PC 05-24-05
City of Cupertino
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission meeting
Cupertino Community Hall
Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 6:00 p.m. (Note: this is an earlier start time)
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:00 p.m.; City Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not
on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the
Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
GPA-2004-01, EA-2004-17
City of Cupertino
Citywide
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan
Topic: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tentative City Council date: Not sclæduled
2. Application No.(s): ASA-200S-04
Applicant: John Tang (San Jose Water Co.)
Location: Regnart Road
Architectural and site approval for a security fence for an existing water tank
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2005
·
Planning Commission Agenda of May 24, 2005
Page-2
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny ASA-2005-04
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that
Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals
to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,
please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
g:Planningl Agendas & Hearings5-24-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Application No.: GP A-2004-01, EA-2004-17 Agenda Date: May 24, 2005
Applicant: City of Cupertino
LocatiOlý APN:City-wide
Application Summary:
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1 Discuss the Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
2. Discuss the remaining General Plan meeting schedule
3. Continue this agenda item to the next General Plan meeting, once
determined
Background:
The City Council authorized the Task Force Draft General Plan as the public
hearing draft for the General Plan review. The Task Force Draft and other
supporting documents were provided to the Planning Commission in September
2004. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission focus on the
Hot Topics, as discussed in the Hot Topics Summary Matrix and Background
Report.
Discussion:
The purposes of tonight's meeting are to:
> Discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
The Draft Environmental Impact has been in circulation since February; the
closing date for written comments was March 21, 2005. This is the first public
hearing onthe DEIR. Planning Resource Associates, the City's consultants on the
General Plan and the DEIR, will review the document at the hearing. Any
comments received at the hearing will receive responses that will be included in
the final EIR. Staff requests that the Planning Commission close the public
hearing on the DEIR at this meeting, to allow time to respond to comments prior
to the June 28 Planning Commission meeting.
> Determine the remaining General Plan schedule
The Planning Commission proposed the following remaining schedule for
review by the City Council at its May 17 meeting:
/-1
General Plan Review
Page 2
[Sunday June 12
1:00 - 4:00 PM]
Preliminary Recommendations
Extra meeting will be held if so directed by the City
Council
Tuesday, June 14
6:00 PM
Preliminary Recommendations
[Wednesday, June 15
6:00 PM]
Preliminary Recommendations
Extra meeting if needed
Tuesday, June 28
6:00 PM
Final Recommendations on General Plan
amendments and Draft EIR
The City Council discussed the schedule at the May 17 meeting and directed the
Planning Commission to make its recommendation to them no later than June 28.
The Council scheduled July 19 as its first public hearing on the General Plan.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission meet on Sunday, June 12 to
tour key properties in Cupertino, to assist in the discussion on June 14 and June
28. Planning Commissioners are being polled to determine if there are any other
dates they are available for a special General Plan meeting, to ensure that the
June 28 deadline is met.
Enclosures:
Please bring the Draft Environmental Impact Report previously provided. Let
staff know if an additional copy is needed.
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
G:plarming/pdreport/GPA-2004-014-26-05
/-~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Location:
ASA-200S-04 Agenda Date: May 24, 2005
John Tang (San Jose Water Company)
Regnart Road
Application Summary: Architectural and site approval for a security fence for an
existing water tank
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action:
. Approve ASA-200S-04 subject to the model resolution.
BACKGROUND
The San Jose Water Company owns and operates a water storage facility near
Regnart Road and Lindy Lane. (See Exhibit A aerial.) The facility consists of two
tanks. One was built in 1959 and holds 10.6 million gallons. The other was built in
1962 and contains 10.2 million gallons. This facility serves two zones within the
company's service area. The two zones encompass approximately seven square
miles and serve approximately 45,000 individuals in Cupertino (south of Stevens
Creek Blvd), west San Jose and a small portion of Saratoga.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the security fence at its April
26, 2005 meeting. The item was continued to allow the applicant and the neighbors
to work together to see if they can reach a compromise.
The Planning Commission report of April 26 is enclosed to provide additional
background information.
DISCUSSION
The San Jose Water Company has modified its proposal. Their current proposal is:
> North and east fence boundaries - move fence down to the bottom of the
slope
> South boundary fence - remain as originally proposed (lower the fence
approximately 25-35 feet down the slope to reduce visual impacts)
> West boundary - remain as installed
> The current chain-link fence at the top of the reservoir will be reused to erect
the new fence.
The enclosed photographs and site plan depict this proposal. Staff supports the
proposal since it appears to address the neighbors' concerns, in that the fence will
c2-1
ASA-200S-04
2
not be visible to the north and east elevations. The west boundary fence is at the
top of the tank, which is the preference of the neighbors in that area. Staff
recommends that the south boundary fence be vinyl-clad, since it will be visible to
adjacent neighbors.
Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner .
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Enclosures:
Model Resolution (ASA-200S-04)
Planning Commission Report, April 26, 2005
Exhibit A - Aerial map
Exhibit B - Photograph of current fence (prior to removal of razor wire)
Exhibit C - San Jose Water Company letters
Exhibit D- View points of water facility
Exhibit E - Photographs of proposed north, east and south boundary fence
(revised)
Plan Set (revised)
G:planningl pdreportl asal ASA-200S-04-2 SR
rJ- ' J.-
ASA-2005-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR A SECURITY FENCE
FOR AN EXISTING WATER TANK LOCATED ON REGNART ROAD
SECTION I: . PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2005-04
John Tang (San Jose Water Co.)
Regnart Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, thè applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance; .
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring
structures;
4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of
the City Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after. careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2005-04
~-j
Resolution No.
Page 2
ASA-2005-04
May 24, 2005
set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2005, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: Regnart Station Security Fencing," dated
5/19/05 and consisting of 1 sheet, except as may be amended by the conditions contained
in this approval.
2. FENCE MATERIAL
Replacement fencing for the south boundary shall be a dark vinyl, chain-link material.
3. FENCE INSTALLATION
The fence shall be installed within 30 days of approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ASA-2005-04 res.doc
é2-1-
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Location:
ASA-2005-04 Agenda Date: April 26, 2005
John Tang (San Jose Water Company)
Regnart Road
Application Summary: Architectural and site approval for a security fence for an
existing water tank
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action:
. Approve ASA-2ooS-04 subject to the model resolution.
BACKGROUND
The San Jose Water Company owns and operates a water storage facility near
Regnart Road and Lindy Lane. (See Exhibit A aerial.) The facility consists of two
tanks. One was built in 1959 and holds 10.6 million gallons. The other was built in
1962 and contains 10.2 million gallons. This facility serves two zones within the
company's service area. The two zones encompass approximately seven square
miles and serve approximately 45,000 individuals in Cupertino (south of Stevens
Creek Blvd), west San Jose and a small portion of Saratoga.
The General Plan designation is Quasi-public and the zoning is Al-43. The
reservoir is a conditional use in the A-I zone. This water storage facility does not
have a use permit and is a legal, non-conforming use.
The San Jose Water Company installed a 6-foot, chain-link security fence around
the top of the tank in the fall of 2004. Neighbors contacted the City with concerns
about the visibility and aesthetics of the fence. For many neighbors, the fence is
silhouetted against the sky, and was particularly noticeable because of the shiny
metal and razor wire (see Exhibit B). Staff informed the Water Company that
architectural review is required to install the fence. The Water Company held two
neighborhood meetings in January and March, respectively, to better understand
the neighbors' concerns and preferences regarding the fence location and design.
They also removed the razor wire on the top of the fence.
DISCUSSION
Water tank security
The San Jose Water Company provided background on the need for enhanced
security for water facilities (Exhibit C). They determined that the proposed fence
meets their security needs by deterring and delaying intruders. Their current
security system consists of perimeter fencing, motion detector beams and tamper
;2-5
ASA-200S-04
2
beam alarms on various openings to the reservoir and other facility appurtenances.
The proposed security fence will include a motion sensor.
Fence location and design
The San Jose Water Company proposes to modify the current location of the fence
to address neighbors' concerns, while meeting their security needs. Their
assessment of the neighbors' preferences is:
> West and north elevation -leave the fence in its current location.
> Northeast corner -leave the fence in its current location (alternate 1). Lower
the fence below the trees, in response to adjacent property owners (alternate
2).
> East elevation - lower the fence approximately 30-35 feet down the slope
from the current location to reduce visual impacts.
> Southeast corner -lower the fence around stairs to reduce visibility.
> South elevation - lower the fence approximately 25-35 feet down the slope
to reduce visual impacts.
The San Jose Water Company states that they are confident that they have reached
a solution that is acceptable with the neighbors while allowing them to maintain
security. However, it is difficult to determine an exact consensus of adjacent
property owners, since not all of the property owners participated in the meetings,
and there were differences among those who did participate. For example, some
may want the fence lower so that it is not silhouetted against the sky, while others
prefer it at the top of the tank to maintain distance between their rear properties
and the fence.
Assuming it is the wish of the majority of the east and south property owners to
lower the fence, staff believes it should be lowered further to reduce visual
impacts. The San Jose Water Company is reluctant to plac~ their fence too clQse to
rear-yard fences (see April 7 letter). However, staff believes that it could be lower
and still be visible to meet their security needs. In addition, staff does not believe
that a large lateral clearance between fences is a significant issue, in that anyone
with a ladder could easily use it to climb over the fence, with no advantage to
being able to breach the distance by placing the ladder over the two fences.
Staff supports the San Jose Water Company's proposal with the following
conditions:
> Alternate 1 for the northeast corner shall be implemented, unless there is
clear testimony to the contrary by affected neighbors.
> The east fence location shall be lowered to reduce its visibility; the top foot
of the fence may be visible from the rear properties to provide improved
security.
> Replacement fencing shall be a dark vinyl, chain-link material.
;!.-(y
ASA-200S-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR A SECURITY FENCE
FOR AN EXISTING WATER TANK LOCATED ON REGNART ROAD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-200S-04
John Tang (San Jose Water Co.)
Regnart Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring
structures;
4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of
the City Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-200S-04
. oZ~?
Resolution No.
Page 2
ASA-2005-04
April 26, 2005
set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2005, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: Regnart Station Security Fencing:' dated
3/18/05 and consisting of 1 sheet, except as may be amended by the conditions contained
in this approval.
2. FENCE LOCATION AND DESIGN
Alternate 1 for the northeast comer shall be implemented, unless there is clear testimony
to the contrary by affected neighbors. The east fence location shall be lowered to reduce
its visibility; the top one-foot of the fence may be visible above the fence tops of the rear
properties to provide improved security. Replacement fencing shall be a dark vinyl,
chain-link material.
l"f\.:CDU f\l\lLJ i'\.1Jvr lr..LJ uus ¿O~· uay UI i\.prll ,""UU::>, at é1 KeguLar lYleeIlllg UI me rlaIuung
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\ PJanning\PDREPORT\ RES\ASA-2005-04 res.doc
J-9
Basemap Labels
Abc Zoning
Abc Street Names
Address
Basemap
Freeway Ramps
Right-of-Way
Parcels
Community Development
C City Boundary
cg¡ Aerials - July 2004
C~~y of Cuperi.~no
EXHIBIT A
.___1':-- '111' ... m 111'1 IIII:II&¡¡¡; ii'
. . .... __..... .". ..... __ _.... iIIIII
I :'"233= ~U..22..9 -"-:23>i,'>2:3B 112·35. .i:::: !II:1I!I!I!I12Z3~_II.'-·:'233: ·,~;·~..IIiWIIIU-23S"'1
....lIriiïIaa.· .11 - IIIIIII!IJI!II!I!I!I!II_.. ._ î124i1!?i71
llllI!!!I" ........i_._. Ii!i8iI
11261. M.A. .....W8.ø>-· _.- -1I_':iiI"I""..g 1I"hr.! .-¡¡¡,,,.,
...--.,.. 1M ...~_. ..... .....~ ~ .... ...11
---~, 1IiZ'" - ....._ -.. .. 'B'p,_
1II!!IIr.. ¡ill'>"" ",'.' _ .. - ')II I_~ .... -.PH".
_BOS II... ....' I !.. - -
.. .. III!!! II II _ 1m -C.
·..··1- · lIB
1-- ~ .... .. .. I ...... Jr"·2
Ilia. IIIJ . 11._.,
I'· . ?-,III,,"...-,p.#", .,,,;, ...~9I..'..~
· - .. ... 3'.;" _0;. u~...... ..,..
.... ..... ...... .",,,,,, ~p~ ............. ~111iIII
_ _.·1_~"9". ,~IIII. I Ell,
.. iIII 3'" . _...!!!!!! ___
· II! .""OS2' ._.... CI. !III&.! ."!,114
...'11>- --II.:;;"'..".. g
rr 3'1'" 11i-~'''~ $, .........í..,-.- I!:! Ii!IIEI;:J,.
..' ...... III.... 'í' · I 11911191
-. 2"25 .~. ';~".~I!:-"'. ..
N
SCALE 1 : 3,410 A
r- - - , , I
200 0 200 400 600
FEET
c1. -10
http://aguardsrvr/Planning/home/maps/Planning.mwf
Monday, April 18, 2005 8:55 AM
EXHIBIT C
3.:111 sanJose
Water
Company
f==r'"·f
¡ 1 ~'I..c"..,-,.......... r~
¡vi.~R ') '"J' /¡¡'u"
..,' t _"" ..J
374 West Santa Clara St
San Jose. CA 95196-0001
BY;
March 21, 2005
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Re: Regnart Facility Security Fencing
Dear Ms. Wordell:
Enclosed are three (3) copies of the site plan and photographs showing San Jose Water
Company's (SJWC) proposed final location for the security fence at the subject facility.
The proposed measure is in response to the events of September 11 and the subsequent
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Rèsponse Act of 2002 requiring water utilities to
reassess and where necessary improve security measures. As required by law, the
Vulnerability Assessment employs the Ilisk Assessment Methodology for Water (RAM-
W) developed jointly by the Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories and
the American Water Works Association Research Foundation. SJWC's first priority is to
protect the safety and security of our consumers and employees, and we believe the
proposed measure is key to helping us achieve that goal.
The Vulnerability Assessment identified four key objectives to assess the effectiveness of
security systems. These objectives include the abilities to:
· Deter
· Delay
· Detect
· Respond
The Vulnerability Assessment further concluded that concrete water basins, including
Regnart, are critical facilities requiring enhanced security measures. Concrete water
basins (see attached photo), by their very design, are more susceptible to security
breaches than today's modern steel water tanks.
The Regnart facility is a key component ofSJWC's system that serves approximately one
million people throughout the Santa Clara County. After a thorough evaluation of the
risks and available security measures, we strongly believe the new fence represents the
cJ. -13
Ms. Ciddy Wordell
March 21, 2005
Page 2
best combination of available technology and is a key component of a comprehensive
security system, procedures, and devices designed to safeguard the public drinking water
supply. The proposed fence was designed to meet the objectives of the Vulnerability
Assessment by deterring intruders, delaying trespassers, detecting their presence, and
allowing time for SJWC security personnel and law enforcement agencies to respond.
Over the past three months, we have received feedback from and have met with
interested neighbors of the Regnart facility with the goal of resolving their concerns over
the fence's visual impacts. After our meeting with the group on March 15,2005, I am
confident that we have reached a solution that is acceptable with our good neighbors
while allowing us to maintain the level of security we believe is necessary to protect the
integrity and safety of the public water supply. The solution encompasses the following
components and is reflected on the attached plans:
· The western (Lindy Lane) and northern (Terrace Street) boundaries of the current
fence will remain in place.
· The eastern boundary has been relocated further down the slope to minimize its
aesthetic impacts.
· The fence configuration around the stairway access was altered based on feedback
from our neighbors.
· The replaced portions of the fence (eastern and southern boundaries) will have
either black or green vinyl clad chain-link to minimize glare and visual impacts.
The plan also shows two alternatives for the portion of fence in the northeast corner of
the facility. This area is heavily vegetated, severely sloped, and contains three (3) large
oak trees. Based on the feedback we received about this location, the two different
aligrunents proposed for this area were designed to minimize the fence's visual impact
while allowing the trees to be preserved in their current condition. We will accept either
aligrunent based on the wishes of the Planning Commission and residents.
SJWC's first priority is and always will be to protect the safety and security of our
consumers and employees. In these days and times, we must be more vigilant about
providing the public with a safe and reliable water supply.
I look forward to meeting with you and the other Planning Commission members on
April 12.
cP. -11
I.:IJJ SanJose
Water
Company
374 West Santa Clara 5t.
San Jose, CA 95196-0001
April 7, 2005
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Re: Revised Security Fencing Plan
Regnart Facility
Dear Ms. Wordell:
I am enclosing three (3) copies of the revised site plan showing the location of the
proposed eastern boundary fence.
As communicated to you, the original plans submitted on March 21 showed the
location of the proposed fence lower on the slope than that shown by the story
poles. The story poles were not surveyed in at that time because the plans had to
be submitted prior to your deadline to be put on the April 12 Planning
Commission meeting agenda. Since this project has been delayed until the April
26 meeting, I am sending you the revised plan.
The neighbors on the east side of the property have requested the location of the
fence to be lower than that shown by the story poles. Many have suggested
placing the fence at the bottom of the slope. SJWC did consider this alignment
but have some reservations about the fence's effectiveness at this location. A
fence at the bottom of the slope would equate to a lateral clearance between the
proposed fence and our perimeter fence of approximately eight to ten feet, a
distance easily breached by a l5-foot ladder. Another concern we have with the
fence at the bottom of the slope is the reduced visibility to our neighbors
participating in the Neighborhood Eye on Water Security (NEWS) Program. Due
to the sloping topography, heavy vegetation, and redwood fences separating our
properties, an intruder cannot be easily seen at the bottom of the slope and this
situation reduces the effectiveness of both the fence and the NEWS Program.
Even though it is not specified on the plan, SJWC has agreed to use either green
or black chain-link fabric. The idea for this originated with the neighborhood
~ ~/(¡J
Ms. Ciddy Wordell
April 7, 2005
Page 2
group and is designed to minimize the visual impacts of the fence. No final
decision on the color has been made but we stand ready to use either color in
accordance with the neighborhood group's preference.
SJWC believes we have made an extremely concerted effort to satisfy the diverse
concerns of our neighbors while preserving our common goal of protecting the
public drinking water supply. We realize the fence will change the site's
aesthetics but we are also fully aware of the risks and consequences if aesthetics
and not security becomes the overriding goal. I look forward to meeting with you
and the other Planning Commission members on April 26 to resolve this issue.
We will accept, respect and abide by the Planning Commission's decision.
If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact
me at 408-279-7851.
John B. Tang
Assistant Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Mark Lee
Mark Taormina
¿{-11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav. Mav 24. 2005
The City Council met on Tuesdav. May 17, 2005. and discussed the followinl!::items of
interest to the Plannin~ Commission:
1. Blue Pheasant Restaurant: The City Council denied the application for a Use
Permit for a restaurant, bar and nightclub and for a General Plan Amendment
and Rezoning of a two-acre parcel from Parks to Commercial. (see attached
report)
2. Cancellation of Tuly 5 City Council Meeting: The Council voted to cancel the
regularly scheduled meeting of July 5 due to lack of a quorum.
3. General Plan Hearin~ Schedule: The City Council directed the Planning
Commission to complete the General Plan Hearings on June 28, and directed
staff to provide background information on the General Plan at the July 19 City
Council meeting. (see attached report)
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Available Tune Meeting Dates: Please remember to check your calendars for
available weekday meeting dates for the month of June to discuss the General
Plan. A meeting schedule will be developed as soon as we know the dates when
all of the commissioners will be available.
Enclosures: Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles
G:planning/StevePjdirector's report/pd.5-24-05
Ù¡¿-/
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
CITY F
(UPEIQ1NO
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO._
AGENDA DATE Mav 17, 2005
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider a Use Permit application for a restaurant,
bar and nightclub; a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from Parks to Commercial to accommodate an existing restaurant,
bar and nightclub; and the Rezorung of a two-acre parcel from Public Park or
Recreation (PR) to Planned Commercial (p-Com)
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends denial (on a 2-2 vote) of:
1. EA-2005-04 Negative Declaration
2. U-200S-05 Use Permit for a restaurant, bar and nightclub
3. GP A-200S-02 General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from Parks to Commercial to accommodate an existing
restaurant, bar and nightclub
4. Z-200S-03 Rezorung of a two-acre parcel from Public Park or Recreation
(PR) to Planned Commercial (p-Com)
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Parks
Zoning Designatiotý Public Park or Recreation (PR)
Project Consistency with: General Plan: No (change is required)
Zoning: No (change is required)
Environmental Assessment:
Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
The City is requesting a General Plan amendmentj zone change for the Blue
Pheasant property so that the new business owner may apply for a Use Permit to
operate a bar and nightclub. The nightclub operation is a conditional use in a
commercial zorung district. Conditional uses are not permitted in the
parkjrecrëation zone. Furthermore, a nightclub is not a typical use in a park
zorung-district; the land use is more appropriately designated as commercial.
J)-rZ
Printed on Recycled Paper
V-200S-0S, GP A-2005-02, Z-2005-03 (EA-2005-04)
Blue Pheasant Restaurant
Page 2 of 4
May 11, 2005
The city of Cupertino acquired the Blue Pheasant Restaurant with Blackberry
Farm Picnic Grounds and Golf Course in 1991. At the time of purchase, the
Rasmussens, the current business owners of the Blue Pheasant, were in the final
years of a 10-year lease, with an option to renew for.an additional 10 years.
Eighteen months before the lease expired (March 31, 2004), staff met with the
owners and ultimately negotiated terms of a lease based on an 11 PM closure.
Subsequent to signing of the lease, the owners determined that an 11 PM closure
was not viable. The Rasmussens are currently open until 2 AM in violation of
the lease; the City is pursuing the 11 PM closure in court. The Rasmussens have
decided to sell the business.
A perspective owner, Michael Tsachres, is in escrow to purchase the business
and would like to pursue a Conditional Use Permit to operate the bar and
nightclub until midnight and 1 AM (weekdays and weekends, respectively). He
has met with neighbors and has s1ll11Inari.zed their concerns in the attached
memo. He is proposing solutions to address their concerns, while still operating
a viable business.
As the City is the property owner, the Parks and Recreation Director is the
applicant for the General Plan amendment and zone change. Mr. Tsachres is
applying for the Use Permit.
DISCUSSION:
Community outreach:
A city-wide mailing notified property owners of the Planning Commission and
City Council hearing dates for this application. In addition, Mr. Tsachres mailed
invitations to approximately 600 property owners to a community meeting he
held on April 18, 2005. Parking and noise issues were the foremost concerns of
the residents. A summary of the meeting is enclosed.
Parking and Noise:
Adequate parking exists for the nightclub use, in accordance with Cupertino's
parking ordinance. However, actual nightclub parking has overflowed into the
adjacent neighborhood, creating late-night disturbances for the neighbors. For
the past three weeks, as part of the analysis for this application, the buyer has
obtained permission from the seller to use hired security to enforce occupancy
limits at the door. The result has been a less crowded bar with fewer parking
problems, leading to the conclusion that if the occupancy limits were strictly
enforced, many of the problems would be solved.
))-3
U-2005-05, GP A-2005-02, Z-2005-03 (EA-2005-04)
Blue Pheasant Restaurant
Page 3 of 4
May 11, 2005
Mitigation measures to address parking and noise impacts are proposed as
conditions of approval. They are:
> Reduce business hours from 2 AM. to 12 midnight Sunday to
Wednesday and 1:00 AM. Thursday through Saturday
> Not allow any new customers after 12 midnight Thursday through
Saturday
> Not serve drinks after 12:30 AM. Thursday through Saturday
> Have the employees park on the street, not the customers, which makes
more parking available in the parking lot
> Have ernployees in the parking lot at closing time on Friday and Saturday
nights to ensure orderly departures
~ Enforce maximum occupancy
In addition, a six-month review by the Planning Commission for conformance
with the conditions of approval was recommended. Additional parking
solutions, such as providing parking on the interior frontage road, could be
implemented if necessary.
Planning Commission:
A motion to approve the applications was denied on a 2-2 vote (Chen, Giefer yes,
Miller, Wong no). Included in the motion was that the General Plan and zoning
changes be to a Parks/Commercial designation. Commissioner Wong stated that
he did not support the nightclub late hours, and that the neighborhood needs
relief from negative impacts. He did not have enough information on parking
solutions. Commissioner Miller also did not have enough parking information,
and believes the nightclub is not a compatible use in the neighborhood. He also
has concerns about "spot zoning" the site for commercial uses.
Public:
Seven members of the public spoke on the applications. Five spoke :in opposition
due to neighborhood impacts; one requested that additional on-site parking be
provided and another spoke in favor. Resident ernai1s and comments are
enclosed in the packet.
Staff:
Staff pointed out that the use permit gives the City control over the nightclub
operation, which it would not otherwise have. The prospective owner of the
business is the best-qualified applicant the City has considered, and the orùy one
approved by the Council for assignment of the lease.
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
J-1
U-200S-0S
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6298
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT, BAR AND
NIGHTCLUB LOCATED AT 22100 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROĊCT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-200S-0S (EA-200S-04)
City of Cupertino (Blue Pheasant Restaurant)
22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of. Cupertino received an application for a
Use Pemùt, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public heariri.gs on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for denial.
JJ -&
Resolution No. 6298 Denial U-2005-05 May 10, 2005
Page 2
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2005-05
(EA-200S-04), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 10,
2005.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Miller and Chairperson Wong
COMMISSIONERS: Chen and Giefer
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Saadati
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Is/ GilbertWong
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\PIanrùng\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2005-0S res.doc
])-1
GP A-200S-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RFSOLUTION NO. 6299
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM pARKS TO COMMERCIAL TO ACCOMMODATE AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT, BAR AND NIGHTCLUB
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant
Project Location:
GP A-2005-02 (EA-2oo5-04)
City of Cupertino (Blue Pheasant Restaurant) .
22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission pf the City of Cupertino received an application for a
General Plan Amendment, for the site described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and considered public
testimony from citizens and interested groups; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Plan amendment is
not necessary to bring a site with an existing commercial use into conformance with the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that there will be significant
environmental impacts since the site consists of an existing use that will have improved
operating conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RFSOL VED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for General Plan Amendment are hereby denied;
and
That the subconc1usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. GP A-2005-
02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 10,2005, and are
incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein.
})-?
Z-200S-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RFSOLUTION NO. 6300
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE RE-ZONlNG OF A TWO-ACRE PARCEL FROM
PUBLIC PARK OR RECREATION (PR) TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P-COM)
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-200S-03 (EA-2005-04)
City of Cupertino (Blue Pheasant Restaurant)
22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning does not meet the
following requirements:
1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new
zoning designation.
3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
]) -10
Resolution No. 6300
Page 2
2-2005-03
May 10, 2005
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. 2-2005-03 is hereby recommended for denial;
and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application Z-200S-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of May 10, 2005 and are incorporated by reference herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYFS:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Miller and Chairperson Wong
COMMISSIONERS: Chen and Giefer
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Saadati
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/sl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
151 Gilbert Wong-
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
J) ~I/
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO._
AGENDA DATE Mav 17, 2005
SUMMARY:
General Plan hearing schedule
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and confirm or amend the
Planning Commission General Plan hearing schedule.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission has been reporting its General Plan review schedule
to the City Council. The Commission has extended the schedule several times;
the City Council expressed its concern and wants to review the schedule at this
meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission discussed the schedule at its May 10, 2005 meeting.
The schedule, shown below, projects completion at the June 28, 2005 meeting, but
the Commission doubts that all the issues can be addressed by then and may
need additional meetings into July. They are willing to hold an extra meeting on
Sunday, June 12, to help expedite completion, if so directed by the City Council.
The Commission discussed the fact that Sunday meetings may be difficult for the
public to attend; consequently this is not their first preference.
After much discussion the Commission felt they need to meet through June to
complete their review. The following schedule reflects their estimated time
frame for completion.
Remaining General Plan Schedule:
Tuesday, Maý 24
6:00 PM
Draft Environmental Impact Report
JJ -/;;2-
Printed on Recycled paper
General Plan Hearing Schedule
Page 2
May 17, 2005
[Sunday, June 12
1:00 - 4:00 PM]
Council
Preliminary Recommendations
Extra meeting will be held ifso directed by the City
Tuesday, June 14
6:00 PM
Preliminary Recommendations
[Wednesday, June 15
6:00 PM]
Preliminary Recommendations
Extra meeting if needed
Tuesday, June 28
6:00 PM
Final Recommendations on General Plan
amendments and Draft EIR
Council Options:
1) The council could ask the Planning Commission to conclude its
discussions by the end of May and refer the plan at whatever state it is
in at that time. It is likely the recommendation would come to you in
an incomplete form.
2) The Council could begin your discussions of the background
information and environmental impacts while the Commission is
finishing up their recommendation. However, this format may be
difficult for the public to follow and for the staff to provide support to
both the Council and Commission at the same time.
3) The Council could allow the Commission to con.tinue through the end
of June with the likelihood that they might need additional meetings
into July.
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
APPROVED BY:
.
~
David W. Knapp
Oty Manager
G:planning/pdreport;cc/gpsclædule5-17-05
JJ -/3
tllgn-ena
home store
tö close in
E. Palo Alto
By Kim Yo and Renee Kowy
Mercury News
The Expo Design Center in
East Palo Alto, a haven for
th~ seelóng satin nickel towel
bars and $600 kitchen sIDks,
will close and re-emerge as part
of an expanded Home Ùepot,
company officiBJs said.
The change is part of a na-
tionwide shake-up of the 54-
store home design chain. The
East Palo Alto store is one of
five the parent company plans
to convert to Home Depots. Fif-
teen Expos, including one in
Concord. will close altogether.
Jean Osta, company spokes-
woman. said the moves were
part of the company's strategy
of focusing on "better perfonn-
ing stores."
It's unclear when the closings
will 0CCUl' Osta said the compa-
ny has no set timeline, but em-
ployees at the East Palo Alto
store, who learned of the im-
pending closing 'fuesday morn-
ing, said theY were told the
store would close in two
months.
''Everybody was in shock,"
said Jesse Sison of Redwood
Ctl¥, a' saie~nIDn whds
worked there since July.
The company will complete
current installation and prod-
uct orders, but will not accept
any new ones at the affected
stores, Osta said.
The 'changes will touch ap-
proximately 2,000 Expo em-
ployeesacross the country, in-
cludine: apprOJåmate1y 100 to
150 in East Palo Alto.
Sison and others said manag-
ers told them saies were too
slow to generate enough money
for the bjgh rent.
The huge store, which
opened on East Bayshore Road
in November 2000, appeared
largely empty at noon Wednes-
day. Several customers said
they browsed the store mainly
to 1eaÌ-n decorating techniques
and check out the elaborate de-
signer displays of Jiving rooms,
bathrooms and kitchens.
But theY often left empty-
handed.
It's unknown what role the
closing Inight play on the city's
finances.
East Paio Alto's fortunes
have greatly benefited from the
chain stores that have flocked in
recent years to the shopping
center near Highway 101 The
city takes in about $2 million an-
nually in saies taxes, up from
$400,000 in 1998. City leaders
did not return phone calls
Wednesday.
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005 LOCAL
]]-FI