! yi'�iY:v i'a` Si✓f+- ;.vie c,.-.�jc•,.. ,yy S5y q :,k.
47 +F��! r'!�!'d'.II -.'Ml\ :YC`m „f J 4"� 1`Ply'CF>ft iii �• �f 4.f,��{fi�'� b\..L' i — ✓i t'i y�,S� ,P t �tu�L��,�tt�a�.,t"ft�j
r4. !. x
Phttlning CaenmWon'Iv4niate5 $ November 27, 199
S
deleted.At this time most of their homes have sold without the berietit of a pool. Another issue is
that ?he homes in the first phase of the Corsica development have been marketed with no
expectation of having a pool and the purchasers of the original 17 homes didn't buy with the
expectation of having a pool. She stated that.the 17 homeowners showed no interest in paying
pool maintenance in addition to their present dues. When the Corsica homes were built, Citation
Homes did not purchase the pool and common area; the pool and common area were deeded to
the Portofino HOA during the bankruptcy. The only people whose homes carried a purchase price
includinig cost of the pool and common area were the 38 lots within the Portofino Villas HOA.
Dr. Winslow reported that the Corsica HOA at the present time is essentially.a legal fiction
because there are 17 homeowners and the other lots are unsold and the developer gets bonus votes
for each unsold lot, and the owners each have one vote for a total of 17 votes and the balance
would be voted by the developer with multiple votes per lot. To require the Corsica HOA to take
a vote would be an exercise in futility because the developer has 60+votes plus bonuses, the vote
from the 17 other homeowners wouldn't carry any weight. She said it was not a good reason to
3 hold up the decision on Condition 15.
f
Dr. Winslow stated that Portofino HOA has been working diligently with the existing Corsica
homeowners to ensure their interests were represented. They were unanimous in telling us they
didn't have an interest, "At one time there was a discussion of the developer adding another pool
to share and we hal offered to give land in the greenbelt for the construction of that pool. Several
# of the Corsica homeowners contacted.Portofino HOA stating that if the agreement went through
they would sue both Portofino HOA and the developer for violation of the original conditions of
the purchase of their homes because they did not want a pool behind their property. The people
there now don't have any expectations of pool use from that facility and don't want it.
Mr. Sullivan urged the Planning Commissioners to take action, stating that a continuance at this
time is not warranted and is a step in the right direction. It will allow Citation Homes to go to the
H City Council in January for a vote. A recommendation can be made contingent upon a formal
written 'agreement being presented and reviewed by the city attorney prior to the City council
action.',
Chairman Doyle c1med the public input portion of the public hearing..
Chah-man Doyle summarized the key issues to be zoning and whether the Planning Commission
could recommend to the City Council deletion of Condition 15 with any contingencies or
requirements.
Cron. Roberts recalled that the Planning Commission had been assured earlier that the residents of
Phases IB and 'ill would,have their recreaLional needs,served in some way within the 18 acres
either by agreement with the original Portofino 140A or by accommodation of Phase II.
xis. Bjurman responded that in the September hearings on the below market housing and
` discussion on the phasing which included access to open space, there was a condition at that time
r that access to Phase IB and Phase III would occur through Phase 11. The City Council encouraged
access between all of the phases but becacse of the interest and both of the parties that are clirectly
affected by this wanting to delete the conditions,staff supports the users of the facilities.
In response to Com. Roberts' question about the availability of parks in Cupertino, Ms. Bjurmanx
stated that the closest city park was Portal Park. Cann. Roberts stated that the lack of city parks
was the :briginal reason,for focusing in on that aspect of;the application. He expressed concern
'>s
.j
y
i
.".,�,���.`y4�: '°�+�.�•K � S+a;,.fj+i,,,,,�` ry'ry��t4`ga t:�.sns �r s }s}yd 11"y dye`} .r " ..t 4 A�'a y� ,-P F A h
ri
Pl>rnning Commission Minutes 6 November 27, 1993
that future residents might complain about the inadequacy of recreation space in their
neighborhood.
Com. Roberts stated that he was in favor'of the zoning but objected to the way the recreational
issue has been dealt with in the series of hearings and decisions,and stated he does not approve of
deletion of Condition 15.
Com. Harris concurred with Com. Roberts. She stated that she was pleased with the zoning for
lower density which would benefit the City in terms of traffic issues and aesthetic issues. She said
when she approved the development.of the complex, it was with the understanding that there
would be recreational facilities provided, if not at the Portofino site,as originally designed,but in
Phase II. Staff has indicated that there is a park deficiency in the area, and said that Sunnyvale
should not be expected to provide facilities for Cupertino homeowners. The adjacent community,
Northpoint, has a variety of amenities; Phase II will have amenities; the original Portofino has
amenities and she pointed out that the Commissioners generally require.green space in the
approvals., There are no amenities for these people and said it was the Planning Commission's job
to cast a vote for the people not present, 84 homeowners who do not exist yet, and expect us to
y represent there interest
Com. Harris said she could not in good conscience vote to remove Condition 15. She stated that
she was never pleased with the idea of a total free forall on the entire 18 acres;and preferred that
IB acid III will be served by the original facility as was intended.' She pointed out that Phases 113
and III had;fewer houses than were originally ntended. She said she did not feel that residents in
Phase I1 should.be afforded use of the original triangular,site. Com. Harris stated she could not
vote to withdraw-Condition 15,although she supported the rezoning.
Chairman' Doyle concurred that,rezoning was appropriate because the downzoning meets the
1 profile currently existing in the city. He stated that Phases IB ani III should have access to at least
Phase 1I open space, I would like it to have access to'Phase I.A, but that may not be feasible. I
think Condition 15 should be maintained or provide access to Phase It the groups in IA and III.
Chairman Doyle summarized that all Commissioners agreed that the zoning was appropriate and it
would not come baek with a compromise that would delete Condition 15. He stated as a group
the Planning t^ommissioners were concerned with open space for Phase IB and II1.
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the granting-of a Negative.Declaration for the site.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
ABSENT: Cams. Austin and Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the rezoning of the 18 acre parcel to
P(RES ,00.20)
SECOND' Com. Roberts
ABSENT Coms. Austin and Mahoney
VOTE Passed 17,9-0 S
MOTION: Com. Hams moved that in no place where there is a suggestion of Condition 15
being removed,that it be removed in any of the text,pending resolutions or any.
of the original resolutions passed or any item passed.,where Condition 15 is
defined or referred to.
6
Y
I
a
r rI ia.`t V
/ "r` ai"H�. .r';.t �.,. J ,t�.,v'a>r s'S! <.5:ry.0 '-ky,�§?�'F`!.,� �.>a 41'':1 ` r>tr,».....a;,r a rt °c"t, .r r.r,y3.J' .at".7•.,f a.x='.. 9�
i aE r 1 4 1 £ s s F4 g 4"kr y tfE
�r ✓ir
!` t,
Flmtntm$Cornmissidn Minutes' , Nov�i�r 27;.1995
SECOIVI?: Coin. Roberts
ABSENT: Corns.Austin and Mahoney
VOTE:., Passed 3-0-0
Mr. Kilian suggested that the item be set for a City Council meeting after the vote of the
homeowners' association. "
2'. Application No.: 10-Z-95 and 29-EA-95
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: . Various ,
Location: Hillside areas north and east afRegnart Canyon generally
bounded by Upland Way,Lindy Lane, Linda Vista Park,
Miramonte St.,Stevens Creek to the urban service area boundary
line..
Rezoning/prezoning of 250+acres from RI-10,11140,RI-60,RI-80, RI-100,A 1-43,
Al-100,RHS,pre-RHS and pre-A to RHS-Residential Hillside Zoning District.
u ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:, Negative Declaration Recommended.
W TEN I'ATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 2, 1996
it Staff>aresentation: Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the item as
f reported in the attached-,staff report. Using an overhead of the proposed zoning map, he
illustrated the areas and'properties within the subject rezoning area. He said the proposed
rezoning is to bring the development regulations in conformance with the General Plan hillside
protection policies.
In response to a quwstion from Chairman Doyle, staff explained that Exhibit A referred to in the
mailing was a list of The properties owners and it was included in the legal notice in the Cupertino
Courier newspaper.
} Mr.Jung reviewed the attached exhibits in detail. In response to a request from Chairman Doyle.
Mr. Jung explained the impact of the rezoning on the specific parcel at 10950 Stevens Canyon
Road. He stated that die General Plan designation was very low density residential foothill
modified currently zoned R1-10 which is single family residential, with a minimum lot size of
10,000 square feet. The proposal is to rezone it to residential hillside with a 12,000 square foot
minimum lot size.
Mr. Jung explained that if a 10,000 square foot lot is built on, all legal structures could continue
indefinitely on the property as is. If the structure was damaged by fire or earthquake or such, the
structure could be rebuilt within its existing envelope. He stated that if the structure was torn
down,it would be considered a willful act and the owner would be subject to the RHS regulations
versus the R1 zoning regulations. Other differences would include more feet in height, house
colors would have to be less bright. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Jung answered
Commissioners'questions. {
r Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public inp4rt.
Mr. John Michel, Ricardo Road. Cupertino, said he received a letter referring to the rezoning of
various properties near Regnart Road. Fie expressed frustratica with the timing of the mailout and aA,
4
r
2
,2 � �;{� ,. ss.;^ "y e1�:w-^p �'��:-F'"w���k :r kif'," � ''�u.. `,�.r..✓ .%til��vt,
R
Y
5 J,�3a�'.
t
po
d a� `4 �a :� v�Yic pyaaij° y
r
Planntag Coinmissicn Minutes s November 27,
1995
the issue being discussed following the Thanksgiving holiday. Mr. Michel requested a copy of
Mr. Jung's presentation including all exhibits, in layman's terms for ease of understanding:' He
requested a continuance so that more research could be done on the issue with the availability of
sufficient information.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Mr. hung stated that there was no urgency with
the issue and it did not have to be resolved at the present meeting.
Mr. John'Lawrence, 21743 Regnart Court, Cupertino, stated that he built his home 23 years ago
and felt it was inappropriate to rezone property that has been in existence for such a long period of
time. He questioned the objective of the rezoning.
Mr. A. Lichtman, 21675 Regnart Read, Cupertino, said that the letter was not clear and he spent a
great dell of time to research if the rezoning affected his home. He requested a continuance to
provide all residents time to research the issue. He said that staff's presentation did not mention
that the hillside was designed with the intent to preserve any new development on the hillside and
to stopgap the diocese. Mr. Lichtman presented a copy of Chanter 19.112 which regulates
changes,repair or maintenance or replacement of the property. The intent of the regulation was to
apply to.new land to be built,not to apply to homes already occupied. He questioned the benefit
to'residents living in their homes now.
h
Mr. Jim A11en, 22111 Lindy Lane, stated that the mailing had referred to Exhibit A which was
not included in tate mailing. He expressed fivstration at the vagueness of the information provided
and because of it was unsure of his recommendation. He suggested that more time should have
been allowed for the property owners to study the issue before the issue was agendized.
} 'vu:John Knopp, 21925 Lindy Lane, said he was uncertain whether the rezoning would affect his
property, but that.at some future date he planned on subdividing his property to two lots and
building. He reported that it was the third time that his property has been subject to proposed
rezoning,with no clear reason.
Mr. :Neal :Wooley, appeared to represent his parents'who reside at 11593 Upland Way. He
questioned what effect the rezoning would have on permits in process. Mr.Jung responded that it
would not affect permits in,process. Ms. Worded stated that if the building permit Was not issued
prior.to adoption of the rezoning, the property would'be affected unless there was specific
pipeline provision. Mr. Wooley requested a continuance to allow more time to research ithe
information.
Mr. Gary Stokes, 21724 Regnart Court, stated that the proposed rezoning wou;d create an entire
community.of almost totally nonconforming uses. He stated his opposition to the proposal. He
said the community has existed for 25 years under the current zoning and did not understand why
the proposal was being considered to create a subdivision.of nonconforming uses. He said he i
interpreted Mr. Kilian's comments to mean that the rezoning would take place,in order to be in
compliance with the General Flan, regardless of how the property owners felt. Mr. Stokes
j suggested that the General Pian be r•viscd.
3
Mr. Stokes read the purpose of the proposal which stated it was to protect and preserve the natural
and scenic resources while promoting a development type and pattern that was less intrusive': on
the hillside environment. He said that while it was an admirable goal, he felt it did not apply te`
the Candyrock subdivision where he resided. The subdivision was built 25 years ago and no ` a
Y
i t
4
W - 1
i.
Planning Commission Minutes
v November 27, 1995
further development will occur. Mr. Stokes said he needed clarification of the word`replaced".
He cited the problems encountered by the residents of Oakland Hills after tate tires and spending
up to five years trying to replace their homes lost in the fire. Chairman Doyle suggested that Mr.
Stokes communicate with staff for clarification.
Mr. Stokes referred to Item 3 Residential Hillside Zone. He reviewed the objectives of the
rezoning as outlined in the staff report, stating that.the those listed did not pertain to the
Candyrock subdivision.
Mr. Stokes questioned if a property owner had a 10,000 square foot lot with a 21,000 square foot
r minimum designation;if the structure was tom down, could he rebuild on the lot. in response to
Mr. Stokes' question, Mr. Jung stated that if the structure was torn down, the property owner
would be subject to the new zoning regulations; the setbacks would be different. Mr. Jung said
'that most of the lots fronting on Lindy'Lane were flat lots with the exception of the backyards.
Mi. Stokes stated his objections to the findings as contained in the resolution, pointing out that
they did not pertain to the Candyrock subdivision.
Ms: Lynn Faust, 11033 Carryon Vista Drive, `stated that her home'was not part of the proposed
rezoning; however, it was located 20 feet outside the RHS closest to Ricardo Road. She
questioned why certain properties did not have numbers attached to the RHS because it is viewed
by the Planning Department as suitable for subdivision and suitable for clustered housing,to avoid
the minimum lot size. She said that the Rancho Deep Cliff residents would also be concerned
about that kind of housing.
Mi.Jung clarified clustered housing. He said for the purposes of hillside properties, it is refer
to as a clustered subdivision,that the development of the properly be limited in the general area of
#' the property. The General Plan specifies that ina clustered subdivision it is.5 or more lots, that
y' the development be clustered on 10%of the property, 'and that 90% of the property be reserved
for open space or b&sically non development activities.
AM
z Mr. Meinrad HanggL 22090 Lindy Lane, stated that he spent approximately $10,000 on legal
s fees before when rezoning was presented in the past. Referring to the proposed zoning map, he
questioned what RHS-21S meant. Mr. Jung explained that the proposA zoning is residential
hillside and the proposed lot size for subdivision purposes would be a 3 acre minimum. Mr.
Hanggi stated that his property is 2.5 acres and not built on it yet. N.:. !ung explained that Mr.
I-lani has 2 legal lots and a can build a house on each lot;the 218 applies to future subdivisions
gg
and'has a requirement of 5 acre minimum. Chairman Doyle suggested that staff work with Mr.
Hanggi on the specific issues he was addressing. Ms. Wordell explained that if it was a
substandard vacant lot the requirement would be to get an exception to build on a substandard,lot
which is a public hearing process. Mr. Hanggi expressed his frustration regarding the issue.
Mr. Kilian explained that none .of the actions involve legal nonconforming uses; legal
s nonconforming uses is when you change one use to another. All the uses are residential uses and
therefore a change from an R1 to an RHS does not change the use or make a use that existed ti
before,nonconforming. What is being discussed is nonconforming buildings or facilities. In that
situation a nonconforming facility is one that violates_a new standard. If you have a 10,000
square foot lot and there is a rezoning to a 20,000 foot minimum and you have a house on it, that
does not intrude into anew setback rule,then you do nc*have a nonconforming facility;you have
a conforming facility;it is only,when a new rule impinges upon your house.
- :r3r,... Mc^,• -.9 F,. � -;:.t ,A ..;::. ±y,' :rF,eta �„ -�` y.$ '�Fi kph f,$,•b :;., e .:: S i x is rs ,+ 151. �t4<u'- '
:, 4 ,�'. , ,:.}�," , t'>"`T1 a` .:xz� .f'v: I Y .� ak -s;..t v� '•p �"`•' t.,+''�'�° �:�r
e y:. � ;v 3ra l.�yn!>(�'!t,�aSn 6v;`4,`e'2yk.. .�;rr,rt{''�} .k +�+' �'' y$ •"1' ,Yy 4n�%�?pl��"�+ :�..= ::i•}hf��iaazr;:;i
.,.
.. '�✓
'-t r
$s , t•.,p ,,
ti
i 1� + , .r�`',,p$✓'Y�tP i i. i rrT7 � r '<r-N �.`roc; i,7Y-,i !S �.�{�. i " :
fit
? Planrting`Contrnission Minutes 10 November 21;1995
Mr.Kilian cited an example of a house with aside yard,setback of 5 feet and undts the new RIS
it is now 10 feet, and the house goes to'S feet under the existing R1 zone, it is a nonconforming
facility. If it burns down,the owner is permitted to replace it exactly as it is. If it is torn down,it
can't 19e rebuilt into the setback, you have to'rebuild onfomung to the new.regulation. When
talking about nonconforming uses,it is about nonconforming structure and most of the structures
are conforming. Mr. Kilian explained that it meant that any new development, new additions or
remodeling must conform to the new rules unless*.e home builds down or is destroyed by an "
earthquake which has a special rule that you can build it.exactly as it was.
Chairman Doyle said that it was important that everyone have the correct information an their
specific situations.
Mr. Peter Panelli, 21685 Regnart Road. stated that he has lived in his home for 25.years. He
expressed concern about potential buyers purchasing a nonconforming lot. He questioned why the
k Regnart Canyon tract was singled out for rezoning especially since there are homes around Linda
Vista and Terrabelfa which are sloped and are not included in the rezoning.
MS. Wordell explained that when the General Plan v.ms revised in 1993 the edge was not changed;
it was,the same edge for hillside designations that existed since the 1983 General Plan; the
difference is the zoning approach taken. Previously rezoning was done when new development
took place. When new development was proposed, if it required rezoning, then that was the thrie
the rezoning was viggered. The City made a decision to take the initiative in the rezoning and it
has been accomplished area by area,speeding up the process of rezoning.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
MOTION: Com. i lm-ris moved that the item be continued to the January 22, 1995 meeting
which would be preceded by a meeting of the affected parties with a 10 day,
notice to the.affectedparties.
SECOND: Com.Roberts
ABSENT: Coms.Austin and Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 3-M
Com. Harris said she felt Cupertino was fortunate to have a small town environment which allows
time to work with the community and not just abide by the minimal legal requirement for a. 72
hour notice. She requested staff set up a meeting and provide all the affected people with"a 10
day notice of that meeting and give a basic laymen's explanation of the meaning of this to the
people. The property owners/residents should have a packet in advance to allow them to read
through it and be prepared to ask questions, and that individuals be able to contact City staff'to
find out what this means to each individual property. She pointed out that the rezoning of land is
serious business and the creating of improvements that are nonconforming is serious business, and
the Planning Commission and staff's job isto help everyone understand what is happening and
allow people to be able to speak on an issue. She said there was not time allowed for that tonigbt;
the Parks and Recreation Commission is good about holding community meetings.on issues that
affect the community. Developers are asked to go forth and work with the community and the
same model needs to be followed for the rezoning.
Mr.Kilian clarified that staff will hold the meetings with the 10 day notice.
Y
1
�{"" =M, a ,'ix_` q�.°' ?•"' n1°".:. n,�,r`"1, r-a+`+2 i.va. '13_s{.`i ° kv,._ ..r.'nr.�. ss/
i
i
'� . t r f^.t 1ti_< w,<��,r.n '�''. .s` �`y,'fas C3� '!C. p..xF r '>i x ably,+.x,:ra,t•..i�`yi�.Pg'Pv�,t+ n. +R�Y
1. �r f1(t `+^r 1 Kr: j1-` s'-r 1' �q�.a 1 i "1 itt � t7". ty _ �Ar 1 r r t"+ �• a i'i'�'r 7(s � `� ,4,y'j' k,�r ,{�Yl 7+�..;,.
1 Plaretiitg Cammissioti Minutes 1 t November 27;1994
t.,
Coni.Roberts concurred with Com. Harris' position. He stated that it has been 2 years since the
General Plan adoption to initiate the action and there is no reason why it has to be finished this .
i month. He said he felt public interest would best be served to meet with the public and let them
know and understand the impacts.
Chairman Doyle stated that a workshop should be held explaining how the General Plan process
works. He clarified that it should be a community meeting with notification going to the affected
property owners.
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 9 p.m. Upon reconvening, the same members,were
present.
3. Application No.(s): RHS Zoning and Definitions Ordinance Amendments and
31-EA-95.
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.40,Residential Hillside(RHS)zones of the Cupertino
s Municipal Code related to exception finding,house size,grading quantity and other
subjects to be determined by the Planning Commission. Amendment to Chapter 19.08
Definitions)of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to definition of basement.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 2, 1996.
Staff prntation: Using an overhead, Ms.'.Wordell:reviewed the needed amendments to the
hillside ordinance which include lot size, site grading, second story setbacks, exception findings
and definition of basement. The areas proposed for change are described in detail in the attached
staff report.
In response to a question from Com. Roberts, Ms. Wordell said that clustering is required for
major subdivisions and encouraged for minor subdivisions. She stated first the language was
included in the General Plan and the hillside'subdivision ordinance. Following a brief discussion
wherein staffanswered questions, Com. Roberts- recommended the clustering of small
stibeivisions be included in the RHS zoning and definitions. -
R4
Com. Harris stated that she did not agree that small subdivisions should be clustered; stating that
Inge subdivisions should be,clustered to provide a large amount of undeveloped acreage, but
n small subdivisions might be aesthetically better not intensely developed all in one location. She
said she was not sure whether she was in*favor of the concept. Ms. Wordell stated it was in the
General Plan,but the subdivision would still be reviewed, and there was the ability to say you did
or didn't like what was proposed.
Com. Roberts stated he was pleased to see how the basement provision turned out. He said he
:. was guzzled about how the slope density was corrected. He referred to the staff'report, first page
above discussion, "describe how to calculate ....6500 sq. ft. building size" stating that it was his
understanding we went through the Upland Rd application mid decided the opposite. .
5=
1111, lfll 110 1 11 IN
llii''ili!ll SRI, 11
4
I
4 F
Sl�+,✓). i+� ;,� w"F. "`. °_.y?l s1- -"'S.✓ +.; .� ;t57Py pw .�,°. �tsi d.b. .t.a �,rrr fl" ` r,t`.,r�� }1,$z rytif
r
�39f .i .;.�`{ fi Y � k�L•1fi•4vt�'4.�..t,9.. ��vL.. +�s,� x.6't'4i \r���1�i�S t 1 .:hS L /.✓ KZ�F. ibrR� S � .�, +(.+}.. 9 5
�V'l 7v� x h_Y a.. y t y,�.{, .1a-r 13 4 1 t t3 � rj t i c mfr s' �'�{� � s".3"1+a`� 5�+ ✓�.� µ �7` �rS, z:f.#r ,
�•,. �`� 3 t -'r 1 1 : 7 f`� { .. t � '- 4 as�"t r��'� � "k�
Plan
'�_ • g Contmrsston'R4inutdes t 2 -
li
t_.
rlovemt�cr 27. l�r
1
Ms..Wordell said it may be a semantic,and if clear,the lot size is calculated and in this case it isQF i
greater than 6,500 square feet; the larger number is used before reducing it. She stated that the
ordinance is written as such.
A discussion ensued regarding the definition of basement, referring to the overhead of the current
and alternative definitions of basement.
Com.Roberts stated'that the question is whether o:not the basement floor area counts in the floor
area of the house. The illustration indicates the basement floor area doesn't count in the house as
long as it doesn't stick above the ground more than two feet anywhere, and if it sticks above the
ground anywhere as in the illustration above, then it does count in the building floor area and it
would count as a grading quantity also. 'Once the grade is more than 2 feet below theceiling of
the room,it is no longer a basement.
;., Com. Harris suggested that three examples be shown illustrating the definition of basement.
Com. Roberts stated that he felt the bottom illustration on Page 3-16 qualifies as a easement.
Mr. Kilian noted typographical errors in the ordinance, Page 2 of the ordinance, 19.4'0.140 (A)
insert the word "lot" after "hillside" at the end of the first line. Item 6) Page 3-6of ordinance,
"Policies 249" should read"Policy 2-49". Com. Harris noted that"insure"in Item(7); Page 3-6
should read"ensure'.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input:
,d t
?, Mr.Tom Horsley, 10798 Willowbrook Way, stated that he agreed that the definition of basement
was confusing and a third example would be beneficial.'
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
Com. Harris requested that a change be made in 19,40,140 (A), line 4, "shall" be changed to
"may". Com.Harris explained that if the ordinance says"shall"the staff can administratively take
4 care of things and if it says"may"it allows the Planning Commission ta,do the job to which they
have been assigned. Mr. Kilian explained that the word"may"allows the Planning Commission
y to.make decisions that are not contained in the ordinance for other reasonsand that lvesents
problems when there is an undefined"may." Com. Harris.commended counsel on the outstanding
job creating the findings and removing the findings that were specifically vague. The findings
that allowed the Planning Commission to do what they wanted wem removed and the reality is
that if these findings are met,the Planning Commission will make the change. `Com. Hams stated
she could not vote in favor of it with the word"shall"in the text.
Mr. Kilian stated that if"may"is used, it would mean that there are other findings that will justify
a decision and that wasn't the intent. Com. Roberts said that the use of the word"shall"left roam
.for judgment. Corn. Harris stated that the word "shall" takes away the fiunction of the Planning
Commission,and she stated she felt that a responsible Planning Commission will read these things
and if they meet the 13 criteria then they will approve it. It is an exception, and if someone comes
forward with an exception, it has already been defined as an exception and this says the Planning
Commissionmay if these conditions are met, fnz it.
f
ti
-
� •z - 1. x +4 •� ��Y)�'t�_3 .F�% �7 j xs; �i ..1, j a, �,$+ h�
soy�� ,fi *"11�� 1s�ijt rrG a" v �` aq
ds
il�r•�,. .. M1 ,k9'c 2n> `Sr>t i+ ?~ 4 r,.t. F ,. '
i
I 3 S k. Y r y, rib R 4 "t
h
!
C i 7 )O(h. 1 Jk`•} '35tr`.{
P180II111$Commtssaon Minutes 13 NOvlbrd 29,)1995'
Mr .Kiliani continued that the City becomes involved in a legal morass and that morass ts`�vYre�a
person.is denied the right,to build, when he meets all the criteria, either the Council or the '
4 Planning Commission decides there'are too marry houses on the,hill, or such, and the property
owner is not allowed reasonable use of his property,so the word"may"allows for that possibility;
but that;doesn't mean the Planning Commission isn't trying to do its job; it means that if the .
Planning Commission does what it conceives to be its job,a csurt may do another job on the City
that it considers to be its job. Com. Harris said there are always opportunities where people will
try to test the law. Corn. Roberts asked if using "shall" instead of"may„ do we transfer the
burden of proof from the applicant to the City and the Planning Commission in doing that. Mr.
Kilian responded that the burden was stir' on the applicant to prove that the conditions have been
fulfilled.•
Com. Harris said another issue had to do with prioritizing some of the items and she felt that the
items should be prioritized.
Discussion continued regarding the definition of basement. Mr. Kilian suggested defining
basement as "a room or portion of a room which is fully submerged below grade except that a
basement may have no more than 2 feet between grade and ceiling at any elevation.
Com. Hams suggested leaving the definition as written, using examples of what does and doesn't
count;some examples of intent.
Following a lengthy discussion, there was consensus to.continue the definition of basement for
V two weeks to the December 12 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to continue Application 31-EA-95 to the December 12, 1995
Planning Commission meeting
SECOND: Chairman Doyle
ABSENT: Corns.Austin cnd Mahoney
NOS: Com. Roberts
VOTE:. Passed 2-1-0
4. Application No.(s): Planned Devqlopment and Tree Removal Ordinance
Amendments and 30-EA-95
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
1
Amendments to Chapter 19.48 regarding procedure for modification of a definitive
development plan in a Planned Development Zone,and Chapter 14.18 regarding tree
'y removal procedure.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 2, 1996.
Staff presentation: Using an overhead, Ms. Wordell reviewed the amendment3 pertaining to tree
removal procedures. She clarified .the three categories of tree protection as outlined in the
attached staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of removal of one-third of the
tree limbs. Ms. Wardell stated that it would be a judgment call, and a specific definition was not
being proposed for it. Mr. Kilian suggested that removal of a certain size limb be specified as"no
y
q
jA
r z y,,�.. F.�ay ,� ♦ 1 � � r� ii„ i*��- *.� ��♦♦�,�,c sh, s .Fz,'r:� 4tia q:; 5 of�"� �? �� u`�``t'�ri e ��
I!I
:.�b4�7fi�'.,};yL'� f�"':'aSt. �5"q Eair.�:+' -+. "h- ^`wC"�,G.r''... d �„y'YY � vim♦ k Y4>"+i f'�^.s :r -.y, pw Y 1
,i..<.l y, 'Y'!,!...;YyS1 .74,�9ti.SfS'-i�.��N:`•. 9Y .v`a� 1'i'�`. �+-:}�i-.- tFa u}�'k y.Nu�yr'$ ,t�+ty��..�n4 fir` �rrl`�1t. aFJlr.-k •..e a �J�-." �•�ry:.� �Yn" 'xJr'�r'L'"
Pwlfiing'Cssion dinettes is Ivov ober 27 I93S
greater that[..." He stated that there were actual cases where people were sawing down trees,and
under the existing ordinance they could not be prosecuted until the entire tree was cut down-
Com. Roberts questioned why oaks were the only trees being protected. Ms. Wordell responded
that oaks were considered the most important trees to be preserved. A discussion followed
regarding the definitions as outlined on Page 4-7 of the ordinance.
Com. Roberta stated that he favored protecting native trees subject to the definitions 1, 2 and 3 ..''
contained in the ordinance. Com. Harris statzd that the definition should include other than oak "
trees, but she felt not every tree with a 10 inch or more diameter was worthy of saving. It was
suggested that a list be compiled of non-native and native trees.
Chairman Doyle proposed that specimen trees are all native trees. Com. Harris suggested adding
oak, bay, and ash trees to the list of trees to be preserved. Chairman Doyle suggested adding
redwood trees.
Com.Harris suggested raising the penalty for unlawful tree removal.
Chairmeq Doyle opened thi public input portion of the public hearing.
Mr. Torre Horsley, 10798 Willowbrook Way, stated that he was in favor of protecting as many
trees as possible and preferred the previock definition. He suggested using the services of a
horticultt..tre advisor from the Cooperative Extension University of California as it would be an
unbiased opinion relative to the preservation of trees,diseased trees and the like.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
There was consensus to change wording on Page 4-7, 14.18.040, delete "Upon recommendation
by the Di.-Yector," and change "the" to "The". The change would allow other avenues for
designation of a tree or trees as heritage trees.
Chairman Doyle questioned if any staff reviewed the heritage trees in Cupertino in the last two
years to see if a fence was put around the heiitage trees. Com. Harris suggested adding die
inspection of heritage trees as Item b)in Section 14.18.030.
Discussion continued regarding.he ordinance on tree removal proredures, wherein staff answered
? Commissioners'questions.
MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to continue the application pertaining to amendments to the
tree removal ordinance to the December 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting
SECOND: Com. Harris
ABSENT: Corns. Austin and Mahoney
DOTE Passed 3-0-0
r ,
OLD BUSINESS: None
i
NEW BUSINESS: None'
r
1 i
' t
�. ;:�" ,[: ..�rs '�.��:``s� ��'V ^ice � x+, 0.".'-Ez^�.� �?Ct"„x , ` "", �� � -R� Y ka '�+Y � a�.;' �� � M,��i,�*r ,�t•i
x;r�� inf' ' `'ta3,} �, a-?..y ,sr t :r.af t� i,x"..y,w•.,;, ,y...ms xByS.. `,r:a,""'",. ' ,�r .� 5.,
?� y?
f ..'� > -.cr 'v -�'7 :J' r + ♦ r } t llr a3• US;h ?t.;,r ✓.i�': fbr ijan/' 33a .^;. i rrA".. jj+' i
' �, ;t 1'laIIrttIIg COm1II1S31aII is � j . ��OVeffi�f�.,��s�"� 4F;
� r x
REPORT OF TId PLANNING COMMISSION:
Com Harris reported t:rat Sirens restaurant had 3 illegal temporary pager banner signs at the'site
which have been on the site since the opening: She requested that the plamer,working with them
contact Sirens to advise them of the ordinance an the subject and inform there of the temporary,
s permit required for a temporary sign and that the banner signs they have are inappropriate.
Com. Roberts reported that his term as Planning Commission representative on the Enviroi[ne�
Review Committee for the past two years.is up and would like to agendize.the position for a
future meeting..Com.Hams volunteered to serve in the position.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None
k DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
l
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m,to the regular Planning
Commission Meeting on Monday,December 11, 1995.
Respectfully Submitted,
El` Ellis
® Recording Secretary
Amended Minutes Approved.- December 11, 1995
i
`I
1,
2
y. rFrc '?. ' .ig'R i :drl�n��o.�i}a �dl`t+�.�.�".��• .1 �� ��A.Y-.Y}4 N4 f F�i Y ,F F�� �e� ,� 7y1 y33'�A..«y� ky,s`.
'f
�'4 hs:1SJ'!.11.i 14 ki.0 ,. 15.+h? Yj��,,r?tY�'���t �},SRaP'(' ����SU''7.'�t9r' :"I K.r`� .Yd�YM`�';Yt} k �,`P;:� 11iN�„�'.5't! .. .:', .it :t',�a5�.. sy�.4stlt �},Yx _'fir S4t.,t;p" .3•p. �,!-.-_1'v 'P..
,,jj;; S' ",k END
'j417nkhx'(?n hry k
1l,,rtir�c'
"P7
CI' Y OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino;CA 95014
(408)777-3308.
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 11,1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE;TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Austin,Harris,Mahoney,Chairman Doyle.
a Commissioners absent: Roberts.
!, Staff present: Robert Cowan,Community Development Coordinator,Ciddy
Wordell,City Planner;Michele Bjumm-ul,Planner II and Colin
Jung,Associate Planner.
APPROVAL!OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the November 27, 1993 meeting: I
Com.Harris requested the following corrections to the November 27 minutes:
Page 6, last line: Delete: "that it be deleted."
Page 10,second line of motion should read:"which would be preceded by a meeting of the
affected parties with a 10 day notice to the affected parties."
i
Page 10, second line of the paragraph following the motion: Delete"abide by the legal"and
insert"just abide by the minimal legal".
Page l2, third paragraph from bottom, line 6: Delete"staff'and itkzert"counsel".
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to approve the minutes of the November 27, 1995 meeting as
amended.
SECOND: Chair.Doyle
•ABSTAIN: Corns.Austin and Mahoney
ABSENT: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 2-0-2
?; WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:None
3.
r{
c,
xx" °'Y'-�'t'%' �,•`. , �''��J F,�a$��pdi,a�^`f y ti g�sr F'^ 4,�ry.;�t `,'^'` , a<• .0 S
OT
.f s7,� a ,;,:. a ..y�. „'tin .:r,y f y,� ,� r i.,i ;: E t.. ;.-'`4 �sj 1,'.-Y..
x ,: ,r �+ u { U,., i ..Z r. dy°%nFz.� '+' -
' •fit r`4,'its.t h, 3^ 't 'y r,4 0f.7y'p l t.. a is I (r 2 i,(+ 44 t 4 �� u s R
y A..,. �y ;.t..:t? � .s. , ♦ 4v t, ,?i<^; w"G.!v f ,u T+#Y- ' ✓'• Yx r�p*ii
a >e4r fit^ rat 4.. {S, J s .: r # rhsSii,
ti�k aR� l�#',(.1{ati�Y, � K a� ' � ✓.;s'4Y i ': I! ir,:r�7; V"s, a t t ' 1."�yv t.: �rx F�n,��11'fTi i'n�y3Cx fy ;. f
' ; YS Ya '" � �+ > l k f - r r" ,r o y 1°;-its{At, G✓"�.:,�9 "1+,1, "
.P'laniringCoimriissionMdinu z Debor`1'4! 1993
POSTPONEMIEMWREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
f, 2. . Application No.: I 1-U-95
Applicant: Cupertino DeOro Club
Property Owner: Cupertino DeOro Club
Location: 20441 Homestead Road
Use Permit to add a 580 square foot serving area to an existing club building.
-
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Ekempt �
n" PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JAN. $, 1996.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to continue Application 11-U-95 to the January 8, 1996 _
Planning Commission meeting.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Cam. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-"
3: Application No: RHS Zoning and Definitions Ordinance Amendments and
31-EA-95 .
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Ask
Amendments to Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside(RHS)zones of the Cupertino Municipal Code
related to exception findings, house size, grading quantity and other subjects to be determined by
the Planning Commission. Amendment to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions)of the Cupertino Municipal
Code related to definition of basement.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: February 20, 1996
CONTINUE®FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEET,
OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22,
1996.
�? M01110N: Com.Harris moved to continue Item 3 to the Jan.22, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney -
v ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
7
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:None"
,f
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Application No.(s): 5-U-74(Mod.)
Applicant: ' Siemens Cbmponents
Property Owner: Same
Location:
19000 Homestead Road
-4 c ��r .�. �.:. w.'��s kik *� a � � N, awl' -_:f '�' b✓<:�; �� k r ,w;*^"���,. S�y}
a
ykt9Psr# >� 4 J fti y e rr rl � str �+°Sy
'
es 4 v
Planning Commission Nn ute 3 December 141 5,
Revicw-;nd recommendation from the Plaaning Commission fro the Directors approval of a minor
project modification to add 955 sq.ft-to an existing office building.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff`�rescntation: Referring to an overhead of the site plan, Director of Community Development
Cowan briefly reviewed the
!� Y background of the neon as outlined in the attached staff report.
In response to a question from Com.Harris rrgaling the site size,Mr. Cowan stated that the gross
size was.287,000 square feet.
Com. Barris asked Mr. Cowan to comment on the concept of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and why
certain FARs aTM 0signathd for property. Mr. Cowan explained that the primary impetus for the
FAR is to controi inteiwity, primarily related to traffic. He stated the other issue relates to the
physical mass of the building which is more an issue with residential than office and industrial.
Other tools in the General Plan control the massing that the height of th.e buildings is controlled by.
In response to a question from Com:Harris, Mr. Cowan stated that the cafe patio,is semi-enclosed
outdoor area.
Chairm*an Doyle opened the meeting for public input. As there was none, Chairman Doyle
closedthe public input portion.
Com. Harris stated that she did +. oppose the 955 square foot addition to the office building.
She stated however that she was opposed to approving the addition looking at the amenity space
3' which.'is the cafeteria, lounge, and fitness center and enclosed patio totaling 7351 feet w;nich is
7.4%of the existing building and claiming that it is not used in detfmn ning FAR, Com. Harris
said she felt that FAR has as much to do-with physical massing and visual impact as with traffic,
'and by making a.precedent setting determination to call this amenity space, it would then allow an
addition of 7351 square feet to the building which is already Mly developed on the.site, thereby
increasing the FAR to over 35%. She stated that it appeared that the.building was already in
r excess of the.33 FAR.
Com: Harris stated she would approve the 955 square foot addition as an exception, but did not
want to go on record as approving it because the practice would now be to go through buildings
and take portions of them and say they are not part of the building, indicating that there was 7351
square feet more available for developing or,this site.
}
Mr. Cowan commented that it was a dilemma that there was -no real mechanism for such an
exception,stating it is a General Plan policy. He explained that an exception cannot be granted; a
"no" vote is acceptable, or a statement of concern about-the application and policy, and request
more information.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle,Mr. Cowan stated that the rule has been applied to
at least'20 buildings.
ti
e
. ,
'MIN
}Y7'75.� ^y w ,.i'#h!' rT"sx cwj',,;�.4 +wrrYv �. -� p�.S -i;*;'•T .�'�' +a ,F' ,! x z `ta:. fa, .�.
r x Y,k rri CtiG+{rs.1ct ,,7 '� r•aTa de x Ft. �s r 1 -v' 4e:. t htw } -fi r w c Sok ,�1r>' £ 3.. $ ,� r E r•''t}'•;!'. t `15}.
� �ft��
x
aJs
1
Planning Commission"Minutes 4 Docernber i 1, 1495
Cam.Mahoney combentcd that lv;:Felt it was applicable to exclude the amenity space and noted it
was;a policy that was being followed. He said he was in.favor of approving the acidiiion.
x Com.Austin concurred with Coon.Mahoney.
Chairman Doyle concurred with Coms.Austin and Maloney.
y MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve Application 5-U-74
SECOND: Com.Austin
NOS: Com.Harris
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passu 3-1-0
'
4. Application Nols): Planned Development and Tree Removal Ordinance
Amendments and 30-EA-95
'r Applicant: City.of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.48 regarding procedures for modification of a definitive;development
plan in a Planned Development Zone,and Chapter 14.18 regarding tree removal procedure.
ENVIRONMENTAL.DETERMWATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 15, 1995
CONTINUED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995
Staff pmentation: City Planner Wordell reviewed the background of the iterr, as outlined in the
attached staff report and reviewed the tree ordumnce.
In response to questions from Com. Austin„Ms.Wordell stated that trimming the tops of trees was
permitted. She said that the Planning Commission has the ability to require replacement of trees
when a building permit is approved and trees will need to be removed. Ms. Wordell said that it
a was staff recommendation to specify oak trees for protection. She said that the tree experts
recommended bay and redwood trees for protection if other trees were to be protected.
In response to Com. Harris's question, Ms. Wordell stated that ash trees were not recommended
for protection. Com.Harris expressed concern about not having any restrictions on the removal of
the'ash trees on Stevens Creek Boulevard which were planned through.the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Plan. Ms.Wordell explained that their removal for people modifying their landscaping
plans would be through the discretionary review. Ms. Wordell stated that the cedar trees on the
DeAnza College property were not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Wordell explained that nothing was protected under single family residential lots except oak
trees, so the gan is any nonresidential property that wouldn't have a use permit with a landscaping
plan. Discussion continued regarding the ordinance relating to the tree removal procedure wherein
Ms.Wordell answered questions.
Ms. .Wordell explained that the trees on the Hcwiett Packard property were covered by the
approved landscaping plan. Com. Harris expressed concern about the unapproved protects on
undeveloped land.
.�^• i f .#3 �5 � � 3y Srtab h .� o d`""s' l..,, fl _- `* Y„r '�� { R {li.
d
r^ I
'r ry;.,..F .., a -,` a?la`*3'+,ti` kvM `tfar'��. P ,,;.•
AA r A^Ce
Planning Conmission Minutes s Deaynber 11, 1995
Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public input: As there was none, the public input
portion was closed.
Chairman Doyle summarized the issues: 1Utiliza6on of correct wording; types of trees protected;
size of the tre--'s; annual review of heritage trees•' trimming restrictions and streamlining of the
app ov-1 process.
Com.Austin said she felt the types of trees to be protected should be spelled out,oak being prime,
and include redwoods,bay and cedar. She stated that she approved of the option including any tree
that meets the criteria. Com.Austin said she approved of annual review of heritage tiv9s;'taimming
restrictions, (noting that removal of one-third of a true was excessive); and strearrilining smff and
Planning Commission approval.
s
Com. Mahoney concurred with Com. Austin,stating that the.trees should remain broadly defined;
r
annual review of heritage trees ,acceptable; trete trimming of one third is acceptable; and
streamlining acceptable.
Com. Harris concurred with Com. Austin, recommending the language in 14.18:010, Item I,
} remain as is; and the language in 14.18.140, Item D remain as is. She stated that adriing public
utility actions to Item D was acceptable. She stated she felt trimming of one-third was excessive,
and that 25%was more appropriate.
Chairman Doyle stated that all tree types were acceptable. He said that because some of the
4 redwoods are quick growling, (noting that a 10 inch redwood isn't significant size), it may become
an issuer Chairman Doyle said annual review of heritage trees should be done; tree trimming of
one third was acceptable; and streamlining was acceptable.
Ms.Wordell explained that consultant Barry Coate stated that anything in excess of one-third tree
trimming was excessive and destroys the tree. Following a brief discussion, there was consensus
from the Planning Commissioners that 25% tree trimming was more appropriate than orae-third.
Chairman Doyle summarized that the tree trimming be modified to 25%; addition of the annual
review of heritage trees; and streamlining was acceptable.
Ms. Wordell explained.that the amendment was to clarify Section D which was to be reinstated.
She requested that it be amended before presentation to City Council in order to avoid
k
misinterpretation. hent D will retain the wording "Heritage trees.or specimen oak trees.” There
was.consensus that the reference to developed W-eas should remain in the text. .
MOTION: Com.Austin-moved to grant a Negative Declaration.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
ABSENT: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-"
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the ordinance as amended
SECOND: Com:Harris
ABSENT: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-M
1
}
1r. ;� _....hF ,rs�<�, t r e`8��fi� •� � � °��r"� 4� '`'�',+ Y ra S'1 n:; _x 0.^" r}S t }� '� r.E t• •Y w
/9
f
:r
i�. „� ,* 54, " � t.r' o^xr ,. .-�t'srt n s� �imtF�' .l`atj r, re r. S /� �`' F� (� 1k J't.'�jYK�f &t wr t,r�,�k •ct� �fY :,�'<`,:
Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 11. 1995 ;
5. Application No.: 14-U-95,8-TM-95, 11-Z-95 and 32-EA-95
Applicant: Peninsula 7
Properly Owner:. Same
Location: Peninsula Avenue
Use Permit to construct 7 residential units and one second unit on a .7 acre parcel in a Planned
Development Zone.
Tentative map to subdivide a.7 acre parcel into seven lots. Zoning a.7 acre parcel to P(Res. 4.4-
7.7 dwelling units per gross acre)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 2, 1996
t
a, staff nresentatian: The video presentation reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the
attached staff report. The presentation indicated that the Planning Commission would be
s discussing the following considerations: (1) Whetleer or not the combination of noise from the
traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard and the noise and ground shaking from the railroad could be
adequately mitigated; (2)Whether the Monta Vista design guidelines previously developed by the
City had been adequately applied to the design of the project; and (3) Whether the proposed
setback and site relationships are acceptable given the severe triangular shape of the parcel. Staff
recommends approval of the application which includes adoption of a Negative Declaration,
rezening to a planned residential development, approval of the use permit with changes to Lots 6
and 7 and approval of the tentative map. e
} Referring to an overhead of the location map, Associate Planner Jung reviewed the applicant's
proposal of a small lot,single family residential development with the majority of the units oriented
toward Peninsula Avenue. '
Because of the narrowness of the lots, the orientation of the lots
appears to be sideways,particularly on lots 6 and 7. In addition,the proposal for lot 7 is to put a
"granny"unit near the northerly tip of the lot.
7 Mr. Jung noted that no feasible mitigation has been proposed for the train noise, and because the
noise levels on Stevens Creek Boulevard exceed the General Plan noise standards,a,sound.wall has
been proposed along Stevens Creek Boulevard as.well as a portion of the property line that it
shares with the commercial building on one side.
Mr.Jung discussed the attached Table A: Comparative Development Statistics for Four Small-Lot
Single-Family Projects, which included the Citation, Summerhill and Classic Communities
i
projects.
Referring to the computer-generated architectural renderings, Mr.Jung explained that the southern
portion of the property was subject to the Morita Vista design guidelines which states the design
consistency of a portion of the project withthe types of development presently in the Monta Vista
T community.
Mr. Jung reviewed the setback and site relationships as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Jung I
explained that staff is recommending a Negative Declaration, approval of the project according to
the model resolution with further work that nods to be completed on Units 6 and 7, as well as the
r
porches,
J
�1. ao ,:;�4 ,r i . ,ara�"s^uv�,yR•:��w`��y,;:ir�y� .�:�,, ��.;y� y��,Y+,�,y,��'c:r ,`�}'fv �,,"v
T
Y
'� >i `: Yt L',t✓+a�' re.,."P f�" �.�i i nt-.2` � F F ' t11)r;��'{Jf d
s
Phinnirrg/COrrurilssion Minute.4 ! �eCQTibc7 l I, 19'9S
AMMA
In response to a question frnan Com. Harris, Mr. Jung stated that if the proposal is zoned as a
planned development.the Planning Commission will retain control over the architectural features.
h He stated that the lot in question could not be developed under an.RI standard because of the
severe configuration of the lot.
Referring to the computer generated drawings,Mr.Jung illustrated the proposed porch elm=ts of
the units. Mr.Jung explained that the unit I which.is closest to Stevens Creek Boulevard, should
have air conditioning or some forced air mechanical ventilation with double glazed windows. He
pointed out that the drawings were conceptual:-awings,and the architectural review could be done
separately,which is staffs recommendation.
Mr. Cowan stated that the intent was to have the prospective drawings for a more accurate
sy depiction of the proposal.
Mr. Dick Childress, 12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, (President of Debcor Corporation)
ft
addressed the Planning Commission and reviewed the proposal. He explained that when the
,was first considered in 1989, tl�e property was zoned commercial neighborhood, and an
project
4 option eras using railroad cars for a restaurant. It was not a viable project at the time and was
scrapped. He said studies continued for a potential project so that the area could be transformed
from the Pansightly area it had become. He reported that the neighbors were in favor of
development of the site in keeping with the design of Monta Vista. Mr. Childress pointed out that
he was open to making the design changes suggested by staff.
Chairman Doylc owed the meeting for public input
n Ms. Anna Anger, resi,;ent, stated that she.was in favor of the proposal submitted by the applicant
for the site in Monta Vista. She referred to the Citizens' Goals Ccmmittce in 1970, which
specified one story buildings for Monta Vista,keeping the village-like atmosphere. In 1980 a two
story office building was built. Ms. Anger stated that she was not in favor of the enclosed porches
as proposed.
Mr.Childress stated that the proposal presented was the best use of the property because its design
provided a better streetscape for the public to view, rattier than attempting to create mini cul de
sacs.
6 Chairmikn Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting.
i
Mr. Jung used a slide.photo presentat_on of the Summerhill and Coventry developments to
illustrate design similarities to the proposed project. The slide presentation also included
illustrations of older established areas in the community. Discussion continued wherein Mr. Jung
answered Commissioners'questions.
Chairman Doyle summarized the issues as the noise,design guidelines,setbacks,and zoning.
Com. Harris gated that there was a need in the community.for the housing development. She
AmbL pointed out that the noise along Stevens Creek.presented a problem and recommend!that Unit 1
have mitigation in terms of air conditioning. Com. Harris said that the once daily train noise was
not as severe as some other developments requiring ventilation in all the units. Lots 6 and 7 need
zPlan 'n-
Planning
ning Commission Minutes s December 11, 1R4�
to be rWaiW becarse of setbacks. She stated that she did not consider the design of the units
attractive and did not neoessarily agree with staff that the siding should all be horizontal. Com.
Harris stated she would like to see vaziati= in the siding, and deeper second story setbacks to
detract from the boxy look of the units. More attention should be given to the window and
doorway trims,aM the architectural treaMvmts of the backs and sides of the first two units which
are seen from Stevens CrockBoulevard. cont. Harris said she was opposed to the six foot
masonry wall running 13 feet along Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said the Monta Vista design
s guidelines should be applied to the entire project. Corn. Harris sununarized that she approved of
the Environmental Impact,the zoning change and the subdivision, but did not approve of the use
permit at this time.
Com. Mahoney stated that he did not perceive the train noise as being a problem and the potential.
ts would make the choice knowing about the noise along Stevens Creek
buyers for the uni
Boulevard. He said he concurred with staff on increasing sttbaeks. He said he approved of the
wall along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Cam. Mahoney agreed on the design by reducing the brick
and stone and said he would not stipulate to all horizontal siding on the units. He staled he was in
favor of an architectural review.
Cam. Austin remnmended double pane glass and air conditioning to combat the noise. She said
she approved of they masonry wall and suggested planting ivy or similar vegetation to soften the
look of the wall. She said she was in favor of the 15 foot setbacks for the second story as
recommended by stat& and the open porch concept, with a variety,of appeaninces. Com. Austin
reiterated that the Monta Vista design guidelines should be ad}r:,rc9d to. Com. Austin expressed
concern that the floor area ratios(FAIL)was high.
qW
Com.Mahoney concurred that the FAR was high. Com.Harris agreed that the FAR was high,but
didn't recommend reducing the house sizes.
Chairman Doyle said he was pleased with the proposed development as a welcome change from the
unkempt area. He stated the train noise has been addressed by staff, and will part of the
disclosure to the buyer. He suggested the noise from Stcw-ns Creek be abated through windows
and air conditioning,but said he was opposed to the masonry fence.along Stevens Creek Boulevard
and suggested it would be appropriate to soften the look. He concurred that the Monta Vista
deli guidelines should 'be adhered to. Staff recommendations pertaining to setback^. are
gn' ty appropriate for the.
a appropriate. Referring to the FARs, he concurred that the higher density was app p
type of units in the proposal.
In response to a question from Cam.Harris regarding setbacks,Mr. Jung clarified that the wording
of the resolution was very specific rclating.to the setbacks from the edge of the sidewalk. Mr.
Jung stated he did not have a problem with second story setbacks on the other lots because of the
greater first story setbacks,set back between 10 to 15 feet for the first story. He explained that the
second floor plan does have more offsets fo.those houses than they do for lots 6 and 7.
ffs
In response to Chairman Doyle'.s question, Mr. Cowan explained the options available. He y
explained one option would be to approve the use permit with design criteria+that is locked in and
return with architectural details. He stated the second option would be to continue the use permit
and tentative map. Mr. Cowan clarified that the Planning Commission could move ahead with the
zoning,
r �.
r -0
1
-..,JYr•r5< °rK�'"S r.N.;M'C 1 ! F tlr, �r r ia
"+ �, S f r� 1 1 - • __ " :�-.C1 F "t:.r"ii,r'� Ji! }`1F� vvSV"-.T yy�t^�1"r {
r
Plamaing Corrranission Minutes s December 11,19So5
T '
MOTION: Corn.Farris moved to approve the Negative Declaration on Application
32-EA-95 according to the model resolutions.
SECOND: Coin.Austin
ABSENT: Coen.Roberta
VOTE: Passed 44)-0
MOTION: Com.Harris to approve the zoning on Application i I-Z-95.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to continue Application 14-U-95 and 8-TM-95 to the
Planning Commission meeting of January ll, 1996,pending review basred
onthe
architectural discussion held.
` SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Roberts ;
VO'L'E: Passed 4-0-0
COLD BUSINESS,
6. -.Consideration of West Valley Hillsides Joint Planning Review Draft Strategy Outline.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT.
Staff r n ti n: 'Michelle Bjunnan, Planner II, reviewed the background of the item and the
draft work program as outlined m. the attached staff report. Ms. Bjurman reviewer the sixr. proposed strategies and stated that staff was requesting input on the adoption of the six strategies
and confirmation on the implementation goals set forth in the strategies.
In response to Com. Mahoney question about Strawgy No. 2, Ms. Bjurman stated that what staff
is looking at in the whole program is the unincorporated area currently .in the county, trying to i
establish an area outside the urban service area and within the county jurisdiction to essentially
stipulate no further growth. Ms. Worded reported that there has been talk, paMcularl y in San
Jose,to try•.to get some permanent boundaries,to prevent constant growth. It would be up to each
city to set the guidelines.
Mr. Cowan clarified that Cupertino's General Plan is very specific,
and pointed out that the
Planning Commission and City Council made. it clear they are not interested in any more urban
expansion beyond existing urban service area boundary.
Discussion continued wherein staff answered Commissiorers'questions.
Mr. Cowan clarified that the urban service area is a five year,growth,l ne, in which growth is '
expected to occur within a five year period mad;reviewed annually. The sphere of influence or the
bourAmy agreement area is the:.total county divided into spheres for each city. Cupertirio's sphere
reaches out to Skyline Boulevard.
In response to a question from Com. Austin, Ms. Bjurman stated that Los Altos was not involves
primarily because during the General Plan adoption they weren't included in the original policy
r because they didn't have any hillside'.
IJVtM
wion
k�„'' t ?jk. ?fs '.�'�,✓..4'Y�#.' �r ��'�U,.r p '�.:ta �.5'}i±�i' .h .txr fx` 4t..K t f� �",x.Ri xn y..'ca'±7`j, '� '�,,y i_r. �' r.� ra ',� n..�jL.ctrl.-ami !�'�SP ca t
'.5 ;j 1, 7 � },?•.'� Lid 1574"`,ti j.+r f¢ ',S?�s k � ;.� k...a e;� r �+7 af Y.1... r a r f M 6 i< r �. r 11 ?i �1 'f `�i h x2{! C .Ja"I-`k�xt�Y �i]'whrny°C.y..�r�'t
Ms.:.BJunnan stated that both the County Plattrmrtg
and Monte Sereno reem
approval of the strategy outline on their Consent calendars without discussion.
Folla^xeng a brief discussion about the g(,W of the Pf*ct,Chairman Royle 3uggeat¢xI that the goal
reflea,implementatio n of the four General Plan strategies. Mr. Cowan expo that the goal of
the project was initiated by Councilman .Stab°, who was succenfnl in getting the policy
incorporated into the General Plan. He said the main a xmr is to define a way to ensure that
nu
both the county and individual jurisdictions will.maintain the present policy. Our General Plan
advocates the development of a Joint Powers Ag�ament(JPA) in which the respective cities and
.
County would give up its authority to a certain area of town and the JPA would have the authority:
Chairman Doyle expressed concern that since Cupertino r s a community has indicated)the vision of
has invested time in defningt the vision
the hillsides for the future, City'Council and o�aunity
and are trying to implenm t it; it was imperative that there'be a strong. clear and direct linkage
;+ when communicating the proposal to the other municipalities. He said citing the General Plan
directly would be a step in the right direction.
Ms. Bjunman responded that it was being accomplisbed ugh the joint meetings and well carry
the linkage over.
. In response W Com. Harris' question, Ms. Bjunmman stated that staff was rcquesting the Planning
Commission's endorsement of the adoption of the strategy outline.
i. MOTION: Can.Mahoney moved to adopt the strategy as outlined in the draft work
program.
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 44)-0
r NEW BUSINESS
7. Selection of representative to the EnvironmmW Review Committee.
Chairman Doyle explained that since Com. Roberts had served an the Environmental Review
Committee for two years and because he was going to be serving as Planning Comrrcission
Chairman for 1996. a replacement was needed for the Environmental Re✓few Committee.
r MOTION: It was in
ovod by Chairman Doyle that Com.Harris be nominated to serve as the
representative to the Environmental Review Committee for 1996.
SECOND: Com.Austin
ABSENT: Com.Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-"
rr Com.Austin requested that the nomination for a representative to serve on the Affordable I;ousiag
;i.
Committee for 1996 be agendized for the next Planning Commission meeting.
%z
k'
N �
,�*"'�4'�"i"�"�.r$"��s°t�*.����r "�R x 4���',�' � y l'r,;, ;`7 °'� T'�. ,�z .�� ,. � '�. .� ,aSSx'4 ',�.� �3•? ,, �!�r! '�< �4P'
��':.' 1 W :.,.,�{,��,.rtl�i �w,.��. G�x�c:lc; -x7A'�a ;,. <ti� { :+„a' �j 's�.!Lr x�. �,a.,ir• .� '.0 -a, z"{" ,x"+E� tr �.�fifi. � .r..«r r+� ..an a � .��
1 �::,� '�vly f 14 tic-- { •.� �b , ; i'-t".3 p' t r.'q '"� tYy y S' _`�1 Tf..a y -7...� .P �.� 7
�� �'.r;, a i ;t.Y} "t�i v 5 iatt.,,X4{1 # , t� 5�, �}�s'��F��� f �.4`ir ° r c '.i CJ t r �£' t i ,,; �` c{t��✓'i. a++ �t� � `t�"�� ts.
Platuiia�g t;aisimissi0ak Mrnin�C3 3'� � °t� ll�erlabtar]l,y'1�95 "'
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COIMSSION
Com: Harris questioned the status of die Sifens',Umporery°sign ism which was discussed at the
previous Planning C =dssicm rrre t. ms. Wm" respon&d dw�Cade Enforcemta�i was
working on the violation relative to the now sign. She said the banner had been removed. .
REPORT OF THE DIREC'T'OR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Alone
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Alone
AD30UTtNMENT: 7be meting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.to the regular Planning
Commission M.-eft on Monday,January 8, 1996.
Respe(fully Submitted,
E' Ellis
Recording Secretary
Approval of Amended Minutes: January 9, 1996 .
c�
Aft
W1 di
ti ..
;y
Y