Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 09-08-03
City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers September 8, 2003, 6:45 p.m. ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 28, 2003 August 25, 2003 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business) CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: TR-2003-08 Northpoint HOA 10880 Northpoint Way Request to remove six trees and provide replacements at an existing planned residential development PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Z-2003-05, EA-2003-13 Tom & Liz Jackson 10650 Bubb Road Rezoning of a commercial/office building to allow vocational and specialized schools, subject to securing of a use permit Tentative City Council date: October 6, 2003 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Planning Commission Agenda of September 8, 2003 Page -2 1. Approve or deny EA-2003-13 2. Approve or deny Z-2003-05 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: U-2003-07 Steven Ma (ThinkTank Learning) 10650 Bubb Road Use permit to operate a learning center in an existing building Tentative City Council date: October 6, 2003 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny U-2003-07 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM-2003-03, EXC-2003-04, EA-2003-11(Mit.) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard Rezoning of approximately 12 acres from P, P(RIC), R3 and T zones to P(Com, Res), P(Res) and PR zone Use permit to demolish 13, 000 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 49 townhomes, 24 duet homes, a public park and to make signage, landscaping and parking improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center Tentative map to subdivide two parcels and excess right-of-way into 29 parcels, including one 5.4 acre commercial property, on 2.9 acre residential property for 49 condominiums, 24 small-lot single family attached properties ranging from 0.03 to 0.08 acres and one 0.3 acre public park Heart of the City exceptions related to setbacks, parkway landscape improvements and screen fences or walls adjacent to commercial properties Tentative City Council date: September 15, 2003 OLD BUSINESS 5. Investigation of City Council approval of size of second story in R-1 ordinance Planning Corrrmission Agenda of September 8, 2003 Page -3 NE~V BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS 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. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. JULY 28, 2003 MONDAY CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 2003 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Acting Chairperson Saadati, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner Taghi Saadati Chuck Corr Marty Miller Gilbert Wong Commissioners absent: Chairperson: AngelaChen Staff present: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner: Asst. City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Vera Gil Eileen Murray Elizabeth Ellis Vice Chairperson Saadati served as Chair in Chairperson Chen's absence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the July 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting: Revisions (Com. Wong) Page 15: · 5t~ bulleted item: first line, third statement should be new bulleted item · building of the garden center needs to be painted · removal of the lawn patio furniture will free up many parking spaces in the neighboring applicant's property · Second last bulleted item: change to read "Said he supported the city's attorney" · Last bulleted item, change "us appropriate" to read "seems appropriate". Chair Saadati: Page 13, · first line of his statements: Line 1, change to read: "Wildflower, 5 to 6 times including in the morning" · Second line: delete "anywhere" and insert "in the parking next to Wildflower"; delete: "there was a lot of congestion in the area, but" and replace with "most of the time there was congestion in the area next to the coffee shop, and". Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 28, 2003 · Page 14: Line 1: change "side" to read "site" · Page 14, Line 6: Change "policy" to "relationship" Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller to approve July 28, 2003 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0, Chairperson Chen absent) WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNIUCATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC I:HgARING M-2003-13 Louie Tsigaris (Flames Restaurant) Modification of a use permit for fagade improvements and outdoor seating at an existing vacant restaurant, located at 10630 So. DeAnza Blvd. Planning Commission final unless appealed. Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the application was a modification of a use permit for fagade improvements and outdoor seating at an existing vacant restaurant. · Illustrated the site location on DeAnza Blvd., in a shopping center, backing up to the residential neighborhood of Clay Street and Whitney Way. · Project issues include fagade improvements, streetscape improvements and parking improvements. · Reviewed facade improvements including addition of parapet with reveal cuts; addition of columns, outdoor seating with trellis above; lights illuminating new signage; some trellises added to the north elevation for climbing vines to be added. · Reviewed landscape plan, proposed street improvements, park strip, sidewalk. · Reviewed site plan showing parking available for the center; there is extra spaces; 77 spaces that will more than make up for any overflow parking caused by restaurant. · Clarified parking ratio is one space per 4 seats plus peak hour employees. · Staffrecommends approval of the modification of the use permit. Com. Wong asked the following questions: · If total parking supplied at the center is 77 spaces? · What is square footage of restaurant? · What is maximum capacity of the restaurant? · Can the number of outside seats be increased from 32? Ms. Gil's responses/statements: · 77 spaces not parking supplied, but is excess; when calculating requirements for adjacent businesses as well as the restaurant, there is an excess of 77 spaces which would be more than adequate to handle overflow parking if needed. · Square footage of restaurant is 5,720 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 28, 2003 · Said the restaurant is planned for 148 seats including outside. · Relative to closing hour, she said applicant requested 11 p.m. She said that later hours may cause problems with disruptions to the neighbors. · Said she was reluctant to extend closing hour beyond 11 p.m. · Parking is shared by the entire center. · Relative to No. 4 improvements, said it was recommended that they be approved at staff level as they are minor. Ms. Wordell said that the applicant would have to apply for a specific use permit for hours past 11 p.m. Relative to the question about transition from monolithic sidewalk, Ms. Gil said it would be a ten foot park strip with some trees and a six foot sidewalk; however, there is an existing monument sign, and the sidewalk would curve around and would come back in and expand to the 10 foot park strip. Mr. Louis Tsigaris, applicant, said the restaurant would serve beer and wine. He said that he did not foresee any problems with the parking at different hours in the day since the other businesses would open later and close earlier than the restaurant. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Nita McGalliard, Clifton Way: · Asked that the restaurant be good neighbors. · Said she was pleased to see the restaurant opening. · Asked that they check on time of deliveries and be sensitive to the neighbors. · Check on fans because of strong odors. · Said 11 p.m. closing was appropriate, and not open before 7 a.m. Chairperson Saadati closed the public hearing. Ms. Gil addressed Ms. McGalliard's concerns: · Odors: would have some odors consistent with prior restaurant; bacon in the morning; food cooking; venting is outside. · Noise - rear parking lot backs up to residential neighborhood. · Said the parking area was not used often except for employees. · Hours of operation: Said owner wants to cater to breakfast customers. Com. Wong: · Said he understood the neighbors' concerns; and if there are concerns they should be brought to code enforcement; can always return to City Council to express concerns. · Said he supported the project as there is a need for restaurants in Cupertino. · Said he supported consultant's Cannon's suggestion. In response to Com. Miller's question about time of deliveries, applicant said that deliveries were made after 8 a.m. Com. Miller: · Said it was a good addition to the community Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 28, 2003 · Said he was sensitive to residents' concerns; there are issues with Clay Street residents backing up to the rear of the center. · If open at 6 a.m., applicant should keep area quiet not to disturb neighbors. · Supported the project. Com. Corr: · Said it was a good addition to the area. · Parking worked for prior restaurant. · Said he supported the application. Chairperson Saadati: · Said he supported the application. · Main focus is to be a good neighbor. · Option to send a flier to let them know they can address issues to staff, Planning Comrmssion and City Council. · Said he liked the outdoor feature Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Miller to approve Application M-2003-03. (Vote 4:0:0, Chairperson Chert absent) CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 City of Cupertino Application from City of Cupertino for approval of Wireless Communications Master Plan. Tentative City Council hearing date of August 18, 2003. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Said that the Wireless Master Plan (Plan) was a master plan for the location, siting, design and entitlement of personal wireless service facilities throughout Cupertino. · Developed with staff, City Telecommunications Commission and Ted Kreines, consultant. · The Plan is the ftrst developed in the State of Califomia and one of only about four in the · Content of the Plan includes, Introduction, Goals, Summary of Policy, Background Information, Location of Structures, Siting and Design, Health and Safety, Monitoring, Implementation, Glossary of Terms., and Plan Features. · Detailed information on the Plan contents was reviewed by Mr. Jung and is included in the staff report. · Reviewed photos of personal wireless facilities in residential areas. · Staff recommends approval of the mitigated negative declaration; approval of the Plan in accordance with the model resolution, considering the inclusion or exclusion of draft Policy No. 6-5; or continuing the item to a future meeting for further review and discussion if needed. · Pointed out that public has not been involved in the process and staff would like to get more information out to them and have them involved more. Com. Miller: · Asked what the plans for ambient measurements were. Said the idea in the report is to establish a base level now before the installation of further facilities, to measure what the impact in terms of radiation is as more facilities go in. Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 28, 2003 It gives a base level end the report was not clear as to what the sites were, is it just commercial sites, were they going to take ambient measurements in the residential neighborhoods prior to installing them in the residential neighborhoods, and generally what makes sense? Mr. Jung: · Explained how radio assessment procedure works; the major concern is public exposure to it end how close they get to the entennas themselves. · If there is a close proximity of the entenna facility to a residential area, require the applicant to prepare a radio frequency assessment and provide criteria that needs to be addressed. · Cited examples of en entenna located on a stadium light pole at Cupertino High School far enough away from residential areas, located next to bleacher seats; want them to assess the impacts of the radio frequency radiation; inspect the radio frequency radiation from these facilities; usually have engineers do this. Another example was en antenna approved on Portal Avenue on California Water Service property. Com. Miller: · Referred to page 2-17 of the staff report, relative to ambient measurements, said the explanation did not go into detail about when and where it was appropriate to take ambient measurements. · Said there is not a great amount of installation of en abundance of equipment in residential neighborhoods which is the area of concern; does it make sense that in areas where there will be future installation to take some ambient measurements so that over time there is a way to calibrate the increase in radiation that may be experienced in a particular residential area? Mr. Jung: · Said there is not a single carrier proposing to go into residential areas, so it will be new for everybody. What will likely happen is that once a carrier decides if it has the means end the technology to do so, they will approach the city end say they are interested in getting on the light standards; present the designs end ask for concerns. · Staff will require a radio frequency assessment of the facilities, and before discussing that, ask that the ambient radiation be tested and find out the additive affect of the facilities. Com. Miller: · Said the assessment is desirable to do; but felt that it is based on modeling because they have not installed it yet end they are making some assumptions and doing modeling to estimate what the impact is going to be with the level of radiation. · Said he was interested in measurement and the first one is establishing a baseline which seems appropriate. · The report addresses ongoing monitoring, but it is not clear if they will establish a policy. · Questioned if it was appropriate that if the applicent put up the facilities, should they bear the responsibility of monitoring the radiation levels which would provide a way to ensure they are the federal guidelines. Mr. Jung: · Said other jurisdictions require annual or bi-annual assessment reports from the carrier; the test equipment would reveal what type of radio frequency; want to make sure they are still abiding by federal standards, end it cen be made a part of the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 28, 2003 Com Miller: . · There was another suggestion there be a particular time, that there is a sunset clause, do not just give approval that extends forever and at the end of that period they would actually have to come in and prove that they are meeting the requirements. Some combination would be appropriate. · Asked for a clarification on the 6-5 issue. Mr. Jung: · Cited an example of how it would work. Hypothetically there is a carrier that wants to locate on a particular building; the only way to get the height is by locating on the roof of a particular building, and the building itself has a flat top and if there are antennae on it, it cannot be screened unless there is an architectural screen around the whole roof of the building which the applicant finds to be cost prohibitive. Staff has asked the applicant to look at other buildings of similar height and he has done that and the other building owner said he would not lease the site. The applicant has established a search ring where they would like a located one; they have excluded all the other possibilities except for this particular one. They have done the best they can and it is still visible from the public right of way and is unattractive. On a staff level, at this point it would probably be decided at an architecture site review or a planning commission, because it likely would have involved some design review. · If the Director felt he could not resolve it, he may say that they cannot meet the intent of the design guidelines entirely and ask what will be done to compensate for the lack of ability to do that. Com. Corr: · Said they were optimistic about being able to predict the direction and the demand of the wireless technology in the future; however, questioned how it would be accomplished since no sooner would you assure the direction it would go, then the result would be the opposite. · Said in the Plan saw the ability to look at the aesthetics of whatever is going to happen; no matter whether it comes out to be the small ones from Metricom which are throughout the city also. · Said they were looking at the aesthetics of them, how do you make it blend in and be unobtrusive; and the other is the safety, whether it is with the radio, or falling pieces. · With the focus in the plan, it appears to be the plan no matter how the technology develops in the future, these are the issues and ensure that they are addressed. Com. Corr: · Said it was in the white paper that they would not use elementary and middle school sites, but would consider high school sites. He said he understood the logic written that says people are going to be concerned about the radiation on small children, but said it does not address the radius around those schools or how close you could get to those schools. Mr. Jung: · Explained why the elementary and middle schools were excluded; pointed out that the wireless companies are not considered utility companies and do not have the same rights as utility companies; and said a willing lessor of the property would need to be found. · The carriers said they don't go to the elementary schools because they are not willing to Lease them because there is a higher standard placed on elementary schools. The participatory high schools notice surrounding neighbors and if there is no objection, they move forward through a city process to lease out areas for the antennas, and receive rent which will be used for Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 28, 2003 things such as after school sports, etc. He said it was unlikely that it would happen at the elementary and middle school levels. Said he had not considered the radius around the schools; one of the things we are trying to predict when we talk about getting these things in the residential areas is we think that because of getting into residential areas, it is going to be a data intensive type of service and they will need to develop some very low powered facilities in order to be able to distribute these types of services and probably not the current system they have in effect in cities which are primarily serving the mobile customer or the business person now. Com. Corr clarified that the schools are operated by the state and do not operate under the city ordinances and regulations. Mr. Jung said that it is not related to a school function and would require a use permit from the city. Mr. Jung: · Relative to flagpoles, said he felt that flagpoles should not be used for a commercial purpose using the American or State flag to justify an antenna location. It is not against the law, the protocols for federal and state are unclear; it relates to respect and how the flag is displayed and whether it is appropriate to use the pole for a commercial purpose. He said he personally felt it was not appropriate and felt others would feel the same way. It needs to be tested in the air of public opinion before endorsing that. Com. Corr: · Expressed concern that they were discussing a wireless master plan, yet keep talking about the personal wireless service facilities. · Certain facilities are categorically excluded from the city's control, but they are not categorically excluded if they are mounted on a building or if the lowest point of the antenna is less than 10 meters or 32.8 feet above ground level. · Relative to radio frequency radiation reporting, one of the things suggested is that if the city of Cupertino determines that if such monitoring is permissible, the city may want to prepare, or have the applicants prepare and submit to the city a report containing measurements proving that a facility complies with the FCC guidelines. · Said he felt it should be the responsibility of the applicant or provider to do those studies and provide an affidavit that they meet the guidelines · Complimented staff on the excellent job which exceeded expectations. Mr. Jung: · Said it could be made a condition of any approval or any lease agreement for a city facility. Com. Wong: · Suggested the plan be called the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. He said he felt a wireless master plan covered everything about a master plan of having a wireless plan for the whole city; and what is being addressed is mainly facilities. · Questioned why only one of eight companies representing wireless in Cupertino participated. Mr. Jung: · Said he was not opposed to the suggestion of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. · Said the Telecommunications Commission liked the generic title of Wireless Master Plan although it is not accurate because it is so broad and covers many different things. Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 28, 2003 · Something more specific would also be acceptable. It was purposely broadened, knowing that it was not meant to address every aspect of wireless communications. · Said he was disappointed in the lack of participation of wireless companies; did not get a response from the majority he sent information to. · Said the entire industry is in chaos especially with bottoming out and the falling stock prices, companies may not have the money or resources to devote something similar for just one city. · Said the companies received an earlier draft of the plan and were asked to comment. At the beginning of this month, they had a copy of the plan and have had opportunities to provide input which they have remained silent on. Com. Wong: · Said it was an important public policy decision, and it is the companies' loss if they do not provide input. · Said he shared Com. Corr's concerns regarding the issue of the elementary schools vs. the high schools being used, and was concerned with putting the facility on the elementary and high school sites and said Lincoln/Monta Vista were good examples. · Questioned the use of historical buildings and the possibility of a fire; and also the issue with respect to flagpoles being used. Mr. Jung: · Said there were many historical buildings because of their age and condition, they were not in good shape and people would find it difficult to use them; and they would like to achieve the highest and best use for the building despite the city's interest in preserving historical structures. Some building owners feel that they could have a steady rental income from the facility that they may not otherwise get if the building was converted to a different type of use. · Relative to underground utility poles, he said since PG&E went into bankruptcy, they are not under-grounding utility poles and are not providing the funds for under-grounding any longer. · PG&E found that their labor costs were higher when repairing underground utilities; and from a cost standpoint decided not to provide funding or allow future under-grounding of utilities. Com. Wong: · Said he would wait for the Telecommunications Commission to have their say about Policy 6-5. · Said there should be something in the policy regarding noticing and also consider a radius around elementary schools since the Monta Vista/Lincoln/Kennedy is a good example of that. Chair Saadati: · Relative to public notice; questioned how much more public participation there would be by placing the notice in the newspaper, since they had not received much public input. · Asked if there was any public involvement in the past when the Telecommunications Commission was reviewing and discussing this. Relative to measurement; he asked how reliable the report was if a company installed the equipment and they measured the frequency. Mr. Jung: · Relative to more public participation, he said he would be pursuing articles with the local reporters, and in the Cupertino Courier more than just the local display ad; plans to write an article for the San Jose Mercury News and Cupertino Courier in addition to a display notice to publicize it more than done up to present. Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 28, 2003 Said there was minimal participation from the Cupertino residents; but a lot of attention from the Los Altos residents. Relative to the measurements, he said the companies don't usually do the measurements themselves; they contract with a private radio frequency engineer and the results have to be certified by the engineer. Chair Saadati: · Said the light poles are the locations that would be future for these not knowing what is going to happen with all the utihty poles, since down the line in about 50 years, eventually many cities will want to get rid of the light poles and utility poles. In the downtown area there are miler buildings on which to install the antennae. · On the commercial building it seems easier because when putting the equipment on the roof, the equipment is usually screened and it was mentioned that some of the companies potentially won't pursue screening. Mr. Jung: · There are numerous techniques for screening on them and it often comes down to balance between what they are trying to achieve in terms of coverage and how visible their facility is. · Most of the best location and structures are already taken. The simple ones have already been built; remain creative and hope someone has learned something new somewhere down the line so we can do the best job we can. We have been very successful in reviewing and approving these facilities in Cupertino because by and large they have been very non-controversial in the city. Input from commissioners on continuing the application: Com. Corr: · Said he would like to hear from the Telecommunications Commission and get more public input. · Said he would not make major changes, but would like further discussion with other commissioners and continue the item to provide time for more input. Com. Wong: · Concurred with Com. Con- and asked if a legal notice is put in the newspaper. · Suggested including the World Journal as well as the Comer for advertising. · Said he concurred to continue the application to allow for more input. ]Mr. Jung: · Said legal notice is the minimum standard for noticing of items for public hearings; with something like this you would want to do a much better job of noticing it. · Said World Journal could also be included. Com. Miller: · Agreed that the public should have more chance to comment and said he was eager to hear from the Telecommunications Commission. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Ernest Tsui, Chair, Telecommunications Commission, responded to earlier questions: Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 28, 2003 · Ambient measurements: The reason it is included is if there was one service provider, doing measurements especially when co-located, where suggesting co-location would be good, you can get this cumulative effect of the various antennas and each one would be passive and accumulated effect would exceed the emission limits; that is why it is a good clause to have; you have the certain co-location things required as measurement fi.om the service provider. · Relative to accuracy, he said he reviewed the data in the applications, and they make their best efforts to make the measurement, but it is still recommended especially for some cases where there may be a light pole that is very close to apartment dwelling. Many of the antennae have a fan shape of radiation, so they are like a donut as they come out of the antenna, they are not omni directional; they are intended to go out laterally from the antenna because the coverage is better. They would get potentially some radiation and it would be good to even have an independent measurement of some of the facilities funded by Cupertino. · The other safety issue is if there are building mounted antennas, the possibility of getting irradiated, is if one gets very close to it, and some are much more powerful. For safety purposes, it is imperative that people don't wander around or children play around the antennae since it is not good for their health. · Relative to Policy 6-5, it was included because there was no other possible way they could meet the ordinance. Said that with the funds, any antenna could look reasonably acceptable. · Beneficial to have a clause, if in the opinion of the planning staff, they felt all reasonable efforts were made and alternatives may be acceptable. · Relative to the schools issue, why consider the elementary different than the high school district. It was felt that there was not any evidence that younger children would be harmed more, but it is a parent issue. There is no technical issue involved. He said he was certain the appropriate language could be put together. Com. Miller: · Relative to measurement, was it the intent that the measurement would be continuous or once a year, is there any specific language to include that would address the ongoing measurement of the radiation levels? Mr. Tsui: · Said it does not change too much with time per se; there may be concern that some of the antennas may be affected during a storm. · A year is a reasonable period of time as it incorporates the winter cycle and storm cycle. Com. Miller: · They may have an initial design with one set of power amplifiers and then find later that because of the increased usage that they need to go back in and add more powerful amplifiers and yet under the current structure, it looks like they could do that and we would never know about it until the time for, when either they did a measurement or their use permit expired and they came back in. Is that a concern in any way? Mr. Tsui: · Said it is a concern; not certain what would be permitted in terms of a typical site upgrade between requiring another application. Mr. Jnng: · Said typically the Planning Department does not get involved unless there is some sort of "modification" to the equipment itself and it is usually an external modification; but how does Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 28, 2003 one address something that is inside a cabinet that they may change. That could only happen through a building permit process. For lack of knowledge we would ask what the purpose of the particular upgrade is, and if it sounds like it will increase the output then it would automatically trigger them to do a radio frequency assessment, which they are required by the federal government to meet their stands fight there and that is probably the strongest point that the city has control on; they are just saying they are enforcing the federal standards. Chair Saadati asked how the measurement is done; does a box measure the radiation? Mr. Tsui responded to commissioners' questions: · It is a power meter and measures different field strength of the different fields, calibrated occasionally. · He said the antenna cannot block the signal; training would show how to hold it and not shield it with their body. · He said it would not necessarily make it certified, but at least allow for sampling the fields. Mr. Salvatore Algefi, Telecommunications Commission: · Reiterated the Telecommunications Commission's sentiment regarding Policy 6-5 and excluding it from the Plan. · Said they don't want to send a signal to the service providers that there is a less expensive way out. · Have come up with creative alternatives of how to make the antmmas unobtrusive and still provide necessary coverage. If the service provider wants a certain site providing the best coverage because they can put one antenna in rather than two, and if it is at the side of a building and is unattractive and the only way to shield that is with a cover that might be expensive; that is their choice. · Do not want written in the policy that they could landscape a median across the street for one- fifth the cost for shielding the antenna; the city always has that option but it should not be so obvious and put into policy. · Relative to the residential issue, it will take some amount of education on everyone's part regarding the safety issue. · The way the systems are designed and installed, they are safe and there are safety measures and failsafes and most of the time something fails, the power amplifier would most likely lose power. · For residential areas, some public education will be needed regarding explaining to the public that this is a trade; if you want service and if you want these kinds of facilities and services, you have to have antennas in neighborhoods and they may not look so attractive. · When they do get into the neighborhoods everything possible will be done including the FCC requirements and the service providers; nobody wants to break a law or rule or cause any safety issues for anyone, and no company wants their name attached to a safety issue reported in the newspaper. · Need to work with the service providers if they want to go into neighborhoods in the future and most likely these kinds of services would be higher band width, lower power; they wouldn't be the huge antennas on the side of the freeway where they are going to have very high power with very large areas of coverage where they are trying to just get distance for cell phones; where the cell phones have low data rates. · Said the wi-fi is put into neighborhoods for wireless high speed connections as an alternative to wired line; the issue of safety and a low power will play; they are not going to be the same kind of antennas that are on the side of a freeway, they will be more like the Metficom Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 28, 2003 antennas that are already in the neighborhoods; very small, low power, close together in order to distribute band width but not necessarily power. Said the cormmunity has to be educated on what that means and how they are different than other kinds of antennas. Com. Corr questioned if the ability for an exception or variance existed. Mr. Jung said that although they have exception to many things, they did not want to pursue a design exception. Mrs. Betsy Smith, Sr. Project Manager, PG&E: · Said the lack of participation from the telecommunications industry is part of the economy; loss of employees; contracting out and not paying the reps to come to meetings. · Predictions are that the antennas will be lower and more of them because of the data. · Relative to locating the antennas on schools, consider that if computer data transfer is part of education, good service will have to be provided to the schools, even in the lower grades. · There is no single solution for all communities. · Clarified that PG&E still does underground utilities, and said frequently it is a project with the community; if there is an area where undergrounding the poles is desired, they could time it with a sunset clause in the zoning ordinance. Also when undergrounding utilities, a fiber cable is added and within a very short period of time residents are able to get the DSL and Internet connections. Other parts of the country are already doing that through the power company. · Relative to market lease rate, PG&E has had to renegotiate all of its lease rates downward based on the economy, which should be taken into consideration. Mr. Andrew Ratner, Verizon Wireless: · Said that the wireless plan was to increase flexibility in siting and design. · Said by limiting the flagpole design or cutting out the school districts, in the future it may be considered an option, specifically with the flag poles; many times in residential areas the only options may be a police station or fire station with an existing tall structure such as a flag pole and that is why it is opted for, it is more hidden than a monopole or monopine. · Relative to radiation levels, if a career comes on a site where there is another cartier, a cumulative RFR report is required, which is a way to keep abreast of what is being produced at the site. · The other change is when coming in for new equipment, the Planning Department could request another RFR report if the equipment being replaced has to deal with the power coming out of the site. Said with more noticing, more companies will show interest and participate. Chair Saadati closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Miller: · Commended staffand the Telecommunications Commission. · Said he was sensitive to the arguments made that putting a way out into a policy is not the best way to do things; and he supported the Telecommunications Commission on that issue. · Said he welcomed more input through noticing the residents for more input before a final vote. Com. Corr: · Said he was pleased with the result. Planning Commission Minutes 13 July 28, 2003 · Said that relative to the recommended policies, it does not state that it can't be put on a school site or on a flagpole, and from that standpoint, supports what is in the plan, because it is specific enough without saying where it can't be put. · Said there is a fear of having a transmitter or antenna near a school because the kids are there six hours a day; but it is acceptable to put it on the pole behind their house where they are sleeping nearby for 8 hours a day. · Support continuance to allow more public input. Wants more specifics about noticing neighborhoods, how to provide notice to the community when this is happening so people are aware of it. · A structural issue is in Chapter 3. The summary of the policies is listed as Policy 4-1, 5-2, etc.; number the same as the General Plan for consistency. · Relative to the document, put the glossary up front to know the terms. · Review wording, in various places change "should" to "shall". · Relative to variance and exception issues, said he supported removal of 6-5 as he felt there should not be exceptions in variances. · Relative to Policy 8-1, he said he concurred; but to keep in mind that the carriers will protest that because depending on the time limit, 5 years is reasonable; the issue is the carriers will say they are not going to come in and put up the money they should for only 5 years; they need a longer period of time, and in negotiating leases of this type with the carriers, they found that school districts could not give a lease exceeding 5 years because they had to make certain findings. · Suggested a 5 year period but make certain findings every 5 years and those findings would include the results of the radio frequency studies so that when the providers get their permit they have filed a report of what their RFRs are saying. Every five years it could be re-upped and that finding could be made by the city in the future. Com. Wong: · Said many comments were covered by Com. Miller and Com. Corr. · Expressed his appreciation to Colin Jung and Telecommunications Commission, PG&E and Vehzon for appearing as well. · Said they should add a policy relative to noticing; should the notification radius be 500 feet, or 1,000 feet? · Said he concurred with Com. Corr about education and said he liked the idea of the 5 year period. · Relative to Policy 6-5, concurred with both commissioners that he did not support it and agreed with what the Telecommunications Commission said. · Supported a continuance of the item to put more articles in the local media so that more residents could provide more input through e-mail or through a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Saadati: · Thanked the Telecommunications Commissioners for attending the meeting and the staff for an excellent report. · Reiterated that more public outreach was needed for noticing the public, resulting in more involvement in the issue. · Restricting installation of the antennas at certain locations such as schools, rather than focus on the safety aspects and if it is not good near a school, why would it be good somewhere else? Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 28, 2003 Refocus on the radio frequency and its safety and to have the city contract or internally do some periodic measurement to ensure that the frequencies are within the allowable standard set. Mr. Jung: · Said Com. Algeri mentioned that the reason why the elementary schools were eliminated from this draft was because it is not so much a safety issue, It is opposed and discussed on an emotional level. Com. Con': · Said that Com. Alger/said the school system said they are not putting antennas on the school sites today, but that may change in the future. · Said the school districts are putting in airports in the classrooms and doing the same thing beyond campus as the city is going to be doing in the community; so if the concept mentioned by the Telecommunications Commissioners is eon.eot, it is an educational process. Chair Saadati: · Said he concurred that the verbiage should be stronger, "shall" vs. "should" · Supported continuation of the item. Com. Wong: · Brought up his earlier suggestion of making it a wireless facilities master plan for the name change. Coms. Con' and Miller and Chair Saadati said they did not object. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Corr to continue Application CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Amended Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Corr to continue Application CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 to the second Planning Commission meeting in September. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Chen absent) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF TH ~: PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: · Com. Corr reported that the ERC did not meet the past month for lack of business. Housing Commission: · Com. Miller reported that the Housing Commission had not met since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting: · No meetings have been held. Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 28, 2003 Other: Com. Miller: · Reported that he attended a meeting of the Randy Lane/Larry Way residents to discuss a special zoning for their neighborhood. He said it was a contentious meeting and questioned why the meetings were occurring which proposed a special ordinance for a single neighborhood; as opposed to addressing issues through the current R1 ordinance. Ms. Wordell: · Said that the meetings began because it is an A1 zone and does not have the architectural review that R1 has. The building permit came through for a large house which staff felt would be a shock to the neighborhood, so the neighbors were convened to inform them and offer the opportunity to address getting controls in place for the kind of development they would desire. Because it is an A ordinance the setbacks and some of the requirements differ from the R1. It became their project, and they are decichng what form it will take; will it be a special ordinance, will it be embedded in the RI? The form it takes is under discussion. Com. Miller: · Said he felt it may be more appropriate to provide the option of coming in under R1; and expressed concern about setting a precedent for zoning for a single neighborhood, especially a small one. Ms. Wordell: · In one sense the city is encouraging neighborhoods to identify themselves if they have special needs; draft language in the new General Plan calls for that. · The Eichler neighborhood is the only other one and is embedded in the RI. Com. Miller: · Said he understood the uniqueness of the Eichler homes, but did not draw the same conclusion about the uniqueness of this particular neighborhood. Mr. Jung: · Said in reviewing the previous files for the area and on at least three separate occasions, an R1 rezoning has come up in the context of a public hearing and the context of a neighbor soliciting input from the surrounding neighbors about changing it because of the onerous req~ftrements in the current zoning ordnance, the A143; and changing to something that is more in rune to the community. · In all three of those instances the R1 was vetoed by the majority of the neighbors in some very contentious hearings. When presented to them previously, it was not an involved hands-on method, which is the present approach. It now seems more friendly to the neighborhood than what was attempted in the past. Com. Wong: · Requested staff to follow up on the date for the R1 study. · Relative to the study session held on process review, he inquired about the status of the flow chart Chairperson Chen requested regarding the process. · Requested an update on the General Plan task force. Ms. Wordell: Planning Commission Minutes ~6 July 28, 2003 · Relative to the General Plan Task Force, reported that three meetings have been held; some attrition occurred with 73 people originally and 6 dropping out. · First two meetings were mostly background information; last meeting more discussion oriented. · Talking about community forum and housing now which relates to development and have not discussed transportation or parks environment or sustainability yet. Chair Saadati reminded everyone of the City Council and Planning Commission joint study session on August 4th at 5 p.m. in conference room C. Com. Corr said he would be unable to attend because of a prior commitment. Chair Saadati said he would be unable to attend the August 25 Planning Comrrfission meeting but would attend the study session on August 44. REPORT OF TI~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Written report accepted as presented. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURN1V[ENT: Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on August 25, 2003. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Elizabeth A. EHis, Recording Secretary Angela Chert, Chairperson Steve Piasecki, Secretary CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2003-08 Agenda Date: September 8, 2003 Applicant: Rogert Wert (for Northpoint HOA) Location: Common areas located in Northpoint complex Application Summary: Tree removal and replacement request to remove a 25" diameter Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) and five Liquidambar trees (Liquidambar styraciflua) in the corrtmon areas of a planned residential community, known as the Northpoint development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the tree removal request and modification of the replacement request in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND: The Northpoint development is a large townhome condominium complex developed in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It is lushly landscaped with mature vegetation. Over the last few years, the homeowner's association has made several requests to remove and replace trees that have died, are diseased, are damaged or have overgrown their planting areas and are causing repeat damage to improvements. The Northpoint HOA is now requesting to remove six trees detailed below. DISCUSSION: The applicant's arborist, Nathan Lewis of Lewis Tree Service, has examined the six trees and has submitted two reports, one dated February 24, 2003 and the other dated May 8, 2003 (Exhibit B). Staff examined the trees and took additional photographs. The arborist report information and staff notes are summarized in the table below. Map # Trunk Diameter & Reasons for Removal Applicanfs Tree Tree Species Replacement Proposal 1 25" Monterey Pine Healthy, but rootball located 1-4' away from 24" box Redwood planned sidewalk at blLnd curve. (Sequoia sempervirens) 2 12" Liquidambar Co-dominant stem failed during winter storm 15-gal Purple Plum damaged improvements & weaken tree. tree (Prunus cerasifera) 3 17.5" Liquidambar Co-dominant stem failed dtrring winter storm 15-gal. Purple Plum damaged improvements & weaken tree. tree (Prunus cerasifera) 4 16" Liquidambar Infection causing dieback of branches 15-gal. Purple Plum tree (Prunus cerasifera) 5 14" Liquidambar Tree lifting fence and private patio. Repairs will 15-gal. Crape Mrytle remove excessive amount of root structure. (Lagerstroemia s?.) 6 11" Liquidambar Tree planted too close to sidewalk, causing i 15-gal. Crape Mrytle uplifting & cracking. No room for future growth (Lagerstroemia sp.) TR-2003-08 Page 2 of 3 Tree No. 1: Monterey Pine growing near planned sidewalk Tree No. 1: Monterey Pine located 1-4 feet from street Tree No. 2: Liquidambar was topped because of storm damage Tree No. 3: Liquidambar. Breakage of codominant leader results in severe weakening of tree. Tree No. 3: Liquidambar showing two codominant leaders and included bark. Stems have weak attachments and are susceptible to breakage. Tree No. 4: Liquidambar suffering from possible baterial infection and die back of limbs. ': -, Leaking 'i ;i ~ · black sap Tree No. 4: Liquidambar Several limbs have leaking blackish sap and whitish nodes. All such limbs have dying foliage. Tree No. 5: Liquidambar Root growth is heaving the fence, walkway & rear patio (2-3 inches). Root pruning will significantly weaken roots. TR-2003-08 Page 3 ot 3 Tree No. 6: Liquidambar (two pictures) Tree was planted too close to the walkway. Root growth has heaved and broken the concrete walkway. No space for future root growth. Staff has reviewed each tree and concurs with the arborist's recommendations of removal. As all of the trees are 10 or more inches in diameter, staff prefers a minimum tree replacement size of 24-inch box for each tree to be removed. Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~-_, Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ e--~ .. - Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A: Tree Removal and Replacement Request by Northpoint Manager Roger Weft, dated 6/26/03. Exhibit B: Arborist Reports prepared by Nathan Lewis, Lewis Tree Service, Inc., dated February 24, 2003 and May 8, 2003 Exhibit C: .Tree Location Map G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\ TR-2003-08 SR.doc 3 TR-2003-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE 25" DIAMETER MONTEREY PINE AND FIVE LIQUIDAMBARS ( 12", 17.5', 16", 14" AND 11" IN DIAMETER) TO BE REPLACED WITH ONE 24" BOX COASTAL REDWOOD, THREE 24' BOX PURPLE PLUM TREES AND TWO 24" BOX CRAPE MRYTLES AT THE NORTHPOINT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2003-08 Roger Wert (for Northpoint HOA) 10880 Northpoint Way SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove and replace six mature trees, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of the trees in that the trees are either irreversibly diseased, in danger of falling or can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby approved as modified; 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 TR-2003-08, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003 are incorporated by reference herein. Resolution No. TR-2003-08 09/08/03 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXItIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Lewis Tree Service, Inc. arborist reports dated February 24, 2003 and May 8, 2003 and addressed to Diane Mahan, supervisor of streets and trees, and the tree location map with trees no. 1 through 6, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TREE REPLACEMENT Removed trees shall be replaced as indicated in the letter by Roger Wert of the Northpoint Homeowners Association to Colin Jung and dated June 26, 2003, except all 15-gallon trees shall be increased in size to 24-inch box. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 84 day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:Planning/Pdreportfi~es/TR-2003-08 res.doc NORTHPOINT 10880 Northpoint Way, Cupertino, CA 95014. (408) 996-3734 EXHIBIT A City of Cupertino Attn: Colin Jung 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 June 26, 2003 Dear Colin; Enclosed is the completed application form for permission to remove and replace six trees located in the common area of the Northpoint Homeowners Association property. There are also letters fi.om a certified arborist recommending the removal of the trees. I have marked a map and enclose it with this letter and other documents. The map shows the location of the trees as follows and I have identified the size and species of replacement trees for each of the six: 1) Monterey Pine to be replaced with a 24" boxed redwood located in the open space across the roadway fi.om the present location of the pine tree. 2) Liquid amber to be replaced with a 15-gal purple plum tree. 3) Liquid amber to be replaced with a 15-gal purple plum tree. 4) Liquid amber to be replaced with a 15-gal purple plum tree. 5) Liquid amber to be replaced with a 15-gal crepe myrtle tree. 6) Liquid amber to be replaced with a 15-gal crepe myrtle tree. I appreciate your help in obtaining permission to remove and replace these trees as soon as possible. Sincerely, On-Site Manager Northpoint Homeowners Association cc: Board File ®® February24,2003 Ms. Diane Mahan Supervisor of Streets and Trees City of Cupertino 10555 Mary Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Northpoint HOA Dear Ms. Mahan, At the request of Mr. Tim Fitzgerald of CMS Properties, Inc., on 2/18/03 I examined four trees located within the association's common area. These trees encompassed two separate locations. The first location involves a Monterey Pine #648, located along Northwood Dr. at the left rear comer of 20363 Northcove Square. It is my understanding that the association is proposing the continuation of the existing sidewalk along Northwood Dr. to North Cove Square. This sidewalk extension would allow for the safe passage of pedestrians walking around the street comer. The construction of this sidewalk would require extensive soil excavation to reduce the existing grade by approximately 18-24 inches. Because the tree is located approximately four feet fiom the existing curb it is expected that approximately 40 percent of the tree's roots on the street side would need to be removed to accomplish this project. Many of the buttress roots which emanate fiom the tree's root crown are visibly growing along the surface of the soil. Small cracks in the curb indicate that these roots are beginning to encroach on the roadway. It is my opinion that the loss of these roots would jeopardize the structural support of the tree during windy conditions. From a tree health viewpoint, it is my opinion that the extent of root loss would not be within tolerable levels. Monterey Pines tend to be very sensitive to either foliage or root losses beyond 15-20%. This has especially been fotmd tree since widespread stress factors which include Pine Pitch Canker Disease, and increased Pine Bark Beetle infestation have been decimating the Monterey Pine population. Therefore it is my recommendation that the tree be removed and replaced prior to construction. Secondly I was asked to evaluate the condition of three Liquldambar trees located immediately south of the large swimming pool. These trees were not numbered. The smaller and larger of these three trees have similar problems. During the recent storms co- dominant stems failed from weakly attached unions or narrow angle crotches. Narrow angle crotches are the result of separate, adjacent branches growing in roughly parallel orientations. As the branches grow in size, they begin to touch; and as they 3135 Porter Street - Soqt~el, CA 95073 (8.3~) 476-I 200 oJjTce i (831) 476-1207/~_x' expand in diameter, the bark is trapped between them. The trapped, or included bark then prevents the formation of adequate connective tissues between the branches, and results in a crotch that is structurally less sound than it otherwise might be. Crotches that are stressed and contain large mounts ofinchded bark also tend to produce a characteristic swelling around the weakened junction. Currently the primary leader of the larger tree has a large wound on the north side of the trunk 15 feet above soft grade. It is estimated that approximately 50% of wood was lost during the failure of this co-dominant sterr~ It is my opinion that the structured integrity of the remaining stem has been compromised. Damage as a result of stem failure on the smaller tree was similar. However the extent of damage was such that the tree had to be topped for public safety. This action is not normally recommended for long term maintenance, but was the minimum degree of action required to address the hazard. A secondary problem found with these two trees is that extensive surface roots are damaging the walkways. Previous efforts to halt the progression of damage included replacing of severely litted segments, grinding of uneven transitions and root pruning. Unfortunately these measures aimed at mitigating the damage have not been successful. The third Liquidambar tree located in the row of three trees has a completely different problem even though it's roots are also beginning to lift the adjacent sidewalk. This tree appears to be in severe decline. Last summer and fall I observed declining foliage levels with increasing limb die-back throughout the tree's canopy. I also observed many places where a white f~othy material was oozing from the trees' branches and trunk. These symptoms may be caused by one of several species of bacteria. In an effort to curb the spread to the remaining Liquidambar population I recommend the tree also be removed. If you should have any questions regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, /-? Nathan Lewis President and Certified Arborist, License #WC1735 LEWIS TREE SERVICE, INC. May 8, 2003 Ms. Diane Mahan Supervisor of Streets and Trees City of Cupertino 10555 Mary Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Northpoint HOA Dear Ms. Mahan, At the request of Mr. Tim Fitzgerald of CMS Properties, Inc., I examined two liquidambar trees located within the Northpoint Homeowners Association common area. This exmnination was performed on May 6, 2003 and included a visual assessment of the tree's condition and extent of damage to the property. The following report smrtmarizes my observations. Address: Species: Size: 20276 Northbrook Liquidambar 13" DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), 40' tall This tree is located between the rear fence of 20276 Northbrook and a four-foot wide concrete walkway used by the residents of this community~ The planting strip in which the tree resides measures six feet in width by approxSmately 42 feet in length. The tree is in reasonably good health, as indicated by the foliage quality and quantity, even though heavy pruning has resulted inthe loss of much of the tree's interior foliage and small d'mmeter limbs. The structure is defined by a single vertical leader and relatively smaller lateral limbs as large as five inches in diameter. An inspection of the area surround'rog the tree revealed moderate heaving of the concrete walkway, fence and rear patio. In addition, a brick border used to define the rem' patio- planting strip is being displaced. Us'rog a probe it was detelanined that large and shallow woody roots are the cause of the damage surrounding this tree. It is my opinion based on these findings that the extent of root pruning required to mitigate continued damage would likely result in a high potential for root failure. It is my recommendation that this tree be removed and replaced with a species that is better suited for tlfis location. 1 Address: Species: Size: 10935 Northscal Square Liqu. idambar 11.5" DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), 35' tall This tree is also located in a planting strip behind the aforementioned unit and a walkway utilized by the resident's of this association. The plm~ting strip measures six feet by twenty-five feet. The western edge of the tree's trunk is within six inches of the concrete walkway. A visual inspection oftbe tree's canopy indicates that the tree is'in fair health and has fairly good structure. Aggressive roots have unarguably resulted in lffiing of the concrete walkway creating a low area at the adjacent walkway intersection to the west. According to the landscape contractor, water from either a recent rain or from the sprinklers tends to pool at this intersection thereby creating a large puddle obstacle for the residents using the walkway. In addition, poor tree placement has resulted in the blockage ora dram-line located parallel to the walkway. The picture shows the location of the drain adjacent to where the puddle persists throughout the winter months. Based on these findings, it is my opinion that this tree has no room for further root crown expansion. The tree should be removed and replaced with a more appropriately suited species. If you should have any questions regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Nathan Lewis President and Certified Arborist, License #WC1735 .LEWIS TREE SERVICE, INC. Cc: CMS Properties, Inc. Attn: Tim Fitzgerald 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2003-05 Applicant: Tom Jackson Owner: Tom Jackson Location: 10650 Bubb Road Agenda Date: September 8, 2003 Application Summary: Rezoning of a commercial/office building to allow vocational and specialized schools. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2003-13; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2003-05, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Building Square Footage: Commercial/Residen~al P(CC, O) .31 acres 2,400 square feet Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes when rezoned Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval to rezone an existing office site located along the east of Bubb Road at the terminus of Presido Drive to allow for vocational and specialized schools. The rezoning request is being considered concurrently with a use permit (U-2003-07) application for the actual learning center use (Think Tank). Please refer to the staff report for U-2003-07 for details on the use permit. DISSCUSSION: Currently the project site is zoned P (CG, O) with limited commercial/office activities. According to this zone, educational use is not a permitted use. However, from a letter received by Foothill - De Anza Community College District representatives, the subject site has been used as a learning and educational center for the past eleven years. Around June of this year, it came to the staff's attention that Think Tank Learning occupied the space without the knowledge that a rezoning and a use permit applications are required. Therefore staff is requiring that the property owner/applicant obtain a rezoning approval to allow for the continuation of the educational use. The existing P (Planned Development/with limited commercial/office Applications: U-2003-07 Tkink Tank September 8, 2003 use activity) zone will be rezoned to P (Planned Development/with limited commercial/office use/vocational and specialized school activity) zone. Staff supports the rezoning request because the proposed commercial educational use is consistent with the commercial portion of the General Plan designation on the project site. Enclosures: Model Resolution for Z-2003-05 Negative Declaration Exhibit A, Zoning Plat Map Exhibit B, Amended Conditions Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmert~~. _ G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ pcUserepor ts\Z-2003-05.doc 2 Z-2003-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING OF A P (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/WITH LIMITED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USE ACTIVITY) ZONE TO P (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/WITH LIMITED COMMERC!AL/OFFICE USE/VOCATIONAL AND SPECIALIZED SCHOOL ACTIVITY) AT 10650 BUBB ROAD. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Z-2003-05 (EA-2003-13) Applicant: Tom Jackson Location: 10650 Bubb Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT 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 meets 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 as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. 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. Resolution No. Z-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Paee 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; and 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. Z-2003-05 (EA-2003-13), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Zoning Plat map exhibit A, dated 9/4/03 and the Amended Conditions exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, 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 Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ z-2OO3-O5res.doc CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE August 13, 2003 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on August 13, 2003. PROIECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-05 (EA-2003-13) Tom & Liz Jackson 10650 Bubb Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning of a commercial/office building to allow vocational and specialized schools, subject to securing of a use permit. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Envir~-tmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declarati~/n//f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f~g that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no Steve~Piasecki Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2003-13 Rezone from P(Planned Development with Limited Commercial/Office Use Activity) to P(Planned Development with Limited Commercial/Office Use/Vocational and Specialized School Activity). Amend Condition 17 of 27-Z-85 (Ordinance No. 1337) as follows: 17 Use Limitation Permitted uses on subject site shall be limited to the following, subject to securing of a use permit from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission action upon any requested use permit shall be final except in instances of appeal to the City Council: A. Professional, general, administrative and business offices. B. Banks and financial services (excluding drive-up service facilities), insurance and real estate agencies, travel agencies, and professional portrait studios. C. Business services such as advertising bureaus, credit reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies, stenographic and duplication services, messenger and telegraphic offices, communication equipment buildings. D. Vocational and specialized schools, excluding dance studios, music studios, gymnasiums and health clubs. E. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, are similar to the above permitted usesf and which dO not create significant adverse impacts to the surrounding area due to odor, dust, smoke, glare, fumes, radiation, vibrations, noise, traffic or litter. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Applicatiom U-2003-07 Applicant: Steven Ma Owner: Tom Jackson Location: 10650 Bubb Road Agenda Date: September 8, 2003 Application Summary: Use permit to operate a learning center in an existing building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The use permit application, file number U-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Building Square Footage: Project Consistency with: Commercial/Residential P(CG, O) .31 acres 2,400 square feet General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes when rezoned Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval to operate a learning center (Think Tank) in an existing office building located along east of Bubb Road at the terminus of Presido Drive. According to a letter received by Foothill - De Anza Community College District representatives, the subject site has been used as a lerning and educational center for the past eleven years without the benefits Of a permit. The applicant occupied the space around June 2003 without the knowledge that a permit is required for the proposed use. DISCUSSION: This report will summarize this project's conformance with the General Plan and Zoning followed by an overview of the use and parking. GENERAL PLAN The proposed use conforms to the General Plan commercial and residential designations for the subject site. Since the proposed educational center is considered a private commercial entity. Applications: U-2003-07 Th~k Tank September 8, 2003 ZONING Currently the project site is zoned P (CG, O) with limited commercial/office activities. According to this zone, educational uses are not permitted uses. In addition, the original use permit (32-U-86) specifies that any change of tenant in the subject building must be subject to a use permit review. In addition to the use permit request, the owner of the property has currently applied for a rezoning application (Z-2003-05) to revise the zoning to allow for the proposed educational use. Staff is in support of the rezoning application as well. Please refer to the staff report for Z-2003-05 for details on the rezoning application. PROPOSED USE According to the applicant, Think Tank will be offering tutoring and other educational forums to supplement students' classroom learning. The students will range from 6th graders to 11th graders. The maximum number of students will be forty-six students. There will be two full time administrators and a maximum of four teachers on-site at any given time. The proposed hours of operation are as follows: Administrative operation - 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Tutoring and educational forums - 4:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. (Weekdays) 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. (Weekends) PARKING Currently, the City's parking ordinance does not have a category for tutorial services or specialized schools. Therefore parking for these uses are reviewed on a case-by-case basis depending on their proposed business plan. There are 14 existing parking stalls available on-site. Six stalls will be reserved for staff and teachers. The remaining eight stalls will be available for student parking and interim parent drop-off parking. According to the applicant, the majority of the students are not at driving age and will be dropped off by their parents. Only approximately 5% (+/- 2 students) will be driving to the center and will require parking spaces. To avoid any parking lot congestion for parents dropping off their child, the class schedule is designed so that no more than one class will start its session at any one time. There will be at least a ten-minute offset between the starting times of each class. It is staff's opinion that the existing 14 stalls will be adequate to support the proposed use. Enclosures: Model Resolution for U-2003-07 Project Description Letter from the applicant Letter addressing parking issue from the applicant 2 Applications: U-2003-07 Think Tank September 8, 2003 Site photos Building floor plan Site aerial Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~,. G:\ Plarming\ PDREPORT\ pcUser epor ts\ U-2003-07.doc U-2003-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LEARNING CENTER IN A EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 10650 BUBB ROAD. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: U-2003-07 Applicant: Steven Ma Location: 10650 Bubb Road SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, 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 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 proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental tothe 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 and Exception are hereby recommended for approval, 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 are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2003- Resolution No. U-2003-07 September 8, 2003 Page 2 07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 4, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled 10650 Bubb Road dated August 13, 2003 including the site photos and letters of description of the proposed project, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS: The maximum number of students for the proposed education center shall be 46 students at any given time. 4. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STAFF: The number of staff (including administrators and teachers) present on-site shall not exceed six (6) at any given time. SIGNS: This approval does not include any signage. The applicant shall obtain sign permits for any new proposed signs per the requirements of the City ordinance. HOURS OF OPERATION: The hours of operation for the proposed limited to the following: Administrative operation: 10:00 A.M. to 7 P.M. (Weekdays & Weekends) Tutoring & other education forums: 4:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. (Weekdays) 10:00 A.M. to 9 P.M. (Weekends) CLASS SCHEDULE: The starting times for all classes shall be off-set by at least 10 minutes to avoid parking congestions. Resolution No. U-2003-07 Page 3 September 8, 2003 PARKING STALLS: A total of fourteen (14) parking stalls are approved as part of this application (including one handicapped stall). All fourteen parking stalls must be keep free of any obstacles and be maintained. PHYSICAL ALTERATION ON THE BUILDING: This permit does not include any interior remodel or exterior alterations to the existing office building. A director's minor modification or architecture and site approval may be required for any proposed changes to the interior or exterior of the building. In addition, proper building permits must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, 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 G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ U-20034)7res. doc Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission ThinkTank Learning Brief Project Description Founded by UC Berkeley graduates, ThinkTank Learning is dedicated to help students to meet their educational goals. We do this by offering tutoring and other educational forums to supplement students' classroom learning. To further rendering our services to our community, ThinkTank Learning has recently relocated to another larger building at/,0650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014. We intend to use this new facility to conduct both individual and group tutoring sessions. Due to the office's location, our curricula will be modeled after the course work of Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School. Hence, we believe our services will be particularly helpful to the students of local schools in the vicinity. Business Hours: The hours of administrative operation will be from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. everyday. The hours for tutoring and other education forums will be from 4 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends. To City of Cupertino Attn: Gary Chao This is a letter to address the parking solution for the corroboration of the use permit application of ThinkTank Learning (Center) at 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014. 'l'l~ere are 14 parking spaces available, and 2 of ~vhich will be reserved for two full-time administrators who work at Center. There are 4 classrooms in the building, so we can expect a maximum of 4 teachers to occupy 4 additional parking spaces. Assuming the center is operating at its maximum capacity, there will be 8 parking spaces available for students and parents to use. ,Although there are g parking spaces available for our patrons, we do not see this to cause a problem or inconvenience for our students and parents for two reasons. First. since our tutoring services are aimed to serve a student body ranging from 6th graders to I 1th graders, majority Of OUr students will be non-drivers. From our estimate. only less than 5% of our students will drive and park their vehicles at our center. With a maximum o1'46 students~ presence resalted Prom uses of all :~ oFour classrooms at fullest capacity, only about 2 students will park their vehicles at our center. Second. to avoid parking lot congestion for parents who drop oITtheir chitd/children at our center, ~e have designed a class schedule so that no more than one class will start its session at any one time. For example, ii-all 4 classrooms are uscd to conduct teaching, then sessions will begin one after another at a 10-minute interval. A proposed schedule is listed below, Start - End time 4:00 PM- 6:00PM (Class A) 4:IOPM- 6:10PM (CtassB) 4:20 PM- 6:20PM (ClassC) 4:30 PM 6:30PM (Class D) 6:00 PM - 8:00PM (Class A) 6:10 PM- 8:IOPM (ClassB) 6:20 PM- 8:20PM (Class C) 6:30 PM- 8:30PM (Class D) *each ofour session runs for 2 hours at a time. With onl? one class starting at a time and each class having a maximum capacity of 12 students, we do not expect parking lot or tralqSc congestion to occur at or near our center. I hope this letter has conve),ed the in~'brmation and supports in addressing the parking solution I-or our center. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have an>.' questions or concerns. Thank you for >.'our time and consideration. Steven Ma. Owner of ThinkTank Learning The front of the building 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The west side of the building 10650 Bubb Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014 The east side of the building 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The back of the building 10650 Bubb Rd. Cuper[ino, CA 95014 The parking lot 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The parking lot 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 City of Cupertino Abc Street Names Address Parcels [~ Aerial Photographs SCALE 1: 530 20 0 20 40 60 FEET N http:llaguardsrvr/MapGuidelhome/maps/Cupertino.mwf Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:43 A~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2003-03, U-2003~05, EXC-2003-04, Agenda Date: September 8, 2003 TM-2003-03, EA-2003-11 Applicant: Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue) Application Summary: Rezoning, tentative map, use permit and exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to demolish 17,855 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 49 townhouse-style condominiums, 2 duet homes and to make circulation, parking and landscaping improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2003-06; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution and Exhibit A; 3. The tentative map application, file number TM-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; 4. The use permit application, file number U-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; 5. The Heart of the City exception application, file number EXC-2003-04, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: Oaks Residences General Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Acreage (Gross): Density: Height: Stories: Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG) Planned Development w/General Commercial Intent P(Com/Res) Planned Development w/Commercial and Residential Intent Heart of the City 10.1 gross acres total - 3.42 gross acres for residential 14.9 du/gr, ac. 36' 3 story Existing Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Units/sq. ft. Required Provided 71,217 sq. ft. 516 558 Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM-2003-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 2 of 5 Proposed Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Oaks Residences 53,362 sq. ft. 299 313 51 units 102 + guest * 123 (153) ** 3.17 stalls per unit was used for a similar 56 unit project (Astoria - U-2001-06) 2.8 stalls per unit was used for a similar 55 unit project (Saron Gardens - U-2003-02) 3.0 stalls per unit will be provided for the 51-unit Oaks Residences project Shared Parking Agreement to provide 30 shopping center stalls to guests of residences. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Yes Rezoning Exceptions needed Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The rezoning and use permit were introduced at the Planning Commission meeting on August 25, 2003. At the time, the project included a conceptual plan for duet units on Mary Avenue. The application before the Commission tonight is for only the Oaks Residences. DISCUSSION On-site Parking The primary issue of Commissioners and the public at the August 25 meeting was parking. The applicant added five exclusive residential guest parking spaces near Building 7. This brings the amount of exclusive guest parking to 21 stalls. A shared parking agreement for 30 spaces between the shopping center and the residences is still proposed. The commercial parking lot along Stevens Creek Boulevard has been redesigned to provide more parking stalls. The total number of parking stalls for the commercial center is 313, more than the 299 stalls that are required. Staff recommends that the 30 commercial parking spaces designated for residential guest parking not be concentrated in one location. Half of the shared spaces could be located on the north side of the center near Dance Studio, with the other half located on the south parking lot near Linda Evans. This will disperse potential impacts on tenants. Architectural Design The applicant has revised the architectural design to address staff concerns. Elevations have not been provided for all buildings. A condition of approval is in the model resolution requiring staff level review of the complete architectural design based on the conceptual plans provided at this time. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM-2003-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 3 of 5 Heart of the City Specific Plan Area The Oaks Residences will conform to all but three standards in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, for which exceptions will be required. These exceptions axe described below. Staff does not consider any of these exceptions to be significant. Side and Rear Setback for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings The Specific Plan requires a twenty-foot setback from a property line. The Oaks Shopping Center will be subdivided. The dividing line between the residences and the commercial center will be located in the driveway between the residential buildings 7, 8 and 11 and buildings D and F of the commercial center. Staff is not concerned with this exception. Parkway Landscaping The Specific Plan includes standards requiring that parkway landscape easements be established with all new development consisting of a 10 foot park strip, a 6 foot sidewalk and a 10 foot landscaped strip between the sidewalk and the parking lot. Existing conditions make it difficult to meet this standard. The applicant proposes improvements to the current parkway landscaping in front of the Oaks Shopping Center Screen Fences or Walls The Specific Plan requires that screen fences or walls be installed between residential and commercial development. A screen wall between the residences and the commercial center would physically divide the project. Staff supports this exception. Abandonment of Ri~ht-of-Wa¥ The Oaks Residences requires the abandonment of right-of-way to the applicant. Transition from the Oaks Residences to Potential Mary Avenue Residences The applicant proposes a duet unit at the northwest corner of the project. Exhibit A shows the existing and proposed property lines in this area. The land necessary for the duet unit is predominantly the City's right-of-way. Also, there is no certainty that there will be future development further north on Mary Avenue. For these reasons, staff does not believe it is appropriate to approve a duet unit as part of this project. Exhibit A shows staff's recommendation for where the property line should be. Oak Trees At the August 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, staff stated that no specimen oak trees were being removed. This was not correct. Two oak trees are proposed to be removed due to damage. The trees were examined by Hortscience and verified by the City's Consulting Arborist, Barrie D. Coate and Associates, who agree that the trees are considered hazardous and should be replaced. A condition of approval in the model Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM-2003-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 4 of 5 resolution requires these trees be replaced with 36" box native oak trees at locations to be determined by the applicant's landscape architect. Storm Water Retention Further study is necessary to determine the scope of the storm water retention measures that will be required by the Public Works Department. At a minimum, all exclusive residential guest spaces should consist of permeable unit-pavers and drywells should be installed in parking aisles or open space areas. Modification to Building D Building D in the shopping center will be shortened as a result of this project. Exhibit C shows the proposed building elevations for the end of the building that will be shortened. Instead of matching the roof form of the rest of the center, the applicant proposes leaving a vertical wall. This will allow the tenant, Linda Evans Fitness, to remain undisturbed during the construction. If the roof form were made to match the rest of the center, the fitness center operations would be disrupted for a period of time. Staff would prefer that Building D be modified to match the rest of the shopping center. Shopping Center Improvements The model resolution includes a condition requiring the applicant to receive Architectural and Site Approval for a new sign program for the Oaks Shopping Center prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Entitlements at the Shopping Center This rezoning and use permit will void all past actions on the Oaks Shopping Center property. Past entitlements will be revised based on the reduction of area at the center. For example, the master use permit on the site from 1986 allowed the center to have 800 restaurant seats. The remainder of the shopping center has sufficient parking supply to accommodate its current uses. New tenants that require parking above the standard general commercial requirement of 1 stall for every 250 square feet will have to show that there is sufficient parking supply available. This is standard procedure for other shopping centers in the City and is reflected in the model resolution. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner p& Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~--~-_. Enclosures Model Resolution for Z-2003-03 Model Resolution for TM-2003-03 Model Resolution for EXC-2003-04 Model Resolution for U-2003-05 Exhibit A: Property Lines at Northwest Comer of Project Exhibit B: E-mail from Jim Carter Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM-2003-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit C: Building D Exhibit Exhibit D: Modified Rezoning Exhibit Exhibit E: Tentative Map Exhibit Exhibit F: E-mail from Harris Au Staff Report and Exhibits from August 25, 2003 Plan Set U-2003-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 17,800 SQUARE FEET OF THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER AND CONSTRUCT 49 TOWNHOUSE STYLE CONDOMINIUMS AND TO MAKE SIGNAGE, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2003-05 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section I 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 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 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 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, application no. U-2003-05 is hereby recommended for approval; and Model Resolution U-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application U-2003-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the approved plans, entitled "The Residences at the Oaks", prepared by SB Architects, dated 9/3/03. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted for the demolition of 17,800 square feet of commercial area and the construction of a 49-unit condominium project and associated site, landscaping and circulation improvements. The approval does not include the duet unit at the northwest corner of the project. MASTER USE PERMIT This master use permit supercedes the conditions of approval from the City Council for 20-U-86 in August of 1986. Past entitlements for the shopping center, including the number of restaurant seats, are hereby voided. Any tenant that requires more than the standard commercial parking requirement must show that there will be sufficient on-site parking available for current tenants and the proposed use. This applies to restaurant, specialty food stores and private schools. 4. ALLOWED COMMERCIAL USES New uses or reuse of space within the shopping center shall be limited to uses allowed without the securing of a use permit under the City's General Commercial Zoning Ordinance. All other uses shall require use permit review and approval. Late night activities for new tenants shall require use permit review and approval. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Final architecture, architectural details and materials shall be high quality - to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permit. The following elements shall be incorporated into the project: a. Special paving material at all vehicular entrances to the shopping center; b. High quality detailing including but not limited to wrought iron railing, stacked roof tiles with mortaring to the satisfaction of Planning staff. c. Semi-permeable pavers for the one way entry from Stevens Creek Boulevard Model Resolution U-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Page 3 d. The driveway circulation pattern near the one way entry shall be restudied to improve traffic flow and safety to the satisfaction of Planning staff and the City Engineer. e. The sidewalk at the one way entry shall be designed to reconnect to Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the entry. The Director of Community Development may allow a modification to this design if alternative pedestrian sidewalk connections are made possible through discussion with Caltrans. f. Permeable unit-pavers for all guest parking stalls. 6. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TO GLENBROOK APARTMENTS The applicant shall provide a standard pedestrian crosswalk across Mary Avenue from the shopping center to the Glenbrook Apartments, subject to the approval of Planning staff and the City Engineer. A corresponding on-site pathway shall be provided from the sidewalk to the shopping center. 7. PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY The applicant shall provide a landscaped pedestrian pathway leading from the crosswalk, through the parking lot and to the main shopping center consisting of Buildings B, C, D and F. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS The applicant shall provide 15% of the total units to the City's Below Market Rate Program. SIGN IMPROVEMENT PACKAGE The applicant shall receive approval and install a new sign program for the tenants in the shopping center. The sign program shall be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits for the residential units. The new signs shall be installed prior to occupancy of the residential units. 10. RESIDENTIAL CC&RS CC&Rs for the condominiums shall be approved by the City Attorney and Planning staff prior to recordation of the final condominium map. The CC&Rs shall include a limitation on the number of cars that each unit may have. 11. FUTURE PARKING PROBLEMS In the event of future parking problems, the Planning Commission reserves the right to recall this use permit at any t/me and the applicant hereby agrees to implement any or all of the following measures or other measures as deemed necessary to mitigate said problem: a. Organize an employee car pooling/van pooling program; b. Limit future uses based on parking demand during impacted periods; c. Implement a system to police the parking lot and keep out motorists attending other functions and facilities outside of the Oaks Shopping Center; Model Resolution U-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Page 4 d. Modify existing uses upon expiration of their leases to decrease activity during impacted periods. 12. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. 13. LANDSCAPING Al1 Oaks trees shall be retained or relocated except for Tree #10 and #26, which may be removed. Replacements for these two trees shall be 36" box native oak trees. The location of the replacement trees shall be determined by the landscape architect, subject to the approval of Planning staff. a. Arborist's recommendations - The recommendations in the report by Hortscience dated June 2003, updated on August 15, 2003 and the report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates dated July 24, 2003 shall be followed, except that Tree #16 shall be retained. b. Protection plan - As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect or certified arborist for the existing trees to be retained. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the arborist prior to beginning construction. 14. SCREENING VIEW FROM THE EAST The applicant shall attempt to retain existing trees along the westerly property line. If these trees cannot be retained, the applicant shall request approval from Caltrans to plant trees in the Highway 85 right-of-way to screen the view of the three-story units from eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. 15. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A parking management plan shall be prepared by the applicant that describes the parking system used by employees, residents and visitors and shall be subject to staff approval prior to final occupancy. 16. UTILITY BOXES Any equipment enclosures that are not located underground shall be screened by fencing and landscaping. Locations for said equipment shall be approved by Planning staff prior to issuance of building permits. 17. NOTICE OF FEESr DEDICATIONSr RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, Model Resolution U-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Page 5 reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Public improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. A cross-section of the narrowed Mary Avenue design shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall include two travel lanes, two bike lanes, parallel parking on both sides of the street and standard park strip and sidewalk. 2. CURB AND GI3't"i'ER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. ge STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 4. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 5. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 6. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. 7. GRADING Grading and erosion control plans shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 Permits may be required. Model Resolution U-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Page 6 DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Corrununity Development Director. Pre and Post development calculations shall be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 9. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction as required by the City. 10. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval by the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 11. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project development shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. PW Plan Checking and Inspection Fee: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units b. Grading Permit Fee: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units c. Map Fee: TBD d. Storm Drain Fee: TBD e. Power Cost: TBD ** f. Park Fees: $405,000 g. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000 h. Mary Avenue Crossing: $30,000 i. Stevens Creek Blvd. Pedestrian Improvements: $100,000 j. Stevens Creek Blvd. Signalization Improvements: TBD Bonds a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements Model Res01ut~on U-2003-05 Page 7 September 8, 2003 * The fees described above are imposed based on the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required to fund one-year of the power cost for streetlights 12. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar equipment enclosures shall be located underground. 13. NOI/NPDES PERMIT The developer shall attain a NOI/NPDES permit for their site. 14. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMPs shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. Pre and post-development BMPs shall be included within every plan set to the maximum practicality, which could include but is not limited to grassy swales, sand filters, detention basins, permeable pavers, drywells and additional landscaping. All BMPs shall be identified on the plan set. 15. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off-site improvements. 16. BICYCLE FACILITIES The developer shall provide on-site bicycle parking facilities. Model Resolution U-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Page 8 CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission Model Resolution U-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Page 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO NOTICE TO DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTOR STORM WATER REGULATION CHANGES This notice is to inform developers and contractors of changes to existing storm water quail _ty regulations. NPDES Construction General Permit As a result of recent state regulatory actions, beginning on March 10, 2003, all construction projects disturbing an area of one (1) acre or more are required to comply with the State of California General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Discharges Associated with Construction Activities ("Construction General Permit"). The size threshold for this permit had previously been 5 acres of disturbed land. Compliance with this permit requires submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and annual payment of $700 to the State Water Resources Control Board, preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, use of construction best management practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and maintenance. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the State Water Resources Control Board web site at: http: / / www. swrcb.ca, gov / stormwtr / c onstruction.html. Amended Development Best Management Practices (BMP) Requirements Begirming on July 15, 2003, Cupertino and 14 other public agencies in Santa Clara County are required by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to place additional conditions of approval related to storm water quality control on certain development projects. These projects consist generally of those creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, including roof areas and pavement. Conditions of approval will include the use and maintenance of BMPs for site design and storm water treatment, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. Owners of properties with treatment BMPs will be required to certify on-going operation and maintenance. For more information regarding the amended development BMP requirements, contact Jason Chou, Public Works Department at (408) 777-3237. Z-2003-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES FROM P(CG) AND R3 TO P(COM,RES) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL INTENT. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: . Applicant: Location: Z-2003-03 (EA-2003-03) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 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 meets 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Model Resolution Z-2003-03 September 8, 2003 Page 2 That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2003-03 is hereby recommended for approval; 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-2003-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval based on the amended zoning plat map entitled "Zoning Plat Map for: Sares Regis" dated June 2003 by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc, attached as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, 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 Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission TM-2003-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE 8.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE 5.23 ACRE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND ONE 2.99 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND A CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 49 UNITS ON THE 2.99 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2003-03 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. TM-2003-03 September 8, 2003 Model Resolution Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2003-03 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved su~ect 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 TM-2003-03, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the plan set entitled "Vesting Tentative Tract Map For: Regis Homes of Northern California" prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. dated July 2003. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATrEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission EXC-2003-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014- MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING HEART OF THE CITY EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO SETBACKS, PARKWAY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND SCREEN FENCES OR WALLS ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2003-04 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary 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 this application, and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of this specific plan. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomphsh a reasonable use of the parcel. Model Resolution EXC-2003-04 September 8, 2003 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: TI'mt after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, Application No. EXC-2003-04 is hereby approved; 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 EXC-2003-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the approved plans, entitled "The Residences at the Oaks", prepared by SB Architects, dated 9/3/03. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission Exhibit A: Property Lines at Northwest Corner o[ Project ~ Ap~icant proposed property Existing property line ~ Stall prc~o~sed pcoperty line EXHIBIT B September 3, 2003 City Hall 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Cupertino Oaks Dear Steven Piasecki: My wife and I have owned Dance Academy USA in Cupertino for the past 14 years. We moved our operations to the Oaks shopping center over 6 years ago. We have considerable concern regarding the proposed project at the Oaks. I must say up front, I am not entirely opposed to the project: however, after careful thought and study, I do believe the proposal needs a complete rework. Our concerns are specifically associated with limited parking and potential affects there-of. As a point of reference, the studio offers classes to over 750 children between the ages of 2-15. Eighty percent of our clientele resides in Cupertino. Parking Study Issues I believe the parking study needs a bit of work. To my knowledge, the parking engineer did not account for all patrons and employees of the Oaks that park along Mary Ave. After "living" at the center for seven years I can attest to the fact that there are normally 20 - 50 patrons/employees that park along Mary Ave. I was one of them. These numbers may seem relatively insignificant, but coupled with that fact we will be losing all the theatre parking and some of the parking along Mary Ave., it becomes very difficult to do business with any of the tenants in the rear building that runs parallel to Mary. Although I believe in a theoretical sense the numbers work based on the submitted parking study, my concern is one of a practical nature. If parking is reduced in the aggregate, it will force those 20 to 50 cars onto the center premises, which will meet or exceed the maximum available number of 300 or so spots. Recommendation: conduct further study of the site between the hours of 3:00 to 7:00 pm. Review high use areas of the center and conduct practical (qualitative) interviews with the current tenant base. Finally, calculate new numbers based on the estimated 20-50 cars aforementioned that park along Mary Ave. but belong to the center. 30 Shared Parking Spots/Overflow The density of this project is troubling. It is widely known that a large preponderance of Cupertino homes is now dual family units. In addition, people worldwide are, in large part} attracted to the area because of the schools, which bring teenagers of driving age. In either case, these events individually or combined equal more cars. I was amazed when I heard in the last public hearing that the developer would like to share 30 parking spots with the Oaks. In addition, the gentleman wanted to designate the shared parking area directly in front of the dance studio and Coldwell Banker. This is the one point that triggered me to write this letter. For me, it speaks to a complete lack of understanding regarding center dynamics or a conscious choice to pay little attention to the services the dance studio and others provide to the community. In either case, I believe it was a huge miscalculation. In the strongest terms, I highly encourage the city not to approve any shared parking of this development. I believe this one issue would not only deteriorate the viability of the tenant base on the back side but will also impact all the businesses along Stevens Creek Blvd. Finally, to the contrary, the city/developer needs to ensure (for all parties including the public) the sanctity of the Oaks parking for patrons and employees only. If this is not done in a comprehensive maturer, I do believe the degradation in the center will be severe and immediate. Recommendation: Maintain the original slanted parking along Mary Ave. (from the dance studio west towards 85) and make it specifically designated for overflow permit parking of the residents. In other words, only permitted cars from the HOA (new residential development) can park there: however, the HOA can only issue 30 permits. The developer and the HOA will have to determine who gets these spaces. Driveway in front of the Dance Studio The driveway enters directly into the dance studio. I have taken some time to drive around various Cupertino high-traffic shopping centers and found all to be void of this type of entry. I even question whether or not this meets shopping center standards or the Heart of the City standards. Most driveways do not open up directly into a high-use building, let alone at a distance no more than 70-90 feet fi:om the street. This is a real danger in my opinion, whether the space is used as a dance studio, restaurant, or other use. My fear is that (heaven forbid) some well-intended driver turns the comer and hits the gas instead of the brake. At any one time, there are up to 100 parents, children, teachers, and employees in and around the dance studio. Please remember, every hour on the half hour from 3:30-8:30 pm there are 80 or more children that are dropped off or picked up at this location. My recommendation: Move the driveway towards the town home development, thereby reducing the risk of a multi-fatal accident in the event of a runaway car. In addition, regardless of final driveway location, I would suggest that bollards be installed in the direct path of a runaway car - residential or commercial. Finally, I would suggest that the city research the liability/legal issues associated with placing a high-use retail shopping center driveway so close to the street and in a direct path of occupied buildings. Again, these concerns are predicated on the idea that there is so little distance between the street and these occupied buildings. Mary Ave. Parking I highly respect the ability of a private entity to pursue a profitable solution for its owners, i.e. the Oaks ownership. In addition, I believe intention is very important in this case. What is the intention of the city? What is the intention of the Oaks? I'm speaking specifically now about the building we occupy which starts at the dance studio and ends at the old Day Spa/Caf~ Qninn. What is the master plan of this bnikFmg? I don't see how any going enterprise can operate or grow its company in this location considering the post development issues regarding limited parking. At the risk of expressing the ideas of a conspiracy theorist, please track with me on this. If a subsequent plan is to go back to the city in two to three years for another sale/residential development project, I would like to know this now. It may sound far- fetched but seemingly possible if the current plan is not curtailed. In my opinion, the tenants in this building will experience a slow but deliberate demise because it will become too difficult for the costumers to engage us. It is very likely that both the city and Oaks ownership have no intention of selling this building. I will assume for the moment that both the city and Oaks ownership have every intention of maintaining this building and a thriving tenant base. If so, I can tell you that the current plan will literally crush our business, and I would venture to say the real estate company as well. Recommendation: Convert the Mary Ave slanted parking to Oaks patrons/employees only. I'm specifically referring to the slanted parking on Mary Ave. that runs parallel to the building that starts with the dance studio and ends with the old Day SpaJCaf6/Qninn. The center will pick up approximately 25 well-needed spaces. Label them: Oaks only - 1 hour parking. The Oaks security staff can take on the responsibility of diligently monitoring this area for offenders. Thank you for your time and careful review of these ideas. All the Best, Jim Carter Dance Academy USA, Owner 408-342-3022 EXHIBIT C View looking Northeast Ex~tmg CLay South Elevanon. 3/16" = 1' 0" with metalwork West Elevation North Elevation 3/16"= 1'0" CURVE TABLE: CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH EXHIBIT D Cl 1000.00' l',J1'2,J' 26.58' 02 1000.00' 15'47'02" 275.48' - C.~ 5000 00' 5'59'40" ~1~,.87' ~ ~ ~ \ \ C4 500. O0 7 ~6 06 66 54 ~ ~.- C5 500.00, 650955 568.67 C6 JlO. O0 89'59'10" 486.87' ZONING - --~'X nL P~ - PrPFS) ARE4 0.05 ACR~¢ ~ ) P - P(OO~/RES) AREA ?S L1 S 00'55'10" W 1J2.59' I ~ X r ~ L3 S 89~8'50" E 41.76' ~ ',~ L7 S 71'48'15" W 117.18' ~ L9 N 16'24'21" W 270.50' L10 S ~9'11'55" E 255.61' L11 N 00'4~'55" E 16Z05' ~ __ STEVENS CREEK BL~ DA~ ZONING PLAT MAP ~u.E, ~o~ FOR: SARES REGIS SCALE 1"= 250' CUPERTINO CALIFORNIA DR. BY RMA EXHIBIT "A" ~K[ER & WRIGHT JOB A03014 EXHIBIT E LEGEND NOTE8 EXHIBIT F Page 1 of 1 From: HardsAu@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:38 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: HarrisAu@aol.com Subject: Letter to Cupertino City Planning Commissioners, Re:Oaks Shopping Center Oaks Shopping Center Rezoning Applications: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, EA-2003-11 Dear SidMadam, The proposal to build 51 town homes and 24 duet homes around Oaks Shopping Center should be rejected before too much valuable resource are invested. The projects are disasters in the making for Cupertino's traffic, school, and parking systems. *On traffic, the junctions of Mary, HWY 85 and Stevens Creek are already very congested during peak business and De Anza school hours. The new residence will very muqh aggravate the condition. Since we are in an economic down cycle, the situation will be far worse in an economic up cycle. This is bounded to create severe safety hazards. *On school system, many people move to Cupertino for its renowned schools. However near by schools such as Kennedy and Monta Vista are already over populated. In many cases class sizes are increased to more than 30 students per class. Some new students are being turned away from their neighborhood schools due to insufficient space. The rezoning will undoubtedly bring in more students. It is unfair to both the continuing and prospective new student trying to get in. *On parking space in Oaks Shopping Center and Mary, the new projects will result in insufficient parking for the shopper and the prospective new residents. This was obvious in the Aug 25 public hearing. In situations of special events such as the monthly De Anza Flea Market and yearly Oktoberfest Festival it will become unbearable. Cupertino has already been over bu'lt. The city s public safety and quality of living should be concerns of the City Planning Commission. On the Aug 25 public hearing over 95% of the public inputs are negative on these projects. I think the rezoning proposal should be rejected out right to avoid undue use of time of the developer, commissioners, and local residents. Sincerely, Harris Au 10393 Noel Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 09/04/03 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA REGIS HOMES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC ZONING AMENDMENT AND USE PERMIT SUBMFITAL SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 CLIENT REGIS HOMES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, [NC 393 Vintage Park Drive, Suite 100 Foster City, CA 94404 Tel: (650) 378-2800 Fax: (650) 570-2233 ARCHITECT SB ARCHITECTS (SANDY BABCOCK) One Beach Stxeet, Suite 301 San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (415) 673-8990 Fax: (415) 274-2003 r- Hort Science 4125 Mohr Ave. #F pleasanton, CA 94566 Tel: (925) 484~)211 Fax: (925) 448-5096 F. YFF ENGINEERS 180 Pacific Av¢llue San Fr~cisco, CA 94111 Ph: (415) 989-1004 Fax: (415) 989-1552 THE RESIDENCES AT THE OAKS PRO]ECr DATA EXIS11NG PROPOSED RET,~IL PROPOSED RESIDI~'IAL ZONING DWELUNG I ~ · ~ ~ OAKS AREASUMMARY THE RESIDENCES AT THE OAKS C~/1L DUET AREA SUMMARY (BLDG #1L1 AO.01 F B BUll. DING A STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT L~qlT C UNiT UNIT G ~BU~NG #5 & ~6 BEST ROC~ I~.A'q UNIT I~ UNIT ~, L~IIT (2 © 0 UNIT C; UNIT 4, UNIT 15 UNIT C. UNIT C. UNIT~ UNIT 4, UNIT~ UNIT 4, UNIT C. UNIT I~ UNIT ~, UNIT - I I BUlL NO FRONT ~:ale: 1 1'-0" ELEVATION BUILDING NO. 2 REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Q ~BI~ING #2 REAR H,L:VA~ION m LT..1TM= ~UIDING B, EVA'IIONS A-3.01 I "1 UNfl'C C~ WINDOW JM4~ DETAIL C~) B~,A,~ WINDOW (~ ~O/~ITtOL£ WINDOW C~) DETAIL AT GARDEN WALL DECK RAIL C~ BALCONY DETAIL Q~ls EXTERIOR DETAILS AS.0'I BUILDING pLANS MARY AVEN TYPICAL SECTION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" HIGHWAY 85 BU~U~G ELEVATIONS & ~-nOH5 - I Hipped Roofs Irregularity in Window Placement Metal Balconies Large Window Configurations Metal Balconies Accented Bay Windows Horizontality in Building Massing with a Play in Window and Door Openinos of Gable Sills A Blend of Gable & Shed Roofs Painted Metal Trellises Private Entry Gates Private Entry Stoops and Porches Stepping Down of Building Massing CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA DEVELOPER Regis Homes of Northern California, Inc. Villa De Anza, Inc. DESIGN TEAM SB Architects (Sandy Babcock) The Guzz~rdo Partnership Inc. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Agenda Date: September 8, 2003 Application Summary Clarification of the City Council 1999 regulation limiting the size of second story construction in the R1 Ordinance. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission asked staff to clarify the City Council enactment of the regulation that limits the size of the second story in the RI Ordinance. Staff reviewed recordings and associated documents from five City Council meetings from February 1, 1999 through April 19, 1999. DISCUSSION On February 1, 1999, the topic of limiting the size of the second story was introduced. The Planning Commission recommended the application of a summation of multipliers to first and second story area to determine whether the second story area would be allowed. Staff recommended that a regulation that specified a consistent proportion of the second story to the first story be established. Verbal presentations concerning this item referenced a 35/65 concept, but were not consistent with the written language in the draft ordinance. The draft ordinance stated that the second story would be 35% of the first story. As part of the discussion, staff presented ten case studies of two story residences that were within a few percentage points of conforming to a 35/65 proportion of second floor to first floor area. Councilmembers noted that some of these cases were the basis for community discontent with large two-story homes. The regulation was discussed in detail again at the second reading of the approved ordinance on April 19, 1999. Based on a suggestion by Counciiperson Don Burnett, staff recommended simplified language for the regulation. An overhead transparency was shown with the original language and the recommended language. The original language was: "A second story shall not exceed thirty five percent of the floor area of the existing or proposed first story, unless a second story of less than 600 square feet results, in which case a minimum of 600 square feet is allowed." The recommended language was: "A second story shall not exceed thirty five percent of the existing or proposed first story, or 600 square feet, whichever is greater.' Page 2 Councilperson Burnett motioned to approve the change. Councilperson Michael Chang seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0 with Councilperson Sandra James absent. The adopted language is straight-forward and leaves little doubt about what was intended. Therefore, staff does not believe the adopted language was somehow confused with the Planning Commission proportional approach or the 65/35 approach. One-Year Review At the one-year review of the 1999 RI Ordinance Amendment, the Planning Commission and City Council were presented with a status report on the new regulations. Elevations of approved projects were shown. Both the City Council and Planning Commission supported the results of the amendment. Conclusion The City Council adopted the precise language of the current second story area regulation. If the Planning Commission wishes to suggest a modification to this regulation, staff recommends that a Minute Order to the City Council be approved requesting such action. Given the level of interest in the second story regulation, the discussion of this issue will require a significant allocation of staff resources. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~ Approved by: Enclosure City Council Minutes from April 19, 1999 April 19, 1909 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Bu~nett said that was opposed to the idea of refunding taxes, which is money taken fror~e people to be used by goverament. It has been happening and will c0~tinue to do so, ~although it is the Legislature's job to fix the problem, he w?~uld~riOt support it h'nnselfi ~.~ Statt0n said the Appl'e-l~gram was a difficult one to aee~pt initially, but from everyone's point of view i~ag~ been very suceessfu! and Apple is now one of the city's major sales tax generators. Th~licy is some(vhat akin to what other communities do that have more land, and they zo~ !and for retail and then offer assistance for Chang said he also shared some reservations with ~cil member Bumett, but the Internet sales are in/creWing ~ the city..ne.eds t.b~e a way to take rightful advantage of~ sales, so he would support th'm incentive.~ Sta~o~ved to adopt Resolution No. 99-119. Chang seconde~d the motion card 3-1, with James absent and Burnett voting no. ORDINANCES 21. R1 zones - second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1808, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones, of the Cupertino Municipal Code." Community Development Director Bob Cowan noted a clarification to the ordinance, and said that 19.28.60, paragraph 2., should be changed to read as follows: A second story shall not exceed 35 % of the existing or proposed first story, or 600 square feet, whichever is greater. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and Chang seconded to accept the amendment, to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 4-0 with James absent. 22. Bumett moved and Chang seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1808. Motion carried 4-0 with James absent. Zon~definitions - second reading and enactment ofOrdinafi~No. 1809, "An Ord'manc'ee~he City Council of the City of C~pertino Amending Chapter 19.08, D efinit, ions, of t~Municipal Code.,!.'" The City Clerk read the title ot'~the.~d~nance. Bumett moved and Statton seconded to read the ordinance by title 0nly; ~nd tha~e-C~ Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading the[~0fi Motion carried 4-0 with J~iiTto~ Burne~mo~ ~d Statton seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1809. Mo'tion~arried 4-0 wj~ffJames absent. ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Mondayr September 8~ 2003 The City Council met on Tuesda¥~ September 2, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: Study Session: The City Council and the Cupertino Library Foundation met to discuss the library fundraising effort. No action was taken. Modification of use permit for Civic Park Master Plan: The City Council approved an application by Hunter/Storm Associates to modify use permit U-2002-06 to separate the office building G and caf~ building R at the Cupertino Town Center. The modifications also included architectural changes to the caf~ building and the addition of 20 seats. (see attached report) Report on Tank House near Blackberry Farm Golf Course: Council directed staff to work with the Homeowners Association and the Cupertino Historical Society regarding restoring the structure and developing a long-term maintenance strategy and to report back to Council. (see attached report) Fence petition between Cupertino Village and Linnet Lane in Sunnyvale: Council voted to have staff work with the neighbors, Sunnyvale staff and the shopping center owners to resolve the issues and to report back to Council. (see attached report) Chinese Church in Christ: The City Council authorized setting a public hearing for a General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office building. (see attached report) Miscellaneous General Plan Task Force: Staff and sixteen members of the General Plan Task Force conducted the first of two field trips on Saturday, August 30, to tour Campbell, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View and Willow Glen to showcase examples of planning and development in nearby cities that reflect the Vision and Guiding Principles in the draft General Plan. Enclosures: Report of the Community Development Director Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 2 Newspaper Articles G:plannmg/SteveP/director's report/pd9-8-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Commurrity Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: September 2, 2003 Application: M-2003-04 Applicant (s): Hunter/Storm Associates Property Location: APN#: 369-40-017 - Cupertino Town Center RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. Modification M-2003-04 to Use Permit application U-2002-06, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 6201 Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment: Commercial/Office/Residential P/P(OP) - Planned Office/Planned Professional Office Heart of the City Yes. Yes. Office and incidental/related commercial uses allowed in the P (OP)- Planned Office. Exception to exceed maximum height limit from 36 ft. to 45 ft received as part of previous approval Categorical exemption Application Summary: MODIFICATION to Use Permit U-2002-06 for the Civic Park Master Plan at Cupertino Town Center. The modifications consist of separating the office building G and caf~ building R (also includes architectural changes to the caf~ building and an increase of 20 seats) located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Rodrigues and Torre Avenues. BACKGROUND The project is a modification to the master plan at the Town Center development approved by the City Council on May 19, 2003. The current project proposes a separation between Caf~ R and Building G as directed by the City Council as part of the master plan approval. On August 25, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with a 3-1-1 vote (one Commissioner abstaining and another not present). Printed on Recycled Paper Applications: M-2003-04 Hunter/Storm Associates September 2, 2002 Page 2 DISCUSSION Changes From Previous Master Plan Approval The project does not propose any major changes to the approved master plan except for the following: 1. Building G and Ca~6 R are separated. 2. The number of seats in the caf6 have been increased from 30 to 50 seats. Architectural Design The design for Building G is similar to the "neo-Mediterranean' architectural style proposed in the earlier master plan. 'The separated c~fe building R has a comer octagonal entry fea~ttre, "Tuscan Yellow" waiN; storefront windows, dark green awnings, and trellises to differentiate it from the office use. The project was reviewed by Larry Cannon, the City's architectural consultant who was generally pleased with the project and site desigrc Staff recommends approval of the design. Parking The phasing for the project is as follows: · Building G and caf6 to be constructed. · Buildings 6-13 ~o be demolished after tenants are moved into building G. The parking analysis assumes that construction of the new towrthomes will begin and that the area for Buildings 6-13 will not be available for parking. As the parking analysis below indicates, the project will be short 40 parking spaces for this phase (not accounting for vacancies in the current offices). Based on the current vacancy rates, however, the project will have 52 additional parking spaces. A condition of approval requires that, if a parking need is demonstrated, the applicants shall provide up to 40 additional spaces through valet parking, providing spaces on the sites of the demolished buildings (buildings 6-13) or securing off-site parking facilities. Bnildings 1-5 30% 67 95 B,~ildings A&B 2O% 143 179 Buildings C-E 5% F G Avuilable Balance 20% 0% (assumed', 0% (assumedI 75 94 166 175 95 95 16 16 562 654 614 52 614 Applications: M-2003-04 Hunter/Storm Ass0dates September 2, 2002 Page 3 Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner Steve ~ase-c~.i, Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Dav~'~i City Manager ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolution No. 6201 Plan set Original Plan set (Buildings G&R only) for U-2006-03 approved on May 19, 2003 Staff report to Planning Commission dated August 25, 2003 F:I Planning I PDREPORT\ pcMreports \ M-2OO3-O4cc,doc M-2003-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6201 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO THE FIRST PHASE OF USE PERMIT U-2002-06 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING G CONSISTING OF 16,626 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE, AND BUILDING R CONSISTING OF 1,900 SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT SPACE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RODRIGUES AVENUE AND TORRE AVENUE. SECTION I: PRO~ECT DESCRItrrION Application No.: Applicant Location: M-2003-04 Hunter/Storm Associates Southwest comer of Rodrigues Avenue and Torre Avenue (APN#: 369-40-017 - Cupertino Town Center) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, 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 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 proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be de,mental 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 General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, tesffmony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. M-2003-04 is hereby recommended for approval; 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 M-2003-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the planning Commission Meeting of August 25, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. Resolution No. 6201 M-2003-04 August 25, 2003 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated August 4, 2003, entitled "Amendment to Permit Application - Civic Park Phase One Buildings G & R," and as amended by this resolution. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted for the consh-uction of 16,626 square feet of a two-story medical office building with an 81-car underground parking garage and a 1,900 square foot, 50- seat restaurant building. DESIGN a. Materials -Buildings shall provide a stone base to be compatible with the color and materials of the buildings. b. Windows - All windows shall be inset at least three inches from the exterior wall surface. c. Lighting - A comprehensive lighting plan will be provided to detail accent lighting on buildings, signage and landscaping and will not cause spillover to neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. d. Signage - A master sign program shall be approved by staff. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 200 feet of any offsite residential property. LANDSCAPING a. Replacement trees - All the new trees shall be 48" box size minimum except for trees on parking decks, which shall be 24" box size. b. Parking lot trees - Twenty new trees shall be provided in the surface parking lot between Buildings G and FI. Two of the trees shall be 48" box coast live oaks (in the plaza near Civic Park Drive) and the rest shall be a combination of Pyrus calleryana 'Red Spire' (Red Spire Pear) and Prunus yedoenis 'yoshino' (Yoshino flowering Cherry). c. Protection plan - As part of the buSlding permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the specimen oaks affected by the construction and the Coast Live Oaks and redwoods to be relocated. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to beginning construction. The certified arborist shall also inspect the trees to be retained and relocated and shall provide reviews at various stages in the project. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. d. Tree protection Bond - A tree protection bond in the amount of $15,000 for each specimen tree to be retained (in the area affected by the first phase) shall be provided prior to issuance of building permits. Resolution No. 6201 M-2003-04 August 25, 2003 Page 3 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A parking management plan shah be prepared by the applicant that describes the parking system used by retail customers, office clients and re*~il/office employees and shall be subject to staff approval prior to final occupancy. The applicant shall provide an updated plan for any tenant changes that result in changes to the parking requirements. In case of a parking problem, the applicant shall provide up to 40 additional spaces through valet parking, providing spaces on the sites of the demolished buildings (buildings 6-13) or securing off-site parking facilities. 6. ON-STREET PARKING AND IMPROVEMENTS ALONG TORRE AVENUE a. As part of this project, the applicant shall construct angled parking and sidewalk improvements on the west side of Torre Avenue along the project frontage as shown on sheet L-1 on the plan set. The bulb-outs on the north side of Town Center Lane shall be incorporated into the plan. The applicants shall demonstrate alignment with the planned Civic Plaza improvements. b. The applicant shall work with the City to design and install paving at Torre Avenue and Town Center Lane to integrate with improvements at Civic Center Plaza. SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT The total number of spaces to be provided shall be as required by the Municipal Code. Spaces may be reduced to reflect the reduction in the number of units. A grant of easement for parking and amendment to the CC&Rs shall be submitted and approved prior to occupancy and shall be recorded for use of parking spaces between buildings as indicated below: Buildings 1-5 and A-F- 503 spaces Building G - 81 spaces in Building G garage and 7 surface parking spaces in lot between Buildings G and Building A&B. Caf& - 15 surface parking spaces in lot between Buildings G and Buildings A&B. The text of the easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and the easement shall be recorded prior to final occupancy for each building affected by this condition. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Pedestrian easements over the sidewalk areas (portion on private property) and thxough the interior pedestrian paths and plazas shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of building permits. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT {TDM) MEASURES The applicant shall implement the TDM measures recommended in the Transportation Impact Analysis for Town Center Development by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. dated February 2003. The applicant shall also install the following minimum bicycle parking facilities (classes indicated in Section 19.100 of the Municipal Code) in locations to be approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits: Building G - racks for 5 bikes ( Class II in underground garage) Caf& - one small bike rack ( Class III near plaza or surface parking) Bike racks for residents in individual storage areas in the garage shall qualify as Class II requirements for residents in Buildings R-1 and R-2. Resolution No. 6201 M-2003-04 August 25, 2003 Page 4 10. TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG RODRIGUES AVENUE AND PACIFICA DRIVE a. The mitigation on Rodrigues Avenue shall include traffic calming measures such as, traffic curb bulb-outs and/or other traffic mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate, to offset the project traffic along Rodrigues Avenue. The final plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to construction. The applicant contribute the following towards traffic mitigation on Rodrigues Avenue prior to final occupancy (esffmate of cost of improvements shall be determined by the City after approval of the traffic mitigation plans): i. Phase 1 ~ Contribute $30,000 towards design and construction of mitigations. b. Mitigations for Pacifica shall be approved by the City Council with public input. Total contribution for mitigations on Pacifica Drive due prior to final occupancy for Phase 1 shall not exceed $10,000 for Phase 1. 11. DE ANZA BOULEVARD/McCLELLAN ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS As part of Phase 1, the applicant shall contribute their proportionate share of the cost to redesign the McClellan/De Anza signal to enable it to function more effidently, as described in the Transportation Impact Analysis for Town Center Development by Fehr & Peers Assodates, Inc. dated February 2003. The applicant's proportionate share will equal the increment of new traffic added to the intersection compared to the new traffic from the near term build-out in the surrounding area. Total contribution for Phase 1 shall not exceed $50,000. 12. CIVIC CENTER SPECIAL EVENTS The applicant shall allow public parking on the Town Center site for special events in the Civic Center. The terms and conditions of the agreement (including times and responsibilities) shall be determined by the Director of Community Development, City Attorney and the applicant. 13. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults, backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. Said equipment locations shall be determined prior to issuance of building permits. 14. SANITARY DISTRICT Prior to obtaining a permit for occupancy, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from the Cupertino Sanitary District that adequate capacity is available for the project or the applicant shall make the necessary improvements to ensure adequate capacity for the project 15. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONSr RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Goverrtment Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within fids Resolutfion No. 6201 M-2003-04 August 25, 2003 Page 5 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactSons. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 16. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 17. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 18. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 19. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 20. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 21. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125 unless a different species is approved. 22. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control board as appropriate. 23. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available; drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution No. 6201 Page 6 M-2003-04 August 25, 2003 24. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction on Lot A to the approval of the City. The driveway to Lot A shall be marked Fire Lane on the final map. 25. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 26. EASEMENTS The developer shall keep all easements free and open of permanent structures at all times, unless there are written confirmation from the utility companies and the City saying otherwise. 27. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Fees shall be reduced to reflect the reduction in residential units from 217 to 142. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $1,975.00 b. Grading Permit:. $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit. $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $1,290/ACRE e. Power Cosk ** f. Map Checking Fees: NA g. Park Fees: NA ** Developer is responsible for one-year power cost The latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC will dictate the power cost ~ Please see attached sheet Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that lime will reflect the then current fee schedule. Resolution No. 6201 Page 7 M-2003-04 August 25, 2003 28. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fending and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 29. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 30. NOTICE OF INTENT The applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NO0, as required by the State Water Resource Control Board, for all construction activity disturbing 1 acre or more of soft. The permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the utilization of storm water BMIYs. The City shall review the SWPPP for adequacy. 31. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soft. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 32. FIRE ACCESS LANES Emergency fire access lanes shall be recorded as fire lane easements on the final map and shall meet Central Fire District standards. 33. BEST MANAGEMENT pRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 34. DIAGONAL PARKING Diagonal parking can be constructed along the western side of Torre Avenue. Additional right of way needed to accommodate tiffs diagonal parking must be attained from the applicant's portion of the lot, not the City's. 35. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. Clearance by the Pubhc Works and Community Development Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. Resolulfi0n No. 6201 M-2003-04 August 25, 2003 Page 8 CITY ENGINEER'S CERTII~ICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. /s/Ralph Quails Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Saadati ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PD REPO R TI RES I M-2003-04 res.doc CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue CupeKino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3251 FAX(408) 777-3333 Community Development Departme~d Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: S__~temb~ 2 2003 Subject: Report and recommendation regarding request fi.om Terry Hertel pertaining to the tank house near Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to pursue option two. Option One: Allow the Byme Avenue Homeowners Association to remove the condition that they maintain the tank house and allow the Association to dismantle and destroy the tank house. Option Two: The City will assist the homeowners in contacting the Cupertino Historical Society and other volunteers ,wishing to assist with the repair of the tank house. The homeowners would commit, subject to future negotiations, to fund a majority of the cost to renovate the structure and set-aside a fund for continued maintenance. In either option, the Byme Avenue Homeowners Association should be required to complete a lot line adjustment so that the City of Cupertino will not have to relocate the golf course and restaurant structures. Backgronnd: In 1980, the city of Cupertino required developer Terry Brown to relocate a tank house from the Oakdell Ranch area to some vacant land near the Black Berry Farm Golf Course as a condition of approval for development of eight homes on Byme Avenue. The vacant land was open space (undevelopable land) required in the Byme Avenue development. The Byme Avenue homeowners are required by way of a covenant nmning with the land to maintain the tank house. At the Homeowners Association request, staff researched the covenant to assure it was properly recorded against the properties in 2000. The covenants were recorded properly. The maintenance of the tank house has been the subject of many 'conversations between the Homeowners Association and the City of Cupertino. Staffhas attached correspondence received fi.om the Byme Avenue Homeowners Association discussing the repairs that were requested by the City in 1992 and the Homeowners Association obligation. Also enclosed is correspondence from Parks and Recreation Director Therese Ambr0si Smith to Mr. Terry Hertel regarding the process to amend the conditions of approval for the development. The tank house has also been the subject of many conversations between the Cupertino Historical Society and the City of Cupertino. The Historical Society believes that the tank house has historical significance to the city and would like to see the tank house maintained and preserved. Attached is a letter from Louis Stocklmcir wlxich includes some h/story of the tank house which was constructed in the late 1800's. Phyllis Filiberti Butler also features the tank house in the book "Old Santa Clara Valley, A Guide to Historic Buildings from Palo Alto to Crikoy". An excerpt from page 114 of the book is included for reference. Discussion: In recent years, the tank house has fallen into a state of disrepair. The Byme Avenue Homeowners Association has submitted the following letter requesting the City dismantle and relocate the tank house to a "more suitable site" or dismantle the tank house without relocating the structure. The request is based upon the Byme Avenue Homeowners Association's perception that the City did not compel the original property developer to provide water and electric service to the tank house as required in the original conditions of approval for the development. The affected members of the Byme Avenue Homeowners Association and city staff met on August 27t~ to discuss options to resolve the problem. There are basically two problems that need to be resolved. An ALTA survey commissioned by the City of Cupertino, shows that the City of Cupertino currently occupies approximately 10 feet of the Associations property along the western edge of the vacant parcel. A storage shed utilized by Blackberry Farm Golf Course and the trash enclosure for the Blue Pheasant Restaurant currently reside on the Byrne Avenue Homeowners Association's property. The second problem needing to be addressed is the state of disrepair of the tank house. All parties involved agreed that there are two options which may be proposed to the City Council to resolve the situation. The options are as follows: Option One: Allow the Byme Avenue Homeowners Association to remove the condition that they maintain the tank house and allow the Association to dismantle and destroy the tank house. Option Two: The City will assist the homeowners in contacting the Cupertino Historical Society and other volunteers wishing to assist with the repair of the tank house. The homeowners would commit, subject to future negotiations, to fund a majority of the cost to renovate the structure and set-aside a fund for continued maintenance. In either option, the Byme Avenue Homeowners Association should be required to complete a lot line adjustment so that the City of Cupertino will not have to relocate the golf course and restaurant shnactures. Prepared by: Vera C-il, Senior Planner Submittex~¢ ~.. Steve Pias~ ki Director of Community Development Approved for Submittal: City Manager Enclosures: Byme Avenue Homeowners Association letter and attachments dated July 27, 2003 Byrne Avenue Homeowners Association correspondence dated January 10, 1992 Correspondence fiom City of Cupertino to Mr. Hertel dated May 15, 2001 Correspondence fiom Louis Stocklmeir dated February 5, 1980 Excerpt from "Old Santa Clara Valley; A Guide to Historic Buildings from Palo Alto to Gilroy", Phyllis Filiberti Butler. Richard E. Whicker Terry I-~ert~l Sharon Northrup Rusty Meier Byrne Avenue Homeowners Association 10025 Byrne Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 Dear City Council, We would like to be put on the agenda of the upcoming council meeting to prompt a decision on the disposition of the ~Tank House' structure on Lot 6, Tract 6574, otherwise known as Byrne Avenue Homeowners Association. In July 1980 Terry Brown, the developer of Byrne Avenue prope~es made an agreement with the City of Cupertino to allow the structure to be moved onto the property. This agreement was not disclosed to the three other homeowners at the time it was made. More importantly, the agreement required that electrical and water service be provided to the structure, all fixtures hooked up to said utilities, and the site immediately surrounding the structure be cleaned and graded after construction work was completed. Additionally, necessary exterior repairs and painting were to have been performed to make the structure weather-tight. $18,000 was set aside in the form of a bond to move the structure and assure that the above was accomplished. However, the City of Cupertino has not executed the work required (please see attachment A). The structure was moved and that was all that was done. The Byme Avenue Homeowners, were given the obligation to maintain this structure without the necessary tools to do so. The decision we would like, since the condition of the tank house is very run-down and lacks the necessary services to keep it up, is permission to dismantle the structure. Or else, have the City relocate the structure to a more suitable site, such as the Stocklmeir Ranch 200 yards to the north of its present location where there are plans for a Cuper~no Living History Museum. Thank you for your attention, cker, ~ Encis. CC: Dave Knapp mBA NKo AMERICA ~RAN~H Otto er 2, 1980 City of Cupertino .,. Planning Department Re: W, es~ Wind Development Inc. and ~lierra Alder Development~ Inc. Loan # 405-1008 ~.ract 6943, Oakdelt Ranch ~.uper tino, Ca. Dear Sirs: Please be advised we ara holding $10,000.00 to guaragtee completion of the ankhouse Buildi~tg of Tract 5943 as part of the Construction loan. 408- ~324. o~ 's ~y~ ~nag ~r ¥ esl ind De,el.opUlent, Inc. 13901 CampoIVista Lane, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 October 2, Planning Delar~ment City of Cup~rtmno 10300 Torre~ve. Cupertino, !A 9501~ RE: Tract 9~3, Oekdel! Ranch, Application Gentlemen, (415) 948-8774 (415) 948-0111 Our company hereby agrees to per!Corm thos~ conditions outlined in Condition # 7 of the above appl icatlon regarding the Tankhouse Strdcture. All costs f~r the work indicated in Condition #17 will be borne by 'iWool- worth Construction Company. The Tankhouse shall be moved to property owned by Byine Avenue Properties (Te .~ry Brown), Tract #6574, Lot #[~ end ,intained by the Bryne Avenue Propqrtles of Tract #657q as outIine~l in a separate agreement with_the City of Cupertino. : AttachSd is a l~tter for credit in the amount of $10,000.00 from the Dank of America for the cost to move and place the Tankhouse StructUre on the 8tyne AV, anue Property and make those necessary repal rs to the structure as outllned tby the City. Also, $8,O00.00 was set aside in the Faithful Performance )and completion Inprovenlent Bond for the improvement of the Tankhouse Sttucture. We ther~for~ agree to perform those obligations regarding the Tank- house StructUre as out)ined in Condltion #17 of Application ll-U-80[ Veru truly y)urs, · ..?,/¢. A.R. Woolworth, President WESTWIND BEV"LOPMENT, INC. oeiworth, Presiden~ ~RRA ALDER DEVELOPMENT, INC. Terry ~rown ~ BYRNE AVENUE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Z1950 BYRNE COURT CUPERTINO CALIFORNIA 95008 January 10, 1992 TO: : FROM: Llnda Vincent SUBJECT: COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Dear Neighbors: I received a call from Bob Cowan at the City of ~upe'rtino regarding our tank house and its state of disrepair.· He reminded me of our obligation to maintain it and asked for a prompt response as to our intentions. Several months ago Terry Hertel Eot a bid from Randy Brown to replace the gate, make matching hatchcover-type shutters for the broken windows, and repair the railing around the upper deck of the tank house. His bid for the materials, labor, and clean-up was $1,6Z5.00. Most of you will"recall that about two years ago Terry Browh inquired about moving the tank house to use as a landmark for his commercial development. Now that the design of the new development has been finalized, we know for sure that the tank house will stay where i't is. I recommend that we'proceed with the repairs. I have enclosed a statement of our current cash position and.the contribution required from each homeowner to cover the 1992 expenses. If you all concur with the plan to make the repairs, I will need your checks before the work starts on approximately March 1, 1992. -.. We have not had a Homeowner's meeting for several years. Our CC&R's call for an annual meeting to take pla~e oK the thirdTuesday of February. If anyone wants to get together to discuss issues related to the association, please contact me before February 1, 1992 so we can m~ke arrangements for an official meeting. The CC&R's call for a minimum of five homeowners in attendance and a majority vote of those present or represented can decide on an action that will affect all the homeowners. cc'~~Bob Cowan, City of Cupertzno':%, CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-31 l0 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Website: www.cupertino.org PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION May 15, 2001 Mr. Terry Hertel 10015 Byme Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Hertel: Following our recent telephone conversation, I reviewed the file regarding the tank house and the Byrne Avenue Homeowners Association. While I understaad your frus~ation dealing with the developer's legacy, the conditions of approval for permit 1 l-U-80 are in effect until amended. Attached is a copy of a letter Ciddy Wordell sent you approximately three years ago notifying you of the process to amend the conditions of approval that entitled the builder to move forward with the development of your home. Please understand that City staffmay be sympathetic to your plight, but decisions made by elected officials following a public hearing and planning Commission action cannot be simply undone by staff. There is a public process for amending the conditions of approval that may ultimately provide the result that you seek, but it will be necessary for the Homeowner's Association to apply for the amendment and make their case for it in the public forum. I hope this process ultimately resolves this issue in a manner you believe is fair. IfI can provide additional assistance, please call me at 777-3110. Sincerely, ~tor Parks and Recreation Department CC: Dave Knapp, City Manager Chuck I<2ilian, City Attorney Ralph Qnalls, Director, Public Works Steve Piasecld, Director, Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Vei~ Gill, S~ni~Planner', Mike O'Dowd, Recreation Supervisor Kim Smith, City Clerk LOUIS STOCKLMEIR 22120 STEVENS CKEEK BOULEVAKD CUPERTINO, CAL~ORNIA 95014 Februaz"] 5, 19g0 Mrs. Arthur r~bertson 21979 Oak Dell Place Cupar tino, California 95014 PER~ONAL A) Prelude ~o letter: Some more brief historical infon~ation for your use B) Tank house structure on historically Nathan Hall Property C) T~tative ~p showing S acre 'proposed subdivision, last owned by Laughlin Situate - Section i~T, Dear Mrs. RobertSon: ~nis letter wzicten t~ you is augmenting a pre~o~ ~e l~ ~i~ I spoke soma ~te~st~g ito~ of histo~ bangled of the Ha~ R~ holdings. Yo~ interest ~ matte~ htsto~cal, I belie~ ~o be si~la~ to that those of ~ ~o are end~ed wi~ a ret~ of histo~c~ itim o{ eve~ clasificati~. Briefly, I w~ bo~ in 1892 ~ the high plateau co~t~ of ~e t~ta about ~:ee m~ms sou~ ~f the ViSage of Los ga~s. ~ ~oo, w~ ~ p~o9~ ~t~ a beautlf~ home o~look~g ~.e m~y creeks ~d constit~ti~g ~a a~a of l~dscape ~ ~1 ~ecti~s. ;~en I w~ ~e age of ~o yea~, ~ ~er ~ed to ri~ ~e m~y t=~15 in ~at lo~t~, on her ~ sadd~ horse, vi~ ~ saa~ed Behind ~e po=al o[ the saddle. ~e 9eacef~ little w~d ca~ wht~ ga~ the m-~ ~o ~he Villaz, e of ~s ~atos ofteu fo~owed a~ng ~he trails b~d ~. At ~e ~ of my bir~ Que~ Uic~o~, who later beca~ ~ fa~te queen, w~ ~ ~he ~r~e of Great Britain ~d the President of the b%ited Sta~es w~ ~nJ~n, Har~son. ~a mo~=~n air was pure ~ ~e d~ven snow whi~ so~ttm~ lightly covered ar~a. ~e c~yon stream- r~ be~e~ ~i~l.7 w~d a~, ~e boughs of whi~ ove~g ~e fo~ c~ar waters. Nostalgically, ~ conse~ati~ iucl~ati~ was de~ly ingr~nmd into ~ nature by ~e ~distr~ed en~ro~en~ suturings. Fo~ately, I was bom ~th a photographic ~ ~d can ree~11 ~dent~ from the age of ~o years, Z ~sited ~ha ori~nal Cuper~no aras and aLSo the ~estside area in 1898 at ' linge~ in ~ mind, ~in~m~lls and tall t~k structures ~d ~eir ~es we~ of deep tnte~st, ~ moved wi~h my f~ly ~o yea~s later into the o~ginal Cupertino area in wh~ the Na~an H~I proper~ ~d ~e B~a~ber~ prope~ were sit.ted. ~is section, kn~ ~ el~e o~giu~ Cu~ertino area adjoined ~e '~ests~de area to ~e East ~ h~s~or~c~ly :e~rded ~ the w~i:tn&s of ~e region, p~shed in ~e e~ghth decade of ~e 19~ Century. Na~ Ha~l. ~o: a n~er of years, lived w~ Capt~n Stephens (Stevens), ~e: of Blackbe:~ Fa~. Alter a ~ew years he bought ~e pro~&rW ~ot~nE the B~a~be~y $a~ Co ~e Nor~, ho~steadiug part ~hereof ~d paying oil squatters who had ~ in ~d ~empora~ly tliu~ onr son of ~e As I ~utioued ~ ~ fomr letter, he lived' ina sm.il shingled ~ofed, s~n~le wa~d, board ~d bat~ building wbt& stood on ~e e~t b~ of C~ (S~e~na), appro~tely ~ tize ~eu~ by iif~ feat ~d partitioned off iu~o ~oms. la~ one ~presentin~ space for kl~&en, bedroo~ ~d s~o~age, ~is b~ld~n~ w~ located ~ose to ~e ba~s o{ Cuper~iuo Cre~ (f~e~us Creek) apprc~tely fi~ h~dred feeC no.wear of ~e pr~ent ~ho~e s~ruc~u~, It se~ed ~ a domicile ~til te seva~ ~cade of te 19~ ~ntu~, appro~macal7 at whi~ pe~od o~ time, he mar~ed 5ar~ Brewe~, a s~ool taa~e~ who taunt firstly in the prima~ s~ools o~ the area crowd C~e~lle in ~e Sacra~n~o Valley on the b~s of ~e ~ssi~ ~ve~. Later she tau~4t at ~a old Lincoln S~ool, nO lon~a~ e~sting, b~lt in ~d sit~tad at ~a nor~e~t ~e~ of P~Spect Road ~d- Mo~tain Viev-Sara~o~a Road ~ it w~ th~ ca~ed, n~ kn~ tm part as ~ anza Boulevard. Prio~ she taunt also ima p~vata s~sc~pti~ s~ool situated on ~e ba~s of Stave~ C~ near l, lcClell~ Road. It w~ du~n~ her sojourn at ~at pe~od that ~ae ~t ~d bec~ the ~la of Nath~ J. ~Cer dxa ~r~age in the seven~ decade of the 19th Cantu~, o~ ~athan J. Hall ~d Saz~ B~ewer, H~l stared ~e ~lex of b~ldin~s ~d a Victo~ type zasidance ~ the a~ in vhi~ ~e p~as~t ~gidu~ tenant of a ~ st~uctuza H~l did eot ~ntempla~ at ~at ~, one of othe~ de~lopm~ts which occ~ed ~d w~ inured to his beneficial advantag~ of ~in~ bis 172 ac~s in foll~- ing decades. In the eigh~ decade of ~e 19th ~ntu~, a la~e l~do~ar in ~e lIescside dist~ct, ~e~ of so~ 160 ac~es, b~ natu~ ~ a~dent ag~culturist, with whom I:mas a~u~m~d, e~eriencinE water diffic~ties ~ bis deep-dug wells, ~cided to b~ ~e ripa~i~ wate..l~ o~ ~a ~en e~sting Blac~er~ ~a~ ~d solve his p~ob~ o~ wate~ once ~d to~ ~1. ~e anticipation was ~ successf~. I will not ~o into ~e r~tfications in. lying ~1 of the de,ails ~d rectitude whi~ ~s decision of ~a l~d~er, not ~ly affected ~e o~gimal C~e~tino distzict but ~so affected that of the ~estsida area as well ~ a la~Ee waste~ section cove~g S~a Clara gore: THe re~er~d to land--er ~ the ~izst o~e~ ~d o~era~or of a fruit canne~ established in ~e o~in~ Cuperti~~estside a~ea. page 2. The landowner who bought the riparian rights of Blackberry Farm took advantage of ~he almost permanent saasona~ flow of Stevens Creek. At the time he briefly had constructed a diversion intake directly from the creek on ' Blackberry Farm but he further installed a 50 horsepower steam engine with cent=finial p,~..ps as well as lesser equipment consisting of lasoline-engine driven pumps and dive=tin§ such waters into a ~welve and eleven inch riveted steel pipeline across Blackberry Farm and then the Nathan Hall Ranch. This ,~ipaline ran vary close to r_he =.-~k structure existing on the Hall property and could be used to fill cha tank formerly installed in the structure. Hall's recognition for reimbursement of ~he pipeline easement for the eleven inch line made wi~h the 9aa=side landowner was under an agreement .that he could 'use the facilities and cepact~y of the pipeline for a period of thirty days annually irri~ation pu~posan on his ranch operations. This pipeline of the ~lestside landowner with its various outlets along its leelth of approximately two and a half miles chan~ed the character of a large section of c~ Cupertino and Wes=side areas. THe ~-ity of Cupertino later mbvad the pipeline, on account of later building activities, to follow ~he street in Oak Dell now designated Phar Lap Drive. As a later item of historical interest, Stevens Creek -~ad, as it existed up to 1873, was an extension of an original street known as San Carlos in the City of San Jose. This road was sometimes called Cupertino Roads its last individual use of chat name being recorded in the year of l~ll. This road known at one C_me as Cupertino Road and Stevens Creak Road terminated at a point in our vicinity opposite the Hall complex at what now would be called ~e intersection of By=ce Avenue and Stevens Creek Boul.avard. It was not until :he year of 1873 that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County accepted a petition sponsored b~ 'g. T. McClellan, Nathan Hall, ~lackberry Farm, under new o~uership~ and Joseph Barton that a public road be constructed and ~ extension of Stevens Creek Road be established at a width of forty feet from what is now Stevens Creek Boulevard-By=ce Avenue intersection to the then named intersection of. lit. View-Stevens Creak Road, presently called Foothill ~oulevard. Said intersection at that point being designated as of this date as Cupertino Road- Fcc:hill Boulevard intareection. Ibis extension of Cuper~ins Road was built entirely on proper=ins of Hall, l'-lcClallan and Blackberry Farm but did not cross any of the lands nor have access to the so-called present day Rnssellhurst subdivision nor'properties now owned by Sunny View lienor. Erected as i crossing over presently known Stevens Creek in 1873 was constructed a heavy, redwood timbered bridge about ~wenty feet wide, its structu=al design being based on Howe trusses which las~ed for ma~y years. In concluding ~Jae comments of A section of the Caption: Prior to =.he coustruction of this extension of Cupertino Road (Stevens Creek Road) of 1873, the driveway into my home to a point where my present residence stands was used by not only stage-coaches but other travelers to ford Stevens Creek ss it exists at :he present pa~e 3. tine, to the east embankment oE the Creak and then trav~lin~ southward alon~ said e~ankmant to reach the Elisha Stephens cabin on the Blackherr~ Farm and from there eastward over the hill to reach EcClellan P~ad and points south, [t was ov~r this driveway of mine and ~his early uarrov roadway to Stephenst.cabin ou the eanC side of Stevens Creek embankment that the famous' or infamous'bandit known as Vasquez tTav~led pus ui~ht with his six or eight horsemen after holding up some inns on the east side of San Francisco Bay and roused Stephens from deep slumber to supply them with food and drink. I have named my driveway "Vanquaz Way" · Vasquaz' booty of som~ $30,000. was nec in .his possession ~hen he reached Stephens' cabin. It is definitely known from in~o~tion which I gained from "Old Timers" that he had the booty -*ben he left Warm Springs across the San Fran- cisc~ Bay But that he did not have it when he reaChed Stephens' cabin. [ won't go into the detail of the many who have tried to. find it. RE-' Item B - Caption - Tank House structure. This structure was a part of the complex built in the seventh decade of the 19th Century. It supported tankage of about seven to ten thousand gallons, filled firstly from a well-casin~ of shout eight to ten inches in diameter and driven to a depth of about one hundred feet. Water was ptm~ped by m~ane of wiea,,~ll power, actuating lift-pump desire and the use of wooden rods extending d~ from ~e p~plift at the surface to operate ~e suc~iou aC ~e end of ~e deli~ pipe, whi~ w~ s~pended d~a~d ~o a~ost ~e bottom .of the ~ell-c~ing. In those early days the wine-ill was in use most o~ day and ni~ht continuous operation. The tank tower itsel£ with its pt~.sonC roof defines the structure,but not as it historically looked in its original architectural character, due to the aonstructiou of sheds to the ta~k house on its north and south sides· Originally, du~ing Hall's ownership, a single permanently employed hired man used the then ex/aCing grotmd fleet area of the original tank house as sleeping quartets. His chores were to take cate of the emiT"tls and wo~.¢ on the ranch properties with ~athan Hall from five o~clock in =he morning to seven o~clock at night. I ~a. not aware '~f r~he' foundation construction which was originally put in under the fr--~work of this building. I presume that t= was of sufficient suppbrCing value when it was erected to be off long permanency end it so happens it has proved itself to be so. Du~xng the year of 1906, at ~hich time I had been livini Here for some years, one of the most devas~t~g earthquakes which ever occurred in this valley and ~xith did extreme damage to many structures ~ithin it and which originated · on the Sam Andraan Fault, ,~hich extends approximately 600 miles along the Pacific Coast, developed more than an 8.3 maximum re~istsred seismoiraph rating in uny locations. The Hall structure vas in the a~ua so affected. Approximately a half mile south of the Hall Tank house structure was a tank house structUre supported on heavy concrete piers. Its height was shout for~y feet. It supported t~o tiers of tanks, each at shout 10,000 gallons capaci~Y~l its structural design was very st~lar to that of the Hell structure; its ~reund page area coverage was two times greeter chon that of ~he ~!~11 structure~che t~k house frame ,~alla we~ of si~lar ~te~ to'Chose o~ ~e ~1 stature; it w~ s~ethin2 had to h~pen, One can s~ chac these two structures ware architecturally quite The Roll structure reda out chis tremandou~ quake of 1906. lo its ~splacament ~rticallYm its tank emptied from the top down to a depth' of three f~et below ~e top rim of the tank, Ihs other structure ~i5~ I have described, lo~ated to the sourJ~ cf thc Hall tank ho~e, ~so of similar c~t~ction, s~porced ~ ~r~ indi~d~ c~crete fo~datiou pie~ to a ~ider~le ~th, ta~s co~le~ly filled vith water, v~ CoOlly de~lished from its ~ofcop to its foundation, ~e debts of ~hi~ w~ scatte~d ~or ~re ~ a h~d~d [ee~ alon~ ~e ~ward elope-of Stevens I c~ in auy ~an~r c~ze ~ c~ruc~ion of ~te ~o ~k ho~e.:fr~s~ st~ct~ CO the sou~h heinz e~cted in the etth~ de,de, bo~h tn the 19d~ ~nt u~. ~ Item C - TenCa~ve i~ap of No.tuber 1979 [s~lcted by ~velopers of the Fi~ Acre Pa~l of ~e fo~r E~l hold. ds purposed from Laughlin. As i reviewed the tentative lay-out of the subdivision, map of November 1979, I will ~--~- no su~gestinns nor do I wish Co transgress upon tho presentation thereof as it is now drawn on said tentative map. The same feeling ia extended also to my absteution from m~king an~- rema~.<s to those in authority in ~he city a~nlstIation of the City of Cupertino who a~ re~pou- a~le for the proper ~sl~, z~inE, s~di~sion lay-ou~ stoats and ~aracC- off=tics of ~y proposed s~d~iislon ~d choir final acceptace of it, I can e~xpreas that I was favorably impressed with the tentative subn!ssion of the Laughlin five acras. As to the matter of the tank house szructure, I have finally reached, I believe, a c°nclu~ioo es to the problems which arise in ~7 ~Ltad on e matter of historical importance a~ to how to conclude from my v~ewpo!ot the tank house problem. Conclusions: 1) From my viewpoint and pro~lding that the foundations are intact for the purpose of eupporting the st~ctu~ ~ugh a future extended period, as it sCan~ upon ~t No. 16 of the ~nCa~ ~p, I wo~d rather accept the thoughts of tho dec,per in enlargement of ~t No. 16 to accomodace ica retention Lot No. 16. pa~e ~, 2) If thc a:r~c~urc is to r~m~in on enlarged Lot ~;o, 16 ~uideli~s of historical valua~ as they affect any restoration sho~d be recognized ~so ~at ~6er its ~ru~tic clo~ing up the wall a~a e~oaed by su~ removal. 3) If ~[t were my problem, I would tike to endeavor to Iinft ~nth tank house structure for u~e solely b? the residential owner of the property ,~nd forker any com.~rciai tu~e thereof. 4) If uae were to be made of the lee, er floor of ~c t.~n~ house .~tructure, the usa of ica area could be that of a ~uaat room or the resident lot owner'~ hobby area to augment any residence facilities thereon. 5) Ic see~-~ re me there ts no need to embellish ~he landscapinF, are. a ~hich snou.ld bo confined to a ~inimum~ clo,se to ti~e well~ of the structure itself. Eaid lsn~scapiug eoctld bo comple~.~e~tar~ with tho rest of tJ~a residential efforts. 6) I feel personally chat the cul de sac street cloeest to Stevens Creek Eoulevard to ~e ~ou~% thereof as depicted o~ the tentative dr~ln~ 1~ of great valu~ in viawin~ aa historical effort together wi~ the view wi~ich may be obtained of the structure from Stevuns Creek ~oulevard. 7) After considerable thought and in view of the ~act tho developer would enlarRe Lot ?~o, 16, I can see no reason of endeevorim~ to move the structure amd restore it on Lot ;~o. 13 as shown on the tentative drawing., 8) /he further consideration of cost involved and in view of enlar~e~:~nt of Lot No, 16, is't. hat little would be gained in iucurrin~ the increased costs which would arise to restore the str~ctur~ by .n. evfn~ amd re-po~Itionin~, it on Lot ~{o. 15. 9) in closing, may I point out that I am of the e. inten ti at ~te retention of the structure at its presemt site wi~ the improvement of needed foundotion tion, should it exist, will produce the most economical smd desirable plan for ghe reten~ion of said historic restoration for ~e Oak Dell commumitv. 10) There will be no enviro:~ental cfnanKe 11) Ther~ will be no historical enviro~-mntal ~J%an~e 12) ~nlesa the developer amd the authorities of the city decid~ not to restore ~e tank house structure and its appurtemanc~a, intendinK to use it for o~er purposo~ a~ it preseutlv is architecturally built, from a standpoint of historical value it will havolost its oricinal identity, ~tndly accept my deep appreciatioe of your efforts in retention of hintorical guidelines. VerTr sincerely yours Louis?~ck~lmeir LS:S P.S. Enclosed in Envelop iN copy for James Sisk, Plaunin~ Director 114 Cupertino All that remains of a fine estate built by Nathan Hall in the I880's is this tank house on Stevens Creek Boule- yard near Phar Lap Road, named for a later owner's famous race horse. One of three remaining schools built before 1900, the old Colli~s Schod (1894) is now the Cupertino de Oro Club, on I-Iomestead at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Two tiny one-room school houses remain. The 1867 San Antonian School, between the crcek and the railroad tracks, offNorth Footltu~l Boulevard near Maryknoll entrance road, has been converted to a residenoe with additions, but it sffll remains at the original site. The Montebello Schvd, high up Morttebello Road, has been used constantly since 1892 when it was bu~t by the Picchetti fam~y for the ch~dren of Monbebello Ridge. At the to~ of Prospect is the 160-acre ranch of Fremont and Cora Older, both well-known writers, who built their home called NWoodhills ' in 1913. Now part of the Mldpeninsula Regional Park District, both their house and the studio (photo) have been restored and are open FeriodlcaIly for tours. The studio was buz~t with blocks moved from an 1847 San Jose adobe that was dismantled in I923. Fremont Older was a dynamic editor who championed social causes from 1897 to his death in 1935. He served as editor of various Hearst nerespapers from 1918 on. Older commuted daily to San Francisco from his own sto~, called Fremont Station, be. side Stelling Road at Prospect. CITY OF CUPE INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Depa~'Lment SUMMARY Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: September 2, 2003 Application No.: GPA-2003-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: 10455 Bandley Drive Application Summary: Authorize a General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: · Authorize a public hearing to amend the General Plan GPA-2003-02. BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office building. The building is 37,120 square feet, and the applicant proposes to use 23,000 square feet for church purposes. The current land use designation is Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residenfial and the proposed designation is Office/industrial/Commercial/Residential/ Quasi Public. The current zoning is Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-10 dwelling units per gross acre). DISCUSSION: The site consists of a 37,120 square foot, single story office building. Office uses are located to the north, east and residential uses are to the west. The office building to the south is being used temporarily as the Cupertino library. Approximately 160 parking spaces are located in the front and rear of the building. Parking meets both the office and proposed church use requirements, although additional parking analysis will be provided during the use permit process. The applicant's letter (Exhibit D) describes proposed activities with a maximum attendance of 300 people on Friday nights and Sundays. Use by staff and church members at other times of the week ranges from 10 to 50 people. Pdnted on Recycled Paper GPA-2003-02 2 September 2, 2003 There have been several conversions of office space to church uses in the past; only one of them required a General Plan Amendment because the previous Policy 2-80 allowed church uses without an amendment. In these cases, as in the current case, one of the most significant considerations was the relationship of the church use to the adjacent area. Staff believes that for the most part the proposed chrrrch use can fit in with the context of the area, particularly since the building will not change. Impacts on the adjacent residences and any concerns that adjacent office users might have will need to be addressed at the use permit stage. Also, the applicant will be contacting neighboring properties prior to the public hearings. FINDINGS: To irdtiate an amendment, the City Council must find that a proposed amendment will benefit the City and is compatible with the existing goals and policies of the General Plan and the amendment should meet at least one of the following criteria: The proposal appears to support the existing general plan goals and objectives (although the degree of public benefit could not be fully ascertained until the project is fully assessed); The General Plan calls for a diversity of land use, providing adequate land area for employment, housing, shopping, entertainment, cultural activities, etc. (Policy 2-1) Also, the North De Anza area is designated as a high activity center.(Figure 2-A) The proposal represents an unforeseen land use trend that has not been previously considered; Cupertino has received requests for church uses in office areas before, so this is not an unforeseen trend. The existing general plan policy, which precludes the proposal, is based upon outdated or inaccurate info~niation. The elimination of Policy 2-80 was based on the inappropriateness of large quasi-public uses in a non-quasi-public land use designation. This proposal is for a small quasi-public use. This finding can be made. Being able to make two findings, staff, therefore, believes there is sufficient cause to consider an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan. GPA-2003-02 3 September 2, 2003 PROCESSING: The processing steps for a General Plan Amendment, upon the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, are: 1. City Council initiates consideration of a General Plan Amendment at a regular meeffng. 2. Planning Commission holds an advertised public hearing to discuss the amendment and makes a recommendation to the City Council. In this case, the public hearing will include the use permit for the applicant's proposal, as well. 3. The City Council holds an advertised public hearing to approve or deny the Planning Commission recommendation. If the City Council makes a "substantial modification" to the recommended amendment that was not discussed by the Planning Commission, the item must re~um to the Planning Commission (California Government Code 65356). Enclosures: Exhibit A: Current Land Use Designation Exhibit B: Aerial Exhibit C: Office Lease Brochure Exhibit D: Applicant's letter, dated August 18,2003 Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Plarmer Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT \ CC \ GPA-2003-02.doc Intestate 2:80 EXHIBIT A Divisible to + 14,000 Square Feet 100% HVAC Mostly Open Office/R&D, Perimeter Pri~ate Offices, Several Tiled Floor Lab Areas, Lunchroom, Showers 4/1000 Parking Grade Level Loading Walking Distance to Stevens Creek Blvd. Shops and Restaurants Excellent 280 and 85 Access Floor Plan on Next Page Call Agents to Show 02-5746,9/02 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino ±37,120 Square Feet STEVENS CREEK BLVD. EXHIBIT D August 2~, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Re: Consideration of setling a public hearing for a General Plan amendment to change land use designation for 10455 Bandley Drive Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: The Chinese Church in Christ (CClC) requests your consideration to set a public hearing for a proposed Ganeral Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property located at 10455 Bandley Drive from the exiting "Office/IndustriaVCommefcial/Residentiaff to the ,~)ffice/Industdai/Commercial/Residential/Quasi Public". This proposal is to aCCommodate partial use of the office building for a quasi-public (church) use. For your information, the existing and proposed use of the building is as follows: ~ Proposed Use Ground Floor 37,120 s.f. Office (vacant) 23,000 s.f. church offices and assembly 14,120 s.f. Office The proposed church use schedule is es follows: Weekdays Weekdays, Saturday Friday Sunday 8am-5pm vades time and date 7:30 pm - 10:30 pm 9am - 2 pm The request is based upon the following fact. s: Office Staff (approx. 10) Sisters, Senior and Youth fellowships (approx. 50) Bible Study and children classes (approx. 300) Assembly (approx. 300) 1. The proposal supports the existing general plan goals and objectives because the General Plan designates the property as an Office/Industrial zone, this application has a portion of the property designated for office use. 2. The existing general plan policy, which precludes the proposal, is based on outdated or inaccurate information because the elimination of Policy 2-80 was based on the inappropriateness of large quasi-public uses in a non-quasi-public land use designation. This proposal is for a small quesi-pubiic use. Your kind consideration and comments will be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 408-328-3517. Sincerely, Liang-Tsai Lin Elder, Chinese Church in Christ (CCIC) AGENDA NO. __ 10300To~eAvenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX(408)777o3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA DATE September 2} 2003 SUBJECT: Discuss the fence petition between Cupertino Village and Linnet Lane in Sunnyvale RECOMMENDATION: Refer the issues of pedestrian access, noise, parking, debris, weeds and lack of landscaping to the staff to meet with the petitioners, the City of Sunnyvale Neighborhood Preservation staff and the property owner. Staffwill report back on the stares of these issues following this meeting. BACKGROUND: In early August, 2003 the City received a petition (attached) raising concerns about the condition of a fence and neighborhood impacts from operation of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. q[he City of Cupertino Code Enforcement Office has logged in about 20 hours responding to complaints from several neighboring residents during the past eight months and Planning and City Manager staff spent several hours fielding questions and complaints regarding the residents conccTDS. Existing fence with recent two-foot extension Staffrecently discussed the issue with Sunnyvale City Manager Bob LaSalla and met and toured the area with Christy Gunvalson from Sunnyvale Neighborhood Preservation staff. Additionally, staff sent a courtesy notice to all petition signers advising them of the September 2, 2003, City Council meeting to discuss their petition. DISCUSSION: The petition, signed prior to the latest extension of the fence shown in the above picture, raises the following concerns: 1) Fence height, materials and gap under the fence 2) Visibility of signs, cars and lights over the fence Discuss the fence petition between Cupertino Village and Linnet Lane in Sunnyvale September 2, 2003 Page 2 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Security due to the ability to climb over the fence Two pedestrian access openings fi-om Linnet to the center Noise from vehicles/customers, deliveries and maintenance equipment Patron and/or customer parking on Linnet Lane Debris, weeds and lack of landscaping The petition asserts that the city should "enforce" the fence ordinance contained in Municipal Code section 16.28 that requires a masonry barrier when new commercial buildings are constructed next to residences. Histor~ of the Fence · The previous fence was required as a condition of the construction of the shopping center in 1966 and was required to be at least four-feet higher than the existing parking lot grade. · The fence ordinance was subsequently amended to require a masonry wall when new commercial is constructed next to residential uses. Previous fence Lowered fence while under construction · The Properly/ owner was asked to Upon adoption of the new fence ordinance the pre- existing 4+ foot wooden fence, shown above, became a legal non-conforming fence. The property owner is allowed to maintain the fence provided he does not change the fence in a manner that increases the degree of non- conformance with the fence ordinance. The fence was damaged in a storm in 2002 and replaced with a new fence that was 1-2 feet shorter than the pre-existing fence but otherwise conformed to the original condition of approval. increase the fence height to equal the previously existing wooden fence. The fence height has been increased by approximately 2 feet and equals or exceeds the previous fence height and has a smaller or equal gap to the previous fence. The fence substantially conforms to the height and incorporates vertical wood slats similar to the fence design located further South on Linnet Lane. Fence Issues Cities must show a reasonable relationship (i.e. nexus) between conditions to mitigate development impacts and the degree of the impact. Construction of new buildings that create Discuss the fence petition between Cupertino Village and Linnet Lane in Sunnyvale September 2, 2003 Page 3 more noise or more activity would provide the necessary nexus to require installation of a masonry barrier. Absent substantial development activity there is no basis to require installation of a masomy barrier. The property owner has voluntarily raised the fence height to the previous condition. Consequently, staff believes the above items I-3 relating to the lower wooden fence have been addressed and that no further action by the city is necessary or appropriate. Pedestrian openings The petitioners are concerned that the two pedestrian openings are causing problems with on-street parking and invite easy access into the neighborhood. The City of Cupertino encourages a highly walk-able community and these openings facilitate walk-ability. At least one resident of Linnet asked that the openings not be close and staff observed one resident of Linnet Lane using the pedes~ian opening during a site visit. Staff recommends that the openings remain open unless~ there is substantial evidence that the openings are a nuisance to the neighborhood. Even if the city wanted the openings closed there is no ability for the city to force the property owner's cooperation since there is no development application before the city at this time. Pedestrian Opening Noise from vehicles/customers, deliveries and maintenance equipment Several residents have complained about noise from patrons and maintenance activities at the shopping center. The property management has assured the Code Enforcement office that they advise contractors of the city laws relating to noise and allowed hours of maintenance activity and will monitor patron activity in the parking lots, particularly during early morning and late evening hours. In one incident a sheriff's deputy responded to the complaint and cited the person operating the power washer for operating outside of the allowed maintenance hours. Staffwill again inform the property management company to diligently police their own contractors and patrons in the parking lots. Unfortunately, there is no better system than self policing and calls to the sheriffwhen that fails. Discuss the fence petition between Cupertino Village and Linnet Lane in Sunnyvale September 2, 2003 Page 4 Patron and/or customer parking on Linnet The petitioners complain that during certain periods patrons of the center cannot find sufficient parking in the parking lot and choose to park on Linnet Lane. The pictures in the petition show extensive parking on the street. Clearly, the Cupertino Shopping Center is one of the most popular centers in the city and parking standards are geared to average conditions. Occasionally, a very successful center or business will exceed the available parking required by code. This situation is complicated by the fact that Linnet Lane is located in the City of Sunnyvale which has prohibited parking on the East side of the street adjacent to the center. Consequently, patrons parking on Linnet use parking directly in front of the resident's homes. The City of Cupertino has no direct control over whether the parking is controlled by limited hours or is made into resident preferential parking. Staff believes the residents should continue to work with the City of Sunnyvale to explore techniques to ensure center parking does not spill over into the Linnet neighborhood Debris, weeds and lack of landscaoin~ Staff's review of the site showed some dried grasses (weeds) and some small evidence of debris. The petition pictures also show some weeds and some grocery carts along side of the fence. Staff encouraged the property owner to replant the area on the Linnet side of the fence and police the area of debris. Summary Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council direct ~ Planning and Code Enforcement staff to work with the petition signers, representatives of the City of Sunnyvale View looking South on Linnet Lane and the shopping center owners to find solutions to resolve the remaining issues of pedestrian access, noise, parking, debris, weeds and lack of landscaping. Staff will report back following the meeting. Submitted by: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Enclosures: Notice sent to petition signers Petition David W. Knapp City Manager review wireless sites plan The Cupertino Planning Commission this month will review a draft master plan on the location and design of wireless communication facil- ities throughout the city. "It is one of only a few plans that have been prepared across the country, and prob~ ably the first one of its kind in California," said Colin Jung, senior planner. The plan, which staff mem- bers and the city's Telecom- munications Commission have worked on for ~wo years, will be discussed during a public hearing before the planning commission Sept. 22. The meetkug begins at 6:45 p.m. inthe council cham- bers at City Hail, ]0300 T?rre Ave. The master plan antici- pates a grow~g demand for future sites for cellular tow- ers in Cupertino. It also anticipates a long- term trend toward in-home services using not just audio, but video data communica- tions and Internet connection services that would require greater bandwidth, Jnng said. Accommodating those types of uses, he said, will in- crease the pressure to brir~ cell-site facilities into neigh- borhoods. Jnng sa~d basic issues that need to be addressed include the safety of radio frequency radiation and how cell-slte facilities can be located and designed with a minimal ef- fect on the community. NE WS VOLUME 56, NUMBER 32 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 Oaks proposal is not welcome by residents By I-CHUN CHE While Regis Homes, owner of the Oaks Shopping Center, hopes to transform the 35-year- old shopping center into a mod- ern, mixed-used area of Mediterranean-style towahous- es and retail businesses, shop owners at the Oaks and nearby residents have trouble sharing its vision. VCnat they see, instead, is a traffic nightmare. It's all about parking. Regis Homes proposes demolishing the Oaks Theater and Tsunami Sushi to build 49 townhouse-style condominium units and two duet units on the west side of the property. Each unit will have a two-car garage and at least three bedrooms. The end units will have four bedrooms. The proposed pro- ject will reduce the center's existing parking spaces Rom 558 to 308. And the 308 parking spots will be shared by resi- dents and retail businesses. 3'ne developer also proposes narrowing Mary Avenue to construct 24 duets on the west side of the street. Each unit will have three bedrooms and a ~t- 011~, page 6 Oaks: Business concerned about traffic Continued from page 3 one-ear garage. Guests would park on the street. The project will reduce the parking spaces along the street from 288 to 156. But to make the project pos- sible, the city needs to sell and rezone that section of Mary Avenue. According to a transportation consul- tant hired by the developer, the decrease in parking spaces will have no impact on the retail shops and apart- ment complexes near the Oaks. Residents who live around the Oaks "We cannot eliminate the parking on Mary Avenue," said lrvin Webster at the planning commission's Aug. 25 meeting. "We have Flint Center activities, special events at Memorial Park and the monthly flea market at De Anza College. And these parking spaces are also used by De Anza students and seniors at the Cupertino Senior Center. We are already at a breaking point." "Removing the parking spaces will not only irapede the traffic but also affect the use of these facilities such as the businesses at the Oaks, Memorial Park and the senior center," said Webster, 71. He has lived two blocks away from the Oaks for 35 year~ Webster was one of the 12 residents who voiced their opposition to the pro- ject at the meeting. Some worry that the development will exacerbate the already overpopulated Cupertino schools. Some don't like the density of the projects. Some business owners at the Oaks are also concerned about the project's traffic impact. "The. development will reduce the availability of iS~klii~-s~paces for ottr _ facility and eliminate some potential or existing clients," said Steve Saxton, vice president of operations of IAnda Evans l~tness Center.'rtte fitness center boasts more than 3,000 members. "Our busiest days are in the winter," Saxton said. "Just try to imagine a cold rainy January night and you have to park at the back side of the shopping center mad walk to the gym in the rain. Or you can cancel your membership and find another gym that has better parking arrangements." Mark Burns, a real estate agent with Coldwell Banker, also objected to the development. "We have 80 agents in our 9,000- square-foot office. Last year, we had $300 million in sales and an average of 65 transactions every month," said Burns, who is also a member of the city's General Plan update task force. "We have enough parking problems on the weekends. The Oaks needs more retail. This project doesn't help." The developer said they would work with the planning staff to address the concerns of the residents and business The planning commission suggested the planning staff separate the Oaks residential project from the Mary Avenue project. The Oaks residential project is scheduled to come to the planning commission again on Sept. 8 for more public input. Low-cost housing available for some ~elow-~rket-rate rental u~A~s for low-i~come residents are a~q~hle at the new Verona Apartments and ot~er housing complexes in Cupertino. ac- cording to Cupertino Commu- nity Services. Erica ~.CCS direc~r of hoping ser~ces, said four urfm (three one-bedroom apart- menrs aud one two-bedroom) ore aw~q~hle at' the Hamptons and Arioso aparUne~t complex- es. Four more units will open in January and Febru~y ~c the newly completed 'Verona com- plex on Stevens Creek Boule- yard ~t De Avga Boulevard. short. The first four to five qusl- ified applicants to submit their applications tmve ~ very good chance of ~ a unit in the next few months or les~" Mayer Six. eh people were recently placed in below-martmt-rate units by CCS, wkich adminis- tern the program through a The rental uni~ ~-e Priced at $~100 for a one-bedroom and $1,800 for a two-bedroom Annual income rauges ar~ M $36,950 to $57,450 for one · $42,200 to $65,650 for a household of two; m$47,~)0 to $7a,850 for three; · $52,750 to $82,100 for fou~, m $~6,950 to $88,650 for five~ .O~..er factors give applicants pno .rit~. One point is given to people who have lived in Cuper- tino more than a year. Cuperti- no public services employees, such as te~. chefs and POlice offi- eer~ recewe one point.. People who work in Cupertino receive IF YOU'RE INTERESTED Applications for the units are available at the www. Cuper'dno Comm~ityServices.o~ Web site_ rncronkC~.,ryr~s, com or (4O8) 92~5063. AUGUST 29, 2003 SILICON VALLEY / SAN JOSE BUSINESS -JOURNAL sa njose.biz~oumals,com Med group scraps plans for Mountain View site BY TROY MAY ~may@bi~oun',als.com Palo Alto Medical Foundation has scrapped a proposal to build a $150 million medical facility in Mountain View to house its affiliated Camino Medical Group. For more than seven months, Palo Alto Medical Founda- tion had been negotiating a deal with the city of Mountain View to build a 275,000-square~foot medical facility:at 701 E. E1 Camino Real, once hom~ tO The Emporium deP.~; ent store. ~:, '~ ~.~: ~.;...,- City'offiCials were-hoping~to develop the site with a See MOORI&I# ¥1L~. Pase 40 'rhe News 40 THE BUSINESS JOURNAL sanjose.bizjourr~ls,com AUGUST 29, 2003 MOIJN'rAIN VIEW: City had wanted to develop' old Emporium site with R~0M PtEE 3 mercial business that would generate ongoing tax revenue, but the nonprofit medical group wouldn't pay such taxes. To entice city officials to approve the project, the medical group initially of- fered to pay the city a lump sum of $4 million to offset the loss in tax revenue. That's where the problems started. Palo Alto Medical Foundation is af- filiated with Sacramento-hased Sutter Health, one'of the largest healthcare systems in Northern California. Sut- ter Health would have financed the project. "The Foundation and Sutter jointly decided it wasn't appropriate for an or- ganization like ours to use our money to make payments in lieu Of taxes." says Dr. David Druker, CEO of Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Before the foundation's decision, the project was beingreviewed by the city with the hope that it would have been presented to the City Council for itsap- proval early next year. Sutter Health has about $3.5 bilii0n worth of projects planned in the next decade for its Northern California op- eratious and didn't want the possible Mountain View deal to set a precedent for other cities. Looking for a home · Havino ghmn up on the B Camko Real rite, Camm Medk:al Gi*oup is Iooldr, g dsewhem near B Camino HospitM, whe~ doctms pmc~ce. ~ ~mn ~r. nesr ~t~ HI01~y 23/[~6 Sutter has plans to build a new hos- pital in San Mateo, while Palo Alto Medical Foundation has about $600 million worth of projects planned in Silicon Valley, including for Camino Medical Group, says Dr. Draker. Camino Medical Group has about 200 physicians with a volume of about 600,00~ patient visits per' year, a total that's expected to grow about 5 percent annually for the next decade, says CEO Dr. Richard Slavin. Space is so tight at its headquarters at 301 Old San Fran- cisco Road in Sunnyvale that some physicians are being moved to various temporary locations within the ciW. Cumino Medical Group wants to build a facility that will house physi- cian offices, urgent care, six outpatient operating rooms, diagnostic radiology services, a pharmacy, laboratory and other medical services. Dr. Slavin said that ff the payments of $4 million were off the table Camino Medical Group would continue the pro- jeer. But that's uulikely. The Mountain View City Council stood firm in its de- cision to request some concession pay- ments from the medical group, says Vice Mayor Matt Pear. "I am not happy about this decision," says Mr. Pea]:. who has advocated com- pletion 6f the deal. But Mountain View, like many other California cities, is in dbsperate need tax-generating business of ~ revenue. While this site on E1 Camino Real was once a thriving retail spot, it's been vacant for 10 years. - Some experts say the site's chance for redevelopment now is slim since it wasn't develOped even during the eco- norulc boom in Silicon Valley. Mr. Pear agrees and hopes the city still can work out a deal with Camino Medical Group to locate its facility somewhere within the ci~ · The city is pushing two sites, one near Ferguson Road and Highway 237 and another across the street from E1 Camino Hospital on Grant Road. But the second site would generate traffic concerns because it's in the middle of a . residential ar~a, says Mm. Pear. Moun- tain View is about 98 percent devel- oped, he says. Meanwhile, Camino Medical Group and Pal0 Alto Medical Foundation offi- cials are out looking for property in Mountain View and Sunnyvale. They hope the high vacancy rates in Silicon Valley v(lil work in their favor. "We are committed to building a main facility for Camino," says Dr. Druker. TROY MAY esears health care and health sciences for the Buedn~ Journal.