PC 12-09-96CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 9, 1996
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Doyle, Harris Mahone3,, and Chairman Roberts. Com. Austin
arrived at thc beginning of dis~nssion of Item 1.
Stuff present:
Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City
Planner; Colin Jung, Associat~ Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic
Engineer; Veto Gil, Planner II; and Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the November 19, 1996 Adjourned Meeting:
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve ~c November 19, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting minutes as presented.
Chair Roberts
Com. Austin
Com. Doyle
Pass~ 3-O-I
Minutes of the November 25, 1996 Regular Meeting:
Page 6, 2nd paragraph, fine 1: Second sentence should be changed to read: "Deputy Counsel
Eileen Murray explained that there was a government code section that exempts churches and
religious organizations from designation as historic landmarks. However, the ordinance has been
challenged in court, where it was declared unconstitutional and is now pending."
Page 13, OLD BUSINESS, Item 12: First sentence of staff presentation should read: "The video
presentation reviewed thc application to construct 5 single family detached homes, which the Planning
Commission previously recommended denial on."
Page 14: Paragraph 3: Spelling of"Mark Kh'koby" changed to "Marvin Kirkeby" in all instances
referred.
Page 7, second last paragraph: Chair Roberts stated that his remarks were made without General
Counsel's advice because it was included under defmitioas. Ms. Wordell provided a brief
explanation. The following change to be made: Add sentence: "Ms. Wordell said that it would be
reviewed when presented to the City Council to ensure .consistency."
Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 9, 1996
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve the November 25, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting minutes as amended.
Chair Roberts
Corns. Doyle and Hams
Com. Austin
Passed 2-0-2
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Chaff Roberts noted correspondenee received relative to
Item 9. Com. Harris noted two items from Hewlett
Packard in support of the Sandhill development and one
fi.om F. Murkagi relative to the five single family homes.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Application No.:
AppBcant:
Property Owner:
I..ocation:
14-ASA-96
Whalen & Construction, Inc.
Forge-Vidovich
10889 No. DeAnza Boulevard
Architectural approval to locate an unmanned radio telecommunications facility consisting of 9
antennas and transmitter equipment at an existing building (Cupertino Inn).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
~: The video presentation reviewed the application to mount antennas known as
personal communication services antennas atop the Cupertino Inn; as outlined in the attached OatY
report. Staffhas reviewed the modified proposal and recommends approval of the application.
The Planning Commission's decision is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days.
Mr. Colin lung, Associate Planner, referred to the overhead of the architectural site plan and
reviewed the modifications m~d* by the applicant.
Ms. Patty Mejia, Sprint Spectrum, 4695 Chabot Drive, Pleasanton, thanked ~aff for their input in
modifying the application to respond to Planning Commissioners' concerns fi.om the previous
meeting, and reviewed the modifications made. She pointed out that Sprint Spectrum does not
randomly choose the sites, but that there were certain criteria that must be met in order for the site to
be workable, and the least obtrusive location for the antennas is sought. She said the site must be
able to meet its design coverage objectives, leased fi.om a property owner; a permit fi.om the
jurisdiction must be received, and it must be constructed and served by power and telephone. She
pointed out that none oftbe alternative locations were feasible.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the antennas, wherein Ms. Mejia answered
Commissioners' questions. There was consensus that loweting the antennas and moving them back
16 feet made a difference.
Chair Roberts opened tbe meeting for public input.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 9, 1996
Mr. John Vidovich, 920 West Fremont Avenue, said that he was in favor of the antennas. He said he
was speaking on behalf of Ms. Wilke, who had spent a great deal of time on the project to make it
acecptable to the city, and the redesign was an improvement. He said there was a tremendous need
for the devices.
Com. Austin said that the modifications were an improvement and she concurred with staff's
recommendation. Com. Doyle expressed concern about the accumulation of antennas on the site and
the city as a whole. He said that the specifics of the application were acceptable.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahongy moved to approve Application 14-ASA-96 according to the model
resolution.
Com. Hanis
Passed 5-0-0
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
14-ASA-96
Whalen & Construction, Inc.
James Forsythe
10218 Imperial Avenue
Architectural approval to locate an unmanned radio telecommunications facility consisting of 6
antenna_q and transmitter equipment at an existing building.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Stafforesentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to install six PCS antennas on a
15 foot tall mast on thc roof of 10218 Imperial Avenue, as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Jung rcvicwed the background of the item and the modifications m~d~ to the application in
response to the Planning Commissioners' concerns discussed at the October 28 mceting. Staff
recommends approval of the application.
Com. Harris exprcsscd conecm about the fenced area in thc rear of thc property where thc equipment
pad is located, and questioned if consideration had bccn given to an enclosed area which was not a
chain link fen~, perhaps a stucco wall or enclosed redwood fence.
Mr. Jong said that staff was not concerned becausc it was to the rear of the property and that
particular parking area s~rv~s as a parking and equipment storage area for thc nearby business. He
said if it was a significant concern of the Planning Commission, tha~ applicant would probably be
amenablc to change the material of thc fence.
Ms. Patty Mejia, Sprint Spectrum, pointed out that the area was an empty lot and Southern Pacific
right of way in thc rear of thc property. She said thc applicant was open to alternative fencing,
typically they used redwood slats with chain link fence. She explained that the antennas were only
visible fxom Imperial Avenue which was an heavily industrial street, and were not visible fxom the
residential areas.
Planning Commission Minu~s 4 December 9, 1996
Com. Doyle said he was concerned about the proliferation of antennas, and asked it was possible to
drop the overall height of each one of the antennas.
Mr. Don Pierce, Senior RF Engineer with Sprint PCS, said that their network has been designed
quite low relative to most existing cellular networks and has been designed capacity-wise to last for at
least five to ten years without any infill sites. He said there is a problem in getting much less
clearance over what is referred to as the clutter, or average height of buildings and trees in the area,
and the distance that the signal travels begins to drop off rapidly. He said he did not foresee the
ability to go lower in the future.
In response to Com. Harris' question about the devclopability of thc vacant site, Mr. Jung explained
that the lot was owned by Measurex and was a triangular piece and not large enough for a house.
A discussion ensued regarding inclusion of abaudonmont clauses in both applications.
Mr. Pierce explained that there were abandonment clauses includes in all leases, requiring them to
remove all equipment and antennas when the site is no longer leased.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Deputy Counsel, said that since the applicant was present and was 'agreeable,
and it was in the ordinance, the condition could be added with the applicant's agreement to the
resolution. Mr. Pierce indicated that the applicant had an objection to the condition of abandonment
clause.
Mr. Pierce said that he had no objection to using redwood slats with the chain link fence.
There was no one from the public who wished to speak on the issue.
Com. Harris said that she visited the site and viewed the antennas and felt they were prominent,
commenting that every building on the street had an antenna and many of them were much closer to
the front perimeters of the buildings. She said that Com. Doyle's concern about proliferation of
antennas was valid. She was not opposed to them because there is a community of them out there.
She recommended rectwood slats on the enclosures and inclusion of the abandonment clause.
Chair Roberts said he visited the neighborhood and viewed the antenna and he found utility poles on
both sides of the street, wires hang between them, tnmsfonners hang from them, etc. in the area and
remarked that the antenna was the best looking structure on the street.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 15-ASA-96 according to the model
resolution, with the addition of the redwood slats in the fence and the abandonment
clause.
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
The earlier motion made on Application 14-ASA-96 was emended.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Maboney moved to approve Application 14-ASA-96 according to the model
resolution with the addition of the abandonment clause.
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes s December 9, 1996
Items 3 and 4 were postponed as noted previously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
4-TM-94 (Mod.)
Miu Jue
James Change and Chia-Jen Chen
10120 Crescent Road
Tentative Map Modification to remove 3 trees (2 liquid amber and 1 flowering crab apple), and
~plant 3 trees.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staffnresentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for removal of trees on Crescent
Road which were removed during construction of the homes. Staff recommends approval of the
application.
Referring to the tree summary, Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, indicated the
location of the trees that were removed. He noted that the condition should state 24 inch box as
opposed to 25 gallon tree.
Mr. Bruce Irwin, representing Miu Jue, referred to the overhead map, and clarified the location of the
trees removed. He said that he met with the current owner of the home to discuss replacement of the
A discussion ensued regarding the removal of trees during eonstraction. Com. Doyle emphasized the
need to clarify what trees need to be retained in developments and the need for appropriate action if
the trees are removed. Mr. Cowan clarified that the 15 inch maple tree was protected.
Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. Them was no one present who wished to speak
on the issue.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 4-TM-94 (Mod.) to include the four 24
inch box tre~, per staff recommendation.
Com. Austin
Passed 5-0-0
Com. Hanis clarified that the text of the condition should read: '~rwo trees shall be planted in thc
front yard and two in the back yard."
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
22-U-96
Pacific Bell Mobile Services
City of Cupertino
10555 Mary Avenue
Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 9, 1996
Use Permit m locate an antenna facility, including a 40 fL monopole and 6 panel antennas and a
ground-mounted base receiver station.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED
Staff presentation: Mr. lung reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the
report. Referring to the photo simulations, Mr. Jung discussed the applicant's alternative design and
visual impact of the proposed monopole.
Discussion ensued regarding the collocation of antennas wherein Mr. Jung answered Commissioners'
questions.
Ms. Linda Spranz, Pac Bell Mobile Services, referred to tho photo simulation and illustrated the 40
foot cross polar antenna which is the same height as the standard option with the rack. She said it
was less obtrusive, but would not be able to collocate. She said that the application was for a 40
foot monopole, with the option of being able to add or another can-ier at a later date would be able to
use the top. If A is chosen, there is not the ability to add on. She explained that relative to the
previous phew simulations indicating higher height, the R.F engineers were willing to come down
because of technology improving on the cross polar antennas.
Ms. Spranz clarified collocation efforts with GTE, Cellular One and PG&E, pointing out that
agreements have not been reached with them. She said it was time consuming because it was not a
priority of Cellular One and GTE since they are established networks and beneficial to their interests
not to include Pac Bell. She said Pac Bell was willing to construct either as a cross polar option to be
less visually obtrusive or one which would have the option of a collocation later on. She urged a
decision on one of the two options se that they could move forward.
Mr. Jung clarified that the alternatives were Exhibit A and C in tho staif packet, noting that Exhibit A
had the rack with the capability of putting another antenun on it.
In response to Com. Hah'is' questions regarding tbe collocation requirement in the orrlinanc~, Mr.
Jung stated that tbe GTE Mobilnet application was approved in 1990 when collocation was not being
considered; and the Cellular One application was recently approved co~taining a collocation clause
that would allow the pole to be collocated on and compensation provided at market rat~s. Mr.
Cowan said that if tbe conditions of approval are not complied with, the City has the ability to initiate
a revocation hearing of the use permit. Mr. Cowan pointed out that the City owns the property and
has an economic interest.
Com. Doyle questioned what the problems were with Cellular One in collocating on the tower.
Ms. Spranz explained that Pac Bell had been working with Cellular One to get collocations to move
forward and at this point they did not have anything and needed to move forward. She said they were
still in negotiation stages, but felt they had no l~verage to collocate and there was no incentive for
Cellular One to move forward. Responding to Chair Roberts' question, she said there was a role of
thumb for 10 feet vertical saparation from the center of the transmitting area to the center of the next.
She said that the horizontal distance of separation is usually 8 to 10 feet.
Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes ? December 9, 1996
Ms. Bonnie Severictti, Cupertino Lock & Store, voiced opposition to the monopole loch_md in the
Cupertino city yard, which she said might seem like a curious comment coming from someone who
has two monopoles next door. She said she was aware of the ordinance stating anything over 30,000
sq. ~. on commercial land can have two monopoles, but must have approval for more. She said that
she recently signed a contract with Sprint and they were not openly given the go-ahead for the
monopole. She said that other carders have approached her company and if the City says that two
monopoles at the end of Ma~ Ave. is all it can bear, how much due diligence has Pacific Bell given
this because tbey have been in lease negotiations with Pacific Bell on and off. She said that her
business was leasing space, but the City said that it is not aesthetically pleasing and she questioned
why the City would approve a monopole in such close proximity for financial reasons. She said she
wanted the City to look at her 3.3 acres with many options. Ms. Severietti said that Sprint was
creative; Pac Bell will have collocation restrictions to adhere to; Cellular One was not thrilled when
they came in to do a moderate modification of their monopole to facilitate technolo~ changes and
was faced with a restriction. She questioned if Pac Bell was given the same collocation restriction,
what are they are going to do when the competition comes in and wants to collocate? She said that
the City should look at its motives, because companies would like to have more antennas, but if it is
not aesthetically pleasing on one property, how can it be justified that it is aesthetically pleasing on
another?
Mr. Cowan said that ~aff was working with the Public Works department on the proposal, but that
the site did not pose external impacts on anyone, which was a factor in the review. The other factor
was the economic interest; for the taxpayers of the community if there is an opportunity to have
facilities on City owned land, staff will make the recommendation to the City Council and Planning
Commission to take advantage of the opportunity.
Mr. June said that thc question posed by Ms. Scverietti was one of staff's concern with thc
application, relative to thc visual impacts on private property vs. public property. He said he had
visited the site several times to vis!mli~,~ how it would appear on the corporation yard. He illustrated
on the drawings that the poles were much larger on thc lock and store units than anything else in thc
neighborhood.
Mr. B. S. Nataraj, 10595 Nathanson Avenue asked what impact the monopole would have.
Refening to the overhead of the site plan, Mr. Jung said that the proposed location was in the back of
thc corporation yard and thc freeway and soundwnll nm along tberc; that particular site is not visible
from Mary Avenue or any other residential part; the most visible location for that pole would be at
Chair Roberts dosed the public input portion of the meeting.
Com. Austin said that she was in favor of the application and recommended sending a minute order to
the City Council to consider collocating the antennas so that in the future it would benefit the City.
Com. Mahoney clarified that the choices were that one appears to be less obtrusive and the natural
choice, and the other one offers the possibility of collocation in the future. Com. Austin said she was
in favor of either one, whichever would expedite matters. Com. Mahoney noted that it was tm,ding
off visual impact today for less visual impact in the future.
Planning Commission Minutes s December 9, 1996
Mr. Jung said that staff's recommendation is Exhibit A with a collocation of a cross polarized; the
more visually obtrusive today on the possibility of collocation on a less visually obtrusive one in
Com. Doyle expressed concern about having two collocation requirements that weren't working,
when one collocation requirement is not already working. He said that attempts should be made to
work toward the direction of getting a cross polar antenna that could be stackable. He said he felt
going with the cross polar antenna now or with the monopole antenna and requiring collocation would
not solve anything; he said it should be a priority to have the Cellular One work.
Com. Maboney said be preferred the cross polar, less obtrusive one to start, possibly precluding the
other one because it could potentially be stacked.
Mr. Jung suggested that in lieu of going with a eulloeated antenna which means two different sets of
antennas divided by two different service providers on the same pole, to have two cross polar
antennas that are relatively close by that both of them.
Com. Harris said she favored the cross polar. She said that there was an ordinance addressing the
antenons, and that Cdlular One's antenna on the lock and store facility was approved which covtain~
a clause requiring collocation. If they are unwilling to abide by the elanse that requires collocation, a
revocation hearing should be called to revoke their use permit. She said that in order to do that, the
present application would have to be denied and the revocation hearing be held and Cellular One
would then have to act in good faith. She said if the regulations were not followed, there was no point
in having an ordinance or colloemion condition.
Com. Austin said that another option could be to approve the application and then call for a
revocation hearing for Cellular One for not acting in good faith. Com. Harris said that Cellular One
should act in good faith and work with the company who wants to collocate. Com. Austin said she
was not in favor of collocation because it is unsightly. She said she was not in favor of promoting
collocation, and would be in favor of not sending a minute order to promote it.
Following farther discussion about collocation, Com. Austin moved to approve Application 22-U-96;
motion failed for lack of second.
Mr. lung clarified that the language in the ordinance was very specific in stating "where collocation is
appropriate and feasible" and stated that "appropria~" was geared to visual impacts. He said if it is
the intention to force the location on the Cellular One monopole, what would that collocated facility
look like? He indicated it could resemble Exhibit J or L.
Com. Doyle recommended approval of the cross polar and to be certain to include the collocation
option and leave it to the future antenna applicants who come in, and require that justification be
given.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application 22-U-96, approving the antenna with
a 40 foot tower including the cross polar antenna, maximum 16 inches in diameter
(Exhibit C), including the abandonment clause, and including the standard
collocation clause.
Com. Austin
Pnssed 5-0-0
Phnning Commission Minutes o December 9, t996
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
23-U-96 and 34-EA-96
Stevens Creek/Cupertino Associates
Stevens Creek/Cupertino Associates
20745 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Use Permit to add 31,628 sq. R. remodel entry and reconfigure sidewalk and landscaping for an
existing retail store.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 6, 1997
Stafforesentation: Ms. Veto Gil, Planner II, apologized that the plans still needed some corrections
made. She said that thc City permitted thc applicant to present the unfinished dl'awings.
The video presentation reviewed the application for an addition, entry remodel and reconfiguration of
landscape and sidewalk for the existing Target store, as outlined in the attached staff report. The
plan to install a traffic signal at the comer of Saich Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard was also
reviewed. Staff reconuuea~ approval of the application; the Planning Commission's decision will
be forwarded to City Counc'fl for a final decision.
Relative to the goal of tonight's meeting, Mr. Cow'an explained that the plans submitted are in
response to Freedman, Tung & Bottomley's comments, and were not significant site plan changss,
but basically changes to the architecture to reflect those comments.
Ms. Gil noted that some of the comments from Terry Bottomley regarding thc sign were not reflected
in thc plans, as well as the rear elevation. She said that there was concern about the 10 foot
setback from the rear property line and Mr. Bottomley's comments were in response to that rear
elevation facing a residential neighborhood. Mr. Bottomley had comments about the trees which are
grouped in pairings throughout the parking lot. She said that originally the applicant agreed to
separate them however, after some thought he felt separating the trees and spreading them out in an
orchard style planting would block the visibility of the store fxom the Stevens Creek. She said that
the traffic light is included in the capital improvement budget, earmarked to take place in about 5
years. The applicant is being requested to pay for 1/3 cost, the City 1/3 and the Crossroads Center
1/3 whenthat center is red~veloped.
In response to Com. Hams' question, Mr. Ray Chung, traffic engineer said that the intersection
would go to a level F until the traffic signal was built.
Discussion ensued regarding tim proposed expansion to the garden center wberein Ms. Gil answered
questions.
Ms. Gil stated that the applicant still was not in agreement with the recommendations by Mr.
Bottomlcy pertaining to Item 6 on Exhibit B. She said that applicant's main concern was the
recommendation for Heart of the City improvements to Parcel 3, which the applicant preferred to
implement at a later date when Parcel 3 redevelops.
Tbere was consensus to consider thc possibility of continuing thc item because of thc late items
submission.
Planning Commission Minutes l0 December 9, 1996
Mr. Bam] Watldns, Stevens Creek/Cupertino Associates, clarified that Stevens Creek/Cupertino
Associates was the applicant, not Target stores. He reviewed the history of the application, and said
their goal has been three items for the financial benefit of three parties: the City of Cupertino, Target
or their successor, and the property owner. He noted there were three parcels with three different
lenders and were originally conceived under this approval in 1986. He said that Target informed him
that they do not want to be put under restrictions tonight unless they undertake the expansion.
Mr. Watldns said the applicant was proceeding in order to facflitam a future expansion if and when
Target or their successor is ready to proceed, and to give them the incentive so that the location would
be put on the remodel list. In December 1995 Thompson & Associates projected volumes for the
store based on the existin~ size and the expansion, and they are applying for a permit to entitle
131,000 sq. R. Greatlands Target store in Sunnyvale. FI~ said it was their goal to strike a fine
balunen between getting a very high quality project that is economically feasible for Target to accept,
rather than put conditions on it that it would make it a good project that never gets built. Regarding
the conditions of approval, the signalization is acceptable provided that two or three things can be
understood with that. One for the signal at Saich Way, unless it is otherwise approved by the
applicant at a later date because there may be an expansion someday of the property immediately to
the west at the one big center, and that applicant incur no cost until the completion of the Target
expansion, or un outside date of July 1st, 2008, and that applicant's share of the cost not exceed
$50,OO0.
Mr. Cowan clarified that the use permit is valid for two years, and the funds for the signal would only
be collected if and when a building permit is submitted. He said the dollar limit was included in the
staff report. Mr. Watkins clarified that any other conditions would only be effective upon
commencement of the expansion being discussed. He requested that there be no charge for the
parking, similar to the agreement in 1987. He addressed the issue oftbe trailers parked in the rear of
the store, and said that the new warehouse would provide ample storage for the merchandise and the
trailers would not bo required. Mr. WaLkin,s requested that before conditions are imposed or anything
changed, the applicant be allowed to address the concerns.
Mr. Jeff Wheeler, architect, referred to the color renderings displayed, and discussed the placement
of trees in the parking lot area, landscape plan and modified building design, signage, and parking
stall allocation. He saidthere were about 180 trees on tbe site. In response to Com. Harris' concern
about the pedestrian path, Mr. Wheeler explained that there were staggered small planters that were
part of the curb but the curb itself stopped the ears; therefore the planters were nothing more than
vegetation sites. He said that the proposal is to consolidate, between the existing light fixtures to
simplify it so that the accessible path is cleared of obstacles. The raised wheel stop for the car
protects the people from the cars. He said that there would be flowering pear trees and a hedge
planted along the Stevens Creek frontage. Mr. Wheeler clarified that the expansion would
sccommodat~ the storage needs, and the trailers would no longer be needed. In response to
Commissioners' questions, Mr. Wheeler explained that the Parcel 3 changes were the trees out front,
the walkway tie-in and the sign.
Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public input. There was no one who wished to speak on the
issue.
l~lam~$ Commission Mk~utes 1 ! December 9, 1996
Chair Roberts summarized the issues: general acceptability of thc expansion; Items 6, 12 and 14 of
the Heart of the City improvements on Parcel 3; blue tile; color scheme; parking; traffic and tree
placement.
Com. Doyle voiced approval of the general expansion; said be was not in favor of the parking plan;
suggested that a west side entrance to the store be added; not ia favor of a stop light at Salch and
Stevens Creek; would like to maintain the trees ia front of the garden center; said he was concerned
about the red fence; no trailers on site az temporary storage; the entry height is appropriate; said he
liked the blue color in front with bluish roof vs. red; the back of the building - there needs to be some
way to soften the wall, with an imitation roof or something; grandfather what is ia existence for the
parking for the garden center; ok with tree placement ia parking lot. He recommended before and
afar pictures of what is proposed to better understand the changes. He said that the design issue
about the base was a way of softening the wall. He said the present color combinations were gentler.
Relative to the ~ oftbe City improvements on Parcel 3, he recommended trying to get az close to
the Heart of the City improvements on changes because they are not very frequent, and when
modifications are made, the sUategy would be implemented. He said he would prefer to have it
completed together but that it could possibly be done at a later date.
Com. Mahoney said he approved of the general expansion; would also like to see a before and afar
plan for design, color scheme, and site plan, with a focus on the front; not ia favor of stop light at
Saich Way; garden center ok with fence colors; parldng 50% of the garden center ok; colors not a
major item at this point; he waz flexible with the colors; side entrance: not a concern as not done ia
the past; Hea~ of City improvements on Parcel 3 appropriate with staff recommended compromise.
Com. Harris said that the recommendations of the consultant should be incorporated, because
although thc staff report iadio~t~l that all but three of the 15 items were agreed to by thc applicant,
many have not been incorporated, such az thc pedestrian protection from walking from thc bus and a
base to break up thc facades. She said that at least 50% of thc parking for garden center should be
counted; go with grandfathering thc original, and give them whole amount on new or give them one-
I~lt~on thc entire amount. She expressed concern about the color issue, stating that the property is a
unified property with 3 buildings, and the architect should take all three into consideration before
coming up with a color scheme. She said she was opposed to the red fence along the garden center;
compromise on Parcel 3 is acceptable; she would also like to sec before and after renditions of thc site
plan; tree placement on lot is acceptable; side entrance: security issue, but leave to discretion of
Target store. She said sbe approved of the stop light which is included ia thc 5 year Public Works
plan, and az long az thc applicant pays for one-third, it is acceptable.
Com. Austin said all the colors should tie ia; she did not approve of the red fence; the blue and green
file would not be sufficient to tie ia with the rest of the buildings; not ia favor of the color; disliked
pinks, oranges, mustard yellow, bhie/green; those colors are too dated; parking - grandfather ia the
original and I/2 of the new; the base breakup is boxy and should be broken up; the consultant
conditions need to be adhered to; pre~nt tiles are appropriate; tree placement is appropriate, mixing
it im~l of uniform, would rather see them alternated; good expansion plan; side entrance would
break up boxiness by adding a feature and a safety feature, and one more exit. Stop light would be
advantageous; level F is unacceptable. Com. Austin said she would also like to see before and ateter
site plans and color scheme and see it tied ia; not based solely on Target, but future occupants;
Heart of the City improvements on Parcel 3 should be done so that it is not piecemeal.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 December 9, 1996
Chair Roberts said he vtas in favor of thc Target expansion; opposed to trailers in back; Heart of thc
City improvements on Parcel 3 acceptable with compromise if sidewalks are postponed until some
future improvement; would like to see before and after plans of color scheme and site plan; present
center clashes with everything else and in the long term should consider architect's proposal which is
more compatible with the Mediterranean design of the Heart of the City Plan; would like to see Parcel
3 comply; parking - agree to count the garden center at 50%. Ms. Gil clarified that the staff report
referred to 50% of the new garden center, assuming that the old garden center would be counted with
the 1987 use permit and would be exempt; the new addition would be subjected to the 50%. There
was a consensus that the issue needed to be addressed. Chair Robe~ said that he agreed that the
lines need to be softened. Relative to the stop light, would like to facilitate entO' but not at any price,
more elaboration needed; tree placement: opposed to doubling up of trees; side entrance: applicant
should address. He said be would like more detail on the red fence along the garden center; ff blue
trim was implemented the red fence would not be appropriate; red would be appropriate; opposed to
trailers in back of store; would like to see conditions incorporated as solid features of the design.
Com. Doyle requested that Stevens Creek/Salch Way, level F, be defined more in the future.
Mr. Watldns ~sponded that the parking plan relative to the garden center was typical, very few cities
count the garden center area because it is seasonal. He said that the 23 spaces were needed if
expansion of the center next door was implemented. He said that the side entrance would be a Target
operations decision and would likely be no, because of security and the standard floor plan in
existence for their stores. Relative to the elevations, be said it may be simpler to recolor the shops on
the other parcels to blend together with the Target facility.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
Com. Austin moved to continue Application 23-U-96 to the Janumy 13, 1997
Planning Commission meeting.
Com. Doyle
Passed 5-0-0
Chair Roberts declared a recess fi.om 10:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. Upon reconvening, the same
Commissioners with the exception of Com. Austin, were present. The same staffwas present.
There was a brief discussion about the late hour of the meeting and rescheduling Item 9 to a separate
Planning Commission meeting. Chair Roberts apologized to the applicant and the public for the
necessity to postpone the item, explaining that it was unfortunate but that it was an important topic
and tbe ~ re~xining would not allow ample ~ for nde~luate attention and the ability to make a
better decision.
Application No(s).:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
15-U-96, 6-Z-96, 8-TM-96 and 22-EA-96
Sandhill Properties
Tandem Computers
10741 No. Wolfe Road and 19590 Pruneridge Avenue
Use Permit to construct 210 apamnent units, 8 single family detached units and a 4-story hotel
(maximum of 215 rooms) on ten a~res. Zoning to change the zoning on a 10 acre parcel fi.om
Planned (conunercial, office, recreation) to planned (reaide~tlul/cemmereial) or other appropriate
zone. Tentative Map to subdivide 10 acres into 13 lots to allow 8 single family residences, 210
apartm~ts on 2 lots, privag driveways and a community center and park.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 December 9, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 6, 1997
CONI1NUED FROM PLANNING COMlvflSSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSTAIN
ABSENT:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle moved to continue Application No(s). 15-U-96, 6-Z-96, 8-TM-96
and 22-EA-96 to a special Planning Commission meeting on December 16, 1996,
at 7p.m.
Com. Harris
Chair Roberts
Com. Austin
Passed 3-0-1
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:.
Location:
32-U-85 (Extension)
Rancho San Antonio Housing Corp.
Rancho San Antonio Housing Corp.
23500 Cfisto Re3' Drive
Use Permit Extension for one year for Phase II oftbe skilled nursing and personal care facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
IglqTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: January 6, 1997
Staff uresentafion: Ms. Wordell referred to Exhibit A, and reviewed thc background of the
application for a Use Permit extension for Phase H of the skilled nursing and personal care facilities.
Staff recommends approval of the extension; however, the ordinance would have to be amended to
consider an increase to the one year extension. A discussion ensued wherein Ms. Wordell and Mr.
Cowan answered Commissioners' questions about the policy relative to extensions of Use Permits.
Mr. William Dnolittle, 23500 Cristo Way Drive, President of the Rancho San Antonio Retirement
Housing Corp., explained the reason for the application for the extension. He said that Originally tbe
Use Permit was for a medical facility of 174 beds. However, at the time construction started, it was
determined it was not economically feasible and it was reduced to an 82 bed facility which included a
34 I~1 unit for assisted living patients, ambulatory, but live alone. In addition there was a 48 bed
skilled nursing facility primarily for non-ambu!atnry patients and require more skilled nursing help.
Over the lost several years, it was deemed that another phasc of medical requirement was necessary
for thc community, namely Alzheimer's patients. He said it was proposed to build a unit primarily
for Alzheimer's' patients which requires more space and special nursing than is provided presently.
Mr. Doolitfle said that they had developed a conceptual plan for a 36 bed Alzheimer's patient facility
and have worked with leading experts to design a facility to handle the future patients. He explained
tha~ ManioR International's subsidiary Maniott's Senior Living Services, purelmsed thc Forum
group and are prepared to work with thc group to move the project along.
Chair Roberts opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one present who wished to
speak.
Com. Harris said that if it was just the issue of extending the Use Permit for one year, she would
approve it. However, the issue relates to revising the ordinance. She said she felt a five year building
permit with a one year extension, totaling 6 years was a long time. She said that in that period of
time communities change and she did not want to have building permits with unlimited extension
9~atming Commissiou Minute~ 14 December 9, 1996
rights; and that 6 years was ample thne. She pointed out that originally the proposal was for 82 beds,
which was a more realistic number, and the proposed concept was different than what was proposed
in 1991 and should have a new application. She said she was not in favor of initiating a public
hearing to change the zoning and suggested that the application return as a new application at which
time she would approve it as a new permit.
Ms. Wordell clarified that under the current ordinance, it would be two years for the Use Permit and
one extension; presently three years is the maximum unless the condition specifies otherwise.
Com. Mahoney said it seemed three years was too short, but 6 years was excessive; and that the
general ordinance should be revisited if it is currently 3 years with no extensions. He said he was in
favor of the extension in the application.
Com. Doyle said that the ex*amsion on the application was appropriate, and he did not want to
change the ordinance to three years; 2 and I is reasonable. He said what is being done is not giving
the applicant a franchise for a long term action; they axe supposed to be given an envelope to start
progressing to take action. This is not a long term agreement, but should be the first step in
execution, not the first step in allocation, which is the purpose of the General Plan.
Chair Roberts said he was sympathetic to the application but did not want the similar 'Jackpot' issue
to repeat itself. He said he would like to streamline the process for the applicant to return with a
minimum of trouble without modifying the ordinance.
Mr. George Ivelich, architect, said be was not clear on the alternatives. He pointed out that it should
be noted that over 90% of the project did get executed; and that the reason the health center was
halted was ~-~e of the uncertainty of what was needed because of changes in the proposed facility.
Referring to Exhibit A, Mr. Ivelich said when the project was approved the entire plan was submitted
as a single project and was completed, including 60% of the health center. The project was improved
in its entirety; when the eoustmctiou documents and permits were issued for the entire project, during
constxuetion, the developer decided to pull back; and applicant requested a Phase I, Phase H
arrangement for the health center. Two pieces, one on the assisted living side, about 35 units, and
about 49 beds in the skilled nursing facility were delayed for phase II which is the proposed
application. He said that questions arose in Uying to accommodate the AIzbeimer's patients needs,
and would be accommodated within the boundaries of the approved building, but it was the same
proj .
Chair Roberts summarized the consensus that there should not be further extensions, and that the
plannin~ Commission was not comfortable in recommending to the City Council that the ordinance be
~ to a~w~mmodate ~ applicant.
MOTION:
SECOND:
ABSENT:
NOES:
VOTE:
Com. Doyle recommended denial of the extension for Application 32-U-85, stating
the reason that there was a consensus not to revise the ordinance
Com. Han~s
Com. Austin
Corn. M~honey
Passed 3-1-0
Planning Commission Minutes is December 9, 1996
OLD BUSINESS
10. Annual General Plan Review
Staff oresentation: Ms. Wordell explained that the major item continued from the November 19th
review related to traffic. She said that some of the level of services (LOS) were being reconsidered
and the tnfffie engineer would review them. In addition, there was an item related to height
limitations and two of the four Commissioners present at the last meeting wanted to revisit it as a
General Plan review item.
Mr. Raymond Chong, U'affic engineer, reviewed the overhead of Exhibit 1 and explained that the
LOS was modified and new counts taken. I-~ defined critical movements to mean tho key churning
movereent that conflicts with each other, the primary considerations of amalyzing an intersection. He
said it was conservative vs. analyzing the intersections as a whole, and tends to be 3 or 4 seconds
longer in terms of delay, therefore the approach the City is taking is more conservative.
In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Chong said that the level of scrviee reflects the P.M. peak
hour, which is the standard LOS D or better at the P.M. ~ hour. Following a brief discnssion,
there was consensus that the City Council explore considering General Plan amendment to consider
using the A.M. peak hour or the worst ease scenario in the day, whether A.M. or P.M. and tra~¢
reports to ira:hide both.
A discussion ensued regarding Tier 2, wherein Chair Roberts recommended as part of the 5 year
review or mid point review that it should he n_d_dressed, but not as an imminent or urgent matter, but
that it be considered as a priority in the broader review which may happen in the next year or two.
Com. Harris concurred, stating she was p,~71ed to see only density issues related to housing, and that
the only issue discussed in non-residential was height limitations. Mr. Cowan said tha~ the
recommendation would be that the Planning Commission would recommend the City Council
consider it as part of the General Plan change in the next General Plan amendment. Com. Harris
stated that she would like to review the Tier 2 density plans concept.
Com. Doyle recommended revisiting Tier 2, staling he was uncertain of its overall status. He said the
General Plan is clear on what it means and its direction; it provides guidance based on some
underlying assumptions and because the underlying assumptions may not he the same today, it is
appropriate to open a discussion relative to the enabling of additional development or density.
Com. Mahoney said that his understanding of Tier 2 was that the underlying assumption is that
tmm¢ was the limiting factor on development in the City and Tier 2 says that if you can prove you
will not generate any more Waffle, by whetever means, you can have the development space. At that
level it is fairly simple to prove.
Following further discussion, there was eonscusns to address the issues of height limitations and the
Tier 2 density concept, and the impact of the developments on the schools.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the potential impacts of the residential developments on the
school districts. There is a school issue with the San&Mll development as it contains 208 apartment.
The Thompson development is now outside the Cupertino Union School District. Ms. Wordell
clarified that the school district has said it can accommodate the students generally, and for Sandhill
Planning Commission Minutes 16 December 9, 1996
in particular, with a number of options available to accommodate the students. The General Plan
states to work with the schools to maintain the high quality of education.
Com. Harris said she was not opposed to reviewing the impact of the residential development in light
of the new school study as pan of the General Plan. Chair Roberts said that education is so much a
pan of Cupertino's image and it is not just being able to channel a number of students through the
schools, but the quality of the educational experience and the impact of the desirability of living in
Cupertino. He said he felt the Planning Commission would be remiss in not giving it the appropriate
a~ention. Cum. Mahoney said be felt it should be addressed on specific cases, how it will impact a
particular school, but not redoing the General Plan to address the school issue. Com. Doyle said that
relative to the school issue, be felt thc General Plan did not need to be changed to address the school
issue, as long as densities were not shifted around a great deal.
Following discussion, the vote of the Planning Commission was 2:2 to nview tbe impact of
development on the Cupertino Union School District in light of the new school report. Original
information used as a basis for the General Plan is still intact and later data will allow for fine tuning.
Sta/~ffwas reque~ed to submit a report to the Planning Commission on the effect of the changes.
Referring to Table 1, Cupertino Development Status as of October 31, 1996, Ms. Wordell and Mr.
Cowan answered Commissioners' questions relative to residential and non-residential growth that has
o~curred since 1990. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding residential growth and non-residential
development. Com. Doyle said that two issues of concern were relative to ABAG's job growth
projections for the community and the 'bum rate,' the length of the General Plan, how fast the City is
going flarough it and the secondary effects that the original models may not be able to project. Ms.
Wordell said ~ if Tier 2 is reviewed, the subject of how much industrial growth is there going to be
and what it means will be addressed. She said that there were two directions to go. One direction is
if a tremendous amount of non-residential growth is anticipated and more housing is needed, and the
second is less job growth, and there is not as much need for housing. There is certification of the
housing elemant based on saying the City will meet the ABAG numbers agreed to.
Following discussion, there was comensus to forward the discussed recommendations to City Council
to be addressed in a timely fashion, over a period of time.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to a special Planning Commission
meeting on December 16, 1996.
Respectfully. Submitted,
Recording Secretary
Minutes Approved as Presented: January 13, 1997