PC 08-12-96CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Ave
Cuperfmo, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 12, 1996
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Austin, Doyle, Hams, Mahoney and Chairman Roberts.
Staffpmsent:
Robert Cowan, Community Development Director; Ciddy
Wordell, City Planner; Bert Viskovich, Director of Public
Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Eileen Murray, Deputy
Counsel.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 22, 1996 Regular Meeting:
Com. Austin stated that on Page 5, Paragraph 4, the comments regarding the restaurant operation did not
accurately reflect the statement she made. The following modification to the paragraph was made: Delete
the sentence "She predicted that a restaurant would not be successful at that location." and insert "Com.
Austin said that it would be difficult for a restaurant such as Fontana's to be successful because of the
unsuitable parking situation."
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the July 22, 1996 minutes as amended.
Com. Harris
Chair Roberts
Passed 4-0-1
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Roberts noted written communication from Paula
Theiss regarding the Exxon Station.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
Item 5: Application No.: 4-U-76 (Mod.), Cellular One, 10655 Mar,/Avenue
Request continuance to Planning ComnUssion Meeting of August 14, 1996
Item 6: ApplicationNo.(s): 13-U-94 and 17-EA-96, CafeWraps, 10745 South DeAnzaBoulevard
Request continuance to Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 1996
Item 7: Application No.: 12-U-96, KidQuest, 10675 South DeAnza Boulevard
Request continuance to Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 1996
plamung Commission Minutes 2 August 12, 1996
Item 8:
Item 9:
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Application No.(s): 10-U-96 and 16-EA-96, Unocal Servine Station, 20755 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Request continuance to Planning Commission Meeting of September 9, 1996
Application No.{s): 3-GPA-96, CRV of ~u~ertino. 22371 Cut~ertino Road
Request continuance to Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 1996
Com. Austin moved to postpone Items 5, 6, 7 and 9 to the August 14, 1996
Planning Commission meeting; and Item 8 to the September 9, 1996 Planning
Commission mee~ng.
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
ORAL COMMIYNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Ma. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, explained that Itenm 1 and 2 would be discussed together as they both
pertained to the parking issue.
1. Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
4-U-85 (Mod.) Amend Use Permit for Restaurant
Cupertino Village Associa~
Cupertino Village Associates
Southwest corner of Wolfe Road and Homered Road
Use Permit Modification to meet parking requingments for about 67,000 sq. R. of general
retail space and 1,160 restaurant seals in an existing shopping center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
2-U-76 (Mod.)
Cupertino Village Associates
Tandem Computers
West side of Wolfe Road at Pruneridgu Avenue
Use Permit Modification to meet parking requirements of an existing shopping center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Ex~mpt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff resentation: Ms. Wordell explained that the purpose of the application was to create a
shared parking plan between Cupertino Village I (CVI) and Cupertino Village II (CVI~. Referring
to an a~rial map, Ms. Wordell illust~_t~ the ar~ occupied by CVI and CVII 'with the
restaurant/bar and shared parking area. She reviewed the proposed shared parking agreement as
outlined in tbe ~naehed staff report. Ms. Wordell discossed the Shared Parking Analysis Charts
for CVI and CVII and eaplained how the parking deficit would be mitigated, as outlined in the
Planning Commission Minute~ ~ Augu~ 12, 1996
Ms. Wordell stated that staff recommended approval of the reciprocal parking agreement according
to the conditions outlined in the model resolution.
In response to Com. Harris' question, I~. Wordell stated that there was no provision to allow for
credit to Bank of the West for drive-thrns. Discussion continued wherein Ms. Wordell answered
Commissioners' questions.
Mr. Ernest Picone, Tandem Computers, said that the applicant concurred with the staff report. He
clarified that there is no credit for the drivcqhrus relative to the Bank of the West and said he felt
drivc-thrus were antiquated and not fully utilized in present day. He explained that the .Bank of
the West lease entitled them to that facility and Tandem was unable to do anything until the
expiration of the lease or the bank otherwise departed. Mr. Picone pointed out that when the Bank
of the West's lease expired or if they agreed to do away with the drive-thins, they would be
convem:d to the 23 parking stalls. He note~l that the lease expired in April 1997, with a five year
option to renew.
Chairman Roberts opened the heating for public comment. There was no one who wished to
speak.
Com. Austin stated she concurred with staff's recommendation. She said because of the parking
flexibility it would have to be conditioned with thc agreement with thc Duke of Edinburgh
restaurant and sbe said she would like to see an agreement with thc Bank of the West regardiess of
what they do. She said she was in favor of the application with thc shared parking agreement
condition.
Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Coordlnatnr, clarified that there would be a
reciprocal agreement between the two known as CVI and CVII. Referring to thc site map, he
illustrated that thc parking pool was large enough and said he did not anticipate a problem with
parking because of the large pool of parking between the two properties. He noted that a similar
agreement was reached with the Oaks Shopping Center.
Com. Doyle said that he was opposed to the proposal, stating that he felt it was similar to treating
some subdivisions with a parking deficiency and trying to find ways to resolve it by coming up
with the Bank of the West 23 spaces that might be changed in 2-3 years or possibly 8-10 years.
Com. Mahoney said that he approved of the proposal, however, not as firmly at~r being informed
that the Bank of the West lease expiration was 7 years away. He said he was familiar with the
parking situation and felt there was not presently a problem in that particular area.
Mr. Cowan pointed out that the objective was to provide more flexibility for the larger shopping
center to provide more restaurant spaces for a more appealing appearance. Responding to Com.
Maboney's question, he stated that the other side of Pruneridge would be absorbed into a housing
development, which would be presented to the Planning Commission sometime in September.
Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the proposal, and that she would like to see more full
parking lots in Cupertino. She said she felt Cupertino's regulations were too resuictive. Com.
Hams said she felt that the chart did not clearly differeptiate, the uses relative to day and evening
and 5% of 600 spaces was a small percentage. She said she was not in favor of asking the Bank of
PlallIlillg C0mrai~i0u ~nUt~ 4 A.~lgllgt 12, 1996
the West to convert thc 23 sp~-c~ in lieu of drive-thrus, and pointed out that drive-thrus were
convenient and climmated thc need to park.
Com. Hams said she was unclear about Condition No. 1 in the resolution "No new full bars or
lounges without restaurants are allowed". She suggestexi thru the wording be added "unless a
conditional use permit is approved", or remove the sentence entirely. She also expressed concern
about the wording "the existing or similar bar on CFll shall be in operation for this approval to
be in effect." Com. Harris questioned what would happen if the bar went out of business? Ms.
Wordell responded that the use permit would have to be revisited.
Chairman Roberts said fxom his point of view, CVI is so large that possibly the surplus of parking
would be on the other side, 100 yards away from CVI and it might not work out. He noted that
thc size made it a little less difficult to come to terms with. He said that although the deficit is
small, he was not convinced that there would bca surplus in CVI that would he accessible to
people who want to use the one access to the building on CVII in a convenient manner. Chair
Roberts said that he was doubtful the parking arrangements would work out and until more details
were known to prove otherwise, he was opposed to the proposal.
MOTION:
SECOND:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Applications 2-U-76 (M) and 2-U-66 (M) (Items 1
and 2 combined) according to thc model resolutions, with Com. Harris' suggested
changes incorpo~t~
Com Mahoncy
Chair Roberts and Com. Doyle
Passed 3-2-0
Mr. Cowun not~l that the decision was final, unless appealed within 14 calendar days.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner.
Location:
9-U-96 and 13-EA-96
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Same
Stevens Creek Boulevard/Vista Lane
Use Permit to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a new 11,900 sq. ff. fire
station adjacent to the old station.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TI~NTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996
CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22, 1996
Staff orcsentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a usc permit to demolish
the existing commercial structure and construct a new 11,000 squnre foot fire station. The issues
re~naining to be discussed include thc revision to thc tower and roof design. Additional design
changes that have been made since thc plans were reviewed by thc Planning Commission on July
Sth include a trellis, a new location of the parking area gates, and a curved entrance. Thc Planning
Commission will also confirm that they want two conditions of approval add_eel in the model
resolution: a reference to a masonry wail ir~t,~cl of a wooden wall on the property lines, and
deletion of a sentence regarding construction noise standards. Staff recommends approval of thc
new fire station.
Planning Commi~ion Minutes 5 August 12, 1996
Mr. Glen l~aner, Robinson, Mills & Williams, architect, displayed architectural drawings
illustratin~ the west elevations, elevation details and the landscape site plan. A scale model of the
proposed facility was also displayed. Mr. Bauer said his presentation wOUld focus on the items in
the proposed design that were changed and evolved since the last Planning Commission meeting
He explained that the intent in making the revisions was to amve at a cohesive, integrated project.
He said that the architects were concerned in ~tidressing each of the items to arrive at a wise choice
aa the building would be in existence for a long time. He pointed out that the goals of the project
remain the same; there were many functional issues to add~as in the working of a fire station and
they were concerned about the project because of its location aa well ns its importance to the
community that it has a strong presence and make a positive contribution to the visual landscape
along Stevens Creek Blvd.
Mr. Bauer addressed the issue of the roof modifications. He explained that the "reverse shed"
element of the roof had be~a e 'luninated so that the eave line of the roof meets the walls in a
conventional manner. He pointed out that when the modification was matin, it was felt that the
overall strength and presence oftbe building was diminished; therefore to increase the scale of the
building, conunensurate with its lo~atlon and civic importance, the main roof was designed to be
more cohesive to incorporate the entry aa well. The radiused end of the building '~turns the
comer" well and presents an interesting elevation on Vista Drive as well as Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Mr. Bauer explain~l that the proposal is for a standing seam metal roof in a gray-
green color which is related to both nearby residential and commercial buildings, and is a material
suggested in the Heart of the City Plan.
Mr. Bauer explained that the tower has been shortened to 38 feet and integrated into the form of
the roof and moved back from the Stevens Creek facade, reducing its apparent height because less
of the tower is exposed above the roof. The proposed materials arc cement plaster with metal
accent strips, which relate to thc window wall. The perforated metal has been
Mr. Bauer clarified that the wall along Stevens Creek Boulevard enclosed an outdoor courtyard for
the use of the firefighters and is intended to be more of a building wall, not a fence. The wall is
constructed of the same materials as the building, incorporates a window wail and contains
translucent glass. He illustrated that the wall was topped with a trellis, which would provide
shade.
Mr. Bauer discussed the perimeter wall along thc backside of the site which is for sound
attenuation purposes as well as security.
Referring to the landscaping plan, Mr. Boer discussed the proposed landscaping plan as outlined in
his I~tter to the Planning Commission dated August 6, 1996.
Referring to the elevation drawings and the desigu model, Mr. Boer answered question~ regardin~
the roof line and the color scheme. He explained that the 8 foot height was selected because of the
noise report, relative to the line of sight studies on the noise sources on the sight and the nearby
condominiums. '
Chairman Roberts thanked the applicant and architect for the positive response to the Planning
Commissioners' questions and concerns.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment.
Planning Commission. Minutea 6 Augu~ i2, 1996
Mr. Ray Eddy indi,--text that he no longer wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Renald Jacobi, 20182 Joseph Circle, said that he supported the revised design. He expressed
concern about the height oftbe perimeter wall, recommending that the height be increased to 10
feet, rather than a height of 6 feet. He explained that the residences bordering on the back of the
property are raised above the vacant lot level and some are 3 feet above the vacant lot level. In
order to make use of the full S feet of the wall, the fence would have to be at least 2 feet higher.
Ms. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oakway, commeMed the fire district and the architect for
responding carefully and generously to the questions from the neighbors and the Planning
Commission. Ms. Smith quoted the mission ~*t~,ment of the Central Fire District "Our mission is
to protect l~ves and property from the hn~nrds of fire, disasters and emergencies which threaten
public health and safe~y." She said that it was the purpose of the firefighters to can'y out the
mission and she felt it was important that they be able to respond with the consummate skill and
professional excellence they have had in her years of experience with them. She said that their
living quarters were inadequate and needed repair. Ms. Smith stressed the importance of not
having any construction delays in the project so that the firefighters would be able to respond to
any emergencies. She noted that 80% of the calls are for medical emergencies and she commended
the fire district for their prompt respoase to calls. Ms. Smith reiterated the need for the
construction of the new fire station and expressed concern that the design not be restricted so as to
interfere with the mission of the fire district.
Mr. Robert West, 20232 Joseph Circle, thanked the Fire Chief for the excellent effort put forth and
also thanked the Planning Commission for their support. He said he was pleased with the
improvement in the design. He expressed concern that the southeast comer of the propert~t was
approximately 5 feet higher than the northwest corner, which is an indication that the lot slopes.
He asked that consideration be given to raising the north wall to 10 feet for the purpose of
protecting line of sight, panicolarly in the evening when the fire equipment is returning to the
station. He said he felt an 8 foot wall in the eastern end of the property did not provide as much
protection to the homes immediately north of the property.
Mr. Bauer commented on the feasibility, of the 10 foot wall, stating that the fire district was not
opposed to a 10 foot wall. He said he felt it was not a design issue, and the reason it was at 8 feet
was an asithmefie one, that through the noise study and sound analysis it was deemed necessary in
order to mitigate what was happening on the site. Mr. Bauer said that it was the architect's
opinion that a 10 foot wall would not provide any additional protection other than psychological.
Com. Austin complimented the Planning Commission on the work accomplished at the previous
meeting and commended the new design. She said she was in favor of the 10 foot high wall to
accommodate the neighbors.
Com. Doyle said that the 10 foot wall was appropriate and that it should be screened from the
neighbors. He said he was still opposed to the fort-look appearance on the front side where the
entire area is surrounded by an 8 foot wall. He suggested keeping the wall toward the front to a
minimum. Com. Doyle ~t,vl that the tower and roofline were improved and the front glass
enU'y~vay added a pleasing style.
pI~nnlug Commission Minutes 7 August 12, 1996
Com. Mahoney commended the changes and said he approved of the changes. He said that relative
to the fence height and because of the slope difference, he recommended that the staff address the
issue to ensure that the fence did not end up too high on one side. He said he did not feel the ~nce
should be 10 f~'t high.
Mr. Cowan clarified that thc typical mcthnd is to express thc desire to have the fence 10 feet high
from the highest finished grade. He pointed out tha~ there wa~ a vacant lot between the fire station
and the neighbors and when the development is built, it will be sound barrier. A lengthy
discussion followed regarding the fence height.
Com. Harris said she was pleased with the proposal and was in favor of the proposal. She stated
that she was opposed to the 10 foot wall. She pointed out that if the neighbors were adjacent to it,
then it would be an issue, but with the proposed development, it could have small back yard
setbacks with the towering ten foot wall. She said she could visualize adjusting the wall along the
back to make up for the grading difference, but in the end should he an effective 8 feet on the
residential side.
Chairman R~bert~ said it was a strong design and will be a credit to the City. He said he was
sensitive to the neighbors' concern about the noise and the light, especially those who lived in the
second story. He said he supported the 10 foot high fence because he felt the headlamps firom the
fire tracks would shine in the residents' windows.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to grant the N ~egmive Declaration on Application
13 -EA-96
Com. Mahoncy
Pa~sed 5-0-0
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to approve Application 9-U-96 with the 10 foot wall on
the north side
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
11-U-96, 2-Z-83 (Mod.) and 18-EA-96
Symantec
Cupertino City Center Aparm~ent H, by Sunset Ridge Development
Lot 5 of Traet 7953 Cupertino City Center
Use Permit/Planned Development Rezonmg/Amendment to Hea~ of City Specific Plan
to allow construction of 141,000 sq. R. corporate headquarters office building plus 4
levels of underground parking for Symantec Corp. on 1.29 acres.
ENVIRONMENTAL D~, 1 ERMINATION: Ne~tive Declar'ation Recommended
-I'ENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: Septcml~r 3, 1996
St~ff ~resentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to construct a 141,000 square
foot office building plus 3 levels of underground parking in the Crossroads Town Center area for
the Symantec Corporation corporate h~dquarters building. It was pointed out that the application
involves three applications: (1) an amendment to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Specific Plan, (2) an
amendment of a zoning application, and (3) a Use Permit application. In 1995 Apple Computer
?~mning Commission Minutes a August 12, 1996
Inc. was eligible to construct a 141,000 sq. ft. office building on the site and presented prelip~innry
plans to the pInnning Commission and City Council. The window of opportunity for Apple
Computer has since expired and Symantec has applied to construct a building on the site. Staff
and the firm of Freeman, Tung and BotWmlcy have reviewed the plans. Other topics for discussion
include modif3dng Cuportmo's master zoning plan for thc Crossroads Town Center area, recreation
space, parking, design and waffic. Nearby devclopmonts currently under construction in the area
are a 120 unit apartment complex which would be lo,-~tnl directly to the cast of thc Symantec
project and the Classic Communities project consisting of 24 single family homes farther east on
Torre Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the request for the 4 story corporate headquarters
building. A recommendation of approval or denial from the Planning Commission will be
forwarded to thc City Council for a final decision.
Mr. Cowan referred to overheads of the County assessor's map, excerpts fxom the C~neral Plan,
various elevations, parking spaces, etc., and discussed several aspects of the proposal as outlined
Mr. Bert Viscovich, Director of Public Works, reported that a tm~c analysis was conducted based
on a general cone~t of a systemwide approach. He explained that each time a Specific Plan is
submitted, an analysis has to be made to assure that the City is current with thc General Plan
projections, and to make certain thc particular project can sustnin thc tra~c conditions at hand at
that time. He pointed out that staff is utili~irtg what the Congestion Management Agency has
developed for ail the cities, which is to take a project, and go out from thzt project W determine the
scope of analysis to the point where the pwject has a ten cars per lane approach impact. Anything
less would not make a change to the intersection. The analysis takes you from what is existing,
what is backgrouncL, and places the project on top of that hnd then looks into the future based on
growth that will occur.
Com. Harris refcn'ed to Page 26 of the staff report relative to thc uaffic impact of the proposed
project. She questioned the reason that 1300 of thc trips would be counted as non-peak. Mr.
Viscovich responded that it included lunch hour trips, delivery trips, and salespeople departing and
arriving. A brief discussion ensued regarding level of service calculations. Chairman Roberts
noted that the peak hours were listed in thc ~por/at 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6.p.m. Mr. Viscevich
clarified that the City uses a one hour peak period of 7 to 8 a.m. and 5 to 6 p.m. He indi~t~i the
report would bc modified to include the correct peak hours.
Mr. Cowan surarmuized that staff recommended approval of the change in the Specific Plan to
~placo Apple Computer with Symantec, approval of the 1983 zoning amendment to ~flect the
headquarters building, as well as other conditions which deal with the treatment of the corner park
and the Stevens Creek Boulevard strectseapo, and thc approval of the Use Permit per the conditions
of approval. Mr. Cowan noted that it still had to be determined how to treat thc expanded
landscape plan as it moves toward thc bank and how to replace those parking spaces. He said that
if parkiag was replac_~_ with landscaping, there would have to be more parking in thc underground
paddng area.
A discussion ensued migtrcling floor area ratio and building setbacks wherein Mr. Cowan answered
Commissioners' questious and stated that the project architect would also address the issues.
Com. Harris requested clarification on the parking agreement for the 167 spaces. Mr. Cowan
responded that Symantec has an agreement with thc other users to provide a number of parking
planning Commission Minutes 9 August 12, 1996
spaces and will honor that by virtue of not only providing space for their own building but also for
at least 167 other users that they have agreeraent with.
Mr. Gordon Shihan, Worldwide Opemtious, Symantec, 10201 Tone Avenue, stated thai a packet
of information and background material on Symantec was dislxibuted to the Planning
Commissioners and staff.
Mr. Shihan provided a brief history of Symantec relative to the Cupertino location. Symantec
began operating in the Tone Avenue facility in 1983 and has since taken over the entire 3 story
complex of 87,000 sq. ff., and has also moved into City Center I. The organi?~tlon is looking to
expand the current existing Cupertino facilities which would allow growth and secure the
or~ni~tion in the Cupertino area. He said it was Symantec's goal to be model citizens as it
relaxes to Cupertino, and the campus-like setting is being designed to unite the Tone Avenue
building with City Center V to make a statement and be part oft. he community. Mr. Shihan said
that in his worldwide travels it is known that Hewlett-Packard, Tandem and Apple Computers
dominate Cupertino and Symantec would like to be a part of that image also. He commended the
City staff'for the time and effort in working with them on the project.
Mr. Bill Ballantine, architect, ~_~t_~l that they authored the 1983 Master Plan and have been
working on the site for quite some time. He explained that thc proposed facility was the first of its
kind in the area to have all the parking below grade and not visible. Referring to the scale medel of
the facih'ty, Mr. Ballantine illustrated the garden area.
Mr. Ballantine explained that the development of the L-shaped building would allow for an open
garden area protected from the sueet, and that the building would be a good neighbor for the
proposed housing development. Referring to the scale model of the facility, Mr. Ballantine
discussed the design of thc building, illustrating the two story entrance, the streetscape, the
location of the loading dock, the color scheme of the building, and the flow of traffic.
In re, spouse to Commissioners' questioas, Mr. Ballantine referred to the scale model, and illustrated
the lo~miun of the shuttle elevator and the visitor parking area. He explained the use of the
loading dock, pointing out that the vehicles would back up into the loading bay which is located
inside the building. Mr. Shihan clarified that furniture, oomputer equipment, and sometimes
software would be unloaded on a daily basis; however, it was not a distribution center. He noted
that the uash and recycling receptacles would be located inside the loading dock also.
Referring to the scale model, Mr. Ballantine explained how the proposed plan complies with the 50
to I00 foot segmentation guideline. He also explained the function of the streetscape. Mr.
Ballantine reported that it was their goal to promote more sidewalk and street trees to create a
pleasant area for walking and relaxing.
A discussion eusued regarding the loading dock design and location. Mr. Ballantine indicated that
it was the only feasible location for the lc~ding dock and illusWated the path that the trucks would
take into thc interior of thc loading dock. He pointed out that the trucks would back inW the
opening and continue into the building where it would unload and then drive out. He said that the
apartment dwellers were 40 feet away fxom the loading are~ In respouse to Com. Austin's
ques'tion, Mr. Ballantine said that he did not believe it would be permissible to have the loading
dock off DeAnza Boulevard.
Commission Minutes 1o August 12, 1996
Chairman Roberts ~drlressed the aWn~on given to thc northwest comer of thc building, and asked
the architect if the southwest comer of thc building could be rounded off?. Mr. Ballantine
responded th~ it could be done, but that it was more functional for the offices to be rectangular in
that area and that thc wtmded comers were amenable for the mU),. Hc said it was their goal that
thc building be a quiet building and not forms competing with each other. In responsc to a
question f~om Com. Harris, he stated that the set backs wcre 10 feet.
Chairman Roberts requested that the architect provide a 3-D visualization of the entire City Center
area including the Twin Towers.
Com. Austin expressed concern about the location of the I,~rllng dock and its proximity to the
apartment complex. She said she could envision the apartment residents complaining about thc
hours of operation.
Mr. Cowan stated that the owner of the apartment site was also the owner of thc site for the
proposed Symantec facility and was aware oftbe location of the loading dock.
A discussion followed regarding thc type and color of the. glass used in thc proposed building. Mr.
Ballantine explained that the green glass was chosen because of physics - it lets in thc most light
and keeps out the most heat. He said one of their goals was to reduce energy consumption in the
building and green glass was the most effective. He pointed out that a gray or bronze tinted glass
would be too dark. Com. Harris commented that the green glass c _re~_tO a very striking effect to
the observer on the street. Mr. Ballantine said that be was open to a more detailed discussion
about thc choice of thc glass.
In response to Com. Harris' questious about number of employees, Mr. Shihan explained that the
Tone Avenue facility housed 320 employees, and there were approximately 200 employees in the
72,000 sq. fl. City Center I facility. He said it was their intention to use thc new facility for
expansion pusposes to allow growth in Cupertino, as there was no vacant space in City Ccnter I.
He said that the new facility would house between 400 to 500 employees, which would make the
total in Cupertino about 1,000 employees.
Mr. Shihan explained that Symantec grows in three ways: (1) It develops its own products
internally; (2) it achieves strategic alliance with outside pastners; and (3) it expands through
acquisitions (Peter Norton as an example). Mr. Shihan said that he must anticipate growth and if
there is an acquisition, be wants to bring them into Cupertino, and presently there is no space
available. He pointed out that the design of the building would be conducive to subleasing if
necessary until there was a need for more space. The large size building would afford Symantec
the ability to grow in size, and set roots in the community. In response to Commissioners'
questions, he said that they would not be generating sales tax in Cupertino as they go through
distribution to retail stores. He said that child care facilities have not yet been considered for the
Cupertino loe~fion, although the Eugene. Oregon facilities have child can: facilities. Mr. Shihan
emphasizcdthc importance of thc Cupertino site to strive to create thc campus atmosphere and its
ability to connect to the Torte Avenue one.
Chairman Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one who wished to
-- speak.
~ Pl:~,ming Commissien Minutes Ii August 12, 1996
Com. Doyle questioned how thc park requhr~,,~nt would relge to thc design of thc proposed
facilities. Mr. Cowan explained that thc activity that generates park demand arc housing
developments and the owners have the option of taking advantage of a park credit. He noted that in
this case the 99 unit apartment building and tbe 120 aparUnent building have gotten credit for the
amphitheater space which is already built.
Com. Doyle questioned the reforence in Resolution No. 2-Z-g3 to 4 levels of underground parking
for Symantec. Mr. Cowan explained th~ thc plans illustrate 3 levels of parking and in order to
take advantage oftbe landscaping space on thc lot to the south, Symantec would be permitted to
go down 4 levels. He pointed out that if the plan was approved that shows thc landscaping on the
existing Lincoln property site, the condition would call for thc parking spaces displaced on the
Lincoln site to be ,a,~ed to thc parking spaces on the proposed site. Referring to the view foil, Mr.
Cowan illusUated the Lincoln site which Symantec currently leasos; the landscaping plan in the
packet proposes that this particular portion of the sorthce parking for Lincoln be incoqmra~t into
the landscaping plan so that there wouM be approximately 40 space~ displaced. Mr. Cowan said
that if thc planning Commission wanted to approve the plan, there would be a stipulation that the
displ~_¢_~_ parking be added tn this particular building, which would call for a 4 level parkln~
structure as opposed to 3 levels.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the use of anderg~ound parking areas. Mr. Cowan pointed out
that people seem reticent to park in underground garages, but iftbere was no other place to park, it
would be ~filiTed.
In response to Com. Harris' question relative to the geologic seismic hnT~rd section noted in the
Environmental Impact Report, Mr. Cowan explained that be~,,~e of the magnitude of the building,
at the time of construction it would have to go through a much more vigorous exercise. However,
he noted tl~t there was no impact area involved and commented that it might have been indicated in
error.
Chairman Roberts summaxized thc issues for discussion: building orientation that is formed; the
effectiveness of the stepping; other aesthetic elements such as color, whether or not the lmtrance
treatment is appropriate; the loading dock; landscaping plan; 4 story parking; issue of the General
Plan relative to what constitutes a major Cupertino co~oration (whether the 1,500 employees was
thought of as being 1,500 in Cupertino or 1,500 worldwide); and the relationship to the adjacent
apartment complex, including the shadowing.
Com. Harris stated that she concurred with the consultant that the long look of thc building needed
to be broken up; she felt it was very "blocky" and not aesthetically pleasing. She said she felt the
setbacks of 10 feet should be deeper; the intent of the concept of stepping a building back that is so
massive was to make it look set back and 10 feet did not accomplish that. She suggested a
rounded appearance rather than block. Com. Harris said she did not feel the original intent of the
General Plan was to include Symantec particularly because of its worldwide employees but rather
the idea was to look at ',he extra.50,000 ~ for companies who were already invested in Cupertino
in the area of 1,500 employees. She said the landscaping was appealing and she liked the extra
area they developed. Com. Hams commended the fact they set back pan of the building to be
attractive to the apartment complex. She said the loading docks were a cuncem of the consultants
and would have to be tl~lt~ with. She suggested the applicant work with staff to suit the
consultant.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 12, I996
Com. Hams said that the Planning Commission approved a 10-20 year look at Hewlett-Packard
with a peripheral development agreement, which was a development agreement with two sides. It
spelled out what Hewlett-Packard would build and such, and they would he charged certain fees.
She said she felt that the 1983 let'tgr that the City has is a development agreement written 13 years
ago, and to look at it now and say that was 13 years ago; it has 200,000 less sq. ff. at this
intersection with more open space, and gradually the open space is turning into developed parcels
closer to the streets. The text feral* that things should he set back, the developed space should he
on rig internal par of tho town center, that the parks close to the street should be open. She said it
is not the case. There is no plan; the City is now 200,000 feet into that plan, in addition there is
790,000 square feet instead of 583,000. Com. Harris said that she was opposed to it; she did not
want it and felt the residents didn't want it and would vote against it. She said she was not
opposed to Symantec, but with thc particular building aI the loemlon. She said she would favor an
industrial building for them on the other side of Cupertino with the othcr industrial buildings.
Com. Mahoney recommended an upda~d Master Plan as a background for the application.
Chairman Roberts clarified that the Planning Commission approved mid-sized companies such as
Symantec, and recommended to the City Council the opening up the 150,000 square feet to such
smaller companies, and thc City Council decided otherwise.
Com. Mahuncy said that he felt companies change and be was willing to positively revisit it again.
He said that thc Planning Commission should remain flexible and not just stay with three
companies. He said he did not agree with Com. Harris about the breakup of the wall, and the fact
that it wus not located on Stevens Creek Boulevard it was appropriate. Com. Mahoncy concurred
that more setback was needed, but did not feel the other comer of the building needed to he
rounded off. He said the focal point of the building should be the lobby. The shadowing was
appropriate and he did not feel that the lnmtin5 dock could be lo~t~ elsewhere. He said that the
level of service was also appropriate and that it has been in the G-cneml Plan. He indicated that the
exlxa landscaping was appropria~ and either 3 or 4 story parking was appropriate.
Com. Doyle said that he felt it was appropriate for Symantec to use the 50,000 sq. ff. allocation;
they arc a substantial company and are based in Cupertino. He explained that the original intent
was to ensure that it was a company that had strong roots here and would make a commiUnent to
thc community. Relative to the comment made that the facility could he subl~as~i, Com. Doyle
expressed concern and said he was opposed to using the buildings as a speculative project. He
said he felt the building should be a landmark building or at least have significant character
depicting more thnn joxt an O~ce building on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said that he felt set
backs should he more th~n 10 feet, and that thc Io~li~g dock would be a problem with no simple
solution. If modifications are ~d..._e, it might present an opportunity to move it away from the
aparUnent building. Com. Doyle stated that the enU-ance concept to thc building was appropriate;
landscaping was a good concept of that area. He said the 4 story parking was appropriate; tra~c
appropriate and it would get down to a D level. He said he felt the relationship with the adjacent
apartment building would he a future problem and it should be addressed with a different
alternative relative to thc structure. He pointed out that shadowing would he created by a 4 story
huild .
Com. Austin said she liked the building orientation, but expressed concern about the location of thc
loading dock and suggested locating it on the north side. She said that the green color was
appropriate and would blend with the Sobrato building. Com. Austin said that she approved of the
planning Cornnfis~ion M~nut~ 13 Au~t ~, ~996
entrance treannent and the landscaping; the 4 story parking was appropriate provided there was an
elevator. She said the rounded edge of the building was appropriate; greater setbacks might
enhance the appearance. She stated that the Master Plan should reflect all the changes in the 1991
General Plan and he Ul~'~l to reflect the 1991 General Plan approval. She said she would he in
favor of the projc~ however, it needed mor~ work to come back with some of the suggestions.
She said she felt the proposal was moving in the right direction.
Com. Austin said that Symantec x~ras one of the faste~ growing companies and has been an
positive, involved neighbor. She said she felt Com. Doyle's concerns about the subleasing were
well founded, but that it did provide a safety factor is there is a problem and they need to lease out.
Com. Austin indicated that it should he the major goal to further the growth of Symantec in
Cupertino and suggested a statement to that effect, because she was interested in Symantec's
growth and having them ns part of the Cupertino community. She suggested that they establish a
Chairman Roberts explained that the planning Commission was being asked to approve a new
Ma~ter Plan and should have a clear notion of what the concept is for the City Center, and it
should reflect the most recent General Plan as well as the projects recently approved. He suggested
that it be clarified and discussad systematically before pr~_~Jng fu~&er.
Chair Roberts pointed out that he was one of the Planning Commissioners who voted at the time
for ennditions that would permit Symantec and similar firms to take advantage of the 150,000
incremental square feet, and he said he felt they have progressed and demonst~_t~ a commi~nent
to Cupertino, and as a corporation they certainly qualify.
Relative to the building concept, Chair Roberts said that he would prefer the building to be located
elsewhere, it fits into the Master plan, but perhaps not in Symantec's plans. He recalled the
discussions relative to the fire station location when they were told thc location couldn't be
changed; and aider reworking thc plans, it was relocated to a more feasible location. He said he felt
the building f~eade was too uniform and would like to see it segmented, with the southwest comer
sof~ed, as well as greater setbacks. Chair Roberts said it was difficult to visnaliT~ without the
entire neighborhood including the towers to see how the proposed building relates to the entire area.
He said he would like to see visuaJi?ations and documentation to see how the building would fit in.
He expressed concern about the relationship to the future apartment complex, noting that although
not yet built, thought should be given to detail plannln~o alld ensure tha~ the loMing dock is not
offensive e~ecially at hours when residents are re$tin~o He said the landscaping was appropriate.
Chair Roberts said that overall the building was atUactive, and Symantec was a worthy occupant.
He said that the building would he more appropriate at another location.
Chairman Roberts summarized that thc majority of the Plasming Commission would like to see a
firmer Master Plan for the City Center before moving fon,~a~xt; greater step depth; more
se~nenting of the facade; softening of the southwest comer, concern about the Io~dlqg dock; and
more dramatic design for the building.
A lengthy discussion ensued relating to the importance of having a building in that location with a
particular characteristic, a building that made a statement. He said presently it is a standard office
building, but needs more dramatic effect for such a highly visible location. Com. Mahouey said
that a Iow key building could be made more attractive as opposed to having a striking building.
Com. Austin agreed with Com. Maboney. The Planning Commissioners referred to the brochure
Planning Commission Minutes 14 August 12, 1996
which illusuated other buildings designed by the archiw.,ct. Com. Doyle proposed building a
landmark building on the site.
Chair Roberts said that he would like to see the conceptual plan for the City Center and suggest
ways in which the builflinE could be improved by its relationship to the other buildings. Apart
from that he did not feel the building in its isolated location should be designed to be more
"flashy".
Com. Doyle said that he did not feel the building should he transformed into a Sobrato-type
hilildin~, but something with a higher degree of a~thefically superior looking building. He said
that there needed to he other options for the site, architecturally different and also look at what
other options were available for the City C~ter development.
Mr. Ballantine ~t~l that there were different paths to follow. One was to refine the building for
the type of detail being requested which was n-ninnblc. He explained that the request to make the
setbacks larger was dit~cult in the context of thc L-sha.,~d building Symantec has been asking to
keep the park area ns large as possible which limits changes to the setbacks. He pointed out that
thc building was designed purposely not to "shout out" but to fit into the Cupertino community,
rather than make a statement. He said that refining the building would present a schedule ehnllengc
as Symantec was anxious to movc forward with the project bo-_ m~e they are hi need of expansion
space. He said that relocating thc loading dock would also he a problem but that they would work
with ~nfle for direction. Mr. Shihan clarified that deliveries were ronde to thc loading dock during
the day, not during hours such az 3 a.m. or 5 a.m.
Com. Harris pointed out that the building was 50 feet back from the curb, 130 feet long, 70 feet
high, and along DeAnza Boulevard, and would not blend into the community; therefore a bel~r
solution might be to make it more striking. She suggested that some enhancement might be
Following a brief discussion with the applicant, there was censensus to centinue thc item to allow
the applicant time to work on refining the building design.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to continue Application No. 11-U-96, 2-Z-83 (Mod.)
and 18-EA-96 to the August 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
Com. Mahoney
Passed 5-0-0
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION - None
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Mr. Cowan recommended
that the Planning Commission appoint one member to represent the Planning Commission on thc
committee for modifying the housing mitigation plan.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to nominate Com. Mahoney to serve on the committee.
Com. Doyle
Passe~ 5-04
Planning Commission Minutes 15 August 12, 1996
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS -Coms. Austin and Harris commented that no
members of the planning ConUmssion implied they wanWxt a carwash facility similar to the Delta
Queen carwash in Cupertino, but Mr. Cowan merely commented that some other cities had
monumental carwashes. The newspaper article misquoted the Commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to the adjourned August 14,
1996 Planning Commission meeting.
Approved: As presented August 26, 1996
Respectfully S~ubmitt~_~
Recording Secretary