PC 02-11-63 to 02-18-63 10321 So. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. • 252-4505
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Cupertino, California
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
From 2/11/63 to 2/18/63
Place: 10321 So , Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. (Mngr' s 0fc.. : Council meeting
at same time in regular meeting room. )
lipTime: 8: 00 P.M.
Present: Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Small, Snyder
Absent: Adamo
Others: Paul Mariani, Jr. , John Cone, Ralph Rodrigues
Commissioner Frolich presided; Chairman Snyder being 'in attendance
at the Council meeting for the Planning Commission report . Commissioner
Small was away from the meeting as necessary to report to the Council
on various H-Control items including an appeal. •
The. Chair reviewed the reasons for the adjourned meeting: applicants .
have been before the Commission and Council for some time on one zoning
'basis; recently received permission to amend the application to tailor
it to the estimated needs of a major firm seeking to establish a West
Coast Office employing roughly 1, 000 people; notice of public hearing
was accordingly republished, and this meeting held as a first public
• hearing on the revised package of applications (Mariani-Poso-Excell-
Rodrigues) .
Mr. Mariani and Mr. Cone (planning consultant) posted maps, generalized
site layouts, primary road pattern, and a USGS contour map of the area .
The interest of the Commission and the emphasis of the applicants was
primarily in area proposed for the major office building. To identify
separate areas to be considered, applicant summarized as follows:
A- West of Hgwy #9, south of Freeway (Parcels of Mariani,
Rodrigues, and Excell) 38 acres
•
B- West of Hgwy #9, north of Freeway (Parcel of Mariani
lying between Forge and Kompanica) 10. acres
•
C- East of 'Hgwy #9, south of Freeway ( Parcels formerly .
Yamaoka, Poso, Mariani to DoNut Shop) 66
114E
The Mariani packing plant lies east of Hgwy #9 and north of the
Freeway. Leonard, Snyder, and Frolich questioned the applicant at
some length on this significant ommission of any planning study on
how about 80 acres bounded by #9, Homestead, Blaney, and Lucille
might best be developed to remove the' existing plant from the area
on an amortized basis underwritten by the owners rather than the public .
Mr. Mariani replied that various living trusts for minor children down
to -infants precluded doing anything about either annexation or 'planning
in. this area. On further questioning he made his grounds that of
theoretical legal liability by trustees to beneficiaries who might at .
some future date contend trustee error and financial responsibility for
losses resulting therefrom. He concluded. that the trustees had firmly
decided to do nothing on annexation or rezoning the plant area until
the last minor was of age---roughly 19 years. The Commissioners dropped
the matter though obviously dissatisfied with the reply because of the
4" long term uncertainties of how the area might develop. Applicant made
the further point that the freeway was sufficient break between an
existing fruit plant and a prime commercial area.
The applicant wishes to process areas A and C---which face each other---
under the planned community ordinance. Area B is by itself; the Bickell
lumber yard on one side; the Mariani fruit plant opposite . Applicant
wishes to handle this 10 acres under the regular light commercial ordi-
nance. Therefore the types of uses proposed, by acres, are:
A: 29 acres P-O-H toward the rear; 9 acres C-1-H uses at front.
C: 66 acres predominantly C-1-H type uses; possibly a little
R-3-H type use for buffering near Linwood subdivision
Totals: 75 C-1-H; 29 P-O-H = 104 planned community
B: 10 acres isolated C-1-H. Not part of a planned community
I
.
Arplicant reported that the prospective major office user is checking
various sites in the Mt. View, Sunnyva e, Cupertino .triang ; will
probably build a 3-story building, buy may .want to go 4 stories; prefers
that employees eat out rather than in ,compan_y cafeterias; wants there-
fore independent eating facilities nearby something like Howard Johnson
facilities in the East;. estimates that 'perhaps 10 acres of additional
satellite offices might have' some ' reasonable basis for locating nearby; •
indicates that the building to be designed after a site is selected. will
be distinctive but not extreme .
The proposed road pattern continues Mariani Ave. thru to Greenleaf,
and probably. a second parallel street somewhere northward; location . 110
to be governed by the office site finally selected in the 38 acres.
Therefore most of the traffic would enter and leave via Highway #9, •
but some of it would probably enter -and!' leave via Stelling.
The Commission requested a rough plot plan showing estimated size and
position. of the building. In general- the concern was relation of height
of building to distance from nearest relsidential areas to the west; to
a lesser extent with location of parking areas. No. objections were
voiced :to the use . Since no elevations or sketches were available, the .
reliance has to be; on permit and H-control machinery. The Commission .
did.. not anticipate any particular difficulty over, .a height variance on.
a major building provided the site location is considerate' of residential
neighbors.- There . was no basis for making a judgment at this meeting.
The Commission was clearly receptive to'lthe idea of commiting 'Highway.
#9 land to large scale 'office use; it would establish a character . . .
superior to present strip commercial; access to major thoroughfares .
is good; job opportunities would be impi-'oved the tax base. would be . . .
improved; the location .is central in the labor pool and should draw
well; the size:and shape 'of .the planning area gives wide, latitude for
pleasing design... . [ .
Commissioners Fitzgerald and Leonard mentioned branch office courthouse
and related usesas a possible direction to 'be considered for some land
in Cupertino. City Attorney Anderson had mentioned some time before
opposing theories on what makes a good court-house site: good road
pattern, access, "parking . . . in the boondox vs. . uptown locations pro-
viding 'restaurants and window shopping for jurors and court officials.
Discussion of C-1-H zoning for• quadrant B was l.'. limited. With Bickels
building supply outlet on one side .Texaco on the corner, and the fruit
plant opposite, there was not much disposition to discuss the parcel at
length.
Considerably more.: debate was generated on the 66 acres bisected by
Mariani Avenue and proposed as a prime _l.ocation for regional commercial.
Mr. Cone argued the growing inadequacy of. the San Antonio Shopping • .
Center,.. the Sunnyvale Plaza, and the Valley Fair-Emporium complex. All
are becoming .traffic-locked. • Suitable space and 'street pattern is lack-
ing in Los Gatos,' Saratoga, and Los Altos . There may be real need in
20 years or less for another regional. 'Logically it should .be close
to an Junipero interchange with major thoroughfares nearby. '65 .or -70
acres is .none too .much. Mr. Mariani supported 'these views and-expressed
the further. view that the owners wanted top quality commercial, not a. .
hodge-podge of low order. He . indicated ,that he felt other commercial
areas in' Cupertino were aiming at goals well short of regional: use;
that his group wanted .to retain and protect for Cupertino one of the .
few possible remaining sites for a real ,west Valley regional; that. if
they had the appropriate zoning they were willing to wait years if nec--
essary to obtain the, right centerpiece. ' He explicitly rejected. a dis-
count house or a department store specializing in cheap merchandise as . .110
a proper anchor. He 'alluded to -the rapid ,growth .in recent - years- in the
Cupertino area; pointed out the significance of having prime land avail,-
able when other cities are all ..cut up with subdivisions and, strip com-
mercial; the recent concrete Interest byl major firms. Small and Leonard . .
concurred- at least in .part with most ofthe: above .land analysis.
Buffering was' 'discussed; particularly near Linwood. Neither the appli- .
cant nor his consultant were particularly enthusiastic about backing
multiple up to R-1 homes . Cone . commented at length oh .other forms- of
buffering. - Fairly deep planted areas, hawe been tried:. say 3 rows of
trees plus shrubs in a strip 25 ' to 40. wide. Both maintenance and
policing problems-have arisen. A more satisfactory solution has .been
found which gives buffering both 'ways: a masonry wall perhaps 6' high
with a screen planting on both sides rising to a height of perhaps . 14
r----
cuts off straight-thru vision; hides TV antenna one way; parking lots
the other way. The greenery softens the masonry. A total width of 10,
or 15 ' reduces maintenance and avoids any need for policing forest areas.
Commissioners Leonard and Rampy noted that the lots in Linwood are
unusually deep; that the owners have in some cases put in double fences--
the first establishing a small back yard which is' maintained, the second
on th'e property -line-With the area between being an untended wasteland.
The question was asked whether or not such a space could be acquired to
develop a wall and double screen buffer. The possible dual advantages
would be a solution to a homeowner maintenance problem, and the reten-
tion of fuller acreage for use. Applicant ' s consultant was asked to
sketch a section of this type of buffering and submit it to the City
Staff at once.
t Commissioner Frolich suggested one-story medical offices ( like those
on Altos Oaks Drive near the Rancho Center in Los Altos) as a buffer
between residential and commercial. Applicant knows of the development
mentioned and likes it, but feels 66 acres is nearly minimum for a reg-
ional and probably should not be reduced at this time by using part of
it for medical uses,
Commissioner Snyder brought the discussion back repeatedly to the items
in the planned community ordinance which will probably be embodied in a
checklist when the Staff completes their study. His purpose was to be
sure that processing of the application would not be delayed by Commis-
sion failure to double-check that all necessary documents were in the
file during processing.
There were no protests . Commissioners Frolich, Snyder, and Fitzgerald
commented on this hearing being held at an adjourned meeting, and in a
different room than usual. So that there could be no flaw in the hear-
ing record, they. wanted .the second hearing on a regular night in the
regular room with a full Staff Report before the body.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER THAT
THE FIRST HEARING BE CLOSED.
Ayes: Commissioners: Fitzgerald, Frolich, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder
Noes: Commissioners: None
Absent: Commissioners: Small (in Council meeting at the time)
Adamo
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEONARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD
THAT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED:
(See appended resolution)
Adjourned at 10:48 PM
APPROVED:
/s/ Charles K. Snyder
Chairman
110
-3-