PC 01/01-06/31 '�
. ., .y ,• � - icy+. � -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,
January 23, 1995
Page 13
FAR.
Planner Robillard statad this may be a problem to a developer when
developing in a pattern because they are limited to 45% of - he 10$
area.
Com. Harris stated she has an objection .to covering 80% of a, lot. ti
Chr. Mahoney stated, in this particular case 90% is still open. _
In response to Com. Roberts' question, Planner Robillard stated the
proposed modification would only come into play where there is
clustering and 90% open space held in common:
Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Bruner, Sobrato Development, stated he is in support of
staff's recommendation as it relates to the allocation of the open
space because it will encourage developers to look for flat areas.
He. stated the flat areas could be identified at the time of the
subdivision map. He noted that either options will have fencing, }
because there is the right to exclude people.
Chr. Mahoney asked' how realistic is the clustering in the
® hillsides? "
Planner Robillard stated two:,.hcuses could be clustered together.
Com. Ha . is addressed the letter from John Sobrato.
Mr. Bruner stated the letter is more specific as to which way the
i`
Commission votes, as it relates to clustering. e
In response to Chr; ; Mahoney,'. question, Mr. rowan stated areas ?:
which building could occur can be defined on the subdivision map. .
Com. Harris stated model one exists, but there is no encouragement
for a developer to do model two, which is more desirable. '
Com. Harris stated the second issue is calculating the slope based
on the entire property or based on each individual lot. She
recommended that the adjustment be based on the slope of the lot.
Com. Roberts addressed ,the contiguous open space, and stated if
this language is left out of this ordinance then in effect, they r
have not done justice to that principal.
Mr. Cowan stated the underlying assumption is that no mure that 10% I..
of the land will be intensely developed.
The commission briefly discussed the minimum lot size. Mr. Cowan
OilyS h ]!
f
;: � ,�w. - x '^s,«,•'• _ i,Y�".�p'�.u•v, -...+ a < :4y ryK�y <ah 1 � 72 u` �,er,�.yir e �`r"'�`�^�i '.. „µ �'.y�r ,*. �.,y��T- �Y �? ,
ssem�.. tis 7.
® PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 23,. 199E
Page -14
stated the 5-20 slope density formula determines the yield, and 1:
they question is, when this is divided what is the minimum lot
size?
Mr. Bruner stated no more than a 45% coverage on any given lot,
would encourage the. developer to not have less than a 10,000 sq.
ft. lot.-
Com. Harris suggested the followina language at the end of the
proposed language ". . .except that no developable lot would be
r subject to greater than a 45% FAR prior to slope consideration."
The commissioners discussed the minimum lot size and Com. Harris'
suggestive wording and agreed to add it. They agreed to support
option 1 with the additional wording.
The commissioners went on to discuss the slope adjustment. Planner
Robillard presented exhibit A "Comparison of Slope Adjustment
Formulas" as outlined in the staff report. He noted the Planning
Commission previously recommended' Exhibit 3A in the staff report.
Com. Harris expressed concern about the two examples given, as R
written in Exhibit D of the staff report, alternative 2A, which is
the suggested proposal which comes up with a larger !use., in one
case 200 ft. and in another almost 1000 ft.
The corunission discussed the graph (Exhibit A) and ! Planner '
/Robillard pointed out the recommendation by the Commission and the
other alternatives. ,y
Com. Roberts stated another alternative would be to start out at a
zero penalty with 10% slope and go to a 30% penalty with a 30$
slope. Staff and the commissioners used the above alterative and }
gave an example of the San Juan Road project.
Com. Roberts stated the, language snould read "It shall be zero
percent, plus 1 1/2 percent for each percent of slope over 10%."
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 81,156, with exhibit " B; 1
1/2 percent for each percent of slope over 10%; The
wording-for option one for clustering with the suggested
language by Com. Harris.'
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
NEW BUSINESS '
8. Consideration of amendment's to the Housing Mitigation' Manual.
t •
Com. Harris stated she would like a summary statement of the items
t
r.
9 !t
v,
•q'k l3 "t` y Zjt
§i
•• ..ry �.' x t. �a 4y � d,� �� {�� �d�n;sr`rof fi7
® PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -
January 23, 1995
Page 15
discussed previously and how they weredealtwith. She suggested
this be continued to the next meeting in order to get a.summary.
Chr. Mahoney stated he would prefer hearing this item at this time.
Staff Ar sentation: Ms. .Vera Gil, Housing Specialist, presented
the staff report and summarized the major changes made at a
previous hearing as reflected in the manual. She noted further
review of the manual was postponed,,to allow staff, time to` make the
recommended text changes and research the in-lieu fee.
Ms. Gil reviewed the BMR in-lieu fee options as follows:
1. Set fee per unit - assessed against the number-of market rate
units or the number of affordable units.
2. Set fee per square foot of developed area.
3. Difference between market rate and BMR prices/rents.'
4. Sliding scale - percentage of sales price or "value"
5. Percentage of construction costs.
Regarding the sliding scale (4) , Ms. Gil, stated they would either
collect the fee when it closed escrow or tie it to the valuation at '
® the permitting stage.
Ms. Gil also presented a matrix titled "Comparison of BMR In-
lieu/Assessment Fee on single family dwelling unit construction in
6 cities", s
Com. Harris addressed the in-lieu fee and stated she would like to
address in-lieu fee for five units or less.
The comittission discussed the issue of BMR units being required to
be on-site.
Com. Austin stated the BMR units should be on-site.
Com. Doyle stated it was his goal to not have the BMR units
concentrated in one area. He would prefer the units on-site, but
would be open to alternatives. Com. Roberts concurred.
Ms. Gil stated one alternative proposed would be to construct the
units off-site and the developer could donate a parcel of land to
a non-profit organization for the development of affordable units.
Mr. ' Cowan suggested defining t•.iat hillside areas will have the BMR
units off-site. He stated the Commission could develop a proximity
criteria.
Com. Doyle stated he is in .7avor of spreading the BMR units around
town and being on-site, but open to non-hillside options.
ra
III ffll
S:1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
eJanuary 23, 1995 _
Page 16
Com. Harris addressed the CAP rate. Ms. Gil stated it would be
structured closely to the Sunnyvale program. She noted she- will
bring an example at the next meeting,
Com. Harris addressed setting a fee for small developments and she
would suggest limiting it to a maxin[um of 5% of the market value.
She noted she is also open to looking at other options.
Com. Harris stated that the terms of affordability should read 15
years and should be consistent throughout the document.. She
suggested examples be kept together in the document.
Chr. Mahoney stated the Commission would like to explore no'-fee for
0-4 units, an in-lieu fee for 5-9 units and no in-lieu fee for 10
and above. They also would like to see examples of 2, 3. and 4 of
the BMR in-lieu fee options. .
Com. Harris stated De Anza College students should be eliminated
from sections 2.2.5 and 2.5.1.
Chr. Mahoney stated they should also explore off-site alternatives
which would spread the BMR units throughout the City.
® Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearin
was closed. g, seeing no-one the hearing
MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue this discussion to February
27, 1994.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed
5-0 v
9. Review of Traffic and Circulation Study for Diocese General
Plan EIR Supplement.
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell stated she is available
to answer any questions.
Com. Roberts. asked what parts of the process can be continued and
what end points can be reached at this time.
Ms. Wordell stated they will discuss this at the m
31, 1995. eeting of January
10. Election of Chairperson, and Vice-Chairperson
Com. Austin moved to nominate Com. Doyle as Chairperson. a
i/
I In
1151111111 111
11011119
Y
e:l
iJ'
c+-
Y ',�' ,,�.� A 1 i ,•.<� +' i': ' -�- ` .t.: '. G:r;a. r f a,• 11+,I. �'c 'r', 'L }ik Y''a `�` {w.k'' 4{a'y� "`iij: :'a;`�t1 ' '��qy . v'r'.� vm..,,,: 'F ^t,,,r ,.;t
, 'g4
l• j r c. < 1'.,,.± .y I yi 4 Sy ir; �)� sal '�a�Jav� }y} kx:P x i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 23, 1995 x'
Page 17
MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to appoint Com. Doyle as Chairperson x
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1s
ABSTAIN: Com. Doyle
ri(
Com. Harris moved to nominate Cam. Roberts as Vice Chair..
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to appoint Com. Roberts as Vice Chair
SECOND: Com. Harris ;
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSTAIN: Com. Roberts
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Com. Harris question9d the special meeting regarding housing.
Mr. Cowan stated him,elf, the City Attorney and the City Manager
met with the Council to. brief them on the housing law.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None
ADJOURNMENT Having concluded business the Planning Commission
adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted
Ca.t���, v,-�. M-RvQ.c..(waXd
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes Clerk
all
vim
�;
1
k`'sA''Eri- a' } "nt prc7totr eq c1 r,+4 a ,
c }3.
.ir Y i a.�, , t v+t� t-_`• t -Mft+6,s
CITY ,OF CUPrRTINO r .
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 77-3308
MINUTES OF. THE REGULAR MEE !ING OF THE PLAANING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON FEBRUARY 13, 3995
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chr. Doyle
Cord. Roberts ?
Com. Harris
Com. Austin
Com. Mahoney
Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director: of Community Devp)..opment
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Colin Jung, Associate Planner k
Michele Bjurman, Planner II
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ,,
January 23, 1995 - Regular Meeting r,
k.
® MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of January 23,
1995, as presented
SECOND: Com. r Austin " ' tc
VOTE: Passed
5-0 -
WRITTEN COMliUNICATIONS - No Discussion
POSTPONEMENTS/REHoVAL FROM CALENDA s
Item 3: Application `No(s) : 10-U-94 (Modification) and 29-EA-94 -
Barry Swenson Builder - Request continuance to the
Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 1995 y:
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continuo item 3 to the meeting of
' March 13, 1995
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: . Passed
5-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
It was a consensus of the .Commission to hear item 5 after item 1.
s
PUBLIC. HEARING
1• Application No: 12-TM-94
Applicant: Rodger and Ronamae Woolly
t
z:
PLANNING COMA;SION MINUTES ? 't
February 13, 1995
Page 2
Property Owner: Same
.Location: 11593 Upland Way
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .9 acre parcel into two lots. is
Staff presentation: Planner Bjurma )re::ented the staff report ,
noting the proposal is` to retain the -,cisting single family home <M
tt,
and subdivide off the front end of the parcel. She noted the
parcel is currently in the County and if approved will be annexed
into the City. Ms. Bjurman pointed out that under the recently
modified Residential Hillside ordinance the minimum lot size was
eliminated and staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct y
them to begin a zoning on this parcel to identify a minimum lot
size. Ms. Bjurman reviewed the long term development configuration
of the block as outlined in Exhibit A of the staff report. Staff
is recommending approval of the subdivision as proposed. ,
In response to Com. Mahoney's questions regarding the slope density
formula and lot size, Mr. Cowan stated this property is in a slope
density area, therefore the slope density formula will determine
the yield on the property and subsequent development will be
controlled through precise zoning descriptions.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about removing the minimum lot size.
He also expressed concern about flag lots and half cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Cowan stated the idea was to try to control future development
of the property with very precise designation for each lot.
In response to Com.. Harris' question regarding the extension of the
cul-de-sac, Ms. Bjurman stated the cul-de-sac will not encroach
into the existing house or pool area.
/t
The public hearing was opened. *'
Applicant presentation: Mr. Rodger. Wooley stated the second house
on the property was a pre-school and has been closed for the last �.
4 or 5 years. He urged the Commission to support the proposal. x
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Mahoney stated if they were creating the lot in the back they
would he discussing a flag lot, but believes when the other lots
are subdivided and the cul-de-sac is developed a flag lot will not
.�+F
be an issue.
n:
In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms. Bjurman stated the road .
will be dedicated aC this time, but not improved.
t
As; * >� C+:v sx t a . w. `5.-,"¢ ' § h✓ t'itfcl} y_:;, L �,' •s,i Fp+� Y f
xkr..� a.5.g�N t,r Alf ''�'....a; 7 �,r..fi �. .r �t �. n i�+ :-7?�rf 4 •SF.� �v.. r A `�, '�
• i � �'_;�� � � # '� t} �• +.r F r � 'i" t ��,�,, at, rq r 4 t�. ti X � �p;t Y n�i�i � r � �� ��- r�a��"f ai]t�a
r C + t..ti: b !tx a t had r � t 4.a •St1 3tr''�{�3` �'��Y.f!` �� �
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '
'February 13, 1995
Page 3
Ms. Bjurman suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to ;
come back with a rezoning' of the entire block to consider the
minimum lot sizes. •
Mr. Cowan stated the land is presently zoned RHS and this
particular subdivision does meet that criteria. He noted .staff is
suggesting that the Planning Commission approve this subdivision- `
knowing that, at some point in the future, this particular lot .will
be developed again. Also direct staff to initiate a zoning change .i i
for .the entire block pursuant to the new RHS Ordinance.
Com. Harris suggested discussing the zoning fo.r .the whole sector as
opposed to just the seven lots: Mr'. Cowan stated this can be done.
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve 12-TM-9'4 subject . to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing.
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 4-1 f`
NOES: Com. Roberts t
t
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to direct staff to bring forward a
zoning plan for ':this ,area under the RHS Ordinance to
establish lot sizes
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0
Com. Roberts stated he ,voted no because the Planning Commission
has looked at several applications based on' subdivisions with a
half' cul-de-sac and a flag lot. He believes this is disorderly
development and will create problems.
i
5. Application No(s) : 13-U-94 and 35-EA-94 i •
Applicant: Imwalle Stegner .
Property Owner: Union Oil Company of California.
Location: NW corner. of De Anza` Blvd. and Bollinger !
Rd.
i
USE PERMIT to construct a 5,800 sq. ft. retail building. }
Staff presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report j
noting the .proposal is to construct a .5•,800 sq. ft. multi or single j
tenant retail building. She reviewed -the General Plan issues as
outlined in the staff report. She :noted staff suggests that this I
be continued to allow the avolicant time to reduce the height and
mass of the tower element and add architectural detailing - as j
outlined in the staff report.
Com. Harris addressed the landscaping .and -noted there should be
landscaping along the wall on Bollinger Road. .
Ask
• i
lump"
r
�. '
'.,1Re" sdts
- _ - - ly h+ ar IK�1>"r a•��j``,��2j�"�,�v.� �t.34����'�r� ' ��
k+I+s ! t
PLANNING COXmISSION MINUTES
• rebruary 13, 1995
Page •3
i
Ms. Bjurman presented drawings of the -oposed building.
.�r
The public hearing was opened.
Applicant Aresentation: Mr-� Chuck Stegner, Imwalle Stegner, stated 1
the First. National Bank in the area is 30 ft. tall. He stated he e'
would like.° to leave the tower as is, but will reduce if required.
He noted the tower element can be removed completely. Regarding {,
the toxic issue of the site; Mr. Stegner stated he received a
letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District indicating
closure on this site. He noted the tower is a feature and there is
no second story.
Mr. Dick Fish, Architect, stated the primary design of the building
stook into consideration elements of the surrounding buildin.q's. -He Y
noted the tower element and archways tie into the design of
surrounding buildings. He requested approval of the design as
proposed.
The Commission discussed the architectural changes" requested .by
staff and the applicant agreed that these are acceptable.
Mr. Fish stated vines could be placed on the wall along Bollinger
Road.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about the roof. pitch on the tower
and noted it should be harmonious with the rest of the building
roof.
The public hearing was closed.
Chr. Doyle stated the three ,,, basic issues are the vegetation,
changes recommended by staff and the height of the tower.
Com. Austin stated there should be more landscaping on the "west
side, the height of the tower is. acceptable and the changes
recommended by staff are acceptable.
Com. Mahoney stated the tower height proposed is acceptable because
of the height11of ,surrounding buildings.
1 '�Y
Cbm. Roberts stated there should be more landscaping along the west
wall. The architectural changes recommended by staff are
acceptable, but again expressed concern about the pitch of the roof
on the tower element. He added he would support the tower element,
but at a lower height.
j
Com. Harris stated a 30 ft. tower will be imposing and would like
to see it reduced by 5� ^ft.'
Y.
" °. bC�' �: S ., . ,.yS ay.., §"}. 6 '+-. ."R..k 'jG - ' 't,( !+ Pfaff b 4 ,fu r• (,-. .1
r �t w:^�a E -*, �, ti.,.,�.. �v� -..��r a e, , vr`k�,s+eyt.y�t. ,M1 '�€�,rr.'ea , at�''�. '�b�T �"f� •tit,, C"4$'� �'^S; ,.�•'kI°a f� -f D 4e k ;'t _
..b • r„t �,ki- r P �;.. 4.� €. •k1 r:. Lwla ea N 5 .,�i r R<i•
�•+ '�R�` ti; 4 l' Z-, 'af; °,.a a ".4:kr°t lx� �.6� � Fa,vAt Pdi [.��e� ,,
PLANNING C014MISSION MINUTES
. February 13, 1995 ^—
Page 5
Chr. Doyle stated the tower at 29 ft. is acceptable as this is the
gateway and should stand out.
MOTION: Corn. Austin moved to approve a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passad 5-0
MOT10N: Com. Austin moved to approve 13-U-94 subject to the
findings and subconclusions of, the hearing, with the
architectural changes recommended by staff, vegetation
along the west wall and the tower element at 29 ft. tall.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-0
2. Application No: 81 ,152
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner(s) : Various
Location: Properties along or. near Stevens Creek'
Blvd. from Highway 85 to the eastern City
limits.
r
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN meeting to review the progress
of the work on the draft land use and development character
policies and the land use map streetscape ' and other
improvements.
6
Staffresentatic
p m.; , Associate Manner Jung . presented -the staff
report noting the purpose of this session is to continu^ review of
the land use components of the Heart of the City Specific Pla, .
The components include: a) specific plan land use and development
policies, and b) a land use map which also identifies candidate
housing sites. Mr. Jung reviewed the comments made at the last
hearing and outlined the changes as a result of this discussion.
He presented a map..outlining the candidate housing sites. and noted
that neither the, candidate housing sites nor the density has ,
changed. Regarding the land use policies, they have been revised
as outlined in Exhibit B of the staff report. He noted residential
development would be ,allowed in the core areas, but explained that
residential development should be in the upper stories as the .areas
are meant to be high activity nodes. He added they -are also
encouraging residential development outside the activity nodes.
Mr. Jung presented a map showing existing schools and parks within
the vici•iity of Stevens Creek Blvd. and noted they are within 1/2
mile radius from the candidate housing sites. He ncted the Parks
and Recreation Commission discussed the issue of pedestrian parks
acid they believed that pocke4- parks would not be feasible in the
area of Stevens Creek Blvd. , but spoke in support of a streetscape
serving as a- linear park along Stevens Creek Blvd. with. passive
"t
.r
. a
R.
Y"
i„� ` F`"'�ip o-a`k r ,�,�t 'u Ir,�'os c fi v T`' � '"I+4 '" :G a L�'Ya a a� `+ m I e��3r`W:.M s t,✓�g b+ � t n 3 v r n- ,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 1995
Page 6
rest stop areas. lie noted ,the minutes of the,Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting are included in the staff report..
Mr. Cowan introduced the topic of office/industrial priorities and,
noted it will be discussed at the next meeting. He, stated 25'0,000
sq. ft. was allocated for the major companies in the City and
would like the Commission to think about the possible' allocation of
the 91 ,000 sq, ft. in the City Center/Crossroads area.:. He. noted
they should also think about the allocation of the 150,000 sq. ft.
and staff will come back with recommendations at the next meeting.
Mr. Jung stated staff is not looking for approval at this time, but
a preliminary acc,�p.tance.
" Com. Harris addressed Exhibit E - Candidate Housing Sites List, and
noted the density is 15-,45 units per acre. As a result of 40 units
to the acre. 1500 units could be built on the designated sites..
She noted her experience on the Commission is that developers
request davelopmant at the higher end of the density range. She
expressed concern about approving this density range and asked if
an applicant proposes 45 units per acre and a density bonus of 25%
can this be approved at the staff :level?
� . Mr. Jung stated approval of any housing project is seen by the
Planning Commission and City Council. He stated based on !_9.s
experience, some developers do propose at the lower end of the
density.
Idr. Cowan stated- one of the two vacant sites in the City has been
approved for development and the likelihood of seeing most of the
sites redeveloped is remote. He stated they are basically trying
to meet the General. Plan goals to provide opportunities for
housing.
Mr. Jung pointed out that the specific plan can be amended as many
times as required. In response to Com. Roberts' questions
regarding building height, Mr. ,Jung stated building height is
identified in the General Plan. He noted this will be revisited.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Farokh Dehoo, 100257 Nile Dr.,, stated the Parks and Recreation
Commission indicated that they would support passive park areas
where feasible. He stated he would like staff and the Planning
Commission to consider site 5, for a pocket park. He 'address•ed tl.e
concept of office buildings in City Center, and noted it is not
clear if Apple Computer Inc. is 'interested, and if not maybe
housing 'could be developed.. He noted he would like clarification
regarding the 25% density bonus.
G
t, f
y
.[I
1'
- 4T`l' . 4 e 4 +.; a f S. L A f'. e :n t l r`�-tl. i�,b.fid�n�•h
- s
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, '1995
Page 7 z`
Mr. Herman Hijmans, 23311 Stevens Creek Blvd. , representing the 5;
Woodworks site, -hopes that the Planning Commission will be flexible
regarding mixed-use developments.
Mr. Mark Kroll., City Center Associates, stated the property owner 5'
for site 5,. has no problem with this property being a park if
someone would like to purchase it. He stated at this time the
owner ,could like to pursue
'the possible residential development of
this site, at the lower density range.
In response to Com. Roberts' comments regarding site 5, Mr. Cowan
stated when the property was zoned, there was a last minute
addition to the motion for approval, that the words "open space" be
added to this approval. Ile noted it was not the Council's
intention that this would be a public park and stated the General
Plan allows residential on .thi.s property. He ,added the Parks and
Recreation Commission are not interested in acquiring this property
for public land, because they feel the public parks available are
adequate to meet the needs.
Mr. Daniel A. •Muto, 10088 S. Stelling Rd. , addressed the future
development of site 8. Mr. Jung stated the designations are for
future land use and the City is not seeking to condem or publicly
® redevelop the property. He noted the policies in the specific .plan
allow the existing land uses to continue, but should substantial
redevelopment occur, by a private developer, higher density would
i
be requested.
In response to Com.' Robert:.' question, Mr. Jung stated .Exhibit G
includes school sites that have long-term maintenance agreements
with the City to keep them as open space.
i
The Commission discussed neighborhoods L1 and L2 and the deficiency
of parks. Mr. Cowan stated this area is deficient because there is
not the opportunity to purchase property for a park.
Com. Roberts stated this area should be a priority for a park. "
Mr. Jung pointed out that the the distribution of units as
described in item 3 of the staff recommendations would, not affect
the park ratio in any significant way.
Com. Roberts stated they need to look ahead at how they will look
at the 500 unit cap when they begin to approach it. He stated he
would also like to revisit building heights as it relates to
density.
Mr. Cowan stated building heights are included in the design
standards, which. will be discussed at the next meeting.
i:. c 1 4 s x r a
4 ,'S +;_" , a �.�"fi NS t�1'4 i'1��'-.7th �'x1rJ�j,'A�'7
0 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 1995
Page 8
The following are the Commissioners comments: ;
e,
Com. Austin spoke in favor of the 500 unit cap with the sites and
densities recommended by staff. She noted the Planning Commission
should remain flexible. '
Com. Mahoney stated there is a problem with, the densities proposed
because of the bonus issue. He suggested lowering the density and
then adding the density bonus to get the range up to 45 units per .
acre. He suggested a density range of 15 to 35 units per acre. He
spoke in favor of the sites and the distribution as recommended by
staff.
j
Com. Roberts stated the 500 unit cap and sites as recommended by
staff are acceptable. He spoke in favor of revisiting the density
and the building height within the present 'specific plan. }
Mr.. Jung stated the Swenson project is within the 40 to 4.5 density
range and the density of the City Center apartments is also within
this range. `
Com. Harris stated the 500 unit cap is acceptable. She stated she
is opposed to a density .range of 15-45 units per acre andwould
suggest 10-20 units per acre spreading the units over the eight
designated sites., She noted the distribution of units . as
recommended by staff is acceptable.
Chr. Doyle spoke in favor of the 500 unit cap and the sites
recommended by staff. He spoke in -favor of a density range of 15
-35 units per acre and two story buildings. He stated 30 units per ;
acre would be more appropriate and the distribution of units as `
recommended by staff is acceptable. #'
Com. Roberts stated it would not be unreasonable to have tall
buildings in the Southeast quadrant of the Crossroads..
In response to the Commissioners' questions, . Mr. Jung stated the
intent of the residential overlay is to maintain the legitimacy of
the existing uses, and also a' notice that the City would like to ,
see development on the property. He stated the intent is to allow
as much flexibility as possible.
Mr. . Jung summarized the Commissioners comments as follows:
Majority agreement that sites identified by staff as candidate
housing sites are reasonable and acceptable at this point.
500 units along Stevens Creek Blvd— is is an appropriate number of
housing units. .
a
-
z a• r �o iF .ty.+s� � 9 z a�a•n yvr x r x a r— v a �q
X, F .p,K. y `'t•NII } 4! }.'yi..,A ,l� 4t ti .'fi' 7 `i1�•S .'YET i{ A• +�'!'C.a. c"..
I-L',ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 1995
Page 9
The elimination of the General Plan geographic limitation of 300
units between Torre and Saich and 200 along Stevens Creek Blvd. is
acceptable.
Areas of disagreement are:
Density - 45 units is too dense and would like more options in the
relationship to building heights and surrounding land uses.
Distribution of units - should be spread around, looking for a
mechanism to do this.
a
Mr. Cowan stated there is an annual review of the General Plan and
they can look at this. issue at that time.
The Commissioners discussed Exhibit B as outlined in the staff
report. Chr. Doyle stated Exhibit B includes the distribution of
the 22.0,000 sq. ft. and the 30,000 sq. ft. between the nodes; the
concept of mixed-used and the compatibility of adjoiningland uses.
The Commissioners discussed mixed-use and the flexibility of
developing both commercial and residential on ground level.
® The Commissioners. also discussed the park issue.
Com. Harris stated if they add 500 units they should increase the _
number of parks. She suggested that Freemont Older be developed as
a park when feasible. She noted when a residential developer
develops an area they should focus on how to deal with private open
space. Regarding pocket parks, she would like to hearmore from
staff as to why they are opposed to these. 'She noted sports fields
in the schools are a good idea, but are not parks for picnics etc.
Com. Roberts stated they need to focus on parks in the Northeast
quadrant of the City. He stated he does not see the wayside along
Stevens Creek Blvd. as being a substitute for parks. He believes
there may be an opportunity along Stevens Creek Blvd. where
commercial abuts residential to have a buffer area of park land
which would lessen the conflict between the residential and
commercial uses.
Com. Mahoney stated he does not want to revisit the issue of pocket
parks, but believes the Northeast quadrant of the City is deficient
in parklands. He noted Collins school may be a possible park site
in the future. He stated the findings of the Parks and Recreation
Commission are acceptable.
Com. Austin agrees that parks are an issue. She addressed the
® vacant land owned by Tandem and noted this maybe . a; possible
c
0
9
• 1
:i
_ M- EN I .
ti
�.M.« t..'t•e ,s x t at Y xi ; -M•tr•tbi � +� w sv'` ,,•
. • CF"n. ' r t t 't 3 4 ik t 4'S+ ti f "t eJ ' 'h Z.r+S'+ ti x'�17`^ �„ 't a l•.
:4 j�a"S *g;.
t
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 1995
Page 10
location for a future park. She concurred with Com. Mahoney
regarding Collins school .
Mr. Cowan stated staff will come back with a report regarding the
park plan and opportunities for parks north of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Chr. Doyle stated a -linear park concept is hard to make work-. He
.stated he does not want the Northeast quadrant to become worse.
� Mr. Jung .suggested the following wording for. item 3 under Exhibit
B "Mixed ,;ommercial and residential development may be allowed in
the activity centers when the distribution of residential and
commercial uses enhance pedestrian activity"..
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to continue this item to February 22,
1995 .
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-0
4. Application No(s) : 1-GPA-93 and 6-tA-93
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose
Property Owner: Same
Location: Assessor Parcel Numbers 342-52-3, 342-5- '
® 54, -56, -59, -60 Located south of I-280, 1
o
west of Foothill Blvd. and north f
Rancho San Antonio County Park- and
Stevens Creek Blvd.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from
Very Low Density Residential 5-20 acre slope density to -Very
Low Density Residential Foothill Modified 1/2 Acre slope
density with a cap of 293 units.
The Diocese of -San Jose applied for the above General Plan
. Amendment. The City Council directed that a total of ten
alternative be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environmental Impac•c Report
was prepared. Ten alternatives were evaluated. Significant
impacts identified related to loss of and 'intrusion into open
space lands; elimination of potential park lands; loss bf and .
intrusion into natural vegetation, wildlife habitat and
wetland areas; exposure to adverse geologic conditions; storm
run-off erosion and pollution; wildfire hazard; visual
impacts; water tank failure and leakage; and safety of school
crossings.
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell stated -staff would like
to set up dates for future meetings.
I
L'
77.
�:. 3J! } ��.,*t.. i a.Mti, �rti>1± '� �.. �Z� },.fi �{yy, A",yt4 n,(;�,,ts�,af }:S'`y� t"i�) �?JtSFn �C`�r ti�'�<�`i tY.tyt&.}3•� ? 5„,+'/J:Uh�-��.. ... .
' i •�' .j � tl{t Ibr t� r��,v xk Vat. .
{ t'.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® February 13, 1995
Page 11
The public hearing was opened. '
Fr. Mitchell, Diocepe -of San Jose, requested, that no Wednesday
meetings .be held if -possible.
Ms. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majesci.c Oak Way, stated she would .hold' her
comments until more information is available.
There was a consensus of the Commission for the following meeting }`
dates: March -7, April 5, April 18, May 2, May 16, 1995
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue this item to March 7, 1995
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed
5-0
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Com. Austin stated she has - been a volunteer on the Affordable `
Housing Committee and asked if anyone else would like to volunteer?
It was agreed that Commissioner Austin would continue serving as .a �d
Planning Commission representative to
Committee. the Affordable Housing
,
K�
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY 'DEVELOPMENT
Regarding re-opening the General Plan, Mr. Cowan stated this
primarily has to do with the second tier growth issue. He noted
there will be a meeting in March to consider if there should be a z.
General Plan hearing.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING - None
Chr. 'Doyle outlined his goals for the meetings, which would keep
the meetings moving and would not .like the meetings to go beyound
11
P.M. It was a consensus of the Commission to allow the
applicant to speak after the public comments.
r
ADJOURNMENT Having concluded business, the Planning Commission
adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to the Special meeting of February 22,
1995.
Respectfully submitted ,
Catherine M. Robillard r
Minutes Clerk
�c
• Y
t
' h;
7. Fr. - -`ai.'�=^4 : �x i.h :-wrr.C..Y.�: .....�yy _ _ .•.s
�� �..: t X rY YW Y� ►.y 4
Ma
.s'
L
,a
s '}
t
I.. �. .� ..�'a.�.r..Y �-,-,._ ,a.,� , :++�,'. r _,,:LL` .�: Y��z� i�'f-.' �� ti:.� .,A.,,�"y' e {.r,'�'"> ->xrYi•-r�.,.r,�LY�,'�1- .d s, ��`rr 5`'s'mow,♦ �+°rte.?+ � �`�-#' t-e�;•,.�;�,z'
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 1995
MEETING DATE DATE APPROVED DATE DISTRIBUTED
1/9/ 1/23 1/27
1/23 2/13 2/23
2/13 3/13 3/22
2/22 Heart of the City
2/27. "
3f/ 3/27 4/7 Diocese
3/13 .
3/27 4/24 5/9
4/18 5/8 5/11 Heart of the City
4/24 "
5/4 5/22 8/21 hillsides
5/8 5/22 8/21
F
5/16 6/12 8/21 Heart of the City {
5/22 " "
5131 7/10 Diocese GPA
6/5 6/26 Joint mt8,cc-902C
6/12 6/26 "
6/20 7/10 "
6/26 7/24 "
629 46 <c-
7/10 .
7/13 8/14 124/96 Heart of the'City
7/18 Diocese GPA' s,
724 8/29 "
8/14 10/9
829 9/25
9/11 10/9 124/96
9/25 10/9 }
10/9 10/23 1/24/96
1023 11/13
11/13 11/27 "
1127 12/11
12/11 1/8/96
– r —
t
07 -14
xd
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
10300 Torre Ave .
CUpertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON
JANUARY 9,, 3-995
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney
Com. Doyle-
C6m. Austin
Co'm. Roberts
Com. Harris
Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell , City Planner
Thomas Robillard, Planner !I
Michele Bjurman, Planner' II
Colin Jung, Associate Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 6, December 12, 1994
Com. Harris amended the minutes of December 6th as follows:
1. Page 9, .all references. to lease law should be leash law.
2. Page 11, 3rd p9rag`raph,,- 3rd sentence should read "He noted no
matter what they do on the property there will be no public
trails or access proposed' on private lands."
3. Page 14, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence should read *"Ms. Wordell
stated this is what staff would expect, or the transfer of
development rights might- be an option."
Com. Roberts amended the minutes of December! 6th as foll81ws:
1. Page- 18 2nd paragraph,. 1st sentence should read "Mr.` Mike
Bruner stated no trail easements to the public, on privately
owned open space, would 'be dedicated under any proposal."
2 Page 12, add to, Mr. Woods comments "He also drew attention to
the visual impact from the open space district's perspective
` f development is permitted on the portion of the Cristo Rev
Parcel that is adjacent to the Maryknoll property."
3. Page 13, Com. Roberts comments should read "Com. Roberts
stated that they should upgrade the importance of visual
impacts of development on the Cristo Rey parcel between Cristo
Rey Drive and Maryknoll, ,'as he addressed earlier.'
-MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes of December .6,
1994 , as amended
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Doyle moved ,to' approve the, minutes of December 12,
1994, as submitted c.
,� � ,� �;; xcs� a� a�w?� � � v .�s a 3+'� �t't.��'�"s3„�v'ti�`• �. 1'1,�,��'�,���"h
, N y h.,r �'ta t:�h Irti z K ..Y3v f}��y� a �ti` �. e, �, 'k�°W„e"A 1�rth, xp L.� xt r � f„t".e;: t'A' tSt�;°�'�43 S'�`v?, a;at ti �?.�t"".o�'n't'``F"«�* s4,�".:.',"kj;s�, 1 Y •
: c++s�Th +r e� $t.rt+ r `�5 ha5.. � ", t �h ,� { 4 .�t, +� a Yvt Vit. t .�3,�'r.., ..K ti c•>F Ix
r v air y, +L S i i,y A{ -� Y +..r J L � r•�� v.-n �i
s
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® Regular Meeting of January •9, 1994
Page 2 '
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1 ,
ABSTAIN: Com. Austin
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No Discussion. '
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR
Item 6: Application 12-U-73 (Amendment) and 31-EA-94, 22622
Marianist Way - Removed from Calendar.
Item 8: Application 81,156, 9-EA-94 and 1-Z-94, 2=EA-94 City of
Cupertino - Continued to the meeting of January 23, 1995.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
CONSENTCALENDAR - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application No(s) : 9-U-94, 3 Z-94 , 8-TM-94 and 27-EA-94
Applicant: Forge/Homestead
Property Owner: Charles) O. Forge/Eileen Hutching Co.
Trustees .
Location: 20691 Homestead Road
USE PERMIT to develop a 240 unit for rent condominium project.
TENTATIVE MAP, to subdivide one parcel into 240 condominium
units.
REZONING a 9.26 acre parcel from A-215 to P (Res. 20-30)
Planned Residential Development for 20 to 30 .units per gross
acres, or other appropriate zoning designation.
Staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report
and reviewed the site location. He noted an issue raised at the
last meeting was the density bonus law. This matter was discussed
with the City Attorney. Planner Robillard stated the general plan
density range for this property is 10-20 units per gross acre' which
would yield 96 to 194 units. He said the' typical density for
apartments is 16 units per 'grass acre, ' which would yield !
approximately 155 units on this property. Mr. Robillard stated 3
state law indicates that the 25% density bonus must.be based on the
maximum density range. He stated the. City Attorney's E
interpretation of the state law is that the" planning commission
must grant 'the 25% density bonus, but can choose a base density 4
Within the ranee of 10-20 units, as long as it �does not make the !
project infeasible.
Planner Robillard presented a site plan map outlining the main
i
F
t
F1.9
.� �LlF q A `uMi 1 y#} '4(.. .F.. h,. '1ix'V C ;j-S ,Z 4NS z s;�H„5 3i 3za al { 4 .;vim -- •Pf{ Z. 'a T v of>:A�a �X t.
11
f
F;
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of January 9. 1994
Page 3 "
a
entrances proposed to the property and noted staff prefers the main
entrance to be on the east side. He outlined the minor changes to ,
the park fee conditions as reflected in the staff report. He added,
staff prefers plan 2. Mr. Robillard outlined the changesmade to
the plans and also noted the impact on schools will be minimal as _ r
development on this site was planned for during the general plan
discussions. Regarding traffic impacts,. Mr. Robillard stated the
traffic engineer indicated that traffic will remain at D•- which
includes the impacts, from the Portifino project. He added that
staff is recommending approval.
The commission discussed the number of affordable units and the
th and without the density bonus. Planner
density of the project wi
Robillard stated with 228 units, 18 units will be designa-.:ed as
affordable. The a- ;so •discussed the level of service and Planner
Y
Robillard stated the per
did the original traffic analysis
did not take into account that the timing on the ointedcoutgnals' 'that
can be changed to help the flow of traffic. He p
staff recommends plan 2 because of the orientation of the main
driveway and for aesthetic purposes.
The commission and staff discussed the proposed entrances. Planner
Robillard pointed . out that most of the traffic from the project
would use the westerly .driveway because of the orientation of the
parking within the project and this entrance has a signal. light.
He noted that people will be permitted to turn left out of.! the main
entrance. . �EE
Harris questioned the turf area, and asked if this is large ,
Com.
enough for a practice field?
Mr. Cowan stated if the space can meet recreation needs, the
applicant can receive credit, but if the planning commission feel
it is too fragmented 'to be useable it should not be approved for
credit.
Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing.
AADllcant nre
s_Pjtratzon: Mr. John Vidovich; representing the
property owner, stated he and Mr. Sisk met with the neighbors to
n
address concerns. He reviewed the changes to the plan noting they
are x3roposing t-40 story buildings on the east side to be corp3tibie
with adjoining property owners. Mr. Vidovich presented a cross
section of the units showing the distance between the buildings
proposed and the neighbors to the east. , He noted they are
separated by appreximately.'96 ft. with landscaping and parking in
between. The two story buildings on Homestead will by consistent
with the adjacent apartment builuing.
4'
.1., ..'r t.;.r. 3 S°p :� ...!.T a�� 1..,hw� >„ u25+d°k r' � .' ;ui ' � sY''v�cH. { �hi4 sFl �.55"}'^.,rMt yg •-..r
tF' (a •s
i A '3 d J r 1 Ev t r rai�� }4t•) f 7 v•�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES y.
Regular Meeting of January 9, 1994
Page 4
Mr. Vidovich presented elevation . drawings and reviewed the
materials proposed forthe buildings. He addressed the pool -and
recreation areas proposed. In response to commissioners questions,
Mr. Vidovich stated there is an existing landscape strip along 'the
easterly boundary. He noted they will discuss this landscaping
with the adjacent property owners. He further discussed plan one
which has the main entrance at the west side. He described the
traffic flow and believes more traffic will come in on the east
side. He noted the vertical height of the two story buildings is ;,
approximately 30 ft.
y
Com. Harris questioned the number of school. age children who may
live in these units and the impact on schools?
Mr. Vidovich stated the school district did an analysis, and
generally there is not a high number of children who livetin 4
apartments such as.. this. A
Mr. Jim Sisk stated he does not know of any units in Cupertino were
the density is 16 units per acre. He stated the park fee
dedication is not a concession, but a law.
Regarding the water. well, Planner Robillard stated negotiations are t.
still taking place between public works and the applicant. He
noted this will affect. the parking.
Ms. Lynore Slate:, 20552 Shady Oak Lane, President, Board of
Directors, Countrywood, stated there are several issues which came
out of the meetings with the applicant. zh— noted the issues .,are
as follows:
• e A ,
1. Two cl-ory structuresthroughout. k`
2. 12 or fewer units per acre.
3 . Fewer units and cars.
4. Stable neighborhood.
5. Meandering short streets.
6. An EIR on soil contamination and full impact of traffic and T
other issues. ;
7. • Adequate space and guest parking.
8. Aesthetics to blend in with Countrywood.
9. Plot wi.11. support only 10 to 12 units per acre.
Ms. Slaten submitted a letter requesting that she be given any new
information regarding this property.
Mr. Julio Castillo, 11034 Hollytree Ln. , read a letter from their
legal counsel regarding the need for an EIR. He submitted the
letter for the record.
6;.
Vin;
e
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of January 9', 1994 '
Page 5
Mr. Richard Chavarria, 20539 Cedarbrook Terrace, discussed the
impacts of the traffic with the proposed project. He addressed R'
previous traffic analysis done. Mr. Chavarria presented photos
n.;
showing the existing traffic problems at Countrywood. He noted t
there are no pedestrian crossings in this area and the existing
traffic is extremely heavy. He added that the accumulative affect
of this project, coupled with Citation Homes, will have a severe. x
affect on the level of service in this area. He believes an EIR
should be done on this project and would support 10-12 units per.
acre to be more compatible with Countrywood.
e;
Com. Roberts asked about a pedestrian signal in this area. Planner
Robillard stated staff believes this will` tie up traffic. Mr.
Chavarria submitted a letter to the commission.
Mr. Dirk De Mol,
11051 Firethorne Drive addressed the parking '
proposed .for this project. He believes parking is inadequate and'
the overflow parking will park at the PW Market and Carl's Jr. He
noted 460 parking spaces would be adequate and also expressed
concern about the loss of parking as a result of the well.
Com. . Harris questioned ' the parking proposed, Planner Robillard
stated it is approximately 1.84 spaces per unit.
With regards to the number of trips through the Homestead/De Anza
intersection, Planner Robillurd stated for the AV, peak hour the
number of trips going west. .is 798 and for the PM peak hour the
number of trips is 743.
Mr. bui Hing, Countrywood, presented photos showing views .from
Countrywood and the impact the proposed structure will have eii
these views. He expressed concern about the loss of ,views and
stated the project proposed is inappropriate for this property.
Ms. Diana Stickler, 11109 Flowering Pear Dr._, presented, photos
showing a Vidovich development in Santa Clara. She also presented
photos of views from Countrywood and expressed concern about visual
f
and noise impacts. She believes the density of the project: will
not be compatible with Countrywood.
Mr. David Kiel, 11107 Flowering Pear Dr. . , stated he is opposed to
the proposed project and noted it is .a fact that property values
will decrease as a result of 'the development. He noted approval of n
any three story structure on this property would not be in .the best
interest of the community. Iie presented a copy of a real estate
contract outlining the decrease in property values because of the
proposed development.
Ms. Cathy Dumas, 11117 Flowering Pear Dr. , ` stated.the objective of
{y
a,.'r# - �; s1 �f:.5 + sayti>z'- r`t+Gt°"� `'y,.t`�y m£���Y�'aK yy!f�'�.;t�#vhyr,� h 1 "FX',�t�9'�,l'ars°;�i� �t'" ��7'�•S,Fk "M't?lv
.�;y"�, ` K a*.yq f".rS z ",?H.�� `§`+1 a''f+F+J t s J 1 S-.HCl 1 .�r� s.-�h ��i rf�'G s. �.,�1f ds b`}�t..yid 4sYRfi2"', -�. M 1�1 s f:
PLANNING CONKISSICN` MINUTES
Regular Meeting of January 9, 1994
Page 6
the Williamson Act is to preserve agricultural use. 6he noted if
this property is to be developed an EIR .should be prepared to
address the soil contamination as well as the traffic impacts. She
stated she would like. to know the impact- of grading:. and soil
relocation on their homes.-
Mr. Edward Merl, 11079 Flowering Peak Dr. , stated in March a fire
occurred on the rroposed site of this development and would submit
the fire incident report for review by ' the commission. He
expressed concern about .the slow response of the fire department
due in part to overlapping jurisdictions between Sunnyvale and
Cupertino. Mr. Merl also expressed concern about possible soil
contamination and believes an EIR should be required.
In response to Com. Roberts' question regarding .. soils
investigations, Planner Robillard stated a letter of release from
the fire department and the Santa .Clara Valley Water District is
required. after site inspections. .
Ms. Nancy Trankle, Flowering Pear Dr. , stated she is talking on
behalf of Paul McNichol. She read a letter from Mr. McNichol who
® noted, a demographic study or EIR has not been submitted. ' Mr.
McNichol, in his letter, addressed the fire issue as noted by the
previous speaker. He also addressed the .impact on schools and
public utilities.' '- He believes ',further studies should be required
and stated the community would be better served with a project no
more than .two stories and. 12 units per acre.
Mr. Jim Mitchell, 11093 F.irethorne, stated he joins with his
neighbors in opposing this project. He noted he is not opposed to
development, but believes there is a density problem. He noted
living conditions and property values will be negatively affected
.and there is an existing traffic problem. He stated he is opposed
to. the three story structures proposed and would recommend 10-12
units per acre. He agrees that there should be a maximum height of
two stories throughout the project.
Mr. Chad Breshears, 20694 Celeste Circle, stated his primary
concern is traffic as there is an existing problem. He expressed
concern that overflow parking will use Franco Ct. and the shopping
center. Mr. Breshears stated the high density proposed will result
in a high number of additional cars and the surrounding community
needs to be considered when developing this property.
Ms. LuRhe Kerkhof, 20587 Cedarbrook Terrace, statsri , there are
several people in the audience who have not spoke, but are opposed
to. this project.
Ms. Connie Shih, Sunnyvale, stated she lives north of this project
x
q 5,l��} k plea •i '� �"�'�k'a�`vYlt D P,r Y"` i,'''rr,�{1�d��..�`FT}a�1 �� { ' 1
flS,:ip - M6Y +-� � r i° '+� "+�',}, +!- ur o� +. ,•4 'U1
PANNING COMUSSION MINUTES
. Regular Meeting of January 90 1994
Page 7
in a single story home. She expressed concern about the impact of
three story structures.
Ms. Slaten stated property owners to the north of this project dial '
attend the neighborhood meetings and expressed concern about the
x,
proposed project.
Chr. Mahaney stated the issues are as follows: ,r
1. EIR requirement -
2. General density issue
3. Parking
4. Height of 2 vs. 3 story structures
5. Traffic
6. Fire safety
7. Schools
Soil contamination
Ccm. Austin expressed concern about the traffic with the additional
development in the area. She also expressed concern about the lack
of affordable housing and believes the only way to get affordable
housing is with the apartments as .proposed. She asked what between
the 10-20 units, per acre make the project affordable?
Mr. Cowan explained the density bonus law and the number of units
which can be developed on this property in order to receive the ,;
bonus as interpreted by the City Attorney and addressed earlier. R'
Regardinc, the EIR, Com. Austin stated the Environmental Review
Committee recommended a negative declaration and she is satisfied
with this.
Com. Doyle questioned the need for an EIR?
Mr Cowan reviewed the recommendation from the Environmental Review
f;
Committee.
Com. ' Roberts stated when the Environmental Review Committee.
reviewed this application they felt that the scope of the
application was within the framework of the general plan and the
density foreseen for this property.
Com. Austin stated she would prefer plan one as. opposed to plan two
because of the traffic flow.
Com. Doyle stated , he has problems with the height, parking and
traffic. He stated he would support two story structures
throughout and would like more information on the traffic impacts.
® Planner Robillard stated if the project creates more than 100 trips
�y
A
,i
t
!4
� ,� �A. Al t K V 3 h X, w" C 1 { k 5 fe,r X 1tL k t iY f�,+,1uwY;gp V
v�!', 7£f t _9"y t'1".�, t "ri f 5°'}f'�^ ru eY'F g i t` S't C r ``tfl, r + �
7 1 f t
�f
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® Regular Meeting of January 9, ` 1990
Page 8
{i
in a peak hour, a traffic study is required which has to be in t
conformance with CMA guidelines. He noted this study has been done
and met the requirements. s
Com. Doyle questioned the concessions? ``
Mr. Cowan stated there are two categories of concessions, one has
to coo with physical changes and the other is economic issues. He
noted, typically, the commission does not get involved in the ;
economic issues.
Planner Robillard pointed out that the concessions do need to _
contribute to making the project more affordable. .
Com. Doyle spoke in support of plan two.
Com. Roberts stated density is-the main issue and .this drives other
factors.. He noted his main concerns are traffic, parking and
height. Regarding traffic, Com. Roberts stated this area is
already heavily congested and left turns out of the project should Ci
be minimized. He noted the traffi analysis at the general plan "
level is not adequate. and the imp,. :ts need to be mitigated. He
noted parking could be a problem and overflow parking will go to
the shopping center and this should be avoided. He noted height is
important, but believes the revised plan has mitigated the visual
impacts. . He spoke in support of plan one, with fewer units and the
main entrance aligned with the traffic signal. He also spoke in
( . , support of the lower end of the density range and noted 204 units ..
would be acceptable.
Com. Barris stated the key is density and would prefer plan one for 4
many reasons: the lower density; has greater setback from
Countrywood; has fewer smaller units at 70C feet; the main
recreational area , is away from Countrywood as well as the main
entrance. She stated she appreciates the fact that the developer
has reduced the number of units and is willing, to put in very loa
income units.. Regarding parking, Com. Harris stated the parking
should not be compromised for. the water well space and if land is
lost for parking, units may have to be reduced. Regarding the
traffic, she will go with the experts, but believes there will be
a change in the level of service. She added the three story
structures will not be seen from the surrounding properties.
Chr. Mahoney stated traffic is a big issue and would like to have q_
more testimony from the traffic engineer. He would also like to
see more information regarding the parking issue. He stated three
story structures are acceptable in the center and towards the back.
The commissioners discussed the possibility of hearing more
.h yA,
4
• x, a3 x '1, ru nix'r.r`•', r ?? Sj Fr $J rrR.,Flt 1.4"ywk Y ii31 #'+A 1 y ? - a x Tai,
Xf, 'ik1
e }v e+s,Y r E 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'PES
Regular Meeting of January 9, 1994
Page 9
information on the traffic issue. They also discussed an
acceptable density for this project.
ComS. Harris, Roberts and'' Austin spoke
units. support of 20.4 ,to 216
Com. Doyle stated if the number of units werelower this would help . -
the parking and height issues.
• i
Mr. Cowan suggested continuing this item in order t,,
information on traffic and parkingreceive more
.
t
Mr. Vidovich stated they are interested in pleasin- 'ie community
but r'ental' property needs a certain density and i.
too . low it is not a he number is �.
appropriate for rental housi)lg.
Com. Harris stated she would not be comfortable approving
project without knowing what is going on with the waer w .this
Com. Roberts suggested looking at the project, taking the water
well into consideration.
Com. Harris stated' she. would support a continuation at this' time to
hear more about the traffic and see a plan at a density that takes.
the water well parking loss into consideration.
Com. Doyle stated he would 'like to understand the concessVions. `
MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue 9-U-94, 8-TM-94, 3-Z-94 and
27-EA-94 to the meeting of January 23, 1995
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed
5-0 . i•;
2. Application No(s) : 4-Z-94, 9-TM-94 and 30-EA-94
Applicant: ' Emily Chen
Property owner: Henry Lozano .
Location: 20800 McClellan Road
ZONING a 0.96 acre parcel, from R1-10 (single family
.residential with a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq, ft ) to R1-
7.5 (single family residential with a minimum lot size of
7,500 sq, ft. ) or other appropriate zoning designation.
Staff presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report
noting the .proposal is for a three lot subdivision with . each .lot
being 10,000 so. ft. or larger. She noted this is consistent with
the municipal code and mirrors the adjacent property. ` She
suggested removing condition 3 regarding zoning and recommends
•approval of the revised plan dated December 21, 1994..
at x:z ,5 �, i��r r w;tt '� r �+ aa,"-n• 'v,:y� �i�r x ttom�,,,, � �k0.,dq� �` i
.•,� 2`�' ti,r:C1 }1 Y.-.+y t b'L v- { ."':e`.� cr. "�tt �3 �i 1 rh�;`"�4 1.a S�`�`"fnF".`>•h 5* �y,�.usv 5 ;x t., td�7�Y'gi 'u}�-4 t,i.' d ju }Lt: ,
. °34
. .�� .,. ,t d -. t�a r I ' 2 n. ��1 + aA•�`. �' r� r u 1.f-x�
C.
® PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting Df January 9, 1994
Page 10
z`
Applicant presentation: Ms. Emily Chen, Developer, stated she
supports the revised plan and would like on street parking if all _
the homes are installed with a sprinkler system. `
• kr
Ms. Bjurman stated this request could be granted if approved by all
the departments involved.
Ms. Chen pointed out that applicants should be allowed an
opportunity to talk to the commission again after public input to
answer questions and concerns. She noted she did nota-talk .to
neighbors regarding this application because she could not make •,any
promises before discussing this issue with the planning commission
first.
Ms. Betsy Fox Fisher, 2082.0 McClellan Road, stated her husband and
herselfwrotea letter to the commission outlining their concerns
about the possible rezoning. She noted they support the three lot
subdivision and would enter more signatures in support, into the
record.
ti •
Ms. Geneva. Leighton, 7571 Erin Way, stated she would like one more {r
® walnut tree retained which is on the back of lot' 3. She stated
this tree provides privacy for her and the potential owner of the
new lot. She also stated this tree helps reduce the noise from
McClellan.
In response to commissioners questions, Mr. Lozano stated the
walnut trees on the property are diseased and should be removed.
Planner Bjurman stated if the commission wish to save the tree they Y'
should place a bond on it.
After brief discussion the planning commission decided to ,not. bond
the walnut tree on lot 3.
. MOTION: Com. Austin moved I approve a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 5-•0 `
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 9-TM-34 subject to the
findings and ssbc.onclu�=ons of the hearing with the
following modifications: approve the revised plan dated ..
X
- December 21, 7.994; delete condition3; modification to
on-street park-ing if sprinklers are installed in the
homes and approved by the appropriate 'departments.
SECOND: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 5-0 `
3. Application No(s) : 11-TM-94 and 25-EA-94Elm, H=il
_^
•.
4 r.} :'`, f no-"s'�, . :`4*: r' 3,. P ? „•;i '"'F1 �: JL wlry XJ ?W �'zTa'1F4 '."'✓;' ;•., f,., `:tia�i.v»,44 .;' � .w r` 1` `n, .t
' • � i� '{.� '. 4 -.M .,'r .,.5 Y5 !f7? Ni ly ryy`�/)$ l,^�N t
PLANNING COMMISSION NINUTES
® Regular Meeting of January9, 1994
Page 11
Applicant: Landmark Development k'
Property Owner: Same .
Location: Rainbow Drive 390 East of Gardenside
Drive
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .27 acre parcel into 6 lots.
Staff presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and
noted staff recommends approval.
Applicant presentation: Mr. Larry Guy, representing Landmark
Development, stated with regards to the parking there are 50
parking spaces. With regards to condition 4, Mr.. Guy stated an
in-lieu fee could be required for the overlay requirement. He
noted he spoke to Mr. Viskovich .about this.
ME;. ,Bjurman suggested that condit"'on 4 remain as is and add to it
that if the Public Works Director agrees to an in-lieu fee this
shculd be removed.
Mr. Guy stated he agrees with Ms. Chen regarding the applicant
being able to rebut after public hearings.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve application 11-TM-94. subject
to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with
the following modifications: Condition 1 remove the words
"amended to delete lot four'. . ." Condition 4 add the
following wording "If the public works director agrees to
an in-lieu fee this condition can be removed."
4. Application No(s) : 6-U-84 and 33-EA-94
Applicant: Tandem .C.omputers, Inc. (Carlos Murphy's
Property Owner: Same '
Location: West of .Wolfe Avenue, North of" 280
USE PERI'!--P modification to relocate and construct a new
parking lot.
Staff presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and
addressed the conditions regarding the landscaping as outlined in
the staff report. She noted staff recommends approval and a
condition should be included regi:ding lighting.
Com. Harris suggested in condition' 3 leave the parking at a minimum
requirement of 145 parking spaces.
f.
i
.::Y•F' k�?>i!Y,��£; �?:t.4a".�S'`,+'�ic�•:,�i��{tiy.•..`�J {.�'C'�Y'a �K �� t y FL �,4 .. `ni „�'.."y .r+r."t��4 r f: i`k. tf �^ ` k "t,, v
+• •' r x1�' �sy{a�.t 4�� ��SV7�° - ..� �` �'1;'''-•f�'`�aSx tJ �. , -r ,, y'it �.1`��kt; 4 S V �,'6 4 �`.1;��� iSr,�`*,.`x."P�° c�•�"`�a 1 �' k .fkT�'r [
�' �� ?.i s t J x*r "•:x� x yt � ,-• � .Jat�'�� L�tr a a SL "y°y���` � + �?y,��j,x ir L} � C'r
{G-S
x # �
1 � >t S i .. r 4"' .^a r r .. aP �:S ti,V,��`,'k •gF.xFt ! ca � . ,,,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. '
Regular Meeting of January 9, 1994
Page 12
licant oresentat
8p8 ' •�: The •'appl i`cart stated he will answer . any
questions. "
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve. a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Austin moved," to approve 6-U-84 subject. 'to the
findings and subconclusiens of the hearing with the ¢'
following modifications: Condition 4 change "117" to
"145"; add condition 5 regarding lighting.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
5. Application No(s) : '12-U-94 and 32-EA-94 r
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose/Gate of Heaven
Cemetery
Property Owner: Same
Location: 22555 Cristo Rey Drive
To construct a 3,500 sq. ft. mausoleum crypt in an existing
® cemetery
F�.
Staff presentation: Planner- Jung presented the staff report and
submitted photos of the existing mausoleum. He also presented
photos outlining the view of San Francisco Bay and the open space
district from the proposed mausoleum. He noted the applicant has
designed the proposed building so it is identical in mass and
height to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Jung addressed the
landscaping and noted staff is proposing a condition to require
that the existing landscape screen of oleanders be extended along
the north and part of the west building elevations to address the
view of the buildings from Rancho San Antonio Park. Mr. Jung !
-addressed the sanitary sewerage as outlined in the staff report.
He added the applicant is present to 'discuss this. He stated -staff
is recommending approval.
Com. Roberts. addressed the storm water. Mr. :Tung explained the
storm water flow and noted the County Health Department will review
this and it-was reviewed by the city engineer who had no additional _
comments. 3
Applicant_presentation: Mr. John Barchdel , architect; noted the
complex was originally :designed as a chapel and presented `a site
plan map outlining the surrounding buildings. Regarding the z;
landscaping, Mr. Barchdel stated they are proposing to remove the
oleanders or relocate them in 'a straight line. He presented .a new
landscape drawing removing the oleanders and replanting trees.
x
f.,
Y '
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® Regular Meeting. of January 9,, 1994
Page 13
Com'. Harris asked what is involved in moving the septic, laach
field? Mr. Barchdel stated they will retest the soils and it
involves approximately 400 ft. of trenching, filled with drain rock
and pipe and then covered. He stated there is a tank underground !
which will have to be relocated. Mr. Barchdel addressed the
drainage system.
a
In response to 'Com. Roberts concerr.s,, Mr. Cowan stated there are no
concerns about contamination ,into Permanente Creek.
Regarding landscaping, Mr. Jung stated staff ' requested the
oleanders to be continued because of the temporary situation
pending the greater development of the site, but staff. would :
support the landscaping proposed by the applicant.
o a
Com. Harris spoke in support of the project and noted it is a good
plan.
Com. Roberts spoke in support of the project and in support of the
landscape plan presented by the applicant.
Com. Doyle spoke in support of" the project, as did Com. Austin.
Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of the project. All commissioners
supported the landscape plan as submitted by the applicant.
MOTION: C.om.' Austin moved to approve a negative declaration.
SECOND: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed
5-0
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 12-U-94 subject ' to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the
following ' modifications: Condition 1 change the F.
landscaping plan to reflect the applicant's submittal at r
this hearing.
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-0
z.-
I
7'. Application No(s) : 81,165 and 23-EA-94
Applicant: C-ity of Cupertino '
Location: Citywide
AMENDING various sections of Chapter 19.56., General Commercial
Zones, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
�C-
Staff presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff
report and noted the purpose of the proposed amendment is to update
the General Commercial Ordinance to create a more efficient and
effective means to regulate retail activities. Mr. Cowan reviewed
Ti
MINIMUM 11
- 4r,
I
_ '
kt
. . aFl., +� fM k;� +� ^s:.n 'T��"r.?�.' 4. , � '`"�{}i�.' � � � \s i ,k'Yt''a +ly1E W L' ' t'iE�.!'L'.�h$x��i}:^�"a`' yc R,� 3 �1'•;1i`� c .R 3
.�k r w+ a,tRr�,4 n•s� t6��'.�.. ��� a ¢ �"^+`sF�c�E.;��a a '.<.0 Y1+ �;._! �t"4 t�..�. .:, a {M1 � '}j�� tf'"x r t1 �n'!.. �f}� qb 1` M j,�, y '
, n
PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES'
Regular Meeting of- January 9, 1994
Page 14
the changes to the ordinance as outlined in the staff report. He
also reviewed a matrix titled "Rationale for Elimination of Use
Permit Control for Various Land Use Activities".
Com. Harr:..s addressed speciality shops such as, cabinet makers who
ofter contracting 'services? Mr. Cowan stated it should be a
service or product sold. Ha noted a con-tractor should not be
allowed in a retail zone.
Com. Harris stated contracting services, such as cabinet makers are
not included in this ordinance and needs to be addressed. She
believes such services belong in the commercial zone.
Mr. Eugene Adrian, 20408 Clay St. , stated he is opposed to item 3 V
under permitted uses in the ordinance. He noted most contracting, ;
services do not do their business inside, but most of the 'activity
is done ;n the back parking lot. He stated the services have
nothing to do with the retail spare. He believes contracting
servicers should not be permitted in a general commercial zone
whether there is retail space or not.
Mr. John Stanton, Chamber of Commerce, urged the planning ,
commission to continue this ordinance to discuss such items as
addressed by Commissioner Harris. He stated there will always be
problems between businesses and adjoining residents unless the city
can come up adequate performance based criteria which manage to
work a reasonable compromise between residents and businesses. He
noted lifestyles have changed and -this needs to be considered.
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Harris stated. she' supports the permitted use section dealing
with today's needs and would support contracting services in retail fi
shopping centers. She expressed concern about "special promotion
i
events" and noted she would like to see limits on this. She -also j
expressed concern about the display of merchandise under roof
overhangs and noted this needs to be addressed. !
i
Mr. Cowan stated the merchandise under roof overhangs ,was aimed at
the large stores. He added he will review this.
Com. Harris stated she would like businesses which deal in
hazardous materials to go through the public process, therefore
should be a conditional use.
Com. Harris addressed duplication services, Mr. Cowan stated the
inteintion was to maintain retail continuity.
Com. Harris addressed pet shops etc. , and stated veterinarian
asm .
If
.. 2 .
v
0
'A
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .
Regular Meeting of January 9, 1994
Page 15
services should be under conditional uses. Con. 'Harris addressed
the noise standards from other cities and noted some cities have a
more stringent ruling for commercial as it abuts residential in the -
decibel .leve,ls allowed. She suggested that this be included 'in the
noise , standards. or included as part of the new pref ormance
standards.
Mr. Cowan stated the noise ordinance should be amended. i. The
commission discussed restaurants and Mr. Cowan stated prox.imity is
the issue.
Coin. Doyle stated there needs to be some way of controlling
businesses within the buffer areas. He stated there should be
criteria for controlling specific types of businesses.
'Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of making dry cleaning a permitted
use.
Com. Harris stated that items which cause public concern should not
be a permitted use, but go through the public process.'
Mr. Cowan stated in the terms of def- aing businesses, he -will
..continue this discussion with Mr. Stanton from the Chamber of
Commerce and other members. of 'the community.
Com. Roberts stated he supports the direction staff is moving in,
and believes it will free things up for smaller businesses and
,permit them to develop in more creative ways. He believes the
basic dilemma is minimizing
ing adverse affects on bus'iness and at the
same time assuring maximum compatibility with surrounding
residential areas. Buffer zones should be addressed further and
the commission should. distinguish between. acutely hazardous and
hazardous material.
Coin. Doyle stated they need to look at restrictions for businesses
within the buffer, zone. He added they should also define hazardous
and acutely hazardous.
Coin. Austin stated machine shops should not be allowed in
residential areas.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
REPORT OF THE. DIRECTOR OF COMKUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The commission discussed additional dates to meet to discuss the
Diocese property. They agreed on January 31 , 1995.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS None
`�'�' .. r � t 4 .. say,' .i wT t ♦. e � � - �'+�.
a
:4
;;t
-�.
p
• •
• • • � Y<
• •
.� �:
• • • • � • • • • • 11 II
• • • 1 • • • •
:_
•.t ,s
•• • • *�
i, .�
��.
G
�;+� -
l� k
��
t
z
L
,;*�
��
•
.l. Y.
a e
��
,,}
S-
7
•�.
•4�
%'
:!^
Y
t
'`' i
{�
i,
��; h
RR' Pa
1J .+
`F�.n, ,A
..y t t
�1'. �`
{
ti
�....
a'��
C .Y �;:.mss .a' ..`,.`5,c �, tpy�3m;S rs"� b��_x�n�3+t' :G7a�� n-� 7,.ht,it tr 4C} . 'J ,� # YF rt' c h ,.,wa
� -{vt,r� _•�.,. r r K� ..7. w'a' �s 5 5�.. 4+��"ri ro.h+'�' n ,� r+ Riv* Nt �S ��{ ti•�' `4 Lr�4 S k.,� b y,. .,aS F ic..,M�,:
r
,� r a - r 'R•b.s � r`C S�R,h�`�'� x �",�*'S• ♦r 4y '44 �h �,,, F'9w: � �� ! f,� -,v `t i F
dt ti� _ � _,n '�. t' i..,w � "x� 'u" id �.i"� L r� :RZ&��Pr � � �wa n n y, j� r��+'f � W "5 ,h
'r't.�.: a t �.:. t a ��y � a✓:LL t.+i�5y,b to t :� s''q „4�w,�� $ a'�ay�"'�w7.�5�� d e�a"at ~ "',�" q"7 w'; `.
t ah 5? z'*m ^{fid"' �,".3`m r�;?: >?^ Wt�,�IR...1" s,��on^Ut� �,'M J..� `�.�;2h ^'i*1. '��'d� '�,� ,;. 5�� �, „e�...� w;, 4o R, '�t� + .J.
�`� �.�� �� a .. .Ik,r� yh,t "� x;pn+ ks;,�",_ v �';•n�� .t .b��. r ,r �,, r .�. „� *; � a � �n...
.1��'�s1' ai , �� �...,+ '1G s'�r�'L y.�l.�'�s..wv>�7,*'�nr,+A`''w � ,�y. „�,'f'�' �'�`'`� `,;+��.,��/.. kq,-r';t�r �s4"',h�' '� I �'r�t f�,�<-�.,,:.4`,$., n�, w�r�',,�;,.,y� �; ��.
.�,� �x ^f n `;yi ^ "F �t���'�e��;''*" �a F r� -ar��°3e`••�... ,d„ t_ �fi�e: �' ���,s x�fi�'•=y'���.car J �, _�,
^� � � CT, t k Y C 4.. 1 'h �t ^q�Se' r4
°i ?'ip { x: '} M "y�'tii -'f. i'h tt�k� y hex.: s� ifL 1 '�� �i .r .r'-C"W .4t,S �e"t y..
a f .i .wy 7,sr.4;.,e A4 y .y�. +.i 9 �s ra� L. �•'n i �9�'�1 �CrSlim+rlA ri.yx.sySt 45 _.
,• i 2 - " r t )'.:1 s4 .c .. et „,S i �S;i i "�' r....
i
CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
® 10300 Torre Ave. {
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 77-3308 7`
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMYSSIOII HELD .
ON JANUARV23, 1995
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
s
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney
Com. Doyle ;,
Com. Austin ¢
Com. Roberts (arrived 6:47 p.m. )
Com. Harris
Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development .
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Thomas Robillard, Planner II
Vera Gil, Planner II
Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works
Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney
x,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 9, 1995 - Regular_ Meeting
MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve the minutes of January 9,
1995
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. Roberts fir"
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -' No Discussion
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR '
Item. 2: Application 81,165 and 23-EA-94: City of Cupertino,
General Commercial sZones Request continuance to the
Planning Commission Meeting of February 27, 1995. s'
Item 4: Application 12-TM-94: Rodger and Ronamae Woolly,. 11593
Upland Way - Request continuance to the Planning
Commission Meeting of February 13, 1995.
Mr. Cowan stated ,the applicant asked for a. continuance„ on. the Use
Permit on, item 5, 10-U-94 (Modified) to February 13, 1995.
MOTION: Com. Harris. moved to continue items 4 'and 10-U-94 to the
meeting of February 13, 1995 and item 2 to .h,-- meeting of
February 27, ,1995. ,
SECOND: Com. Austin `
VOTE: Passed 5-0 a
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Y,
r.
r,
401Y."i 4
...........
PLANNING CDMMISSION MINUTES
• January 23, 1995
Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR None ,
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No(s) : . 9-U-94 , 3-7,-94 , 8-TM-94 and 27-EA-94
Applicant: Forge/Homestead
Property Owner: Charles O. Forge/Eileen Hutching Co
Trustees
Location: 20691 Homestead Road
USE PERMIT to develop. a 240 unit for rent condominium project.
REZONING a 9.26 acre parcel from A-215 to P (Res. 20-30) Planned
residential Development for 20 to 30 units per gross acre,. or other
appropriate zoning designation.
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel into 24,0 condominium units.
Staff-presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report
dated January 23, 1995. He reviewed the issues of agreement and
the issues for further discussion by the commission as outlibed in
the staff report. He stated staff received -a new site plan one
which provides two parking spaces per unit, not including the water
well site, but staff doe-- not believe the loss of these 15 spaces
is significant. He noted that the City Attorney is present to
answer questions regarding the concessions and the Director of
Public Works is present to answer questions regarding traffic.
Regarding schools, Planner,Robillard stated he contacted the school
district and they indicated„ they have done a new demographic study
regarding students from condominium projects and there will be no
significant impact as .a result of this project.
Mr.. Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works, reviewed the traffic
issues raised by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. He
stated as part of the General Plan review, all intersections were
studied and additional traffic as a result of this project will not
affect the level of service at De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd.
intersection. He noted the project will increase the traffic
volume by approximately 7 percent.
Regarding turning movements, Mr. Viskovich presented a diagram
explaining the turning movements of options one and two in and out
of this development. He noted a two way left turn lane gives the
most flexibility. He explained the turning movements during the Am
and PM peak periods. Mr. Viskovich briefly reviewed the driveway
alignment options as outlined in the staff report, stating option
two creates the least problems. With regards to a pedestrian
access in this area-, he noted it is city policy not to place a
pedestrian access mid block, therefore the, pedestrian access would
be at the signal light intersections.
<.G J r ?�rx e"c� s FC�I c yr s 5rr fi s r7 RM 4 s $tUa s t' Sy { 4 R, ,,
t,.•7 v.. t.a'' {r '•,N. aa! tim a.,�.> r� .' s ihf r�r .R xf ri5.�'...; d n'xws .)R .r, G-a'AG s
_ [ o ^r. {'. Sty c l'�Y t / t ,k' +,r trfi•> r �r - . w
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® January 23, 1995 ?
Page 3
Com. Roberts stated there are many entrances into the shopping 4`
center, and asked if this is consistent with current City policy?
Mr. Viskovich stated the City would not close these unless 'there is
a traffic hazard. ;#
Coma Roberts suggested prohibiting a left turn into the easterly
a
driveway �on option one.
Mr. Viskovich stated this could be prohibited through the design of
the driveway. ?`
Chr. Mahoney addressed the water well. Mr. Viskovich stated the
water well is separate from this application and the well is a t
citywide need. He noted this is, an appropriate location for '.
maintenance and operating purposes. He added the City has- stopped
using a well in Sunnyvale and needs to have three wells in 3
operation.
In response to Com. Roberts' question regarding the turning trips
in the peak hou%s, Mr. Viskovich stated most of the trips are based
on assignments, jobs, housing etc. which were developed rin the
General Plan. r
In response to-Com. Roberts' question regarding the density of this
project, Planner Robiilard explained 'how staff arrived at the 204
units.
Com. Harris noted there are 142 compact parking spaces proposed and
asked will this serve the needs of the residents?
Planner Robillard stated most cars today tend to be smaller. Mr.
Cowan stated the ordinance allows 33% of the parking spaces to be
compact ,spaces.
.Chr. Mahoney opened the °public hearing.
Applicant Presentation: Mr. John Vidovich, stated he does not
believe the original plan was underparked, but have increased the
number of spaces anyway. He stated it is his experience with other s
projects similar to this one that two spaces, per unit is excessive.
Regarding density, Mr. Vidovich pointed out that the De Anza/Forge
project has 20 units per acre and there are other similar
developments which are over 20 units per acre. He stated because
of circumstances they- are not getting the density bonus that they
would be entitled to and would request that the Planning Commission j!
consider allowing the mix of the density bonus with low and very
low apartments. Mr. Vidovich addressed the concessions and would
request another concession, that the Planning Commission look at p;
the aging of the Williamson Act Contract cancellation and give
credit for the number of years that have elapsed. He believes the
,r
=c
�.�'•zrr,.. v ti °�t aw '� ''Y +5 �av'Ti'h a^' AY !9 ag•xnv.�: �, •. y, ;. �.,Ei y " t:
S •.4F ;, r Xu d<aF v it r ti n d 1 i j i s
ti %�t . ;'j w ;r' •k ds S {. - ` 9 ,.Sr..4u s � r JF?tomx.t rYt yxr�k •- i
R X
® PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 23, 1995
Paga 4
Commission has the ability ,to grant this concession and it will not
cost the City anything.
Mr. Vidovich stated in the meetings with the neighbors, he 'does not
believe it would be inconsistent to add some garages on the east
side of the project along the border of Countrywood estates. He
believes this will help mitigate the impacts and give a mix of
parking. He stated their intent is not to change the number of
parking -paces.
Com. Austin questioned the. Williamson Act?
Ms.. Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney, stated the cancellation
of the Williamson Act Contract is not before the Planning
Commission at this time. She noted the Council has to make
findings before the City 'can cancel it. She added the applicant
has . applied for a non-renewal of the contract. She stated the
cancellation of the Williamson Act is not a concession,; but the
aprlicant can ask the Council to look at this.
Com: Harris explained the cancellation of the Williamson% Act with
regards to property tax.
Mr. Jim Sisk addressed condition 11 and noted the applicant will
assist the property owner and grant an ingress/egress, but they
cannot force the ;property owner. Regarding condition 26, Mr. Sisk' .
stated they will be working with California Water Company. He
pointed out that the recreation facility is 2010 sq. ft. Mr. Sisk
stated the 15 additional parking spaces are random throughout the
project. He addressed the density of 16 units per acre and noted
there are no. other apartment projects in the City' that .has paid a
park dedication fee or provided .BMR units..
Planner Robillard addressed state law regarding the density bonus.
He stated the housing law is very explicit and in order to be
eligible for a 25% density bonus the applicant must provide 10% of
the units for very low or 20% for low income residents. He pointed
out that these cannot be mixed.
Mr. Vidovich stated they are only getting bonus for 16 units per
acre and a more reasonable density is higher, but because of
circumstances they are not receiving the full bonus.
Planner Robillard stated- to mix the density bonus would be
inconsistent with state law and. the density bonus, ordinance. IIe
noted currently the General Plan calls for 10-20 units per acre and
20 units per acre would yield 194 units. He stated unless the
general plan is amended to increase the density, anything over 194
is the derisity bonus. He noted if all the units were market rate,
the applicant would still have to provide 10% of the units, as BMR
f
vd M
Mae
7N,
......S-N'f,
RNOR", 73
W,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 23, 1995
Page 5
units.
Com Harris stated they are looking at 17.4 units per acre, plus 48
units.
Mr. Paul McNicol, 1104 Firethorne, stated he has dealt in real
He noted the 10 * ield 194
estate for many years. H .1-20 units per acre y
units at the maximum and 97 �at the minimum and added this ,'is , 100%
variation. He stated the measure of getting from the lower to the
higher density is by means ,of an EIR, and as of today no., EIR has
been prepared. Mr. McNicol addressed fire 'safety,' noting there was
a fire on this property recently, which took three hours to put
out. He stated an objective EIR is necessary for this project.. He
said if it is necessary to change the General Plan the time should
be taken to do it right to maintain the. high standards people have
come to expect-in Cupertino. i.
Mr. Lauren Merritt, 520 La Conner, #20, Sunnyvale, stated he is the
President of La Conner Pa:-k Homeowners. He noted the parking ratio
at La Conner Park is 1.5 spaces pet unit and this is not adequate.
He spoke in favor ,of two spaces per unit.
Mr. Chad Breshears, 20694 Celeste Circle, expressed concern about
off-site parking on Franco Court. He presented photos of the
traffic parking on this court. Mr. Breshears stated that traffic
models, as addressed by staff, are not always 100 percent correct.
Ho stated there are two entrances into the shopping center' and the
traffic often backs ,up. , He expres ed concern about more traffic in
this area.
Mr. Kar I en Dunn, 20682 Celeste Circle, addressed the safety Issue
concerning Franco Court. She also .noted that fire access through,
Franco Court is a concern. She addressed the east and west bound
traffic on De Anza Blvd. and noted the already bad situation will
become worse. She spoke in support- of 'the two parking spaces per
unit plus guest parking.
Mr. Viskovich stated that parking on Franco 'Court .can be prohibited
24 hours a day.
. Ms. Lynor.e Slaten, 20552 Shady Oak Lane, addressed the . easterly
entrance/exit from the development and requested that this be a
right turn only when exiting. She 'stated if there is a way to
prevent left -turns from Homestead Rd. into the development this
would ,help . take care of the concern about the alignment of the
driveways.
Mr. Evan Robinson, 578 La Conner Drive, Sunnyvale stated he was not
notified regarding this application.: Mr. Robinson stated Staff has
not addressed traffic concerns on De Anza Blvd. He expressed
,.,a ¢ :+.yr..tt.u':'fi'� si'Sc _ �'�d" `Ss y'�y,l �<,5s"a� ��s sy 2r isi,,. y,�'•;;s.,d l;' c�ea, -��" wsQyr'�°r s'1 ,r 5`�`.•r S`.n "+if'�Fl.':;. o-�s=fie r�a 7 s tl::, s'
s..`+ t'A. . 1 '��yat '�5s i-�..k i {r z. e }a h i .�.. ! J. t�T w �1 �t i �,`iv p,d T3 }Y.7 i � t ! <t. � r �Y o...J 7s�-;•C �r Y x�:.. ,.
'.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES _
January 23, 1995.
Page 6
concern about security problems with the units proposed and` the
high turnover. . Mr.. .Robinson also, noted that privacy is an issue
and would like a fence higher than 6 feet and maybe some additional
vegetation for screening. He also- expressed concern about noise as
parking will be along his back fence.
+t
Ms. Connie Wang, 592 La Conner Drive, Sunnyvale, stated.there are
plenty of 'apartments available in this area for low income
residents. She stated she lives in a, single family home to the
north of this project. Ms. Wang showed pictures of the view from
her home and the impact this proposed development will have on this
view. She also expressed concern about ,privacy and stated. the
Planning Commission should consider the people to the north.
.In response to Com. Doyle's question, Planner Robillard outlined .
the location of the carports on the site Flan map and noted the
height to the top of the roof will be 12-15 feet.
Ms. Janet Wong, 590 La Conner Drive, Sunnyvale, believes that
Sunnyvale residents have been discriminated against with regards to
this project. She noted there are no landscape plans for the north k,
end of the project. She requested, that the. Planning Commission
reconsider this project, prohibit three story. buildings and require
. more landscape buffers. In response to Com. Harris' question, Ms.
Wang stated it is approximately 37, feet from her home to her back
1
fence.
s
Mr. Naren Kalra, 556 La Conner Drive, Sunnyvale,. expressed concern
about the proposed three story structures. He noted no matter how
high the fence or landscaping is it will not help impazt the three
story structures. He requested that the Planning Commission
consider all two story structures. He also expressed concern about
fire safety and crime rates.
{
Ms. Nary Seio, 20664 Acadia Court, expressed concern about- the lack
of parking at this development. She noted people will park on the
already congested surrounding streets.
Ms. Judy Woo, 949 Erica Drive, Sunnyvale, stated she owns property
in this area and dan never find parking spaces when visiting her
property. She stated she is opposed to three story structures on
the Sunnyvale side.
Ms. Lee' Wurlitzer, 1617 Queen Charlotte, Sunnyvale, stated she owns
property. which houses low income residents and there is a
significant crime problem.. She stated any . two or. three , story
structures next to single family homes will decrease their value.
® Ms. Jill Bakich Collins, J. Volckmann &' Associates Inc. , stated she
E '
1
a
Y
S
-e'� 2 ip.�t�'rc �J; $y. y-'°4 3 n � t r � ss �'�'"� "•' 'W� ts{.�.'+y i..� K t � �j+ ,.!`c i 9 . „wpb ik..,.:� F � .���'7�ti
= tr *�,. t\� � •R � tit �.{3 � �Y Y'A S q�. �' i
vs '> S t 1t Stry C1
_ �.. �n a t y .r•. �Y j F�� •yf e � .fit t}:T�. S
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. Y`
® January 2', 1995
Page 7
V,
manages low-income housing and they have turned parking spaces into ..
basketball courts because most of the low income residents seldom
have two cars. She noted she also managed condominium projects
where parking was a problem, because people don't use the garages
for their cars. She stated crime and low income is not necessarily ;
related, but believes management of the project is the issue.
Mr. Earl McGuftec, 1441 Shoal Drive, San Mateo, Property Accounts
EGM Financial, asked for a definition of fast turnover? ;
Chr. Mahoney stated there is no data .regarding fast turnover for
low income apartments, but this is an assumption.
Mr. Guftec stated this matter should be dealt with slowly. He
stated he owns property both market rate and low income and has x
more problems with the low income residents. He said that the
neighbors concerns .r?eed to be addressed.
Mr. Barry Wuo,. 485 La Conner. Drive, stated there is a consistent
problem in Mountain view with low income housing. He expressed
concern about three story buildings on this property and stated the
Planning Commission should consider the concerns of the Sunnyvale
® residents.
Mr. David Kiel, 11107 Flowering Pear Drive, stated there has been
no discussion about lowering the structures and
be the
Commission is not listening to the residents. .
Chr. Mahoney stated. the issues are: parking; easterly .driveway;
density; and heighr—
In response to Commissioners questions, Planner Robillard stated
the fence around the property is 6 feet, but can be increased.
Regarding ramifications if there was a decrease in the number of
units, Ms. Kershner stated the City could be sued for failing to
comply with state law. She stated the process can be started over,
and the project not be considered under the density bonus f
ordinance.
Mr. Cowan stated if this property was developed, at 10 units per
acre, it would be single family homes. He stated the "applicant ;
wants to build apartments. . He pointed out that state law indicates
that a project cannot be rendered infeasible. He noted 16 units
per acre was used as a test of feasibility and the base for
developing this property.
Ms.' Kershner stated the City must make at least one finding,
written by state law in order to deny the project under the state
zoning law.
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® January 23, 1995
Page 8
The commission discussed the density bonus and state law. _.
In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Vidovich and staff
reviewed the rental rates for market rate units and very low income
units.
s
Com. Austin expressed concern about losing parking spaces -,,because
of the water well site. She spoke in favor of the 216 units with
1.93 parking spaces per unit. She also spoke in favor of• higher
fences.
Com. 'Doyle spoke in favor of site plan one. He suggested limiting
the entrance/exit on the easterly driveway to a right turn only. l
He stated density :should be as low as possible with two story
structures, especially around the perimeter.., He spoke in support
of the 204 units, bL ' is not in favor of the garages proposed. F
Com. Doyle stated he would like more design detail on the carports' '
proposed. He spoke in support of the parking proposed.
.A;
Com. Roberts spoke in favor of site plan one with the main entrance
at the traffic light at Franco Court. Density should be as low as
possible and suggested the third story , be removed from the a`
structures along the north property line. He noted at 204 units
the parking is acceptable. Regarding the easterly driveway, he
would suggest restricting to right turns only, if it is feasible.
He pointed out if the driveway was realigned they may lose units in
building. 3. He stated he would support reducing .the height, Com.
Roberts stated he would like to see landscaping around the
perimeter of the project.
Com. Harris stated the original proposal was for 240 units and has
now been reduced to 216 and this is acceptable. She reiterated the
law regarding the degsity bonus and noted this is an opportunity to
get very low- income units. she spoke in support of the unit mix in
plan one. She stated it is important to have the two story along
the Countrywood property line.., because these property owners have
virtually no setbacks from their property line -to their units. The
properties along La Conner Drive have 35 to 40 ft. setbacks plus
approximately another - 70 ft. to the development, this is a
different situation. She stated she would like to see more fast
growing evergreen trees along the La Conner and Countrywood
property lines. She noted the parking at 1.93 per. units is
acceptable.
Com. Harris stated they cou1;3 select site plan one and request that
the developer reconfigure the entrance. She would not be in
support of restricting. to right turn only, as she believes this
will cause more traffic problems.
�. Planner Robillard suggested if site plan two is selected --,d the
F
liggill
P
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 23, 1995
Page 9
commission approve 204 units they would lose 24 units and these
could come off the third ,story. The development would then be two
story around the perimeter of the project. He stated staff prefers
this site plan because of the alignment of the driveways.
Com. Harris stated if units are lost they would lose the larger
units, and believes these upgrade the project.
Chr. Mahoney spoke in s)appprt of the 204 units. He stated if the
number is approved at '.�04 he' is open to discussi'ng a mix in the
density bonus.
Com. Austin stated she would also support the 204 units with the
two story structures.
The commission discussedthepossibility of amending the General
Plan and requiring the BMR units on this project.
commissioners Doyle and Austin spoke in favor of the full density
requirement at the 204 units.
Com. Harris 7 stated she not in favor of 204 units using the 16
units per acre.
MOTION: , Com. Austin moved to approve a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
.MOTION:- Com. 'Austin moved to approve 9-U-94, '8-TM-94 and 3-Z-94
subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing
with the following modifications to the use permit: site
plan two with overall density being 204 units, to be
achieved by reducing three story structures, starting at
the rear units; add new condition requiring that the
perimeter fencing be 8 feet high and constructed of
materials to mitigate potential noise; Condition 11'.1 3rd
sentence shouldread "The applicant shall offer to the
adjoining parcelan ingress/egress easement to facilitate
the realignment. " and start the 4th sentence with the
following "Should the alignment be granted the two
parties. . ."; Condition 26 should read" The developer
shall reach an agreement' with California Water Company
for -water service to the subject development."; A new ,
condition requiring additional evergreen trees -for
screening along the perimeter of the site.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
C
r:
'�"''';t�'r�drq.�ry� "• �� is ,.ti M ✓`, �x. C . ++. .' "n 5�, i k t ,r FY;+ h:•+ ��S+t�����x[h k.yJi y;,
� 7
PLANNING COMMISSIOW MINUTES
January 23, 1995 `
Page 10
3. Application No: 81,152
.Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owners: Various 4'
Location: Properties along or near Sevens Creek
Boulevard from Highway 85 to the eastern
City limits.
ar
HEART' OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PIAN meeting to .review the progress
of the work on the draft land use and development character
policies and the, land use map streetscape . and other
improvements. <1`
f4
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordel.l noted she would like to a'
set dates to discuss the Heart of the City. She suggested February
13th and 22nd. She stated Mr. Freedman will give a presentation^ on
the 22nd.
Com. Harris stated the Commission should not try to cover too 'many
items at the one meeting. She stated the Heart of the City ,
discussions should not be rushed.
Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing, seeing no one the hearing
® was closed. t
MOTION:, Com. Harris• lnoved to- continue this discussion to February r<
13, 1995.
SECOND: Com. Doyle
VOTE:` Passed 5-0
5. Application No(s) : - 10-U-94 (Modified) - and 29-EA-94 and 3-Z-
83 (Amended) and 34--EA-94
Applicant: Barry Swenson Builder
Property Owner: First Development Corp.
Location: Sevens Creek Blvd. , between Stelling Rcad
and the easterly City boundary
USE PERMIT (Modified) to all restaurant use.
The Use Permit was continued to the meeting of February 13; 1995.
J r
ZONING Amendment, Condition 7 to change the required landscape
setback Ifrom 50 feet to 35 feet for certain properties located east
of De Anza Blvd. , to reduce the required front building height from
a 1 .5 to 1 height to setback ratio 'to 36 feet and reduce the
required rear setback from a 4 'to 1 height to setback ratio to 20
ft.
Staff presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff r_sport "
and noted the purpose of this hearing is to .approve the zoning _:
amendment in order to have the approved development plan conform tir
r
3
f
z,' k'+o � aY e'�"+{ 4•;�. "i a''`xM t",
ti+ y ,c4 ! t max. a
ya,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 23, 1995
Page 11
with the Stevens Creek Blvd. Conc—tual Zoning Plan. He stated
this item is to amqtnd• the .conceptual zoning for this particular
property only. He reviewed the amendment as outlined in the staff
report.
Com. Harris stated the applicant's proposal is more generous than
the specific plan. '
Planner Robillard stated staff is suggesting approving, a 35 ft. j
front setback, a 36 ft. height and a 70 ft. rear setback '6ecause_it
is more specific. to the particular project which was approved.
Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing, seeing no-one the heaping
was closed.
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve 3-Z-83 (Amended) to meet the
proposed specific plan requirements. 4
SECOND: Com. Austin
Chr. Mahoney stated he would like some discussion before the above
motion is approved.
Chr. Mahoney stated he would like to be more careful in the rear
setback. Com. Harris concurred.
No vote was taken on the above motion.
i
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve 3-Z-83 (Amended) subject to �
the applicant's proposal.
SECOND: Com. Austin
. VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve 34-EA-94 subject to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing.
SECOND: Com.' Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0
6. Application No: 81,166 r.
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Location: Citywide
Amendment, to Ordinance No. 1426 proposing .technical revisions
to ordinance permitting Beverage Container Redemption and .
Recycling Centers.
Staff presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff
report. noting the purpose of -this hearing is to codify the Beverage
Container Control Ordinance 'and to update the Ordinance. He stated
he will answer any questions.
4;
J [
9 E
W •
F � add 7an
y€ vt#1 r a
ti a r x i � r S -',• �z t -3u. k r`qa JEva R � 3. �n;, a:
,... a.,y� L .{�� l' �r �S �i y�. tCy t i m7 �i,, �}i a.. �t nr •,
a y
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 23, 1995
Page 12
Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing, seeing no-one the hearing
-is closed.
MOTION: Com. Harris moved. to approve 81,166 subject to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing. "
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0 f:
OLD BUSINESS :
7. ReP=rt to Council: `
Application No(s) : 81,156 and 9-EA-94
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amending various sections of Chapter 19.40, Residential '
Hillside Zones, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, including
regulations for flat f
g yard area, second story off-sets and
house size.
Y•
Application No(s) : 1-Z-94 and 2-EA-94
Applicant: City of Cupertino
® Location: West Foothills of Cupertino
Y t
REZONING various hillside properties encompassing 185 net
acres in the Regnart Canyon Area, located in the west
foothills in Cupertino. 7
t>.
Staff presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report •>
dated January 23, 1995. • He addressed the clustering options as
outlined in exhibits 8 and 9 of the staff .report. Model one shows
clustering with 900 open space in individual lots and Model two
shows clustering with 90% open space in .common area. He stated
another issue is whether the developer should calculate the entire i,•
lot for the slope adjustment factor or only the particular lot were q:
they will build.
{3
Com. Roberts stated if they calculate the, slope of the developable
area, the developer would have an incentive to place the M
development in an area of less slope because he would pay less
penalty.
Com. Harris stated the issue is to encourage development in a
reasonable slopa situation.
Mr. Cowan stated there would be zero percent slope on model 2.
The commission discussed allowable house size .on the lots, Com.
Harris stated .the 10$ developable area should be limited :to 45%
R
•y t # y ahs. ys. w s vaswl�.nw_tvx,w�'
L•sa ,: C�z
t
r i f
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Ave.
-Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEWING OF THE PLANNING t:
COMMISSION HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Austin
Com`. Mahoney
Com. Harris
Com. Roberts
Staff Present: Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Colin Jung, Associate Planner
Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works
WRITTEN COMKUNICATIQNS - None
POSTPONEKENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR - None }
Y'
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
® CONSENT CALENDAR - None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No: 81,152
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property owner(s) : Various
Location: Properties along or near Stevens Creek
Blvd. from Highway 85 to the eastern City
limits.
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN meeting to review the progress
of the work on the draft land use and development charm -
policies and the land use map: streetscspe and other,,
improvements.
,z.
Staff presentation: Associate Planner Jung presented the .9taff
report dated February 22, 1995. He stated the purpose of the ¢;
hearing is to complete the initial review of the development/land
use policies and the land use map. He briefly reviewed the items ;a
that were left unresolved at the last meeting, as outlined in the
staff report and noted the allocation of the 91,000 sq, feet of
office development will be continued to February 27, 1995. He
briefly reviewed the, matrix titled "Heart of the City Specific
Plan", included in the staff report. He noted staff. 'also hopes to
discuss the specific plan boundaries. He added the meeting should
be adjourned to February 27th and there will be another special
meeting on April 18th.
x
•.-` 'l e`Jl -..,-' 1 � � .'�• A- •'I }. �' e k 1 J 13} W 5C'9,y A F 1' ti.��F
® PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 22, 1995
Page 3 '
Ms. Wordell stated staff is trying to allow the opportunity for the
higher density in order to obtain the 500 units.
In response to Com. Harris' question regarding height, Mr. Jung
stated the General Plan allows a building height of 60-75. feet in.
the City Center area.
Com. Harris stated as a result of the last election, the community
l
wants low building heights •and low density.
In response to Chr. Doyle's question, Mr. Jung stated the 500 units
will be applied throughout the entire specific plan area and not L
just the eight sites.
Com. Harris asked what is a reasonable number of units to be
approved in order to receive ,the 500 units? ,
6
Ms. Wordell stated the Planning Commission should allow the
opportunities as proposed to coming up with a specific number.
In response to Chr. Doyle's question, Mr. Jung stated the 500 cap
includes the density bonus units.
Mr. Michael Freedman stated; with regards to high density,'abutting
residential property, the issue is what the height limit is and how
far back the development is. He suggested that the buildings on a
contiguous parcel be only one story greater than the single family .
home and a step-back of 30 '�to 50 feet .should be required,,.
Com. Roberts stated the obstruction of sunlight a-nd views are
usually the issues.
Mr. Freedman stated everything from the back wall of the home at
mid-block to the new development is part of a package which
includes density, height, set back and screening. He added there
can be options with the different applications and this can be
added to the design guidelines. ,
Regarding privacy intrusion, Mr. Freedman stated .terraces can be
prohibited when intruding on privacy and a street can be required
between major building changes. He stated a certain height can be
established , and/or 3 story, whichever is less. He noted a
reasonable height should be kept, because the lower the height the
lower the quality.
Mr. Jung stated this can be discussed in the design guidelines.
The Ccmmissioners discussed staff's recommendations:
low ____=
;:
'°�,, - .;. yrd,• ^a. ,FV .w is,k r'��'a� �^...7t ,.3; k,- +} E t..;yw z � S. $S v r r 'h#5i �' " t.
y.
PLANNING COMYiISSION MINUTES
• February 22, 1995
Page 4
1. Accept a residential density of 15-35 dwellings/gross acre. for ;
the specific planning area and a two story, building height ;t
limitation where it abuts existing single-family residential
outside of the City Center area with a numerical height
limitation established in consultation with Michael Freedman.
Com. Austin spoke in favor of the above staff recommendation.
Com. Mahoney stated 'he agrees with the 15-35 dwellings/gross acre,
but believes height is a separate issue. _
Com. Roberts stated he pre.-eis to limit two story buildings around
the periphery of a development. He spoke in favor of buffers and
noted, this should be included in the development standards and
guidelines. He stated 35 units per acre next to lesser densities
may cause a problem.
t;
Mr. Cowan stated the density is a range with a. minimum of 15 units 4
and a maximum of 35 units per acre.
Com. Roberts stated there are areas were 35 units per acre would
work, therefore he .would agree with the density range.
Com. Harris stated she :could support the density range as
f,
recommended by staff, but believes, as a general standard 35 units ffi
per acre is too high, especially when the density bonus is applied.
She stated she would be more comfortable with a density range of
15-30 units per acre.
Chr. Doyle stated the 15-35 units ,per acre gives flexibility, and
the real measure will be the height and buffer zones.
Mr. Freedman stated the Commission is looking . at the development
standards, but they are also adopting guidelines on how to build
buildings. He stated they h-ve written detailed guidelines about r
how to design the buildings.. He, noted he is -concerned about the
Commission making number decisions which are based on the projects
they have approved in the past, which will not be lE_ al. . He noted
45 units per acre could be built which would fit iiito the aesthetic
:.i the community. He stated at the next meeting he will show
slides of the kinds of development which results from ' the
guidelines -and the higher densities.
It was a consensus of the Commission to table this issue until the
next meeting.
2. Accept a recommendation to be forwarded to the Parks and
Recreation Commission requesting consideration of additional
parkland acquisition in Neighborhood Ll/L2 in the context of
t
f'
I
a _
�e.
'1-tX
: +.. a VM,3 .' :pu°w.. :+ aI ••" yc,-• ax. rAri' vn '-.�,;'"''a r ; < _.;�;a^ f :•d,XjY`.�rt ,ss 4`
�v" ?e,"F!a �'t'r'*a '-,'' .Dc cai, .,f ..J"rY, T,, '•c �rF.-• a !^'.,,�-'s. ti
, xrw;..•; ^v,`7".✓�i"+,''�* ,i.
;�. t' sU 'ti<@ ,- a '.+:;�71y k ,."yA� I• . 4 h-„;��<r>�r c .,i .t �
VP
Mm
3 i�
zr,. >a rr f d <:.,,r .t.!:r a -.+..�.os� a`".'Ii'' v{k•.tfT. �"�'�15t „l;��3" ,.t "nr j, r. ➢.Ik3�.°�` n y. „ ,
x, .r. r t.Y i.' 4 r n.�r:.i�at�”�e..ms•�rsf33w,a�wa�iz`�3c+:YFS`''mow*` ., r�,,.ua" y�,,� .�" '�e•�: ,� ���'q''��.^� r >
;i
r
i
r PLANNING CONNISSION HlPdiJTES si
1F•^ February 22,% 1995
Page5ai
its General. Plan review with primary cohsideration given to
67
the former Portal School or Collins Elementary School.
Associate Planner Jun •'�
g presented a nap outlining the neighborhoods,
sites.
existing parks and school
.,.
y� Com. Harris
questioned the possibility of a small nark on the site
n; proposed for a fire station. it.
Mr. Jung stated there is not enough property to do this. ail
Com. Harris asked if the Woodworks site is developed as housing
could a nexus 'be established that parkland. should be dedicated fo ,, y+
a small park.
$y
Mr. Jung stated the only nexus which could be established is the
need for parks created by the residential population to that arr_ei
to the parks needs. P a"
Mr. Viskovich stated the City cannot force a developer to dedicate �r;
r �`:�r7
unless the City identifies that the park is to be located within
the development. He noted th-re .is a park dedication fee which is
collected on every development which funds tha acquisition of ,. G,
development and parks., 4
Mr. Cowan stated there is the issue of private open space within
..,',,y
the development and developers should be required
P e uired to do this. He
suggested the Planning Commission make the recommendation to look
into an open space maintenance agreement with Collins and Portal xA
Schools. �xw�fs
rW
Com. Roberts addressed pocket parks on Stevens Creek_ Blvd, and4r ':°
noted that Memorial. Park fronts on Stevens Creek Blvd. He stated
this does not seem $�
o itn edeent
asked what is the City's opposition to �Poc�ket p this park. He
Creek_ Blvd.? P parks on Stevens <'
�s
Mr. Cowan stated the Parks and Recreation Commission did not feel,
that they wanted to spend public dollars on pocket nF.zks on Stevens
�r
Creek Blvd. , but were looking for more passive areas with the
streetscape itself.
e .r7;r 01
Cam. Harris discussed .the issue of outdoor seating next to retail. v
Chr. Doyle stated ocket .�.xt;
P parks would not balance the need for parks
in neighborhoods L1/L2.
Com. Harris stated the staff recommendation is acceptable, :
sports fields sht__ld be coupled with community space such as
pi the
pcnic
h^
c
'�.#+ �a�R;�.. ,�,- 'ai.�'Y �r�"��,., tz.GTl�'..< .�.".L:,v�d�r,�Cs...;np�•t d`p''f'r.�''`i Tom":Js"�et _A...t"Y�I}�a���,,�-.h ..��t,"� � �-''"1� F �`,"'`. $:
.. •. s '" _ w" + `h�"•Yd� a*•c ; ;�Y'a+•'� �rk.. a,•a,,: ,,3!'fix, `:tel' rd`.>:t ;y '":sti"&.ty`.C'�-,,�.$ .�`"�a '�3 ?:�.l' l"t S.�y'' ..-e}
r tp..' �,r- -.r �5' �. 5�*� �v+ ...• r § .:,:r r+✓' � d� # ?'' 1'fi „d�ik r. ; "M- a.. 2 cam.@
c,.. ,,�„,�!�°' ,c.s�, i,a'r".<y-mY��.� t' ��r„�� S��h ,� ,,�� s r Et� �,j�`J r 4�„`�- . x �•�- ��st >< � �a.'7�'��� e� „
.r5r •. fi rc_ _..,:4,.�1,�iakr+'�`'- r.<w�19i�".3"9.-,F�.lS+. ��c�.rt�^.�n`.'!�...N.e,..».:a'�Y�o:+... ,u�.viv:f,..�'S�'.'Y�' /aL �.....��..�,- ',.r:..§�..•.,ir.'rv"�.`uz. .,.., ':; x eIf�; �' � ,� ;:.'�.+.
ter.w,..a .:,e. r s',r_.�w,. :cnfs'E.,c ef�-r...'•M"?..h<
.�, ,yi ; y* k �:.,m zl wY^,`E"�"'�,�s'r'�{'g�t t�1„ �,�F�`7^`�f„i'wFk...�tr� brd,�”°,- � ��r-r�� -ate. •�ih�a��.r'u. �g,��,.��tL<a'p^.�d.,yr$� �'��'.
A�', n'4: ;x, �i�''� 6 -- o � �a �3 �'4 ` G� 34 .�"�� � .qui 3r4^}t S�t...�.n �:°.r'(t �cl �',2;*+'x�s•,y� � ��.a(,
:� ,,xl T �• vii uJh € �.,f5 pU�h .,t t t �iT t rk ;,;, J ,.
r ,
PLANNING COM,ISSIOM MINWES
February 22, 1995 �
Page 6
areas etc. ,
Coms. Roberts, Mahoney and Austin spoke in support .of the above °4
staff recommendation.
Chr. Doyle spoke in favor of staff Is recommendation and to come { �
back with options the Planning Commission may pursue.
4. Accept the development standards and design guidelines in
concept, making appropriate changes as needed and continuing ',a =
this topic to April 18th for further discussion and refinement l
in context with the streetscape design.
For. Michael Freedman stated the standard and guidelines are �Y
inseparable from the streetscape design because the Charette had
clear direction on what one element of the community was trying to
create. He stated his concern is that the direction was entirely
landscape and visual character driven, which is important, 'but the <i
corridor itself is a place. where people are trying to do business
in a variety of uses. He briefly described the "Mixed--use Parkway"
C;
as written in the document. He stated the standards are not x
negotiable, but the guidelines are discretionary for the use of the
Planning Commission and staff when reviewing projects. He added
the standards put all the commercial buildings together, but the
multi-family housing has different standards as do the office
buildings.
Y
Mr. Freedman briefly reviewed the ideas which came out of the
Charette regarding the streetscape. He noted non-retail uses need
to be found and signage is very important. He stated the position
of the existing signs is problematic and could be improved. Mr.
Freedman gave a slide presentation showing examples of buildings x
and signage. He stated the standards and guidelines proposed are
working towards creating a walkway with trees, which people willr�aV,
enjoy walking through.
Mr. Freedman reviewed the design standards and guidelines proposed Cyt
noting for new developments, they are requiring that the sidewalk
be moved back, and a planting strip with trees be put in. He
stated the tree spacing will be approximately 35-40 ft. He noted ^
y�N
there will be one line of treys in front of the retail and front r
door entrances should .be visible from Stevens Creek. Blvd. He noted
the guidelines allow the sign in the public right-of-way. There
{..
�a will be a white fence along the grass which separates the parking
u
lot from the side walk. There will be no parking by the front
door, but the entrances must expand out. Mr. Freedman went on to ;4
review the recommended architectural details as written in the
guidelines. The guidelines also allow large letter size in the ?
signage and window mounted signs. He addressed the roofs and the
s .
}` J .. :. i;^.a. .,x,. .,x� � ,. . . .-.,�ss�. ,�*'r y��„ ��i ,p—�" ,7."�n�}y'�� �A�,��F•e,H, erio�:.�f ��S �.- ���k��.
• i . � -. . .. , ;'^n_�. j. . ..a�.,t2....A ,rn'td �l'..���`.._ :.n, .� ��}.�t r,...,. �°�°et•�'-n.v �5������ � '�z�.Y � �:. . `�iax;i.
.s
R-
t�E' a
"p, �0�l� " 9�?
.,
1
,P1AWING cokKISSION MIPMES
February" 22, '2995
Page 7
Y standards ' required as written in the document. He presented
X drawings"as examples of office development, retail, commercial and
. . residential over retail. He added that the requirement for on-site
landscaping in retail development will be reduced in order to get
what is-p .%:!,:quired on the street front.. A single row of trees will.
be planlEcd in front of retail and he alsoreviewed the massing of
buildings and showed photo examples. Mr. Freedman sated he is
still working with the Chamber of Commerce.
Com. Austin-questioned the thematic approach as discussed at the
=` Charette? She also addressed the requirement -of a color pallet. ' j
Mr. Freedman stated there was not a strong feeling for a thematic
approach in .the citizens group committee. He stated building the
buildings close to the Boulevard will create uniformity. He noted
building a parkway was discussed and the landscaping unifies the
corridor. With regards to retail, Mr. Freedman" stated there is a
limit-to what you can do, because retail businesses are different.
He noted to obtain the uniformity, the trees must be planted at the
s same time, at the same height, and the parkway strips and lights
should be put in together. He noted the guidelines require that .
the sign, site treatment and buildings be architecturally
compatible.
Com. Mahoney questioned the height for commercial buildings in the
standards? Mr. Freedman stated breaking up the mass of residential
is more crucial than breaking up the mass on commercial.
Mr. Cowan stated the GeneralPlanhas a'height limit of 45 feet and
can be reinforced in these guidelines.
Com. Roberts questioned the roof pitch? He also expressed concern
about the gables, turrets and towers. which are mandated in the
guidelines.
Mr. Freedman reviewed the r, -:omiui,_ir ed roofs. He also noted without
the gables, turrets and tower:; etc. , the buildings are not as'
visibi. i.
e or as .�Presting. He stated the Planning Commissic-, are
the architectuiz review and will look at the different- design
features. He fated the guidelines will help establish a base
line.
Com. Austin stated that De Anzi College, Monta Vista High School
and the Sobrato building axe examples of good architecture with.
the use of towers and turrets.
With regar_dF. to a color pallet, Mr. Freedman stated he will
recoicnend a -- olor pallet if the Planning Commission so directs. He
;'��k`4': -�. .....�S�r'!`. •.� �'. �' �,; "s..i���f'..,• �' Y''.�; .{ 1'!ff�'`'�c Sff }Y'p �,:.��z�RN�.Y.`fs � .y,;^>�.e rv1S'fo`.h;Y �, Jfa(')fyrr}r .;`S .P�'�"a%Fdtp -i$"`('}� ..
^�7
'•,fir ' ! 1 J�� t�6 ;�£��w ea�'. {w rvu( t12
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® February,,, 22, 1995
Page 8
noted he` is encouraging towers etc. , but they are not mandated.
Chr. " Doyle requested photos of buildings which are within the
-guidelines proposed.
Chr. Doyle stated the issues are the following:
Color Pallet t
Towers
Streetscape
Set-back approaches, residential buffers
Height _
Com. Roberts stated they need to deal with breaking up the wall
' plain from the back.
Mr. . Freedman stated this is also addressed in the guidelines,
including a screen wall and tree screening.
,s
Com. Harris discussed the issue of accommodating outdoor seating
and a- courtyard environment.
Mr. Freedman stated a sidewalk can be made large enough to
accommodate outdoor seating and this can be added to the
guidelines. He noted the Planning Commission should not
distinguish between retail and restaurant. He stated the 15 ft.
sidewalk •is not too big but can accommodate outdoor seating. He
noted -if the 15 ft. sidewalk requirement is only tied . to
restaurants, it is a meaningless standard.
Coni. "Harris reviewed the concept of a parkurbia, a green city and
a .219t Century park as addressed in the Charette. She stated this +
is not being addressed in the guidelines and standards as written,
and would like it addressed. She also addressed the lack of
landscaping proposed for parking lots:
x
A Mr. Freedman- stated the current retailing landscaping standards are
not good because money is being spent .on landscaping and they are
not establishing a unified boulevard. He stated he is proposing
that the landscaping on the boulevard have a uniform look, with
less in '-the actual parking lots, which will not been seen from the
r' boulevard anyway.
Com. .Harris suggested a balance, different standards for different
setbacks. , Mr. Freedman stated when writing the standards they
;x choose the view of the passing motorist as opposed to the person u
on-site. He stated it is the Planning Commission's decision as to
now much landscaping they want. '
Com. Harris stated it is a detriment to the property owner if the
r�
dA'
vK
r„
1,. '' jn`�yY: w'✓%Ati '� s» 5 7'�t.k.Ir'vr✓isent b,� t�f 'a
x
t ` r�lP tr
a
r4 b -
t`v
PLANNING ComissIm Ninv'Es
February 22, 1995 -
Page 9 '
site is not attractive and it will not encourage people to stroll
through'"and shop.
Mrl Cowan stated the trade-off had to do more with the visual
accessibility from the motorist,.onto the site as opposed to cost.
Regarding lighting standards, Mr. Freedman stated they will add a
section to deal with the retail lighting under "Surface Packing
Lots"
Mr. Freedman reviewed the standards and guidelines with regards to
the screening. between residential and commercial.
Com.. ,,Harris .addressed the architecture of the actual buildings as
in the drawings presented by Mr. Freedman. Mr. Freedman stated
there cannot be a section .of a building more that 50 ft. long and
there are detailed guidelines how to address the massing.
In response to Com. Harris' questions Mr. Freedman noted mixed-use
.3 development will have a single row of trees. He noted this will be .
made more explicit in the document. Regarding the trees between
residential and commercial uses, Mr. Freedman stated he will
address this.
'G
The -commissioners discussed the issue of the double and single row
{ of trees, Mr. Cowan stated they are working with the Chamber of
Commerce and will provide some detail drawings at the next meeting.
Mr. . Freedman stated the key is to plant as big as trees as possible .
all at the same time to obtain the uniformity.
Com. . Roberts stated if there is only landscaping on the perimeter
of theparcels they are getting away from the orchard concept. Mr.
Freedman stated he will provide drawings of what is proposed for
A the on-site landscaping and trees.
kagarding trees in the median, Idr. Freedman said the Chamber
,5 suggested taking them out and putting in plants. He stated they
will provide drawings of the landscaping prcposed for the median.
3 Mr. Cowan read the Charette Theme "Create a landscape parkway along
Stevens Creek Blvd. , keep buildings setback, maintain the landscape
areas, design a distinct landscaping plan to ,reflect the orchards
of Cupertino's past."
Chr. Doyle requested information "on the following:
Photos showing the diversity which is allowed.
Aft Numbering system as opposed. to letter system in .the ,document, if q,
111, Will5lill I !Ili! I'llIll 11,11", rig,call ERR
!I
I
N' -,eg k ?V.Y• i�S,f iEZ' � �p�^y}; P is.�/, r�S 3nS' xr sst•Ft r �r wJ k7. .. ?,.;i
.ti^n 1.. x.�Rv�. �.+ ''i �...'` lf, �ik ?iii. ;�.�w 7'.`.'�.�� vx,�i� �YJ t +��'� r''�7�';,�Zr�4S $ate., f �t��`L 4k �!t4,ir�s���: •�i`,�y t,
:v d ti h �� .��r ser�'�/� �� � ta�,�+x,f'�Y f .� f E „� 5 +, � h r � t ".'1 w - ) r '..• 1 -.A �r;."k' �_t yf p F is
�` F�� .� t i�.t•W `3..'7�� �����'7Lr 3-i•t t^x ti: f ¢.i i �+ }i i '
yi�A�.'. S j
FLAI3liaNGCOMMISSION MINUTES
February,,22,. 1995 , _Page 10
feasible. ' i
Summary of. bene ' the City.
fits to both the developer and
Mr. Freedman stated the cost to the private developer is not any
more than today. He stated new construction on this road is
minimal :and the landscape cost on the private property will 'not
increase.. .
Mr. Cowan stated if there is a decision by the City to improve the
roads there could be a cost to tilt>. City, but it will be reimbursed
over time.
Mr. , Freedman also noted he will provide drawings and slides of eye
level views.
Chr. Doyle "stated he would 11ke discussion on the following and
more information if necessary:
1. Height of buildings and height limits
2. Set-backs
3. Streetscape/gathering areas
4. Color Pallets
® 5. Towers and/or distinct architectural features
After 'discussing the above five items the majority of the
j Commission requested additional information on .all but the cclor
pallet. Also the streetscape as it relates to -pedestrian activity
and outdoor seating.
The majority of the Commission also agreed they want:
6. Additional photos
�. . , Document layout -- numbering system, if not too expensive
8. Example of eye level drawings
9. Historical Arch forms -- remove the word "Historical"
10. Look at the Charette to make sure the guidelines are being
followed
11. Additional inforination on on-site landscaping requirement for
retail, including fences
12 , Additional information on residential. screening wall
13 Trees should be evergreen
14. Require double trees at the entrances
15. More discussion on median trees. ;
16. More- information on parking lot lighting
The public hearing was opened..
Mr. John Statton, Chamber of Commerce, stated this is a good
process so
far and the Chamber is here to make sure their members
can do business along Stevens' Creek Blvd. He believes the City is
7
a
a
. ..n,, ,y, .�.;— i,5,`? *« '� c�:;* .2y`xt.1,...„., 7'"ia•G.i ���,,fi5�a },�"
P ;..•� i:",��ti hyY+l�k7i»9L h.2j7 u .g� t �� �'v �.�1"'v�dL�'� .rt Si S -(�S �'Pxs:rF, 5.1, L..: �,3._ `r�rcr.;• ➢�� r Gr i ri.�'l•;taf €�..�S a a ""`y., FF <3ri
} 1•, .. r��,,, 'f,,�}4 r �'k��+7"4"�,�._ni a r 4 {i.yr 1 4 .v:.;
PLANNING COWISSION MINUTES
x February,>22, °1995
-4,
Page' 11.
'y moving towards a street change they can accept. He addressed the
residential overlay and stated he would like to find out if it is
1) permissive and 2) permissive along the entire street. He noted
' . they will work.with staff on this issue. He noted if trees are to
be planted they should be 36 inch box. He expressed concern about
'she sea-,of asphalt and noted low plantings in parking lots will
help. He noted the larger issue is, who is going to pay for this.
Com. Mahoney suggested more information on the cost. .
Mr. Viskovich stated there is no intention to force any costs on
the'. developer, unless they come in with a proposal. He noted there j
will be no up front costs. He stated they will go into more detail
as the process moves forward.
Mr. Farokh Deboo, Nile Dr. , stated staff recommendation #1 should
include condominiums and townhomes. He noted the document should
address height for all property types. He added the 15-35 density
range is .too high with the 25% density bonus. Mr. Deboo stared if
there ifi more development there . should be more green area. He'
t
stated the approach as well as trees and signage are important.
The Commissioners discussed Rhat will be reviewed at the next
� . meeting.
The Commissioners briefly discussed item 5 of the staff
recommendations.
Com. Harris addressed the section of De Anza Blvd. being removed
from the original plan area as addressed by staff at an earlier
meeting. She stated the design guidelines proposed for Stevens
Creel Blvd. , would not pertain to this section.
Mr. Jung stated the question is, what relationship do these
properties bear to the visual aspect and the functionality of
Stevens Creek Blvd. as a special place? He stated staff felt these
properties were shallow and should not have anymore intensive . �
commercial development on them.
Com. Mahoney asked about the design guidelines for this area?
Mr. -Freedman stated he would leave all the areas in and make them
special areas within the specific plan with their own
characteristics. With regards to the. property on De Anza Blvd. , he
stated this area should be in, the specific plan area, but should be
a special area and have exceptions that deal with this area. He
added he and staff will review this and come back with a
recommendation.
r
yh:
1h� ";w: ^�3 +. s;ti r l.y •—.y't" 2_ S y�rrk'r"�t i�'o.i'. � rSw a..,�s� �e.r�' 7� -.�,J i, .,��4��..�'. rn�,J 2;T.�'#'�r rcxc.� T.
r xS x-i c x r., ; qs s •a x (ted r s > S, l, t r t$" -,
a i a� jJc ,;a1S3 3 Ia;t „faPW „m }) L r r 4 < a Ort .tr }x7%tratr ayro aiz x i;;
_,t �1 `i' f� d.a�� y,.„E6i F�{ F�r^, f�l� ".S_ J 4' '•• w1 �' )7 i 5r1"7' n r:.J � .1 .
y
PLMNING ( joasSION MINUTES
® February '22;`.`,;1995:.`
Page 12
MOTION• Conn. Austin , moven: to continue the Heart, of the City
discussion to the meeting of February 27, 1995
SECOND: Com. oney 5-0
`{ VOTE: Pas�'e6
t
REPORT OF THE ' ,x",liNIIiG COMMISSION
Com... Roberts stated he is preparing an appeal of tree xlanninq
Commission's . decision on the Upland tray subdivision recently
k approved.
y
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMITY DEVELOPMENT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None
ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned, at 11:10 p.m. to the meeting
of February 27, 1995 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes Clerk.
r �+
�n l { 'a <L5t Mrt7r g$'!•t rr�"y'.!f �a7.17+w h v N,� "t Y( -y , P',It:rw 46 4 P t >"r^ '^t ..s-
+'S•t't..;kf "l�ki. °(7.Y,. t ,r• i':r�- x t. p- 'n's` ra,.ay "R 7�,r5}...,i;x ,iq�., ztn.>gdr.,v sm1 ''S'',ti'''si ar„d'-r'i}kt71.• .,%� rt'.'ti�' yM1' ley, ,
7.'tS�l'` to,�5 S' � !^ �ii :t�'yk a sd rr- �r .�e' � �r a� � }� �(AR t % i S •L'r'?`,4�r ks4 r �'..5 N' 9"'�,r����5 yin( r
CITY OFCUPERTINO
1.0300 Torre; Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) :. 777-3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON
FEBRUARY 27, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE: TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commi.ssioners Present: Chic. Doyle
sy Com. Mahoney
Com. Austin
Com. Harris
Com. Roberts
Staff Present: Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordel:l, City Planner
Vera Gil, Housing Specialist ,
Colin Jung, Associate Planner
's •
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
tt February 13, 1995 - Regular Meeting
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve *hs minutes of February 13, €�
1995, as submitted
SECOND:- Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion
POSTPONEMENTS/REKOVAL FROM CALENDAR
Item 1: Application No(s) : 81,004.18 and 3-EA-95, City � of
' Cupertino: Amending various. residential zones of the
Cupertino Municipal Code to add provisions regarding '
residential group homes. Request continuance to the
Planning Commission meeting of March 27, _ 1^95.
MOTION: Com. Austin .moved to continue item 1 to the meeting of
March 27, 1995
¢ SL;OND: Com. Roberts
VOTE:. Passed 5-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS '
Mr. Steven Haze, San Juan Road, addressed item 2 and noted he will
} not" be present when this item. is heard. He addressed permitted
uses under Chapter 19.40 of the Ordinance as it relates to second
dwelling units and noted this can exceed the 650"0 sq. ft. cap.
i
Com. Roberts stated it is his understanding that the garage is
included in the 6500 sq. . ft. cap.-
f
J ,� $ ik aF�ly X12 r'Fr� F �L�r#
PLANNING CONKISSION MIN ErrES
February 27, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Cowan - stated it was the Commission's intent to include the
( garage and he will look at the wording.
# CONSENT CALENDAR - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Application No(s) : 1-Z-95 and 1-EA-95
i. Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Location: Various hillside locations in the
Inspiration Heights area generally
bounded by Voss Avenue, Alcade Road,
Santa Lucia Road and Stevens Canyon Road.
REZONING of various hillside properties in the Inspiration
Heights area from, R1-10, R1-40 and RH : to RHS and OS or other
appropriate zoning designations as dccscribed in Exhibit A.
staffpresentation: City Planner Wcrdell presented some background
information on the General Plan Hillside Policies. She noted the ,
Inspiration Heights area consists of two General Plan hillside
slope, density designations: Foothill Modified half acre and
Foothill, 5=20 acre. She noted these designations determine the lot
yield for subdivision through the slope density analysis.
Com. Mahoney addressed the lot size. Ms. Wordell stated the
minimum gradient was the minimum lot size in the old .General Plan.
Ms. Wordell addressed the 5-20 General Plan designation ,and
presented a map showing this designation. She also presented a
map, used during the General Plan discussions, which shooed
potential development areas and also outlined the new designation
areas.
In response -to . Com. Roberts' question regarding the 5-20
designation, Ms. Wordell stated the General Plan designations are
for the purpose of' determining lot yield. Mr. Cowan noted the idea
to do away With the minimum lot size was to accommodate clustering.
He. noted the yield will remain the same.
Comp Harris stated it was her understanding that 10,000 sq. ft. was
the minimum lot size and based on this she agreed to the clustering
concept. She expressed concern about .small lots,
Ms. Wordell stated there is control over the clustering and lot
size: in the subdivision process. She outlined the properties whichi
can be potentially subdivided.
r
x
t'
'.� R�. t^yy,+Rx$ " y,xx'+ Y+ ayzSi-('{rM<'�'� xX lxr6F '"�4' "� kip` L"" •s ll`-1' t 7 /;<g w-*Yf r i 7 te4 �' r, r' �r5r+f3 ✓iU t`"` 5
PLANNING CQMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 1995
Page 3
Com. Mahoney reiterated that at this' meeting the Commission will
discuss lots that are already subdivided, except for one, and apply
new zoning to these lots, in keeping with the General Plan.
Mr. Cowan stated the task is to put a designation on the
} properties.
Com. Roberts asked if parts of the property downslope of the 10%
line could he designated as RHS-21.
Mr.• Cowan stated a general Plan amendment would be required to
decrease the allowed growth.
F Associate Planner Jung presented the staff report on thezoning
noting this is the second phase of the City's initiation of
rezoning properties to be consistent with the General Plan. He
presented a map showing ::he proposal for the rezoning
consideration. He reviewed -staff's recommendations as outlined in
the staff report.
In response to Com.. Austin's question regarding Voss Pond and the
Marinist property, Mr. Cowan stated with regards to Voss Pond,
® there- are two parcels of land which were set aside for non-
development and one had the development rights dedicated to the
City. With regards to the Marinist property, Mr. Jung stated the
General Plan designation for this property is 5-20 acre and the
f General Plan allows BQ type uses inany residential zoning
district. He noted any improvements or extensions to this property
would require a use permit.
Mr. Jung' stated when the General Plan was under consideration there
was extensive discussion about properties in Inspiration Heights,
as a result of this discussion it was .approved by the City Council
that this particular area in Inspiration Heights, which is
currently zoned RI-10 be rezoned to RHS. This boundary does match
the boundaries proposed by staff in application 1-Z-95. a
Mr. :Jung addressed the properties in Inspiration Heights affected
by this rezoning as outlined in Exhibit E of the staff report. He
stated there are a number of lots that are in the 5-20 acre slope
density formula area that are i10,000 sq.- ft. and they are being
redesignated according to their lot size, because the. 5-20 acre
formula does not have a minimum lot size.
He noted APN 342-18-24 should be RHS-40; APN 342-18-032 should be
RHS-20 and APN 342-19-003 - 16 acre lot could potentially be
subdivided and should be removed from the list and remain RHS. He
believes at most there could be a two lot subdivision on the 16
AM acre parcel. He noted there are a number of obstacles which
.<x
1 11,111 WIN I
N Off
w_
y
r ;I ur i,. j� l y atF {2 a Ft9ir t1Sr f2 aSp " J si tuix�+
4' ( .+f
k
PLANNING 'CONMISSION MINUTES
February 27 ' 1995
Page 4
prevent building on this lot, which include the utilities and roads
J not being up to City standards.
Mr. Jung stated staff is recommending a negative declaration and
approval of the rezoning.
Com. Mahoney 'stated that RHS-21 is to-be a marker, even though some
j lots are smaller, he asked why not do the same of the 5-20 'acre
slope density, for example make it RHS-200?
Ms. :Wordell stated the General Plan discusses the Foothill Modified
x and Foothill Modified 1/2 acre on existing vacant lots, if they are
sub-standard an exception must be granted She noted staff is
establishing what sub-standard is for existing vacant lots. She
stated there are no sub-standard lots in the 5-20 slope density:
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Severin, 22570 San Juan Road, stated his property is. one
of the largest in the area -and asked will this rezoning affect his
Property.
Mr. Jung stated this particular rezoning will not change the
® development regulations of that lot, since that was already done
when the amendments were adopted to 'the RHS"zoning ordinance. He
noted Mr. Severin's property, is a little over an acre and the
General Plan indicates that this lot, is maxed out in terms of its
lot size and the zoning designation confirms this. He noted this
} narticular lot is in the Foothill' Modified 1/2 acre.
i. Ms. Wordell stated if slope analysis determines that this lot is
subdividable the zoning would be inconsistent with this.
The commission and staff 'addressed the property and the zoning
appropriate and it was agreed to leave it at RHS and then the
-property owner would come in for a rezoning when he applies for a
subdivision.
Ms. Wendy Kelly stated she owns property .on Merceles Road and asked
if this will be affected?
Ms. Wordell stated an exception would be required to .build on this
lot.
Mr. Cowan stated the property owner would have to submit plans and
go through the public hearing process. He stated the City must
allow reasonable develcpment on private property, but the Planning
® Commission has more discretion.
c
ff On
e
E
t,sk
f,
9s' I
x
wgrf�.n1
aN_
PLANNING .COMMISSION MINUTES
® February ',27, 1995
Page 5
Com. Roberts stated, under the more restrictive control, this will
trigger `more exceptions, but will allow more control over the
actual development.
Coma Harris expressed concern about taking the subdivision
potential away from Mr. Severin. She stated if it is in the 1/2
acre formula and the slope is such, he might be able to subdivide
it.
Mr. Cowan stated the majority of lots in Inspiration Heights are
10,000 sq. ft. and RHS-21 would be appropriate with a few
exceptions such as Mr. Severin's property.
Com. Harris .suggested an additional column. on Exhibit E indicating
the current General Plan designation.
Mr. Cowan suggested changing the word "exception" to "discretionary
review" and noted'the. discretionary review only applies in the 1/2
acre formula and the Foothill Modified as it relates to lot size.
The Commission discussed the zoning map with the different zoning
designations below RHS-21. Com. Harris clarified if the property
is in a 5 acre minimum designation and is an existing vacant lot at
' 20,000 sq. ft. , it can be built on without an exception.
Mr. Cowan stated the same warding did not apply to the 5-20 acre
slope density. Ms. Wordell stated the 30% slope, the ridgeline,
etc. are subject to an exception in the 5-20 acre formula, but the
lot size is not.
Com. Harris stated it .would take a General Plan Amendment to change
h this.
Com. Mahoney stated if the Planning Commission want to look at
"sub-standard" lots in the 1/2 acre, they want to look at it in the
5 acre formula as well.
Com. Harris spoke in support of the RHS-200 for the 5-20 acre slope
density ;area and- as a separate action take care of the General Plan
amendmant as addressed above. She also spoke in support of staff's
recommendation, with the exception of 'the 5-20 acre formula.
Com. Roberts concurred with Com. Harris, but suggested looking at
the Severin property. ,
Regarding the Severin property, Mr. Jung stated if the Commission
recommend either RHS or RHS-50, to subdivide, it would have to be
rezoned anyway. .
W
9150, M
g:
ig
A ...
i
yrt r�J �. + i�r � t.t. 5 � ave-we��. s'�� tea r, +, t 5,� 1 {.:itS4.,. t ✓ ):'r. t, t,� z
PLANNING COlQKISSION MINUTES
® February 27, 1995
s Page 6
y'
a Com. Mahoney stated he concurs with Coms. Harris and Roberts.
Com. Austin spoke in support of staff's recommendation and would
not support RHS-200 for the 5-20 acre formula.
Chr. Doyle stated he would support the RHS-21 and RHS-200 proposal.
He stated he is concerned about properties which have potential
subdivision and how these would be handled.
Mr. 'Cowan stated property owners would have to apply .for a rezoning
action.
Ms.. Worded reiterated the Commissioners points-
RHS-21 - remain as recommended by staff.
5-20 acre slope density - change to RHS-200.
Open space - remain as is.
RHS for the 16 acre parcel and the Severin property.
Com. Harris also noted that if there are any other designated other
a than RHS-21 that are not in the 5-20 acre formula they would remain
as designated.
® MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to grant a Negative De
SECOND: Com. Harris g Declaration
VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION:; Com. . Mahoney moved to accept 1-Z-95 to include the points
y outlined above by City Planner Wordell and Com. Harris.
SECOND: - Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-1
NOES: Com. Austin
3. Application No(s) : 81,165 and 23-EA-94
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
AMENDING various sections of Chapter 19.56, General Commercial
p Zones, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
Staff Aresentatinn;
Mx. Cowan noted there was a letter received
from the Chamber regarding this item, dated February 27, 1995. He
presented a map outlining the retail centers noting most are close
in proximity to residential. Mr. Cowan reviewed the changes to the
ordinance, as outlined in the staff report. He showed example of
restaurant locations and their proximity' to residential property.
With regards to businesses using hazardous materials, Mr. Cowan
presented examples of businesses which require a hazardous material
f
+
J,6`
PLANNimG COM USSION KrJINUTES
® February 27, 1995
Page 7
plan. He also, proposed a modification to Section 19.56.030 A,
regarding the proximity of restaurants to residential properties.
Mr. Cowan also reviewed the additional language he would add to the
ordinance under section 19.28.090 ."Interpretation by the Planning
Director". .
With regards to hazardous material use, Mr. Cowan stated Dry
Cleaners already are regulated by the County Health Department and
the Fire District and he sees no reason to regulate them.
Com. Harris made the following comments regarding the ordinance:
1. Page 1, section 19.56.030 Permitted uses, C - remove the words
"Incidental activities".. She felt this, was very vague.
2. Page 2, 4 should read "Certain activities which require a
hazardous material plan are permitted subject to permitting or
licensing by an authorized public agency charged with the
.responsibility to protect the public health and welfare
regarding the involved hazardous material." She noted the
examples should be listed. She also suggested designating a
certain percent of a center for such activities.
3. Page , 2, Examples of Permitted Uses - B. remove the words
® ."messenger and telegraph offices".
4. Page.- 2, G. remove "massage establishments".
5. Page 3, B. Issued by the Planning Commission, #8 add arcades.
.6. Page 4, add kiosks under the list permitted by the Planning
Commission.
7. Page 5, section 19-56.070, 2b, change "eight feet" to "twelve
feet".
-that the. " s" have
Com. Harris also
inalo
from the orifi tedordinance andNoise she would slake this bincludedved as
{
{ well as lighting standards.
Com. Harris stated 100 feet is too restrictive as written in the
J suggestive wording to -regulate the non-fast food, non separate bar
restaurants. She suggested. 40 feet.
Regarding the regulation of restaurants, Mr. Cowan stated staff is
working on the parking regulations and the Planning Commission can
delay making a decision at this time.
The public hearing was opened.
w
. +aY
'a5 1'F'i�a �'f ,,r,�'.�*"` e- ry !ts ,f•.x �t,4'r•`'.y+.s .3 � � yP, 7" 4x ti '";,1 st d 3y,r r kt.V �J
+4
PLANNING'.:COMMISSION NIh'JTES
+ ® February'`27, 1995
Page. a
Mr. Eugene Adrian, resident, stated if the primary retail of the
business is more than 50 percent then there is no regulation on the
rest of it. He noted as late as 1993 there were prohibited uses in
r .. the ordinance which are now allowed. He suggested a requirement of
a use permit if they want to make use of the 50 percent clause.
Mr. Adrian presented slides taken from his home showing the retail
center behind his home. He noted the pine trees for screening died
and have never been replaced. He stated in 1990 the owner. modified
the landscaping without approval. He noted the activity in the back
?` parking lot has increased and activities once prohibited are now
allowed under the 50 percent clause.
Com. Harris asked if this is a code enforcement issue?
City Planner Wordell stated they are working on this with the
Adrians and the property owners. She noted the plants planted
along the wall are supposed, to be hand watered but this isnot
happening. She noted staff will continue working with the Adrians
and the property owner to address the landscape screening.
Com. Roberts stated visual and/or acoustical. screening should be
addressed in the ordinance. He believes with the 50 percent clause
® they have opened the door to partial conversion of retail areas to
' other kinds of services.
Mr. Cowan stated it will be 49 percent contracting and 51 percent
retailing and this will work if the standards are applied.
Ms. Susan Adrian, resident, stated she would like to see the noise
standard go ,back into the ordinance. She noted it is important to
recognize that this goes on and expressed concern about too much
activity in the one spot..
The public hearing was closed.
Regarding Com. Harris' comments, there was a consensus of the
Commission to support 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Regarding the "massage
establishments" the majority of the' Commission would leave it as
written.` It was also a consensus of the Commission to add the
words "not located. -in a sound proof building," to #13 under B.
Issued by the Planning Commission.
Com. Mahoney stated that noise and screening should be added to the
ordinance. Com. Harris stated lighting standards for security
should be added, but should be oriented away from residences.
With regards to the parking at restaurants in relationship to
residences the majority of the Commission agreed that it should' be
AOL 100 ft. , as recommended by staff.
a
i ''
r
i
I
3 III
sl»irz
.�, 'q5 J7 c>r` y5 jY�f 71" h sJ -1 4t/,S) >i `31-.::✓ f �t 4F'. s r{.... is n %Y i, '4 F,�,`, t .G„+ ?#'��i�
- 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 1995
Page 9
Com. Roberts stated he will pay close attention to how the
performance standards are formulated because he feels it will be
difficult to define a performance standard in such a way as to
protect the neighbors. He noted the best protection for noise is
a barrier of distance and he would like- to see a proximity
requirement.
4' Chr. Doyle stated the wording to limit the noise should be more
general,,and not only limited to retail.
Com. Roberts stated there should be a ,safety zone established in
case the performance standard is not met.
E. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue _81,165 and 23-EA-94 to
March 20, 1995.
SECOND: . Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-0
4. Application No: 81,152
Y Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property- Owner: various
Location: Properties along or near Stevens Creek
® Boulevard from Highway 85 to the eastern
City limits.:
' HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN meeting to review the progress
of the work on the draft land use and development character a
policies and the land use map, streetscape and other
improvements.
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff .
report and reviewed the reasons why staff supports allocating the
requested square footage to Apple Computer- Ms. Wordell noted all
property owners in the Town Center/Crossroads 'area were contacted
about this proposal. She stated staff supports the allocation of
the 141,000 sq. ft. to the site identified noting the designation �
is applied for two years, at which time Apple Computer may request
an extension. She stated after this discussion, the Heart of the
City hearing should be continued to March 27, 1995.
Com. Roberts questioned the site in which Croutons is located and
asked if the entire allocation is devoted to the subject site, what
will happen to the Croutons site?
Ms. Wordell stated the allocation would exhaust the office
f�
allocation, so the Croutons site would be retail or residential.
ANIL nr. Cowan stated that in the foreseeable future the building on the
Croutons site would be „a one "level retail building.
'"°Yr.G*`• �' ,efd �' � a u . kn v r'a n- ue t � r �� r F. r:
t. �� y,' ,if 1r'}•> r °4{r .r !;r f 4a! lir f< t a 9 ri t+ Q
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 1995
Page 10
Com. Harris questioned the. surrounding sites and their uses?
she public hearing was opened. z
. z
Mr: Glen Barber, Apple Computer Inc. , stated the proposal would
give Apple a window .of opportunity to spend money on a specific
site plan. He noted the proposal is for a four story building,
fu�ly owned by Apple Computer. .'He states; they- are coming forward
because of the Stevens Creek Specific Plait, but also because this
is a tier one activity and believes this density was contemplated.
He added the site is a good location to utilize and parking will be
submerged. Mr. Barber stated this facility would be Apple
Computer's Headquarter. He introduced Ms. Terry Wong, Architect.
Ms. Terry Wong presented three diagrams showing a four story
building and the orientation of the building on the site. She
stated it is important that this building be compatible with the
other Apple buildings on the site. She stated they are aware of
the existing design and will be sensitive to this.
In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr. Barber stated they
choose four stories, not to max out the site, but believes the
symmetry.; and size worked better.
Com. Roberts asked if any consideration had been given to the
property west of the towers?
Mr. Barber stated there -is an ownership issue and the massing on
the site would be different.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about the building on this site and
`na how it will relate to the other buildings on the property.
Mr. Mark Kroll, representing the property owner, addressed the
rendering presented by Com. Harris and noted this is one of many
renderings drawn. . He stated there was always the intention to
retain flexibility on this property.
Mr. Cowan reviewed the property and stated the hotel and retail use
should remain viable activities.
Com. Roberts stated he would like to see a perspective of the site
with the proposed development and the existing development.
Mr., Kroll stated at the time the application moves forward on this
project, it would be appropriate to do',an overall rendering of the
site.
® Com. Harris. asked 'if this will be a glass,building?
,i 7
� '� "\rbc Mrp�^1 `�t�u���r� ,�. rr.tf��7��,(tip��n �,i1C�l�° a�7,>41 rile `H ks.C;i{•"' T"+r,,�F iL ..wi�{. p1 p '. r,�ap'u t.s , '^t"t.- ( ,p4z ' .�` w''tl.d riz .
i
3
�i
..� PLANNING_ CONNISSIGN MINUTES
February27, 1995
` Page 11
;r Mr. Barber stated they are open to suggestions, but want to achieve
j a highquality building which relates to the surrounding buildings,
but has its; own character as a headquarters.
The public, hearing was closed.
r Chr. Doyle asked if there is a limitation on the allocation of the
additional 100,000 sq. ft. to this area.
Mr. Cowan stated it was a presumption that the allocation would be
divided between the three major companies.
Ms. Wordell stated if all 150,000 sq. ft. was put .in this location ;
it would affect the level of service at the intersection.
In response to Chr. Doyle's question, Ms. Wordell stated within two
years Apple must file for a use permit and come before the Planning
Commission and City Council. At the two year time limit the
allocation could be rescinded or extended. She stated Apple
Computer; wanted to take. this step as they do not want to make an,
investment until they see if they can. get the allocation.
® Com. Austin stated she would be in favor of the allocation of
141,000 sq. ft. for the period of two years. Com. Mahoney
concurred.
Com. Roberts stated he would support allocating the 141,000 sq. ft.
to this area in general, but not on this particular property. He
stated he does not look forward to the prospect of a four story
building on this property and would like to see how development on
the overall site would look. He also noted .he would like to see ti
the traffic analysis, and would not support the proposal at this
time
Chr. �Doyle asked if this allocation is site specific? Mr. Cowan
said }res.
Com. Harris stated she is opposed to -this building being on De Anza
Blvd. She noted De Anza Blvd. has two components, one is connected
to the•City Center concept and plan. The other is the area across
the street, and the consultant is currently working on a plan to
integrate the two sides of De Anza to the Heart of the City plan.
She feels a four story building is not appropriate for the proposed
location. She stated. the proposed structure is too high for the
residential project recently approved. She added the design is
oriented to the towers and not De Anza Blvd. , and doesn't pay
attention to the aesthetics of De Anza Blvd. She believes it will a
draw too much traffic to De Anza Blvd. and other sites would be r
® more appropriate.
z
4
st
<"I G���.x�,F kt �'?<fs r,'a�aa�.��.:µ l�c+`?. ad�ry r`n'.�Cy'�.'li"tr 7 .s 7d�s .Y�.Sn!'d r'?.tvY..s�7l7 it . a ..,i. t �.-,-I r. 7 C4{�,rt bM. ✓ k �,{'f�$F �,F�...i.+
y,�.l
s
,�P:��r d
Y f
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 1995
Page 12
Chr. Doyle stated he will support the proposal and believes the
Commission has given input for consideration when this site will be
developed. He noted this area was defined in the General Plan as
office and high density, and this is the next step in executing .,
that plan.
i
There was a 3-2 vote (Harris, Roberts No) to support staff's
recommendation.
The Commission discussed the allocation of the 141,000 and how. this
will relate to the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
Com. Roberts stated his no .vote is intended to seek another site a
and if the Heart of the City plan was. to come before them with
other problems as poorly resolved as this one, then it would not
get his vote.
Com. Harris believes. there are other sites better :�,,an this one.
She noted she cannot separate this site from the character of the
area across the street.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue the Heart of the City
discussion to March 27, 1995.
® SECOND: Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-0
OLD BUSINESS
5. Consideration of amendments to the Housing Mitigation Manual.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Chr. Doyle requested that
' Commissioners ask questions and state_ their concerns about the
Housing ,Mitigation Manual.
The Commissioners discussed the examples shown on 'the In-Lieu Fee
Model- Chart as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Cowan suggested a sub-committee. to discuss the in-lieu fee.
Coms. Austin and Harris agreed to serve on the sub-committee.
Ms. Gil stated the Planning Commission need to decide what fee they
y are looking for and look at this in more detail.
Y
:f Com. .Harris addressed the sliding scale model and stated it was her
understanding that the Planning Commission suggested a sliding
scale so they could charge less for the higher priced buildings..
® Com. .Roberts requested in-lieu fee examples for 5-9 units.
t �
1151
f
.F r
.x
± .,'i a 3 �,Y ry;`a'y '-•. a '- '"r5 J*f'1" r� w erMp,rs,.res t�tr?p.tyL' -Nary a� `.,i ;; rs er,� a t w :'.'
y...,r {� � � .-. :. ' � `fid ,, rnr"i ,S+ar�r yr �Y. r' �" `�c ++-..... i � �#9%r{"it 'frr ✓ :�-�a r �t'7 E riaTr n} 5xa, y,j,., ,,. ;.r
r,$t k''[. d'"fr r 'fr` b x !.q #`-yr}.1'f�'}C,v 2:, '�F yPI'ct{i '�...��•�dy6!' krLy t � it.r r t?4 t j�. {/ Sf..:V.. x "/d .r ".Pi a�Y r� 1 s2;� - .,,
� i r
PLANNING' COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27," 1995
Page 13
Ms. Gil stated she would like more information from the Commission
as to what they want and she would create a model on this
information.
Chr. Doyle stated they need to make the fee they ,require
commensurate with the cost of generating affordable housing units
at the -ratios they want. He suggested a linear scale..
Com. Roberts stated there should be a small premium in order to
. create an actual incentive towards the buildings of the units.
a Com. Mahoney stated it should not be' tied to the value.
a Com. Harris suggested a percentage of the difference between the
BMR and Market Rate units with a cap.
Ms. Wordell stated the Summerhill project is waiting on some
direction. in selling their affordable housing units, because the
Manual has ,priority and procedural changes.
Com. Harris suggested the following .changes:
® Section 2.2.5 add the words "and for rental units only for full or
part-time De Anza College students enrolled in a degree program."
to the last sentence.
Section , 2.4.3 add the same words after". . .Cupertino residents
and. ."
i
Section 2.5.1. delete the words "full and part-time De Anza College
students enrolled in a degree program".
Chr. Doyle stated a Minute .Order should be sent indicating what the
Planning Commission propose.
;t MOTION: Com. Austin moved to adopt the wording changes as
addressed above by Com. Harris in sections 2.2.5; 2.4.3;
2.5.1
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
Ms. Wordell -stated she will schedule this �for Marsh 13, 1995.
REPORT OF.THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None .
is
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
S
Coma Harris quectioned' the appeal fees and Mr. Cowan stated he will
send an updated copy to Cam. Harris.
� 1
61 1: ii 1-19iR
_ .. .M. ... ..'.R.
l'
• 2Lkib"'?u�r d &, *.??.s.��C +t to -Y t Z"�,aj''iF. ;�� �'#.,..`� '• t �+ my ',,. 'v.�'�l^'fF •: :+ �'� �+.:�; l✓r,l.:�:, .:..• ...
-'ti.r� '+`x Cr yw+ t+1 q.�P���a� fi A ,'7 .�,;rYi'tt�„ o,.,.,i r y b o"1 K!ti �✓(,'r � ..d c5� a 4 �' ra, �
rr.±: J.' 7 ia �t:a a�•r •+,�J�1 ,y r' f.�.. i �Ia df i�J off fa•l f •,f��}t A�'� �f'5 Rr Y t J�jf['f�r�'!�t4:y1�?f 1{w�i'`,} J �..r•. �t ..
'�' ,'•, t .' .. .w i,+ 3 r. '� p s •y�,1s s !'c }f t"'F:a ;.�tJ k� �: A q cFr � F
z PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 1995
;r
Page 14
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to the
meeting of March 13, 1995. .
M Respectfully submitted
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes Clerk
s• .
x
3
,l-
it
x x
$z1`iv'd .-?.s L', yap 7 Sri"?ar 3'cy h 'A �' p { t4 r• r 1 '�,wNi J> i`k ?{ 1. kb ,� s .;
CITY OF CUPERTINO
,t
10300 Torre Ave. a
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 7, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Mahoney
Com. Atiistin
Com. Harris
Com. Roberts
Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Consultants Present: Don Wcolfe, Don Skinner
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
City Planner Wordell summarized a letter received from Marie A.
Cooper of McCutchen, Doyle,'';Brown & Ene_rsen Attorneys, dated
March 7, 1995.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS = None
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No(s') : 1-GPA-93 and 6-EA-93
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose
Property Owner: Same
Location: Assessor Parcel Numbers 342•-52-3, 342-5-
54', -56, -59, -60. 1ocated south of I-280,
west of Foothill Boulevard and north of
Rancho San Antonio County Park and
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from Very
Low Density Residential 5-20 Acre slope density to Very Low
Density Residential .Foothill Modified 1/2 Acre slope density with
a cap of 293 units.
The . Diocese. of San Jose -applied for the above General Plan
Amendment. The City Council directed that a total of ten
alternatives be analyzed in the Environmental impact Report.
J
-
�� p�
F
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting, March 7, 1995
Page. 2
I/
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: An Environmental Impact Report was
prepared. Ten alternatives were evaluatedSignificant impacts
identified related to loss of and intrusion
into open space lands;
d; elimination of potential park lands; loss of and intrusion into
natural, vegetation, wildlife habitat and wetland areas; exposure to
adverse,,geologic conditions; storm run-off erosion and pollution;,
wildfire hazard; Visual impacts; water tank failure and leakage;
and safety of school crossings.
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff ,
report noting at this meeting they will discuss the following:
Visual Impacts
1q Consideration of General Plan Amendment alternatives
k.
Schedule
Mr. Don Skinner, Consultant, gave a presentation on the visual
analysis. He reviewed table 3-1 "Overall Summary of Visual Impacts
of Comparative Site Plan Alternatives" and also. as explained in
Exhibit B of the staff report. He noted the analysis led to the v
final cumulative ranking of visual impacts of -the alternatives:
Rank
1. Alternative #1 ;most preferred)
'2. Alternative #3
3. Alternative #2a
`_. 4. Alternative #5
S. Alternative #2
6. Alternative #4
7. Alternative #6 (least preferred)
Com'. Roberts questioned the visually sensitive area on the high
It ground between Cristo Rey and Maryknoll, as discussed at the last
meeting?
{
Mr. Skinner stated all the alternatives with the exception of. 2 and
the revised 2a have proposed development on this site.
Com. Roberts questioned table 3-1 and asked what partial mitigation
means?
Mr. Skinner stated partial mitigation means recognizing that' the
impact can be reduced, but it cannot be reduced to the point of
adequately mitigating.
Com.; Roberts noted, depending on how the units are distributed,
they may have more visual impact.
Mr. Woolfe, , reviewed Exhibit C - Alternative 2a and noted when
Ir
All
_. __
- x 4r r 1ki. v u Vis= :s
.�r<a r? +',g trey, Al:{ iS l r.}
3 + Py¢' t f �� r
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �
® Special,'Meeting, March 7, 1995
Page 3
planning'. 2a they measured the goals and policies of the General
Plan 4nd' the results are as follows:
Seminary Property
- 6 lots on 3.2 acres
- Access from existing access road
- Increased setback from riparian corridor
- Reduced tree removal
- Avoided building on land next to County Park
Cristo Rev Parcel
No development on the ridge between Cristo Rey and Maryknoll
Removed development and improvements from the marsh habitat
and drainage to the habitat.
- No development on south side of De Anza Knoll
No development in bowl area
-30 lots on 17:6 acres
` Mr. Woolfe stated the above alterative (2a) closely matches the
existing` General Plan.
Cam. Harris expressed concern about the location of lots 29 and 30 r
® with regards to the PG&E substation as it relates to EMF°s.
k.
Mr. Skinner stated the concern is in the high tension wires.
' Mr. Woolfe discussed the photos presented at this meeting noting
they are responsive to the suggestions and comments of the Planning
Commission. -He stated they help in -the discussion of the visual
impacts.
Chr. Doyle stated these photos should be part of the record.
Com. Roberts addressed Exhibit D of the staff report and questioned
_ the size of the homes and the location of one and two story homes.
M
Mr. Woolfe noted the house size does not include the .garage. He
stated the applicant did put some thought into the design and
location, of the homes.
.i
;1 {2
=r
r Ms. Wordell stated a portion of the EIRris out for comments and the
Planning; Commissioners should not make decisions at this time, but
can discuss the alternatives.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mike Bruner_ , Sobrato Development, addressed Alternative 2a and
noted the Diocese, through Sobrato, is trying to find a win-win
® solution for everyone and Alterative 2a should .be a baseline for
a
x f
fj.,
! �.
[
PLANNING'COMMISSION MINUTES
® Special Meeting, March 7,. 1995
Page 4
development. He noted the proposal the Diocese made develops 25%
of the property and they can accept this. Mr. Bruner outlined the
areas which would, be dedicated Ito the County and also the areas
which will 'be dedicated as open space. He stated they need to
include the property between Cristo Rey and Maryknoll for
development. He presented photos showing homes drawn in on the
property and noted the development can be mitigated. Mr. Bruner
stated house size and location should be discussed at the specific
} plan stage and not. at the General Plan stage. He believes the
actual size of the' homes will be approximately. 3600 sq. ft.
Chr. Doyle stated the Commissioners need to be comfortable that
size and location of houses can be mitigated.
Mr. Burner stated once there is a development agreement .there will
be more' detail regarding house size, location and color.
Com. Harris addressed Exhibit F of the staff report, and asked what
does "additional studies" mean. Ms. Wordell stated these are
project related studies. She noted any development approved would
be subject to further studies and could be reduced if it cannot be .
mitigated. She stated the Commission are approving a maximum
number of unitsand can reduce the number if not mitigated.
Mr. Cowan stated the 'Planning Commission are establishing a range
and can deviate slightly from this. ,
Mr. Woolfe stated as a condition of approval of the final
subdivision map, the City will request more detail geology reports
and if the soil. is unstable the number of units may have to be
reduced.
Mr. Bruner stated further studies will only impact the type of
foundation for each particular house. He noted all the other
studies regarding fault lines etc. , have been done. '
Mr. Woolfe ,stated the building permit will not be issued without
the appropriate geology.reports. M7. Cowan stated staff will add
the appropriate wording to ,explain "additional studies".
Com., Austin addressed schools and the mitigation to change the
a' types of dwellings to reduce the number of students generated.
Mr. Skinner stated 'if the schools get overloaded the mix of housing
` can be changed.
Com. Harris and Com. Austin spoke in support of removing this
>MS statement.
t � .
oil
lZ
1 ^''�.'i- i�`'4�"x,�XwJt:...<a d s n;''f5� ...� �'$ i.;8ko- ra �x�.. f�� .!'tj' `f a, 3� �k4 i��, n��< ,j�"in 1 �.Y F y<� *4 w„ys• ?"ahlr :nM ? C w 'ass - .
k F r.€r {d ', ✓4( "t� .f. a} t�L Cv ry ,( 'a *"i k{ ti ;jr a Y, F 7, 1 A . t sYk e+' 'f 7 Y...',
a a i! t t a«.- fit
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® Special Meeting, March 7, 1995
Page 5
x -
Ms. Wordell suggested that each Commissioner take the mitigation
and study these and list their questions for the next meeting.
City Planner Wordell reviewed the constraint map noting any changes
would affect the development areas ar.d also the alternatives.
In. response to . Com.. Harris': question Ms. Wordell stated the p
Seminary;parcel and the Cristo Rey parcel would be treated as one
property,' 'but design the General Plan Amendment to accommodate the
differences.
The Commission agreed to discuss the following:
1. Marsh
2. Hydrology
3. Visual. Impacts
4. Tree Cover
5. Historic Location
6. Animal Movement
7, EEMF
8— Riparian Corridor Setbacks .
1. Marsh
Mr.. Woolfeave background information on the Marsh area and noted
9 g
in Mr. Hopkins' report, he indicated that the existing constraint
map - is adequate to protect the red legged frog. He noted the
housing in alternative 2a does encroach into the drainage areas.
Com. Roberts questioned. the location of the detention basin?
Mr. Bruner explained the drainage from the potential development
and also the location of the detention basin. - He noted they will
work with Fish and Game when designing the development.
Ms. Wordell addressed Mr. Hopkins' report regarding the seep/marsh
is area. Mr. Woolfe stated the seep/marsh areas are identified on the
map,- ,as is the riparian corridor.
x
2. Hydrology
Com. Roberts expressed concern about the detention basin's impact
on 'the trees.
Com. Mahoney suggested this be discussed under tree .cover.
3. Visual .Impact
® Mr. Skinner reviewed the map 'of the visually sensitive areas as
u
N
,..r r,,�
�� i Y"3+ „t tC'`7 � §"CS4Y� ��. '�' dlt`� �1�- ��' i�..r <j! t♦• "{ �-�r Y A 1 t /+S i^G� S �j .}. d
7 C �rs ,y,u"� Jatiy
¢ 1 i
PLMnITIIr. rq� MINUTES
Special. Meeting,: March 7, 1995
Page 6
outlined,,on figure 3-2 in the DEIR.
Com- Roberts stated the area betwesn ::risto Rey .and Maryknoll is
very visible from the open space district and Cristo Rey and
believes' this is grounds for setting precedence.
y .•
Mr. Skinner stated the houses will be visible on the ridgeline from
the .open space district, and will also be visible from Cristo Rey.
The majority of the Commission were not as concerned about the view
from the existing houses on Cristo Rey, but would like more
information on the view of the ridgeline from the open space
district.
Com. Roberts suggested adding the parcel next to the Seminary
property. at the entrance to the park into the constraint map as
well as the bowl area.
The Commission also discussed the slope south of the De Anza Knoll
and south of the seminary property. The majority of the Commission
;f did not want to include the south slope of the De Anza Knoll in the
constraint map, but would like more information and photos of the
f parcel south of the seminary property.* They would also like more
information on the bowl area.
4. Tree Cover
Mr. Mike 'Bruner stated as a result of the last storm some trees
have fallen down and they are working on a new database.
'r 5. Historic Location
Com. Harris suggested identifying this area and adding it to the
sensitive area map. Mr. Woolfe stated they will make a
recommendation from the topographical map and outline the sensitive
areas.
.x
Fr. Mitchell, Diocese of San Jose, stated the caretakers house is
not identified on the map. Mr. Woolfe stated this will be added to
the historically sensitive areas.
6. Animal Movement
Com. Mahoney stated the current map covers animal .movements.
Ms. Wordell summarized ' Mr. Hopkins comments regarding animal
movement.
Com. Mahoney stated the final development plan must include animal
4,
I�
tom.
V
iii.+ <.�:/ . ,
PIAMING COMMISSION MINUTES
y ® Special, Meeting; March 7, 1995
i� Page
movement corridors of a certain size.
Com. Roberts stated any development will impact wildlife and there
E should be wildlife corridors. He noted the constraint map does not
address this.
Com. Harris stated the corridor should be shown on the constraint
map.
s Ms.. Wordell read Mr. Hopkins comments regarding animal movement.
Com. Harris stated as a Commission they wanted a corridor and would
like to amend the constraint map to reflect this.'
Com. Mahoney stated a general area should be located 'for the
corridor and the Commission should decide on a size which is
adequate for the corridor.
Mr. Cowan suggested drawing in potential corridors on the
constraint map.
Chr. Doyle asked for a summary of Mr. Hopkins comments regarding
the corridors.
7. EMF
Com.. Harris addressed the concern about childhood leukemia with
regards to EMF's. She suggested a mitigation that no house be
within 206 ft. of the substation.
Chr. Mahoney stated people who live in these .houses make that .
decision knowing the substation is there.
Com. . Roberts •stated -he concurs with Com. Harris. Com. Austin spoke
in support of a 100 ft. distance.
Chr. Doyle stated that they rely on expert input and this input
says there is no discernable ,linkage' at this point in time to
health hazards, so he would not make the change as suggested by
Com. Harris.
' 3
Mr. Skinner stated there is only information in the general sense
that -EMF's tend to fall off rapidly after 200 ft. He stated he
will come back with more precise locations of the power lines.
8. Riparian Corridor
Chr. Doyle asked if 100 ft. is a reasonable setback and is it from
the ,center of the corridor or the bank?
'i as
i
i
r a
e• �
'�� ✓7'a� r�„t¢F�s"�" a tit �. t"c'.. "� �s "#s�C°ty� , �' +. , , �' t , e��r >r ;`' �` s d t 7 , '
x
PLANNING FISSION MINUTES
: . Special Meeting, March 7, 1995
Page8
Mr. Woolfe stated all development and improvements are restricted
to 100 ft. from the corridor vegetation.
Com. Harris addressed the fencing around the building as opposed to
the lot lines.
Mr. Woolfe stated Mr. Hopkins recommended no fencing within 100 ft. '
of the .creek. He, noted he will further discuss the fence
a requirement and the distance from the riparian corridor with Mr. i
Hopkins
Fr., Mitchell stated the restriction regarding fences is more
restrictive than what is written in the Hillside ordinance.
Mr. Melvin Caldwell, 10300 ' E. Estates Dr. , stated the important
issue is to have 135 acres of 'open space dedicated and expressed
concern about .putting too many areas on the constraint map. He
noted it is more important to get 100 acres of open space than it
is to see a house.
Mr. Steven Haze, San Juan Road, addressed Exhibit A - Information
Matrix, Open Space, and noted he reviewed the Parks and
Recreation's minutes of November 3rd and it stated that the City
Ownership preference would be in the tfollowing,order: Area D, Area
C and Area. B. He noted this was .a motion which was approved.
Ms. Wordell stated she will clarify this.
Mr. Mike Bruner addressed the visual analysis and expressed concern
about some of the -additional areas identified by the Planning
Commission as constraint areas. He noted they need to developon
the eight acres between Cristo Rey and Maryknoll. He stated this
is an isolated piece of property and they can screen the
development with trees. He noted they are aware of the migration
of animals and will mitigate this.
-The Commission reviewed future meetings and what will be discussed.
The next meeting is April 5th.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS -, None
.. •£ F. w t+i atx m.r 'h-.i-1'^1�++. ,,y.s., 1.
^j.- « ^ e. "1"'•. ,�ar�. ,''• r,npr
_ - ' i „t •.t fa ,a�r± ' �e$f i�•`.,, ]KJ �yuY'fi;a., �' A1�t .f�: ''E"st1.51v'6"a l.yyaw R�+r� �{`'`'If� `�•'r rtpt .
4 _
.�*j ''
. �. • . .. r , s . np t.se x.., r t. a r { L arr '1 s. :.
1 -. �� • a a � •v .a rad i � �
.. it
�r
Y
�n
F$Tvlf'
r
f. y;
ir•
L _
:t7u
r;
Y
of _ '
nt?
i53
4
d�p.
i
FNy'
Y�
'Y}
ra s
...y
e
(r
,Y
rdir ." rT;,;fi dl' '+ .� `°' , '4r„i ? ;",^�`t }4 ':svrrt.}ftt'.i ;x C.aS+�: et xr•a �;,+1f 1"1�^y.;,.`' ;' ,'"Ki"Yr+tr7 f.:'�rvCrra''r 'a�da;f Ar f a<
w�a m c"W� d 1 7 �Y� :.✓ 3L4+� +f"Y u 7n�'-`i d'r t ro'" tt 3'�� ,- xS ,r r xr� s� e, i r� d '�� � ,•.fir l
• t '- n -t y;9 afit t ry r�lpp n� 7..; .,,r � r r . r ,
's. . . i'.'' ♦,.zit v� r •- . . - .
M
CITY Ori. CUP1W-rIN0
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CON14ISSION HELD ON
�^ MARCH 13, 1995
k
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Roberts
Com. Harris
Com. Austin
Commissioners Absent: Com. Mahoney
Staff Present: Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Michele Bjurman, Planner II
Charles Kilian, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 22, 1995 ,- Special Meeting
February 27, 1995 - Regular Meeting
The• minutes of February 22, 1995 were amended as fol' •s:
Com. Austin, Page 7, 9th paragraph, Com. Austin's comments should
read "Con. Austin stated that De Anza Co11-4e, Monta Vista High
School and the Sobrato building are examples of good architecture
without the use of towers and turrets
Com. Harris, Page 3, 6th paragraph, change the word "opposed" to
"proposed".
MOTION:. Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of February 22,
1995, as amended
SECOND:. Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. Mahoney
Com. Harris amended the minutes of February 27, 1995 as follows:
Page 8, 8th paragraph change the word "Council" to "Commission".
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of February 27,
1995, as amended
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. 'Mahoney
z WRITrEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion
h s
:t
-c -� {-- vis/ '^ _ ar .; . t ,W} >.Ayn t p t rrr,'i i � h' t� t�r� ^}'S•,tom t r rts'�,,FI* w'S.
h ,%•,nt�v'�` �;,� }.,r.� tt''ik ^�L� f "`;�[.is 1 rc'�6'�• � }r� � s -rest i.��� �"et F { $,e � °"s Y t7 rt�v, ak rtr
�4Gs"av y'ryiV q
PLANNING CME 9SION MINUTES
March 13, 1995
{ Page 2
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
Item 3: Application 1-U-95 —Hunter Properties, Homestead Road
and Grant - Request continuance to the Planning-
Commission Meeting of March 27; 1995.
Item 4: Application 2-U-95 and 4-EA-95 - Walt Lan, 20007 Stevens
Creek Blvd. - Request continuance to the Planning
i
,Commission Meeting of March 27, 1995.
MOTION�: ' Com'. Austin moved to continue item 3 and. 4 to the meeting
of March 27, 1995.
SECOND: : Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. Mahoney
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Finding of General Plan Consistency, regarding the acquisition
of land located adjacent to Fremont Older Park.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the Consent Calendar
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. Mahoney
PUBLIC HEARINGS '
2. Application No(s) : 10-U-94 (Modified) and 29-EA-94
Applicant: Barry Swenson Builder
Property Owner: First Development Corp.
Location: Stevens Creek Blvd. , between Stelling
Road and the easterly City boundary
USE PERMIT (Modified) to allow restaurant use.
, tS aff presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff
report. He reviewed the existing parking spaces for both the
retail : and .the apartments . as outlined in the staff report. He
noted staff recommends approval with the following criteria:
General retail - 1 space per 200 sq. ft.
Speciality food stares - 1 space Per 4 seats, plus 1 per
employee
Sit down only and fast food restaurants not exceeding 1000 sq.
ft. - 1 space per 3 seats, plus 1 per employee
The maximum number of spaces allocated for commercial- purposes
is 20 spaces.
1
Ifi
i
i` '`u� [i*.'.: a-,ria �a• �,,,...;,_ a' f�'�,f e n 5rt np; ,u}+.c2A.-.�y f} :+ a .y f,.t... A i futh`1°�L F.rr '.Yr lg= .a'r rtr;r{,,;7c _
k,y� ti;�9 '. 'a ''�t n. ,,y,• x �-.. !• f 1,T'n a�' F S t.
, r 4 �,.aS'�Y� ��,✓, x i �f' � � dit��9 s t"i' c tN� A�1. :,, : , r .�
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 13F 1995
®
Page 3
Mr. Cowan noted there will be a reciprocal parking agreement with
the apartment building and no parking on Stevens. Creek Blvd.
Com. Austin_ expressed concern about late night commercial
operations being next to residential. She suggested a limit on the
operating hours.
Mr. Cowan stated the typical hours for commercial are 7 a.m. to 11
p.m. and a use permit is required to extend these hours. He also
noted that the designation of parking spaces is a management issue.
The public hearing was -opened.
` Ms. Lisa Bowlin, Barry Swenson Builder,. stated they.have an offer
to lease from an existing Cupertino business and they would support
staff Is' recommendation. She noted the 1000 sq. ft. limit as
addressed above, will most likely be retail. She also noted there
is no giving space next to the commercial.
Mr. Al DeRidder, 19146 Anne Ln. , spoke in support of .staff's
recommendation and noted according to Community Housing Developers,
parking spaces may be assigned to the apartments. He requested -
® that parking on Tautau be prohibited. Mr. DeRidder asked what kind
of protection they ,have against bars etc. going into this location?
Mr..' Cowan stated establishments such as bars will have to apply for
a use permit. He pointed out that a condition of approval
designates the parking spaces and if the parking becomes a problem
it can be reviewed:
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Harris believes it is a mistake to designate the parking and
suggested leaving the maximum number of spaces at 20 without
designating them.
Mr. Cowan stated there is a condition 'to designate the parking and
suggested going forward at this time and if there is a -problem
adjustments can be made.
Com. Roberts spoke in support of the designation as is.
Chr. Doyle expressed concern about a restaurant which may use more
than 20," spaces.
r
Mr. Cowan stated there is a limited number of seats and it is
important to define them.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 10-U-94 (Modified) subject
F
y
2 F t:, ,I i .?' t 3 -"� Yf1+' $ yv., x �. v s ytyf�.. p �Itfa�,I ♦5a ��ytb .N.T,'� 'vM � - � °t 2
,1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® March 1.3,- -1995
..Page 4
'G.
{ to the findings a subconclusions of the hearing.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. Mahoney
5. Application No(s) : 4-U-95, 2-Z-95 and 6-EA-95
Applicant: Central Fire Protection District
, Property Owner: Same
Location: 22620 .Stevens Creek Blvd.
4F
USE PERMIT to replace and expand an existing fire station.
REZONING a .4 acre parcel from Rl to BA (public building) .
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff
report ;'outlining the location of the fire station and the
surrounding uses. She stated the new fire station would be 7644
sq, ft.,,'and has the potential to become a Battalion Headquarters.
She presented a. proposed site plan and reviewed the setbacks and
noted circulation on-site would improve. She noted a 7 ft. high
wall is proposed along Stevens Creek Blvd. Ms. Wordell reviewed
the elevations.
Ms. Wordell reviewed the noise issue noting that there are usually
®. two responses a day from. this station and about 70% of these
responses are between the hours 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. She noted the
noise at the receptors meets the General Plan standards and the
' residents to the south would be buffered by a building. Also,
there is a masonry wall proposed along the east property line to
protect neighbors from the noise. She noted construction noise was
addressed in the EIR. Ms. Wordell stated staff is proposing that
this application include an additional wing wall and the existing
trees be retained.
Applicant presentation: Chief Sporleder, Central Fire District,
stated both the facilities before the Planning Commission at this
hearing"are old facilities and don't meet current codes. He noted
they are in need of an upgrade.. He, presented- a map of the Fire
District and the location_ of the fire station. He stated the
district met with the neighbors and discussed their concerns. ' He
added they are proposing a station which has potential growth.
Mr. Glen Bower, Architect„ stated the proposal is to primarily
bring the building up to code. He noted it is important that the
station be integrated into the neighborhood. Mr. Bower presented
drawings of the proposed fire station and reviewed the different
areas within she fire station, including the crew quarters,
apparatus room etc. He stated the second story section will be
kept as far back as possible. Mr. Bower reviewed the design of the
building noting they are using color and building materials which
Y- S
jjj
t
Y flph
�
•
i . .. .. �'ate ,-
e'
i�
Jx
,e
;d s tJr n✓1 k'r,..t+s 5 ,P +. :9} ?%•, nTM `-'F1 k, �rfh n.. !S` J 6, Y! * {c
Viz, r r i ro i'ifr ri+tf iiia ffh rtY7`F2-.V" .I;vu 1 a t.a,,^I 1 m
�:'{r�' .-��`t^' 1 i s�pZ tr' 't °+ ?S. 5 ,-;i a •{r , , , �t�;r3t 4 5.,, C"'�r:.,...°1� �f�r�6 ��"?t �,/vo,�f a.�w l,*�`�'.
r]kar 1 rh'1$i
! 2i t�xt wl t s F>
PLANNING COKMISSION KINUTES
March 13, 1995
Page 5
are existing in the neighborhood. He also reviewed the landscaping
noting they will be adding on-site and street trees.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about the large stucco wall plane.
Mr. Bower stated the stucco wall area will be patterned. He noted
this building, under the building code, falls into the essential
services . section, which requires higher levels of safety for
t
buildings that service the community.
Chr. . Doyle asked about the proposed height? Mr. Bower stated the
apparatus room needs the height and there is also a small two story.
portion. which is an exercise room and accommodations for the future
Battalion Chief. He believes the proposed roof shape relates to
the „neighborhood and softens the roof line.
Mr. Ray Eddy, 10052 Mossy Oak Ct. , spoke in support of the plan and
would like to see the station improved. He stated he has a very
deep appreciation for the Monta Vista fire crew.
a
'Mr. Robert West, 20232 Joseph Circle ', stated he is neutral on the
issue and asked several questions regarding the station.
® Ms. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oak Way, stated the City is growing
and there- is a need for more fire protection. She stated the Fire
District should get what they need as they are a very important
essential service. She spoke in support of the project.
Mr. Steve Solgate, spoke in support of the plan as proposed.
Mr. Bower responded to Mr. West's questions. He noted the old
station will remain in operation during'construction. The building
is two story as described earlier. This station and the Cupertino
station. will be built at the same time and .they would like to be
under construction by the end of the year. He noted the parking
spaces will be doubled, the response time will be improved. With
regards to alternate plans, ' Mr. Bower- stated no alternate plans
were provided to the City. He noted the building is primarily a
or_a story with a two story section in the back.
Regarding the response time, Chief Sporleder stated the goal is .to
respond in five minutes or less..
t Regarding the bias question asked by Mr. West, Mr. 'Cowan stated he
has had meetings. with the neighbors and he explained that 'the City
relies on the Fire. District to give advice on- their.public safety
needs and he would recommend supporting the proposal:
® . City Planner Wordell stated staff had, concerns about the setbacks
r
7
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 13, 1995
Page 6
and they did meet with the applicant and 'the architect to discuss
this. She noted they cut back on their square footage and are at
a minimum.,
>x The .public hearing was closed.
Com. Austin questioned the noise level- w� • ,, re.-
lards to the sirens.
Chief Sporleder stated they will use the :.iren to take the right-
of-way and .so far there have been no complaints at 7-springs.
Each commissioner spoke in support of the project. Com. Harris
expressed concern about the setbacks, but noted the neighbors
support the project. Chr. Doyle also expressed concern about the
vertical height of the wall and the setbacks.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to grant a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 4.-0-1
ABSENT: . Com. Mahoney
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to 'approve 4-U-95 and 2-Z-95 subject to
the findings a subconclusions of the hearing with the
additional findings: Locate. a wing wall in the testing
® area and retain_ the tree _.screening at the southwest
property line.
SECOND: - Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed
:r ABSENT: Com. Mahoney
6. Application No(s) : 3-U-95 and 3-Z-83 (Mod. ) and 5-EA-95
' Applicant: Central` Fire''Protecton District
Property Owner: Same
Location: Vista and Randy Drive north of Stevens
Creek Blvd.
USE PERMIT to replace and expand an existing fire station on
an adjacent parcel.
MODIFICATION of the Stevens Creek Blvd. Conceptual Zoning Plan
(3-Z-83) to allow a 13 ft. 6 in. setback.
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordelll - presented the staff i
report an,d outlined the location of the proposed fire station and
the -surrounding uses. She noted the proposal is for a 10,700 sq.
ft. building, housing three engines and seven fire fighters. . She' r
reviewed.' the circulation on and off the site as outlined in the.
staff report. Ms: -Wordell reviewed the noise study also outlined
in the staff report. She noted staff is recommending approval and
® believes the Fire District has looked -at` alternatives and this
a.
Al
< a r r 5 ..k r, ,,(:t_ti ,, i t "` -� F ( , :a - . r-• � � r 1-y:,i .r ,c'+i,a.Yx � „ n �s 'ir� t +��c" r+
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i
® March 13,' 1995
Page 7
location meets their needs, and staff has worked with them to help wa
mitigate the impacts. a
A1212licant' presentation: Chief Sporleder stated this building was
built in 1949 and does not meet current building standards and it
also suffered damage in the 1989 earthquake. He noted the present
site is not adequate, but the station location is good and a vacant
parcel was important criteria when looking for available sites. He
added they want to create a. drive through capability in the fire
station so they do not have to cross six lanes of traffic and they
j were' looking for a site• which will accommodate future growth.
+ Chief Sporleder stated when they settled on this site they
attempted to negotiate with the present owners. They were not
successful in that and have ,therefore moved forward in a
condemnation proceeding. He noted they met with the neighbors and
f reviewed their alternate sites, but they were not adequate.
Com. Harris asked if the existing fire station could be expanded
and keep it on Stevens Creek Blvd.?
Chief Sporleder stated they did look at the possibility of building
j on the site, but they would have to encroach upon the business next
door and this causes many problems. He noted the sale of the
existing site will off-set some of the costs for the new fire
station. He noted they have a five minute goal- response time and
they will meet it from the new facility.
- Mr. Glen. Bower, Architect, stated the primary goals are to make the
most efficient site to aid in response times and to integrate into
the neighborhood. He reviewed the design of the building, noting
s the mechanical equipment is enclosed. He noted the colors and
materials proposed are compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Bower
reviewed the proposed landscaping noting there were changes made in
response to the meeting with the neighbors. He noted the district
added a 10 ft. buffer .to the northern property line and the station
has been moved back from the street. The landscaping was increased
to mitigate the noise activity. . He reviewed the proposed
landscaping.
Mr. Don Kenne, 20260 Reinell, President, Vista Gardens Homeowners
Association, addressed the general plan as it relates to public
services and neighborhood protection. He added they. met with the
Fire District on November 16th and voiced strong objections because }
of the close proximity to residences. He noted if this was not a
public agency it would not get approved. He expressed concern
about negative impacts on propera,r. He addressed. the circulation
on the site and noted the issue of response time is critical and
needs to be' considered. Mr. Kenne presented an alternate pian
using the existing fire station. He noted with the alternate plan
l'
.. qi
., 'a rry t s der "lf�.9f✓i N`r�'#''nrEf�' ..'.
y PrANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 13, 1995
Page 8
there would be no impact on the neighborhood and no fire trucks on
Vista. He stated their primary objections are to the noise and
lights. He stated he would urge the Commission to vote no on this
proposal.
Com. Harris asked if this plan was shown to the Fire District?
i
Mr.. Kenne noted this plan was presented to the Fire District in
February, but has made a few changes since then. He noted in the
plan proposed by the Fire District, the color and design are not
compatible with the neighborhood. He explained the ownership of
the surrounding, property. Mr. Kenne stated the community
objections to the building are as follows:
• The building is institutional and does not blend well with the
residences.
• Would like an architectural treatment abutting the existing
residential.
• Don't like the brick, not compatible with neighborhood.
• Don't like the dark treatment.
The building is massive and not aesthetic.
® Mr. Ronald Jacoby, 20182 Joseph Circle, President, Joseph Park
Homeowners Association, gave a slide presentation with regards to °
the impacts of the proposed fire station on the existing
neighborhood. He also reviewed the alternate plan as addressed by
Mr. Kenne, noting the ' response time could be improved. He
addressed the typical noise levels and the noise levels generated
by the proposed fire station. Mr. Jacoby noted the proposed fire
station will be detrimental to public safety. He stated he is not
against a fire station at this location, but believes the alternate a
plan .would be an. improvement.
Com. Harris addressed the noise study 'in the staff report and Ms.
Wordell - stated staff used the worse case scenario and the Fire
District indicated that they can mitigate to meet City standards.
Ms: Gay Fisher, 20263 Cartwright Way,, stated her basic concern is
the exit onto Vista Drive and noted this has not been addressed.
She stated she seen other photos of fire stations in residential
areas; but- they have been adjacent to apartments. She expressed
concern about noise and lights and urged the Planning Commission to
consider the alternate proposal.
,
Mr. Robert West, 20232 Josepn circle, stated the decision of the
Planning Commission will be with Cupertino residents for the next
40 years or so. Mr. West reviewed his letter to the Commission
dated March 8, 1995. He also reviewed an alternate plan he
proposed which would build the new station directly behind the
M
o
_p�' 4.i .r),!
i , T
S
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March' 13, 1995
Page 9
existing station as included in the staff report. He stated he did
do the research with an appraiser regarding property values.
I
In response to Chr. Doyle's question regarding the alternate plans
presented, City Attorney Kilian stated the Commission can hear all
the evidence, but their authority does not extend to approving an
alternative presented by the homeowners. He stated the Commission
cannot require the Fire District to acquire land and change the .
i project. .
i
Mr. Ross Quinn, 20261 Reinell P1. 11 stated he hears fire trucks in
_ a distance and this does not bother him, but he is concerned about
the noise and lights with the proposed fire station. He noted 7
recently during flooding the fire trucks left more than once. He
spoke in favor of fire stations, but is .concerned about the trucks
exiting onto Vista Drive.
Mr.. Earl Pennington,. 1950 W. Edmundson Ave. , Morgan Hill, stated he
is not in support of any, of the plans presented at this meeting.
He noted his mother owns a duplex behind the back entrance of the
proposed fire station. He statedsthis would be a detriment to his
mother's -,business, which are rental units. He believes the
entrance .and exit should remain on Stevens Creek Blvd.
® Mr. Rolf:. Meyer, 20271 Reinell P1. , expressed concern about the
lights from the fire trucks when exiting and also the noise.
Dr. Lillian Quirke, 20251 Reinell P1. , expressed concern about the
children who use Vista Drive to go to Collins school. She also
expressed concern about the lights and noise impactf.:.
Mr. Ed Duffek, 10104 Randy Ln. , expressed concern about the
proposed plan. He noted there is an island barrier on Randy Lane
and one on Forest Street and both should be removed.
Mr. Kenne stated his proposal and the Fire District's proposal are
within 1000 sq. ft. of each other.
Ms. Wanda Shank, resident, addressed the 17 ft. height wing wall
proposed. She noted this wall is next to her bedroom and will be
offensive. She also believes that the mitigations do not address
the needs of the neighborhood.
Mr. Mike Broth, Director of Business Services, . stated they would
never propose a station which would have a negative service on the
" Community. He presented a handout titled "Comparison of run times
for all cote 2 and code 3 calls" and reviewed this with, the
Commission. He noted when proposing a new site they take the
response time into consideration. ,
`5
C
4
r s i y ;� inveir;fi n ta� ^tt� i
PIANNING CONKIS'SION MINUTES
MarchC13, 1995
Page 10
Com. Roberts asked if Stevens Creek and De Anza intersection become
more congested, would the response time increase?
'Mr. Broth stated the Fire District is also interested in protecting
the .firs fighters as well as the citize'ps and the ' longer the
response time the more the fire gets out of control. He noted this
is all taken into consideration when calculating the response time.
d
Chief Sporleder stated they have been part of the General Plan
process and the General Plan was considered when selecting the
site.
Mr. Glen Bower addressed the alternative plans, noting that he does
not believe that elLther plan would work.
-K Plan 1 - submitted by Mr. Kenne has slightly more area (42,051 sq.
x; ft) but has the following problems:
1. Traffic conflict onto Randy Lane
2. Insufficient parking
3. No turnaround
4. ' Remote area
5. Unusable patio
® 6. No landscaping
,t
7. Existing business conflict
Plan 2 - submitted "by Mr. West has a total area of (53,069 sq.
ft. ) , but has the following problems:
1. Existing business conflicts
2. Excessive paving and no landscaping
3. Setbacks are not adequate
4. Parking is not adequate
Com. Harris stated conceptual plans 1 and 2 were. prepared by lay
people and asked if Mr. Bower had put any thought into making them
functional?
Mr. Bower stated a considerable amount. of thought-went into these
plans and they looked into the site exiting onto Stevens Creek. He
stated. to do this they would encroach on the adjacent business,
also they cannot work with less area and there are undesirable
turning movements coming onto the site..
;u
Chr. Doyle if the trucks could enter from Vista onto plan 2? Mr.
Bower stated, theoretically this could work. Chr. . Doyle questioned
the cost of the land?
Ms. Sandy Sloan, Attorney representing the Fire District in the
condemnation law suit, stated they attempted to negotiate with the
property owner for a year and at no time did they come to a price.
DSAPQW.rJR�TITA R`F _:�
Un
J' r g LSa"�' '�1. .I
'+ Y
PLANNING. COMMISSION MINUTES
March 13, 1995
Page 11
He stated the property owner .was not interested in selling this
property for a value that was close to the appraised value, so the
negotiations came to a stand still and they .have moved forward with
condemnation. She noted the area they are condemning is the area
of the proposal. Ms. Sloan stated the Fire District, in moving
ahead with the condemnation had two goals in mind, one was to avoid
impacting the existing residential neighborhood and the second was
, to avoid taking land that is occupied by an existing business and
avoid leaving a remainder parcel were it could be argued that there
were severance damages. She stated the appraiser did value the
land at $2.9 per square foot. She noted another negative issue with
regards to plans one and two is because of the shape of the
remainder parcel it would be difficult to develop and the value
could be decreased. She stated for the above reasons, plans one
and two are not adequate.
Ms. Sloan stated having the fire station at the back of the
property, the front part of the property could be developed at high
density because it is away from the existing residential.
In response to Com. Harris' question regarding proceeding with the
condemnation before approval, Ms. Sloan stated they needed to work
with the property owner, they also came to the City and inquired
about the Use Permit. She stated the City Attorney said it would
not be appropriate to apply for a use permit unless they had
procession of the property or .had filed the condemnation law-suit. ,
City Attorney Kilian stated with any type of formal use permit
there 'must be 'some control of the property. He noted the costs of
acquiring the property is not just the cost of the per square foot
of the take, but there are other costs involved. o He stated this is
the district's-responsibility and the Planning Commission's job is
to decide on whether the plan they presented meets the criteria of
the use permit.
Mr. Bower added that the district is committed to meeting the noise
ordinance. ,
Com. Austin addressed the concern of the -neighbors regarding the
lights shining into their homes and suggested redesigning the
driveway.
In response to public comments, Ms. Sloan stated she would dispute
that property values will. decrease because of the. fire station.
b
Regarding the lights as addressed by Com. Austin, Mr. Bower stated
the property adjacent is higher in elevation than the proposed„
property. He noted there will be some spill over of lights, but
® they will be shining more on the fence. He stated the district is
P
;. .-... ,., .., .:_._._-"r '•x v..,s ;�v.;.r.---ZZxF�arg;,;-sa3' ?'"'v'. - va--;�: ''cy, u a�tia,
F J
t
'•r
." ,,r;. h -.• :t �� xd ;. ii - r ;i'ik i rrn f y 4 I fY yin..,gf!' �� -SsL �4qt.l-p .'rr�,'y �� �;
FBF
VI
I PLANNING COkMISSION MINUTES
® March 13, 1995
Page 12
i a
iwilling to discuss this more. Regarding the wing wall, Mr. Bower
stated- this is a sound wall and will help mitigate the noise. He
noted steps can be taken to mitigate this and the colors are easily
adjusted if necessary.
Com. Harris asked about the school children as addressed earlier?
Chief Sporleder stated he does not see this is .a problem.
Mr. Bower stated there is no intention to change the pattern of car
traffic onto vista.
Com. -Harris stated that she would support having a fire station on !
Stevens Creek Blvd'. and this would fit in with the Heart of the
City. She stated there will be a cost to taking the business and 9
paying the damages on the business site, but if this is amortized
over 50 or 80 years it would look like great foresight on the part
of the Fire District. She stated she does not like the
architecture proposed for this location. She agreed that the
trucks should not have to back in off Stevens Creek. Com. Harris
stated some more work needs to be done because the community is not
satisfied and their concerns need to be addressed. She stated if ;
the existing site was used, operation during construction could be
addressed with an eye to resolution. She said she does not object
® to the proposed site, but there are a lot of objections from the
neighbors and these need a response. She stated she would not be
in favor of an approval as proposed.
Com: Roberts stated he would also prefer to see the fire station
facing Stevens Creek Blvd. and would prefer a solution which finds
a drive through resolution but keeps the major egress- on Stevens
Creek Blvd. He stated they are weighing a conflict to protect a
business versus protecting a neighborhood. He added that. the
conflicts are serious and a second effort should be made to resolve
the conflicts. He also expressed concern about the noise and light
issue.
Com. Austin also expressed concerti about the lights as addressed by i
the neighbors. She does not believe there is enough protection for
the neighborhood and other options should be looked at.
Chr. Doyle stated he would concur with the other commissioners and
could not support this proposal as it stands. He spoke in support
of changing the design.
Chr. Doyle asked the commissioners if the site is acceptable? It
was agreed if all problems could be mitigated the . site would be
acceptable.
Mr. Cowan`'stated there may be a way to angle the driveway in order
. i
+ �"Y 4 ,k+'('+hr,`',}�°arti �':`Y ✓•,. �� yi.�a>K. '"s h��i
✓,' t a r t+� i ; �'r• ! ``__
I v1
" c i vr:. e 2 - rr =, r'•"`:r'i 14's +"�tJ+1H v !t r�,�1�r� ��^ ��`+{a �
t
PI ANMING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 13, 1995
Page 13'
to address the light issue.
r City Attorney Kilian explained that the applicant can continue this
to come up with or options or take a denial and go forward to the
Council.
Chief Sporleder stated they would like a vote and would go forward .
to the Council.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to grant a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. Mahoney
MOTION: Coma Austin moved to deny 3-U-95 and 3-Z-83 (M) on the
basis of the detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the. surrounding neighborhood and incorporate the
comments of., the various commissioners as findings.
SECOND::- Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT:" Com. Mahoney
. 7. rpr lication No: 1-EXC-95
Applicant: Carrasco & Assoc.
Property Owner: Prakash and Sujata Bhalerao
Location: 11837 and 11841 Upland Way
EXCEPTION to construct a neva residence and grade a driveway on
slopes greater than. 30% and to exceed the grading quantity in
accordance with Sections 19.40.050 and 19.40.060 of the
r Municipal Code.
Staff presentation,: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report
outlining the site location noting the average slope of the land is
approximately 39 percent. She noted the property would be visible
from Upland Way and Rainbow as well as portions of the valley
floor. . She also outlined the pedestrian and equestrian easement
and -noted this had been abandoned and will not be implemented
because`of the steepness of the properties. She presented a cross
section 'noting most of the home is built into the hillside.
2
Due to '-lack of material in the Planning Commissioners packets it
was a consensus of the Commission to continue this item to the next
meeting:
Mr. Tony Carrusco, Architect, stated he has no choice but to
continue this at this time.
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to continue this item to March 27, 1995
'1
MIII
fi
.r
f
,J .�"T•i(?.•,,,'�,>'u s?k'... ��,y,..7 F,y�:f� t,r�.a>, x, .y.,,,� n�, °�. 6y ,y„� �,.�v {�-':�f'
.� J s, ? i 4•+, ,:?r' t°- ae�` ah vs!'"n k�e.f C; k .iX 9.i' r .f/,.
,...., -,.;
E.•, 1 t.re cif' � " ° .�� � "qT� z �""2 s _y, t,•F 4`� j r{ G 1 n dru ++r yf21X2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES,
March 13, 1995
Page ,14
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSENT: Com. N�ahoney'
;6
8. Discussion of Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility in Santa
Clara.
City Planner wordell presented the staff report, noting the only
additional comments they would like .to make for the public hearings
is that the $200,000 that Kaiser agreed to provide for traffic
mitigation, that this agreement be reached prior to approval of the
project. "",
Com. Harris questioned the emergency service entrance on Lawrence
" at Lehigh?
Mr. Larry: Tucker, Kaiser, stated this is a general access and if
only used for emergencies it would push too much traffic to the
other three entrances.
1
Com, Roberts questioned the parking. Mr. Tucker stated the City
and .Kaiser have their parking standards. ,
® It was a consensus of the Commission to support staff's
recommendation.
k REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
w REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COM14UNITY DEVELOPMENT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS None
ADJOURNHENFT The Planning Commission adjourned at 12 a.m. to the
meeting of March 27, 1995.
- Respectfully submitted
� t9� � ' KO'vWt•4�'� '
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes Clerk
l
Will i
x:
.i
4� ft r
.l`."R ai•�!S: ;s o-.,. •t"`'-'r''�.
a 4 4fh-4 �{sa p },�rifa4s y s -la ,yry'
n�'r'`<.�w,✓4"
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Ave.
ow
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3208
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON MARCH 27, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG .
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Roberts
Com. Mahoney
Com. Harris
Com. Austin
Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES f
P
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the minutes of March 7, 1995
SECOND: Com. Austin
® VOTE: Passed 5-0
Com. Harris amended the minutes to March 13, 1995 as follows:
Page 10, Com. Harris' comments should read "Com. Harris stated
conceptual plars 'l and 2 were prepared by lay people and asked if
Mr. Bower had put any thought into making them functional?
Page 12, 1st paragraph, 6th sentence should read "She stated- if the
existing site was used, operation during construction could be
addressed with an eye to resolution."
Page 8, include Mr. Kennels comments regarding his opposition to
the proposed architecture.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the .minutes of March 13,
1995, as amended
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSTAIN: Com. Mahoney
d
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR
Item, 2: , Application 81,004.18 and 3-EA-95, City of Cupertino,
Citywide. Request continuance to the Planning Commission
Meeting of April 10, 1995.
,
1111 WINE
v
'h,-�asC `tST�sy,' ,� f#�`°A.``"� i'"'c+f{ 'v1 .. �r^il. k L 7d � k's ✓ .v ! ti 4i^ .
J4'1/.+ad{. tr.i n r{, R Ft: J' jj +/./.'W Z° �y! tr " Y f-NSI,`{Jk Yf .✓!'f "� �'�",.'! ! Sj�.T 4f l':I !Y! Si-rt>.1 7�+' Vf(t f,� �c 5�7 t' 9
--' 333 §Y-- 1 r � -S l7 •'i `� }i i t . ii7 1 > y±>r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 27, 1995
Page 2
MOTION: ;Com. Austin moved to continue item 2 to the meeting of
April 10, 1995
SECOND: ,:;Com. Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 5-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS j
1. Application No: 1-EXC-95 f
Applicant: Carrasco & Assoc.
Property Owner: Prakash and Sujata Bhalerao
Location: 11837 and 11841 Upland Way
EXCEPTION to construct a new residence and grade a driveway on
slopes ,+::eater than 30% and to exceed the grading quantity in
accordance with Sections 19.40,050 and 9.40.060 of the
Municipal Code.
Staff presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff
report noting the average slope of the lot is 38.6%. She reviewed A
the prominent ridgeline close to this property and noted the house
® size. is similar to ' some surrounding residents. Ms. Wordell
reviewed the size and design of the home' , as well as the landscape
plan, . noting staff is proposing additional trees in the vineyard
portion of the property. Ms. Wordell reviewed the views from all
elevations. ' She reviewed the proposed realignment of the driveway
as outlined in the staff report. She noted the proposed driveway
will eliminate the need for the retaining wall, and reduces the
grading quantity. She added the applicant ::as shown that the t
proposed residence is below the ridgeline and will not be visible
from. the valley floor. She said the geotechnical consultant for
the project indicated theproject is feasible if ' the
recommendations for on-site drainage are followed. Also,, the areas
of shallow soil movement do not pose a serious geotechnical hazard.
She noted the City's geologist, at the, tentative map stage, '
recommended approval with the provision that the plans be reviewed .
by the geotechnical consultant and the field inspection be
undertaken by the geotechnical consultant. The results should be
submitted prior to final project approval. She noted staff is
recommending approval with the conditions that are proposed. She
stated staff believes that the sinking of the residence into the
hillside and the landscaping will help mitigate the visual impacts,
and that according to the geotechnical reports the project is
feasible.
The Commission questioned the slope adjustment formula regarding
the house size, and the grading for the driveway.
t
idi'',, 1• .3 .r' ,, f�i rCi 6! � .'9 r .I<. r..1 4,... 5..- ';¢1 4 r J .i
PUNNING CONXISSION KINUTES
® March '27, 1995
Page 3
Ms. ,Wordeli stated theslopeadjustment formula allows more that
6500 sq. ft. , but there is a maximum house size of .6500 sq. ft.
She also noted that grading quantity for the driveway and the
residence does not exceed the 2500 cubic yards.
Com. Roberts stated the 2500 cubic yards is inconsistent with Cl -
grading plan in the staff report. Ms. Wordell stated when the cut
and fill are on-site only the cut is included in the count.
Com. Roberts stated he visited the site several times, once with
staff. He noted what he saw was not at all satisfactory.
e
Ms.,.Wordell stated the driveway was issued a grading permit which
included erosion control measures. She noted the erosion control
measures were not installed by the applicant resulting in a
tremendous: amount of erosion with the recent rains. She stated the
applicant should have installed the erosion control measures and
neither the project consultant or the City did .field. inspections.
She noted new procedures will tagigrading permits so that as they
are issued field inspections will be done by the City. Ms. Wordell
stated, staff is working with the applicant to have the erosion'
control measures installed. She noted staff believes this
® application can be considered separate from the problem as it will
be resolved.
Com. Roberts stated an area in this location did slide down the
hill and this was supposedly stabilized. Com. Roberts stated the
drainage on Upland Way needs to be addressed. ' He stated there is
clear evidence that in storms the existing drainage system is not
adequate.
Com. Austin also noted she visited the site and there have been
mudslides.
I
Ms. Wordell stated the main problems are because the erosion
control measures were not implemented.
Mr. Cowan. stated the drainage system will be a gully next to the '
roadway. �He stated because of the erosion, as a result of the last
few months of rain, the contractor for this project will have to
clear out the storm lines.
Chr. Doyle stated the main issues are erosion, run-off and
drainage, and the applicant should address these.
Com. Harris addressed the house size allowed. Ms. Wordell reviewed
the size of the home including the garage and the basement. Com.
Harris stated it is her understanding that when they discussed the
house size the maximum house size allowed was 6500 sq. ft. and this
,:1w„'"'.' c..-3 _�:'.: 'sfft. �:_a.,�•- ¢3"aY Fy.v y.ki
ti
'iVk�5` 2�.'F•/)� .s4i f'� 'L t t. !( .1. IJ 1 Ip:'1 !Y' t t. M'F�f �JL fid}Zi`I - 'f,:.. .
- v i ,,. d 1�',.•, �1 +' ' '. - �.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.
March 27, 1995
Page 4
included all the living area.
Ms. Wordell stated the definition of the FAR in the zoning
ordinance exeapts basements. i
Mr.' .Cowan stated the issue is visible mass and if the applicant
develops below grade it will not be visible.
Com. Harris questioned the soil creep? Ms. Wordell stated hillside
properties. because of the slope, could be susceptible to sliding.
Com. Harris addressed Policy 2-40 of the General Plan which
prohibits homes on slopes greater than 30% unless through an
exception.
1
Ms. Wordell stated in order to build the applicant must apply for
an exception and go through the review process. She stated it is
staff's advise that the Planning Commission may modify the
4 proposal, but unless there are significant health and safety
issues, it would be difficult to deny the project. She noted lots
1
are not buildable unless exceptions are granted. She said it was
not the intent to not allow development at all.
1 ® Mr. Cowan stated the intent was to provide a review process. He
noted prior to Policy 2,-40 development could occur in the hillside
without a review process. He stated the city must allow some r
reasonable use on the property, but the Planning Commission have
discretion over the design and house size. He noted Mr. Cotton,
the City'# geologist, believes that this project can be built.
Com. Harris addressed Policy 2-53, noting this does not mandate an
exception,. Mr. Cowan stated the Planning Commission do not have: to
approve the plan before them,- but can ask for a modification. He y
noted this subdivision was approved and recorded, therefore 3. lots
were created.
Com. Roberts addressed condition 2 regarding the maximum house
size? Mr: Cowan stated they should ask the applicant about the
basement and then approve ascertain house size.
In response to Chr. Doyle's question regarding the parking and
_ driveway, Mr. Cowan explained the driveway configuration and the
proposed parking.
Regarding house size, Com. Harris stated it is her understanding
that the maXimum house size is 6500 sq. ft. and is then reduced
based on .the slope.
Applicant Presentation: Mr. Dillion.Kyle, Project Architecture,
1
t
•p. q
.w.._.
Rj
t' .�. . r' :.:r � °s"�;.{� �,q?7c+-�:dX1���'.3- 4`._Y :� ' '� 4�y1 { {rtgr.,,f " r "�i1�3 .�1a�1 tsa Jd.a�l9✓d�„rt^�'�".c 1/..y'S.. �r>t % a q.�� , "�"s t
PLANNING CtiONXISSIox HINuTES
® March 27, 1995
.t
Page, 5
stated the main goal in designing this house was to integrate it as
3 much 'as possible into the hillside. He noted the house is stepped
back as it rises and letting the earth of the hillgo onto the roof
t is to not change any contours above the, house. Ke said there is no
grading above the house. He added they have complied with the RHS
ordinance with regards to height and setbacks. He stated the deep
porches, the trellis -and vines will break up the massing. Mr. Kyle
reviewed the elevations noting this house will not be seen from the
valley floor. He also reviiwed the proposed.material and colors.
He reviewed the color brochures presented to the Commissioners
which outlined the views from the surrounding areas.
In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. . Kyle outlined the
location of the trellis and noted the sod roof is the best way to
join the house and the hillside. He. also reviewed the proposed
trees to be planted. Mr. Kyle stated this will be a concrete
structure and explained the sealing. He noted a fire place may be
added to the family room.
Mr. Mory Nelson, Civil Engineer, explained that soil creep happens
on steeper hillsides with expansive soils. When the soil gets stet
in the winter it expands and moves down the hill. Mr. Nelson
' ® stated.°.this is not a serious problem, but needs to be addressed.
He added it occurs mainly .on disturbed. soil.
Mr. Nelson stated there has been significant erosion on the site
and- if:, the drainage and erosion control measures had been put in
place before the heavy storms the damage would not have occurred.
He noted as part of the grading application 'an existing landslide
was identified by the soils consultant and phis has been repaired
under the observation of a soils engineer. He noted the slope
repaired held up well during the rains. He added within the last
two weeks there has been a slide which occurred adjacent to the
site which was repaired, he stated this can also be repaired in a
similar way. He noted 95% or. the erosion. occurred because the
water' was not intercepted at the top of the slop e ,and piped out.
He also explained the driveway and proposed turnaround'
configuration, noting as a result a retaining wall will not be
{ required and grading will be reduced by approximately 600 cubic
t' yards. Mr. Nelson went on to explain the drainage system from this
property.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about the overall property and the
water tun-off.
Mr. Nelson reviewed the sanitary sewer system on Upland Way and
noted when the trenches are paved over, there will be no problems.
He noted the gully on Upland Way needs to be repaired and
stabilized.
k
s yrs ti M1+�y{ r vc S}' d 4 fit „Faa.T k t n y * ➢ n
: ?1 1 'Sw#W �:'�,+o? m :77 v` �, s74.: S i Y.r � � t X T i t,! S•-;;• r ) t4E �+4 .f h' sY,
+-
r a r�rt
PUMING 'COMUSSION MINUTES
® April ,;24, ,'1995
Page 8
and this is no ordinary building, .but an emergency service which
everyone nay need it some time. Ms. Smith stated she would like to
. see the Fire District have wnat' they want, and wants to know from
the `fire truck drivers which turns are the best and the response
time.
Ms. Janie Phillips, 20192 Joseph Circle, stated the proposal to
move..the, tire station into her backyard changes the noise levels.
She stated she would like to see the entrance/exit stay on Stevens
Creek Blvd. She also noted the lights from the trucks returning
willshine into her bedroom.
Mr.. Earl Pennington, 10109 Randy Ln. , stated he is .representing his
mother who owns property: adjacent'to the proposed entrance of the
fire station. He noted when he spoke in March he was against the
proposal because of the fire trucks using the alleyway. He noted
the Fire District cannot please all ppcple all of the time and
,believes';, they have '. done, a good job `addressing the neighbors
concerns ;i„ He stated he. would support' this project as proposed
.and would;;recommend approval.
Mr. Ross Quinn, 20261 Reinell P1. , stated he requested at the last
meeting that the Fire District not use Vista Drive and this
has not been addressed. He ,noted Vista Drive is a narrow street
and there is no light to stop traffic when -the,engines exit. He
expressed- concern about the impact on the normal traffic flow on
Vista Drive ` and noted the , exit and return should be on Stevens
Creek Blvd. . '
Ms' Gay Fisher, 20263 Cartwright Way, _stated . in March they had
—. concerns about noise, lights and safety on a street that already
,,..has limited access., She noted she has further concerns about the
Fire District's attitude towards the neighbors. She stated the
residents proposal has not been seriously looked at and the i
.objections to it have been wer.:c. She noted there will �De a traffic
`.impact from this station. Ms. Fisher stated the noise problem has
not been addressed adequately and has not heard anything about pre- ;
empters. . ' She
-urged.the Commission to. corsider 'an alternative plan
with an exit onto Stevens Creek Blvd.
Ms `' WandalSchenck, 20182 Joseph Circle, stated the lights from the
trucks will go into her bedroom window when returning. She
stated it is her, understanding .that both the Monta Vista and
... Seven Springs station are mid-block entrances. She noted in both.
n
;instances the trucks turn in their owdriveway and in two of the
plans proposed by. the residents, they plan for this.
Mr. John Statton, Chamber of Commerce, stated whenever development
occurs , in the community th�'-e are many concerns.. He noted
;- o
1.a11 T",.,.. ,r,... S :.,,u.. ..y, r>,'4. a,, t -y7i'�r- + '•r•y- ay: r:'S5 Yr y a„:" i;, .,cxE-.
r�
PLANNING COMMISSION MINOTSS
April 24, 1995
Page 9
-purchasing the property next- door raises the cost to a prohibited
manner. He noted Cupertino needs a new fire station and this e
criticalis
. He stated from the Chamber's point of view, if this:
location is the best, and the mitigations proposed by the Fire
District shows good faith to address the concerns of the neighbors,
the Chamber urges support of the Fire District's proposal.
Mr. Bob West, 20232 Joseph Circle, addressed his letter dated April
1995 and .the plan proposed by him and his wife as outlined in the
staff report. Mr. West reviewed his chart titled "Site Selection
for Cupertino Fire Station" attached to his letter.
Com. Harris asked the Fire Chief to respond to the comments
regarding the lights from t.', return vehicles. Chief Sporeleder
stated the engines will be on low beam and there is a 9 ft. wall
and does not believe the light will hit the residents. He also
explained the safety issues regarding the exit and noted it will be
much safer to come out on Vista Drive. He added they can control
the signal lights at the intersection.
Com. Roberts asked if the engines could make a turn on their
driveway. Chief Sporeleder stated this maneuver can be done, but
® they have an alternative which can avoid this.
In response to the public's questions and alternative plans, tor.
Bower.reviewed both the homeowners plan and Mr. West's plan as well
as studying` a Stevens -Creek exit at length. •He °stated the ladder
truck cannot come in off Stevens Creek and back into the apparatus
room unless,', they make several turns, this would be a problem in the
neighbors plans. ' He noted the problems with the Vista Park
.Homeowners plan are the following: '
• Path of truck travel will impact the neighbors i
• Traffic conflict
• No room for employee 'deck
• Remote corner of station affects operation efficiency
• Minimal setbacks
• Existing business conflict
No barriers possible for noise mitigation.
Mr. Bower stated the Fire District's proposal will address the
noise for testing the equipment.
In response to comments, Chief Sporeleder reiterated again that
i
Stevens Creek is a main arterial and the entrance of emergency
equipment on this street . is not normal practice. He added the
light systems causes the engines to pause.
Mr. Mike Block," Director of Business Services, addressed the
response time as outlined by Mr. Jacoby. 'He noted Mr. Jacoby did
1
e
9
b7
x-� i 13��.rx� 17,�� ';�.c�.£d�`^`i4 �4 p'����7$r��+i'� �'�,�rsf9,�k`�rc'���:.,�,,•"�itd��. x� �. . ,. �rf s!'(.,,L �.'tj.,_;�Y r �r,�jt l,3,+h're' k; t,
;: ..i,r V t i .! l � `t� � T r � Y T1 'aft - t`' Y�ya� l�r5 r�� t.r % i�'�s ry;?�'.'3�.• l�r+r4 �S1 °��K,y ; �{°4..r Y>.. :1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® April; 24, 1995
Page 10
not mention barriers or traffic which need to be taken into
account when calculating_ response time. He noted the engines will
not go out onto Stevens . Creek until it is safe and all lanes of
traffic have stopped, this can take up to 10 seconds. He reviewed
the response time from the new station. as outlined in the staff
-report. Mr. Block stated he can"t over-emphasize how dangerous it
is' getting out onto Stevens Creek Blvd. , and there is less traffic
on Vista Drive.
Mr. Stan Shelly, Acoustical Consultant, stated that some of the
incidents which occur at the station, which are related to
f emergency response, are exempted from the ordinance so there is no
attempt to mitigate them. He stated they will mitigate those
incidents which occur during the testing. . He stated in the old.
plan. there were 3 bedroom windows that were in direct view of the
noise testing, but in the new plan the testing room will be further
away and the distance does mitigate what the wing wall provided.
.:�_. stated after the initial study they did go back and do
a(,diti!onal mitigations and noted the noise testing will be
mitigated as outlined in his report..,
t Com. Roberts asked if there is a contingency plan in case the noise .
® is not mitigated. Mr. Shelly stated the Fire District has made the
commitment to meet .the noise standards.
Ms. Wordell stated the condition for noise reads "The portable
engine testing shall meet the noise ordinance standards" and if
there is a problem the Planning Commission can require additional
noise testing.'
Com. Harris stated Mr. Jacoby's report indicated that every piece
of equipment exceeds the decibel level allowed_. Isis. Wordell stated
in the report from Stan Shelly dated February, the siren exceeded
for 1/2 second, but these are exempt. He stated staff will work
with Mr. Jacoby and review his figures.
Chief Sporeleder stated he wants to assure. the neighbors and the
`a Commission that they coo strive to be a good neighbor and will
respond to noise complaints and address these.
r Ms. ,Saridy Sloan, Attorney, stated the Fire District did seriously
consider the plans submitted by neighbors but the fact remains that
i the neighbors are not happy because they do not want the station to
front onto Vista Drive. She stated there are two serious problems
with the plans proposed by the neighbors. First the district does
not. want to continue ex_ti.nq in mid-block onto Stevens .Creek as
addressed by Chief Sporeiadz,7. 6econd the district is not willing
' to take an existing tnrivincr :.:;less. She noted it is extremely
® serious for a governmental ,%Jerre- to, take private property. She ,
1 � r
v
n,.?y.
yi ,! rt 1.) } Y ' Yax' ' ! a^ Yr'
t ,y> 3. t ,3' y Y 4.ss xYti t {
y
®` PLANNING COJWSSION MINUTES
April 24;. 1995
Page 11
stated . they. tried to work with the property owner-, but could not
work anything out and therefore were left with the situation that
the, district wants to take vacant land. She added the Fire _
r. District is trying to be sensitive to . both the business and
residents, but only taking land from the business. Ms. Sloan
stated there are two legitimate business on this property and when
taking a business they have to consider not only the value of the
land, 'but also the value of the business. If they affect business
seriously, they are responsible to relocate the business. She
, . noted they. have no expertise or money to do this. She explained
severance' damages and noted this is a concern. She stated the
district 'cannot afford to take or disrupt an on-going business. a
Regarding,. the .Heart of the City concept, Ms. Sloan stated the Heart -
of the .City calls for medium to high density residential on
this lot or perhaps a mixed-use. She noted affordable housing
.would be appropriate on Stevens Creek Blvd. and would be buffered
by the fire station. She added the living
station will be close to the residential and uthe eaartus room
s in the fire
will be next to commercial. She _pointed out that pp
aproperty
is zoned commercial. Ms. Sloan stated when the, trucks come out on
Vista Drive the siren would not be turned on until they hit
® Stevens Creek Blvd. She urged approval of the plan.
In response to Com. Roberts question, Ms. Sloan stated the proposal
has moved the property line down 20 ft. and is still in the vacant
land. She stated this does not affect the legitimate business.
Chief Sporeleder stated this has been a frustrating
they attempted to find a solution to make everyone Pone ha pp1r�cess and
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Harris stated she appreciates all the work done by the. Fire
District and the neighbors. She spoke in support of the revised
plan submitted by the Fire District and had the following comments: e
ti
• The new plan addresses concerns of the neighbors
• Using the Randy access for personnel reduces the impact
Increasing the setback from residential is significant and
supports the elimination of the wing wall.
• Supports the relocation of the apparatus room.
• Response time satisfactory.
• Noise Mitigations will be met and conditions required are
adequate.
• Mid-block access may have been useful 'at one time, ;but not
as safe to cross this road.
• Concern about the brick building on the front of the station
not aesthetic and should be addressed.
G
le
P(
ge e's. ;u'p ;h• '.•K '. n.'-€a-f�'k'd
s-mS T.7 J.7
P1J"IHG COROUSSION
MINUTES
April 24, 1995
Page 12
h
Com. Austin concurred that this plan is better. and has addressed
many of the concerns of the neighbors. She expressed concern about
the exit ,and asked if the lights could' be left on low beam when
exiting onto Vista Dr. She spoke in support of the nine foot wall
to address the lights from the return vehicles. She spoke in
support of the plan as proposed. She noted she has no objections
to the brick work.
Com. Roberts stated the revised proposal has vastly improved and
for most of the reasons addressed by Com. Harris he would also
support an approval. He believes after hearing the testimony r
from the Fire District it may be unsafe to exit onto Stevens Creek
Blvd.,; and with reluctance will abandon the idea of an exit
onto Stevens Creek Blvd. . He noted the function of the Fire
District and the implications of public safety -should' be the top
consideration. He stated he would also support revising the
brick wall as addressed by Com. Harris.
Com. Roberts requested a condition requiring large trees to be
planted at the end of the re-entry alley to address the light
problem addressed by neighbors. Com... and Com. Austin
concurred..,,
. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to send a report to City Council
recommending approval of the project as proposed by the
.;,Fire District adding conditions to redesign the brick
,wall with an eye to aesthetic and trees be planted to
provide screening from the returning vehicles. ,
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed
ABSENT: Mahoney, Doyle 3-0-2
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Com. Harris expressed concern :about the
comments made by the
consultant , on the Heart of the City Concept, regarding no
consideration given to proposed land uses when the tree selection
was determined and he would never use oak,. ash and pear with the
land uses proposed. She hopes this will be discussed further.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF C0F1MUNITY DEVE OP
MENT
Com. Harris addressed . the Forge/Homestead project. Mr. Cowan
stated the ;Council will make a final vote at there next meeting.
He stated if denied a new plan will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.:
ti
Com. Harris addressed Hunter' Properties, Mr: Cowan stated there
wa.s ro 'clear cut agreement with the property owners and if the
� v
°« r
�; MR,{. ro .�-, `rM"'a k`�'f '"'S*s:5 RIM
h y t5.t Sc'ZJry-r �^.., ,i rJ. v',�t
rIF;nS,�.r .„..(„ '�. F'} - 3$N.t�ry4,.(, d„1 .�u -4 1 + � b. 1- .. .'.r f.Sv,r r.r{S� ��r}
F t.:il, �”.2 t•. 7 c'^ /»:. tv+v u L, 3.. .i,y"g,'{r.::�., '� i^y, 1 {3 f 'f'AL1. s ,v'Pu". - 1Lt� P":: :, .t'•"
\. �. `sx �.
&7� it
ref
.�',
r
,
PLANNING., SSION MINUTES
April: 24 I99,5..:
Page 13'
t
owners donft, agree 'they can fallrback to the two driveway cuts with
a proviso '.that if there ,is leverage from the property to the
east this can be restructured.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None
The Commission briefly discussed the agenda for future, meetings.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to the special
meeting of May 4, 1995, at 6:45 p.m.
s -
Respectfully submitted
. tit• Ro-��card � ,
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes Clerk
k
,
r
r
.r
5
S
Y y
'� 'i r ^f '��i E}•�}r.t'°,f' '"�i � .?i +�'r:^r t`�� "'�, "r ,Yw '��r��sSiL=u-' u _�a=^'
n
} f s: P=:w�' Rr •2z t d:'i�i L .Syi k V `+r/,9 •F`a z-t +� t1r' i 'rM 7 1�r'1 r 1 },� Fi '. f �Y j7 r
t t NA
'�+t r+'.c�y "tr n l;� 1 �,�',. "i 0. dl w n r ,f`-..,'t 9ti Y�S� 4.^;7�Star:..e Et ,f ✓...� ��'�a?r e �1 -ta F 1 aft rs r��+'. t�f'.,.�� 1ny2}�. 1 flr y� n'�� � t I
� ...1•. ,.- a -tt�, ..:'. ' 1� C ; r 4a, i v 9 Er yr • r.5 (a 1 .^�h1 r f{ ..afar ft r' f��'Vt �l�;'.1 i ..
j{+I 1 f fr
` CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 . Torre Ave.
I Cupertino, CA 95014
('408) 777-3308 —
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
-HELD ON RAY 16,, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Roberts
Com. Austin
Com. Harris
Com. Mahoney
Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Colin Jung, Associate Planner
Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works i
Consultant present:. Mr. Terry Bottomley
WRITTEN - None
POSTPONEMENTS/REKOVALS 'FROM CALENDAR - None
ORAL COX"ICATIONS - None _
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
i
r` PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No(s) : 81,1.52 and 9-EA-95
1 Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owners: .Various
Location: Properties along or near Stevens Creek
Blvd. from Highway 85 to the eastern City .
limits.
r HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN meeting to review the progress'
of the work on the draft land use and development character
policies and the land use map, streetscape and other
improvements.
c+�ff uresentat�on: Mr. Cowan stated after some discussion with E
the Council they believe a joint meeting with ' the Planning !
Commission would be appropriate to discuse, this matter and get
direction from the Council. He suggested Janne 5th for .the joint
meeting. He also notes: he had discussions with -John Statton from
the Chamber of Commerce who indicated that the Chamber's position .
was outlined in their letter and would like to get - tentative
direction from the Planning Commission. Mr. Cowan noted he will
a
0
. s
r
Y:._«6 nF'. +,rV .1..1• < w.M
' A
1 fr,
1 -
pLMMING COMUSSION NINUTES
May 16, 1995
Page 2
meet with other members of the Cham:er at a later date.
Associate: Planner Jung introduced Mr. Terry Bottoml H, noted leant.
fter
He reviewed the outline for tonight's meeting.
reviewing the Chamber's letter, staff Characterized their comments
and developed a response to each concern. He added the Chamber's f
major concerns are implementation and ,financing. Mr. Jung noted
that staff's .responae was discussed with the Chamber and management
staff.
Mr. Jung reviewed each of the Chamber's land use concerns and
staff's responses.
Com. Austin questioned the .tree removal in the right-of-way? Mr. '
v Cowan stated they will be removing old street trees which are
inconsistent with the proposed streetscape. He noted this can be
further d;scussed under implementation.
Coma I.Rorer.s asked if a mass amount wo trees his be reviewedeb removed,
such as jr� )cont of De Anza College, by
the
Commission?
Mr. Cowan stated Mr. Freedman indicated that no trees in front of
De Anza would be removed, but De Anza College have a master plan to
build another building and this ' may involve the removal of some
trees. He noted the intent of the Specific Plan is not to lose 'r
trees.
LAND USE:
Com. Harris addressed the
existing
i lots. andproposed
express d set-backs concern that
landscaping required for
parking_
it would be the intewners, who have the larger
intent of the property o
setbacks, to remove their landscaping and berms because nom there
' are street frontage trees. She stated she supports the new
landscaping required, but is concerned about removing the existing
par`king. lot landscaping on deep Tots.
W. Cowan stated this is part of the view corridor discussion and
the. design/landscape guidelines.
The hearing was opened for public comments. There were none.
ke in su rt of staff's new proposals for land use
Com. Harris spv PPo
items.
Com. Roberts stated the- Chamber raised legitimate questions and
staff's responses are necessary and sufficient.
+t oF( `Pf ern "no
7 u4 l$ fu4n � ca* y r at 'y5 xY ' t y a 4 t {,-+y,o- r '> 3 ?x T1(y 'n�fi e b<✓s hrY1 dew tt ws a t-c, ,
.., i r2 'rr*f,a $q t-u 77 :�.rr 1'+..h` ': * F S, :" ..: f., + .,,'t, r •.ff ,� ax.?# y � M (.. it r�r k'� � �-Yt� ���
7 'i '•,a stls�. � ti,.`5r" ,rr - ' 7 it 7 + CS)u� � fi' .�`'�"
PLAWING, COMUSSION MINUTES
May 15, :1995
Page 3
Coma. Mahoney and Com. Austin spoke in support ,of staff's proposal
} for the land use policies.
Chr. Doyle addressed the height and buffer issue. Mr. Jung stated
this will be discussed in the design guidelines. Chr. Doyle spoke
in support of the land use policies.
Mr. Jung reviewed the goal and policies of the Circulation/
Parking. as outlined in the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan.
He noted these goals and policies basically repeat the langu&ge in
the General Plan.
Com. Mahoney suggested removing the . language regarding, the
'} landscaping and street furniture to design guidelines.
Mr. Cowan stated one policy missing has to ,do with the Calabasas
Creek linkage. He noted during the Charette there was discussion
about .linking Creekside Park (Freemont`, Older) to Stevens Creek and
beyond. .# Mr. Cowan outlined this trail .linkage on a map. He stated
Tandem had a plan to turn Calabasas ::creek into a resource with
water features and a possible footbridge across I-280. Mr. Cowan
noted there is potential for creating some open space networks in
Vallco Park and all the major property owners are still interested
in this. He suggested adding the following wording: "Consider the
potential. open space linkages connecting Creekside Park to Stevens
Creek Park and then into Vallco Industrial Park using the Calabasas
Creek corridor", he noted this could be accompanied by a map.
Com.. Roberts stated it has been pointed out that the eastern end of
the. City is lacking in amenities and any amenities would be
justifiable in this part of the City. He also noted there was
enthusiasm about this in the Charette.
Com. Harris -addressed the strategy regarding outdoor activity and
suggested removing the words ". . .uses closer to thesidewalk. . .".
She noteda plaza does not necessarily have to be at the street..
Com. Harris stated circulation includes ,pedestrian walkways.
Com. Austin addressed pedestrian linkages between properties and
r noted people will not walk between centers. )
Y Com. - Harris stated they discussed allowing planning for a
pedestrian access where people can walk between the properties.
Mr. Jung stated no matter how attractive walkways maybe between
Mervyn's and Target people will not walk it, but . from a design
' standpoint there are things that can be done. to allow for
pedestrian access between properties on the same side of Stevens
Creek Blvd.
1'ti
r ... ... • _n _,..+� .�,,...f ,,, .,,.,.a�. '.xrs,..... ✓ "err. r�.u x.' r. ) t x s � a-nrS F r '- a 5i i � -fir -,�..r k .� �?�,=xn r.
W
G^''Rx'�qv,.,"""r<",��Hlyit,�„�,'r}, +rlr P YR n ''{ `�F�r - r °rx r'ia d"•ry�-,i flet
•�' � �� 1a�,r. 'i,r Vf k � 5
��i d `k r 'S N,,r ,rft�,� ,�ft��'�''"�• '"r r 1 r � � s air y r y �i s 1 •,�K '
r 3Qv.^C xr j� e.CC y.r 4 s x
a PLEA CO I88�OPT MIDWINN
May';16, :'1995 ;
Page 4
r�
Mr. Bottomley stated t:ae Specific ` Plan does not encourage that new
development be located closer to the street, with the parking in the rear or
side. He noted this alleys for flexibility and when this is done the walk
across Stevens Creek Blvd. will not seem so bad as the buildings may be
t
closer.
Staffasked if the commission is in agreement with the directions and goals
of the specific plan policies on circulation/parking.
The commissioners made the following changes:
1. Delete the wording "closer to the sidewalk" as addressed by Com..
Harris.
2. Move Policy 3 to Urban Design/Streetscape.
3. Add-the Calabasas trail linkage wording as addressed by Mr. Cowan. '
Mr. Jung reviewed the' urban Design/9treetscape °pol'icies and strategies.
Com. Harris stated another strategy is needed to address the architectural
features of the . gateways to the City. Mr. Jung stated the architectural
gateway concept on -,Stevens Creek Blvd. is addressed in the Streetscape
element of the specific plan document. He noted it is also included under
^� the strategies'.
Com. Austin, stated there should be an architectural review board to review
y the design guidelines which should be implemented.
Mr. Jung stated staff, the Planning Commission and City Council will review
' the design. ' Hiri noted up until this pointthere have. been no written
i
guidelines to go by.
Mr. . Cowan- stated ASAC was terminated, but the City of Casrpbell has an
architectural advisor who .volunteers time to staff and gives input at pre-w
hearings, before-going to the Planning Commission.
Y Com. Austin stated this, is important and should be included as a design
strategy. Mr. Cowan stated there are ways to have the design reviewed by an
architect at no cost to the City.
Chr. Doyle stated the intent is to provide design guidelines and make sure
these are being implemented.
Com. Harris concurred with Com. Austin and noted architecture is very
important and would like to have input from a trained architect.
After-,some discussion it was agreed to add the following working as a ,
strategy 'Evaluate the potential of having an architecture `
g.
....• ` : riw ..; .,,, K i r s C t rwt ✓r 7�lr t .^'` ..u,. E S `.r t i P .f. 9. €' J,. fi }. 4 , a J
. sr$ ,
,� 7p
4J7" df i# 4x.,M1 3�,'9 9
r .,M1
PLANNING CONNISSION-MINUTES
May 16, 1995
Page' S
advisor/committee to assist the City in the design review process"
Chr. Doyle stated there should be no cost to the City and it should
+ not increase the lenght of time for approvals.
Com. Harris addressed the gateways and landmarks and believes the
landmarks have been lost, such as the four season orchard and the
giant sundial. Staff stated they will include this.- Com. Harris
suggested "Design entry points and landmarks."
Com. Roberts stated assuring that the Heart of the City is
attractive- to the neighborhood surroundings and it encourages .
access from the surrounding neighborhoods, as discussed in the
Charette and the General Plan, he could not find a strategy
addressing this.
Mr. Cowan reviewed a map outlining residential neighborhoods and
noted most residential, neighborhoods are sealed-off by backyards.
He rated, in his experience, neighbors are not supportive of entry
pointe through their neighborhoods. He noted they tried in the
past to have access from Vallco Park into surrounding
neighborhoods, but the neighbors did not want this.
Com. Mahoney suggested that this be investigated.
Mr. Bottomley stated they. have recommended linkages from the
I
neighborhoods to commercial, but over 5.0 percent of the time there
are concerns about .security.
Mr. 'Cowan. stated existing access has been closed because of
complaints, but he would not be opposed tc taking to neighborhoods.
The Commissioners agreed to investigate the possibility.
I
Mr. Bottomley stated the issue is the scale, as the neighbors do
not support access to or' from large parks into' the neighborhoods,
but would support linkages to smaller parks, it is the same with
commercial. '
The following language was added "Investigate the' possibility of
creating greater ' pedestrian access between the residential
neighborhoods and retail centers."
Com. Roberts stated another issue is appearance, if attractive,
xpressed concern about no design
people may use the access. He e
standards for the back of buildings.
Mr. Farokh Deboo, Nile Drive, stated pedestrian access from
®
ase basis. He
neighborhood to commercial should be on a case by c
gg-
yK . ten- .r r
'v
`z
r r^'r•+u"rK f7 +�1 4y„' +tA-"�A,
b C2, 1Y'4 +P,�J
4 ti.
P s t`
R.fi Y,^.[�d 4 •'CJS }._ i -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May .16, 1995
Page 6
`., noted his neighborhood decided to have no fence between them and
the adjacent building and they have had no problems and enjoy this.
Com. 'Roberts stated he would support another strategy to review the i
appearance of buildings. from surrounding residential areas.
STREETSCAPE DESIGN
Mr. Jung reviewed the chart titled "Heart of the City Draft
Specific Plan Streetscape Design Concerns and Responses" which
outlines staff's responses to the Chamber of Commerce letter.
Mr. Cowan presented photos showing the existing trees in the City, j
and reviewed the distance. between the trees in the, different areas �
of the City. He stated he would not recommend that existing trees
be removed,, but may recommend the removal of certain trees were
there area number of different species in the one area and block
the view of retail.
4
The 'C.ommission and staff briefly discussed the distance in trees
between retail/commercial and residential. Com. Harris addressed
the view corridors as outlined in the matrix included in the staff
report. p
Mr. Bottomley stated this was one of the concessions that was made
to the chamber, in terms of opening up visibility to commercial
development along the corridors. He stated there needs to be a gap
in the frontage trees to allows for driveways, so they tried to
register a view .corridor with a driveway so people could see into "
the center. He reviewed the special. conditions as outlined in the
matrix, a minimum of 60 feet between trees and a maximum of 1/3 the
length of the frontage, not exceeding 120 feet between trees per
opening. He stated the intent is 'to link it to the driveway.
Com. Mahoney stated there should be uniformity combined with
keeping it open for, retail, which may mean less tree density for
residential "and retail, but spoke in support of this trade-off.
He noted they need to look closer at examples. He noted landuses
change throughout the Blvd. and they need to consider this.
Com. Harris stated the guidelines have different tree spacing in
the different areas throughout town. She expressed concern that
they are giving double credit to the retail. She reviewed the
original guidelines for the tree spacing and recommended going back
to this. She stated the view corridor for the retail will be their
credit She spoke in support of 25-30 ft. between trees in the town
center and the east gateway with the single row of trees and 'a
large view corridor. She agreed it should be consistent.
- c
IgIVIA
�, - .,;>�� :, :,gin= •r� t .�.�
r .2 • v 7 i' ftiR r4'?',r .n'art t` t +l�j tY ysk Fs S re ?A ...>-J^c Oil
F'tr=•' rF �7 vt�fif: �
, a; r.R, S ,('C? '*•°>•vi x`t'S',}"i5.1tt>t ^tf5JtJ{'r!� N.,} Jt 3 �k.. .,s tY 7 r !S "� s Y
,M'? 'S '.ry i 1
M ��. � �'s,�° .'{"'� Sl�� r+{A JJ •t Sn s :) f t�.-. 1 .s 'ra,Ya Y, �d�dl.
pulam ( CO DaSOXON MINUTES .
May 16, 1995
s Page 7
Mr. Jung stated staff has been struggling with the tree spacing and what
is presented in the document represents tenuous agreements between the
Chamber of Commerce and staff.
Com. Harris asked about the breakdown of residential, commercial and
retail along Stevens Creek Blvd? Mrs. Jung stated he will address this
later.
Com. Roberts stated in the draft plan the view corridor is a clear zone,
with no . trees except those which are optional to be installed by the
property owner.
Mr. Bottomley stated if there is a single row of trees along the front
of a retail project and the trees are at 30 ft. on center, a 120 ft. gap
would be three tree vacancies.
if the double row, of trees at the driveways would be
Chr. Doyle asked
removed as part of the view corridor?
Mr. Bottomley stated the double row of trees frame the driveway. Using
a diagram- he outlined the trees which would be removed as part of the
new guidelines. He noted the trees along the curbside -parking strip
would remain and the trees behind the sidewalk would be removed.
s two trees would 'remain at each side
Regarding the entrancE, of the
would be to maintain the 120 ft. clear
driveway. „He stated the in
zone all the way back, but it is optional to have trees.
Mr. Cowan stated at the last meeting, a developer said he would need to
made comments on this
have trees out front and the Chamber . He
suggested creating language that the intent is to provide visual access
into the center.
After a brief recess, the commissioners continued discussion on ' tree
spacing and the view corridor.
Commissioners Doyle, Austin, Harris and Roberts agreed to support the
tree spacing as follows: . Westgate 40 ft. , Town Center 25 ft. and
Eastgate 30 ft.
Com. Mahoney stated he would support the following: Westgate 40 ft. ,
Town Center 25 ft. and Eastgate 35 ft.
iscussionson the view corridor.
The Commission. continued d
Com. Harris stated the view corridor should be related to the driveway
ntage greater than the driveway width.
and should be a certain perce
•
. _ .: ,r,.,.. r fib•--•,..... {... .V :..z7 v s p' •<-. .£xu p6 i ';t!f5. ,n 3j%" '4 S:.`i'
)m�s '. 533 '+ tr%�^�Er •c•,
,s" e y v.0�e c m '• F"y1Tn7+yi 3 {"rye`c'S�t H 7''v e Y f �� C w e -n x
-
-M
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 16, 1995
Page 8..,
In response to earlier questions by the Commission Mr. Cowan stated
a two-way driveway, for retail/office is a minimum of 32 feet and a
maximum of 44 ft. and 18 ft. for a single driveway.
Com. Harris suggested the gap in trees at the driveways be three
times the curb cut to a maximum of 120 ft.
Mr. Bottomley asked if the Commission are suggesting that the
lenght of the gap be linked to the driveway? Com. Harris spoke in
support of the 2/3rds of the frontage having trees. She asked what
are the recommendations, for residential?
Mr.. " Bottomley stated they were trying to relate to the size of the
parcel and noted residential. developments like to have some
visibility of their entrance driveway. He addressed Com. Harris �\
suggestion and asked if there would be an. incentive for someone-
o
make a'-wider driveway- so they can achieve a wider gap between t e
trees?- He stated originally they had a formula that was linked to
the size of the parcel frontage. He noted they could keep the
wording to govern the minimum.
guidelines as proposed, but put in
After further discussion, Com. Harris suggested 96 ft.. at a maximum
for office/retail and eliminate the special conditions for multi-
® family.
t
Mr. Bottomley stated he will work on the wording and will list the
minimum for the different land uses. There was a consensus of the
Commission to have the gap in the trees between the driveways s
times the driveway cut to a maximum of 96 ft.
Com. Mahoney asked in what order the trees` w_:11 be planted?- VX-
Bottomley stated the trees will be planted from the end of streets
and open up for driveways. He stated as part of the implementation
ch they need to discuss keeping as many trees as possible and
approa
e maximum ir, not exceeded.. Mr. Bottomley
locating driveways so th
stated another issue is the view corridor ' and this was a
negotiating point with the Chamber, and needs to be taken into
consideration.
;t
Com. Mahoney stated they need to address, the tree planting on �
j; designated sites, before they are actually developed.
i
The Commissioners discussed the interior landscaping and Mr. Jung
reviewed the standards as outlined in the staff report and agreed
to remove the. word "tree" and just refer to "plantings".
Mr. Bottomley stated this issue was discussed with the Chamber and
was a negotiating point. - i
1�
`P�
-. .. .. .. .r... •4"^` ... r t',i^[-•xr;'Y° :4" T: .P _..._r �l:;t`cu'+....- .,. .' a rp w— �y>b...- -
4V '�q�y�� t; Jl«S'Kd ;a. 4 G ',f�. p R�1 ah + yt'f y�: o l� 4• ie f -CI tC�,�r�; by}`..• r7 'xVfi 9�'/ ,�'F i Y''Y y'iY l� ,�K+ ,i .,y
"F t,A Y +e.. ,:�e a4ty:.tNr t Pb�'}�1,s rAi •f /i4 hF. i �x v 1 , <ix ., r �. �r.• E �" tv
n ';i Cdr �., F, 4` - • - t• � ''
PLANNINGs CCMKISSION NI.NUTES
May 16, 1995
Page 9
Com. Mahoney stated .there are two issues addressed by the chamber,
one is visibility and the other is cost.
Com. Harris stated there has always been a tree requirement and the
new idea of more shallow parking lots is good, but she would like
to have landscaping in the parking lots. She added these should be
mandated, because if not mandated to a standard they will not be
installed. She spoke in. support of requiring trees at the rear and.
side property lines, as this is good for neighborhood screening.
Mr: Bottomley stated shrub and low level landscaping is usually
addressed as a percentage of parking lot surface. He noted they
could come up with a formula. He added the discussiono` rens in
the parking lots with the Chamber`, was 'a bargaining chip het the
trees. on the frontage.
Com. Austin addressed the Chamber's concern about losing parking
stalls to accommodate parking.
'she Commissioners discussed the visual access from Stevens Creek
Bled. , Mr. Cowan stated the trees should be planted in some way not
to obstruct views.
Com. Mahoney stated shopping centers which have no visibility are
not successful. He noted they,have to be careful when considering
parking lot landscaping.
Cok. .Harris stated one could attribute the problem to large stores
in the front of the lot blocking smaller :-etail stores in the same
center. Com. Harris asked what happens to tY.e existing landscaping
plans that were approved as part of a development?
Mr. Jung stated the only places which have significant berming are
.e Anza College, the Market Place and Portal Plaza. He noted most
retail locations in Cupertino do not have berming. a
Mr. Cowan stated they are not recommending the deletion of the
second row of trees in the streetscape, but believes some latitude
' should be given in reducing some of the internal landscaping.
Com. Austin stated she would not be in favor of removing existing
trees.
Mr. Bottomley stated there are a number of existing conditions
'r• along the street and asked is the Commission talking about all
types of landscaping conditions?
Con. Harris stated she is talking about deep parking lots with
large asphalt surfaces .and. is concerned about removing the trees..
rl
a y^
s•
9 t a 4 r;. j •y �Id.1'..1 r _, tx
J tt.
PLANNING C"OMISSION YEENUT$S
May 16; 1995 .
Page 10
She spoke., in support of a. staff recommendation that helps
developers plan their center with regards to landscaping, but does
not think the standards for new development will apply to existing
centers. She noted because trees are now in the frontage, .property
owners should not be entitled to remove their parking lot
landscaping. She stated she, would like -to see tyle guidelines
i address .this.
Mr. Cowan stated this can be incorporated into the discussion with
the Council.
Com. Mahoney stated they need to address the view corridors.
Com. Roberts stated the -.iew corridor should not be stripped of
vegetation and they need language which relates to the size of the
building.
Mr. Bottomley stated it hard to come up with a formula which
will address every application, but needs to be reviewed on a case
by case basis to allow flexibility.
Mr. Cowan stated it is his understanding that the Planning
Commission. intend to have some parking lot trees, but they should
be placed carefully in order not to block entry points and critical
signage.
Mr. Bottotley stated some ratio requiring trees in the parking lot
is good, ,this also allows the flexibility to move the trees around.
Chr. Doyle requested that ,staff come back with language for the
tree and shrub requirement in the parking area.
Mr. -Jung reiterated the Planning Commissioners requests:
1. Parking lot tree planting standard that provides for a medium
to sparse tree coverage
2. Staff should look at the issue of view corridors, with a
paragraph addressing existing -- parking - lot landscaping,
particularly those with large front setbacks and what, if any,
would be allowed to be removed.
3. Look at some trees and a percentage of shrubs.
7 Mr. Bottomley pointed out that the Commissioners requests are in
conflict with the Chamber.
In response to Chr. Doyle's question regarding the cost neutral
option, Mr. Jung stated the cost neutral aspect assumes that the
2 City has 'an established standard and any deviation would basically
neutralize the cost, but there has never been any standards for
landscaping.
r
:r
t
•,xatu -1� -' byr i 7f roizv. ;f".,may Ar+ .rr; sw tt` f "1'£; x d a
au
f
e
:. { r
Sma& u.. `err` F v r ... i .k•.: i?'e y Yv.a�'�3.v':.,,tz}..rr" i a.s ryv r.}' tn i1y C {k;'y.r ., t^. f {,/ f< ,$ jib^•
' +.4 a- �.,{x��y'3 •D� e,{,�t aif s�a''A Gqr�yk a ds r i-' 1 a. J,- ¢u � �� r}G.tQ'.i � .vx�' r } c� asx r i .-. r aft � .,t
-
t y,
PLAMHING CMaSSIOiY MINUTES
May 16,, .1995
Page 11
Com. Mahoney stated this needs to be addressed, because it has boon
presented:.
' . .The" Commission agreed to continue the implementation discussion to
Monday, May 22, 1995.
' Associate Planner Jung continued discussion on the development
i
staff report.
standards as outlined in the matrix included in the
The following are comments and questions:
Page 1 - Heightr
Com. Harris expressed concern about the minimum height of 18 ft.
She believes this is too high for a minimum because it does not
allow for any one story building.
Mr. Bottomley stated the intent is not to require the interior to
be 18 ft. but to the top of the parapet. He noted since Stevens
Creek'Blvd. is a wide street it is the intent to use the buildings
to define''the space. He noted this encourages pitched roofs by not
including them and noted pitched roofs are not required for
commercial. He stated he would add language allowing a parapet.
y COE.- . Hsarris stated they should not discourage centers which are
lower than 18 ft.
Mr. Bottomley suggested a minimum of 10 ft, for pitched roofs and
18 feet for a parapet. All commissioners agreed.
Page 2 - Rear Setbacks
Mr. Jung explained the rear setbacks and presented diagrams
outlining the proposed requirements. . The Commission also ,discussed
the rear setback from one story commercial buildings and agreed the .
setback should be 1.5 feet for every l ft. of building height with
a minimum of 20 ft.' _
Com. Mahoney' asked about the standards being applied to all the
planning areas?
Mr. Cowan stated this is addressed under Land Use Map and Special
t Areas in the draft plan. Cam. Mahoney stated he would like the
areas highlighted.
Page 3 '- Parking
Com. Harris questioned the number of curb cuts .and suggested if
there are two one-way curb cuts there should be a certain amount of
frontage for this.
�A
M
• r �w� toyTy,(
PLANNING COIMSSION MINUTES
` May; 16; ,1995
Page 12�
Mr. Cowan stated the curb cuts ara per. 150 ft. of frontage.
Com: Harris asked what' is the minimum size recommended for two curb
cuts? . Mr. Bottomley stated they base it on the minimum parcels
existing. Staff w$ll come back, with a recommendation for the
minimum frontage for two curb .cuts.
Mr. Viskovich stated from a traffic standpoint, 1 'two-way or 2. one-
way driveways make no difference.
Ms. Nancy Burnett stated that the curb cut for, a one-way driveway
should be wide enough to make a turn into it off Stevens Creek
Blvd.
Page 3 - Fence
Com. Austin addressed the fence and asked for clarification. - Mr.
Bottomle " stated the metal fance is the .fence proposed for the
improvements. Mr. Cowan stated there will be greenery behind the
fence.
Coms. Harris stated she never liked the idea of the fence', and it
limits access into the centers.
WE
Com. Roberts stated he would like to see it before he believes it.
Com. Mahoney stated the fence is o.k. Com. Austin was opposed to
the fence.
Mr. Bottomley stated the fence channels people down the sidewalk to
the,,driveway and to the .front entrance of the building. Chr. Doyle
stated he tentatively supports the fence.
Mr. Bottomley stated there are two issues regarding the fence: 1)
Do the Commission like a continuous piece. of street furniture that
helps tie .into the street lights, bus shelter, etc as .an idea; 2)
Desig - ;can add landscaping and spend more time. or. this. Mr.
Bottoa►ley noted the fence could be treated, as part of' the street
design.
Mr. Jung pointed out that the fence is a private improvement.
Nr. Bottomley stated the banner signs are also privately supplied,
but another part of the street furniture. He noted they may need $
standards to do tha fence and signs together. He. added he will
work on a proto-type .for the developer to follow.
Mr. Jung staled t11is could be adopted in concept and work out the
I-
details after talkin" to the Council.
i
WOMIIEWW
i
�S
I f
�y
i" %' S�jeq ;'f�q�°h�ir:�t��: .f�GrtiS '°:r1'1p.prtw qtr. ,�s E a3 tet Tr tii 'f t lr.s,{r S is 1.,::,•,,y,..w ,r.•,•..,
Sif�{�'jt��
PL7INNIN®,.C�IQ[ISSIOW'DaILZSB
May 16, :1995,"
Page 13
! Page 4 ,- Common open space/Outdoor Space
Com. Harris proposed the following wording: "Plazas and Courtyards
for outdoor seating to be encouraged and required in all development
of redevelopment projects over 10,000 sq. ft. of building."
Mr: Jung noted the standard was initially applied to office
buildings and staff applied it to commercial buildings, and 20,000
sq. ft. . seem •to be a reasonable number given the type of existing y
commercial buildings.
a - I
Mr. Bottomley stated for some types of commercial food-oriented
stores, 10,000 sq. ft. would be reasonable. He noted he will add
the appropriate language.
Page 4 -..Trash and Services Equipment
Com. Austin stated the trash and services equipment should be
i
located away from residential. She noted it should be a minimum
number of feet from the residential._ Com. Roberts concurred. i
® Mr. Jung stated it is hard to. develop specific standards and this
will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Com. Roberts suggested, where feasible, trash and services equipment
should be located outside the -setback area and away from
residenti.al. -
i
Page 5 - Signs:
Com. Harris stated the previous requirement for .window signs was a
maximum 259 coverage. She stated she would like to keep this .
requirement. It was a consensus of the Commission to retain the
original requirement.
The maximum building mounted signs was discussed, Mr. Bottomley
stated the requirement is a maximum for all building mounted signs.
s
Ms. Nancy Burnett stated the Commission should consider adding
street numbers on the signs. Com. Harris stated this is included in
the sign ordinance.
i
The Commissioners were asked to address their one major concern at
this time so. it can be discussed at the joint meeting with the
® Council. y
Com. Harris. expressed concern about the module sizes and believes
that 100 ft. office front is too large. She noted she would like to f
HIM
l
i.w.r k,( :`sem. +j,t• ., y; ^t, .f^t... ,+ i fir PY;n "�,. +.s• 'sw. •R7yz.'k rir!j 4y3?j, J'+ ( d°%'ryy`.f7a r `aa'4!''.,w':, lei �`K,' !:it�s°�'i c�.rr tr.{„�,Y a �„„4,,� -
4 ,
PLANNING CCHMIISSION MINUTES j
May 16, 1995
}rr Pale 14
see 'smaller modules.
Mr. Bottomley stated the modules scale tip from residential to large �
office' buildings. He noted they trled to pick modules which
reflect •what people do today. , He noted this requirement also
applies''.to R & D Developments
Chr. Doyle asked what are the impacts of going smaller?
Mr.. Bottomley stated it depends on the scale of the building. He
stated 100 ft. is - long for some buildings, but this was mostly
tailored to the larger building.
Com. Roberts suggested it be tied to the square footage of the
° building or the length.
Com. Harris also noted that 50 ft. module is too big for
commercial. She stated she would like 40 ft. for commercial and a
ratio for office depending on the size of the building.
Com. Roberts spoke in support of the 50 ftfor commercial and 50
to 100 feet for the office.
?' Come' Doyle, Mahoney, Austin concurred with Com. Roberts. It was
agreed ;;that the consultant would come up with the appropriate
'{.
language.
r
Page 9 Roofing.
Coma Austin stated the City Council stated no metal roofing. It
was agreed by the Commission that metal seam roofing would not be
recommended for commercial retail and it would be one option for
office.
Page 14 - Site improvements
Mr. Bottomley stated this is carrying the building theme through
the landscaping materials.
Page 6 Special Architectural Features
a` Com. " Roberts stated he would liketo know if there is a gray too
encourage architectural interest on the sides of the building.
Mr. Bottomley stated this. is addressed in the Draft Specific Plan,
} page 29 #2. He noted he will add the words for -side, and rear of
buildings.
® The Commission discussed future meetings and this hearing was
I �
-
p -
't
M i P � !' rA 4.•
pL�NNING COM+IISSION KINUTES 9 .
t Kay 16, :'1995-
Page -15'
continued.to Jane 10, 1995.
NEW BUSINESS - None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ,COM$ONITY DEVELOPMENT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None
ADjOuRNMM The meeting adjourned at 11.:10 P.M. to the meeting of
May 22, 1995 at 6:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes .Clerk
i;
11,1151 1110
i�
,Y
i'
Y
y
�f
f t, d. N .,ra +8 , -t +r.£ .zr•: �`�,* ',";5 a`7Y�Y'° r. "•f�,�H Y 73°s4'r'. 'f� I �"'`
r r e 2.k"$J 31 M .. w� eY Yy�arV
'., P t r 1 �.+ .� �' t :�. `! 3t # r v{`•�'3�. �7,rr r yr FJ'
�§ r; } �{ rr � 4 �'� Sy -
•:1t'w r�.`cy�xi�.1`# e Y����� ,�It r > '• ' � r ._
1•-
}c y
CITY OF CUPERTINO ,
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE P1dMING
COMMISSION HELD ON MAY 4, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Commissioners present: Chr.. Doyle
Com. Roberts
Com. Harris
Com. Mahoney
Commissioners absent: Com. Austin
Staff .present: Robert Cowan, Director -of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Bert Viskovich, Director` of Public Works
Chuck Kilian, City Attorney
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney
1. Workshop on Hillside Regulations. (Conference Room C: 6:00
P.M. )
. 4', reologic and Drainage Information .
Planning Director Cowan asked what roll the Commission wants to
play in conducting the detail analysis for technical issues. He
noted staff rely on the experts. He stated the Ceneral Plan
establishes the City's acceptable level of risk for certain types
of development as long as potential problems can be resolved.
He added all development in the hillsides is reviewed by the City's
geologist and not normally discussed in the public _process.
i
Mr. Cowan noted Mr. Viskovich is present to discuss the drainage.
i
Com. Harris stated when they went on a tour to Upland Way the
geologist said that any property can be built on. She 'expressed
concerned about this and would like to have the ability to quantify
what this means and at what point do the Commission say no
development is allowed because of safety and aesthetics.
Hr. Cowan stated there :are two issues, one safety the other
aesthetics. He noted he would like to get to .the point were the
Commission can determine if the project as proposed, is safe or
not, based upon the geologists report..
Com. Harris asked if it is. possible to have guidelines regarding
how intensive the engineering has to be 'and at a certain point, if
the engineering is significantly intensive, . development cannot
occur
f
i _
ti
���3�5���`u� f �`�c'"fi 4'�v ��e '�p���'e eY�'-.vryL i�'ticsy`f„r"t,r�.ati.;'�rf.'G 7t�.[s r e �: '�l f�i "? rf ru j•� .�ca t;fy,';�'� � �. �fl. y
' f f � �3:'YS+.� {R�f;'i Y', 1S. ti {4)'CZ� � }{E.'t jdyY f�b�..fB�, "h i��+It i"`��`. � Y rs f',� �i( NYiL4'`...,� Cf 71'q� S ¢'T,Y 5 �".� 1 Vf I). . �{P•h 'f,
7
PLANNING CONMISSION KIINUTES
i ® Regular,,Adjourned Meeting,- May 4, 199:5
Page 2
r Mr. Viskovich stated given that money was no consideration, you
could enginear almost anything on >. any kind. of lot, but the
criteria/guidelines say what is acceptable and what is not. He
added the Planning Commission cannot render a lot unbuildable
;rt because of economic reasons, this is the developers decision. .
Mr. Cowan stated there are guidelines which address homes in the
hillsides.
Chr. Doyle stated there are two issues:
1. Is the site safe to build on or not, based on the engineers '
opinion.
2. From an point, can the site be built on.
Coms. Harris, Mahoney and Doyle believed the expert opinion with
staff review is acceptable.
Com. Roberts expressed concern about the process and failures in
the hillsides.
!3 <
Mr. Cowan stated one failure, recently,- was due to the developer
failing to put in the drainage system. He noted there is a
relatively small number of failures in the City. "
Com. Roberts stated if hillsides must be graded and water drainage
diverted, is this violating the intent of the General Plan to
protect the hillsides?
Mr. Cowan stated with the new guidelines and reduced density,
buildings will be safer and more attention will be paid to the new
subdivisions.
Com. Harris expressed concern about the subdivision process and not
having enough details available when the subdivision is approved.
Com. Roberts expressed concern that there are no grounds to deny an
application once the subdivision map is approved. He asked how do
they evaluate the geological impact at that stage.
Mr. Cowan stated at the subdivision stage the Commission will
receive the grading plans, including the individual lots. He noted
it is difficult to approve the subdivision in its entirety at the
map stage.
Com: .Roberts stated there should be -a process were the Commission
can rectify an earlier approval if a mistake was made.
Mr. Cowan stated once the map is approved and lots sold off to
individual buyers it is difficult to go back.
I .
WIN 19193100111:51 iMULWTO
i.
'F
a MF Cr uaa$hE
',tit'4yd <k' exy lai, j•+^.F,
.�r.,
f •t' - �-,a ti•
Ph�ING. CoM aSSION NINUTF,SMa 4, 1995
Regular- Adjourned.Meeting, Y
Page 3
ission has the authority to Tessa ct the
Chr. Doyle stated the Commtentatie map
house size. Mr' an statedidea of tthe ebuildin� location and the
Commission. would have
aesthetics associated with this.
f se
at
Com. Roberts stated there is e heto H sadd'editheredishno
people do or not do with thlandscaping
control once people move into their homes.
Mr. ViskoviCh stated there is a point where the City's
responsibilities stop and the homeowner _ takes on their own
if conditions of
responsibilities. He noted approval are violated
this is adifferent process. -
Chr. Doyle asked how do they ensure that development will not be
detrimental?
Mr. Viskovich stated technical standards will be applied at the
approval process. He stated once a subdivision is approved by the,
Planning Commission experts also• review the plans for safety.
Com. Harris stated when the .General Plan was approved the concept
was .to live in the flats and look at the hillsides, but any
been very intensive. She stated
development in the hillsides hove otect the hillsides is
if it is the will of the communityto pr
there, a problem in the General Plan?
Mr. Cowan stated if there are legal lots of record, the City cannot
prohibit development. He stated the idea is to regulate the design
r
and mass.
w Com: Roberts asked, at thetime of the General Plan, was
consideration given to the cumulative affect tream channels
development on the stream flews and the Chang: not
and how ,this affects the riparian eorr�a�s'stages addressing sthis
seer any documents at the General
problem. He noted it is hard to evaluate the increased risk of
flooding.
-offlow
Mr. Viskovich stated that developmentencllcause
addresses ethis as f staff
=! to increase, but the Flood Control Agency
-'t do nothave the expertise. Mr. Viskovichea�n� on
ntO He statedtif
City's storm drain system based on the 10 y
must
flooding
occurs the streets take over. He noted' it is more
difficult to address this in the hillsideac u� ghba s elogeradded
ensure thatthe
sevelopm
ystem is based on many factors.
that thestorm
Com: Roberts stated he is . concerned .that this was not discussed
® x
-Imp Kmnw�
�...�.�
^ � ,, ,. i jR.'- n+e: G ���s�� ,r. �ty�r3 •c?-�;.°' fix` .."vtp�sC
V,..��sly
` r 7 v ..1 s ir'Y 4 j y . `is 1.• c l r j-7 i4 i t"7b, j
PIAWING CONMSSION KINUTES `
® Regular Adjourned Meeting, May A, 1995
Page 4
during the" General Plan stage.
The Commission and staff briefly discussed at what point should
development stop when the storm drains are impacted? Mr. Cowan
stated that the Flood Control Agencies supports development and
will address new developments and their impacts on the system. Mr.
Viskovich stated the goal of Flood Control is to make every channel
capacity a 100 year event.,
Com. Mahoney stated the General Plan has goals, many of which are
mutually conflicting, ` but the Planning Commission try to make the
right trade=offs.
9
Mr. Cowan suggested forming a sub-committee to address the drainage.
issue. C-)m. Roberts volunteered.
5. Timing of• Driveway grading
$ Mr. Cowan stated there was concern from the Planning Commission
about the timing of the driveways being built. He presented maps
showing examples of public roads being built in conjunction with
the subdivision. He noted people should be able to access their
lots once a subdivision map is approved.
ti
Com. Mahoney stated the issue is' that roads and driveways may
anchor the position of the home, then later it is decided that this
T is not the best location for the home.
Com. Harris asked how can this be done differently?
Mr. Cowan stated the subdivision map will show the fundamental
grading concept for the house.
-$ Com. Harris stated the driveway should be to the lot, but not
through the lot. -
Chr. Doyle stated the issue is putting in a driveF?ay before a
particular 'lot, is approved for a building. Mr. Cowan stated maybe
the driveway should be planned for, but not constructed.
Mr. Viskovich stated the driveway handles drainage and may have to
be put in. He stated when property is subdivided the drainage must
t be- completed and in most cases the road becomesthecarrier.
Chr. Doyle stated the actual lot should not be disturbed, but all
necessary components for drainage and erosion should be put in.
Com. Mahoney stated whatever ' is put, in out of necessity, the
Planning Commission should look at it to make sure it is the .right �
t
z
s '
" ` sr'` `�.` .jai .r .,�.`� ,d�.i:���x � a,�' t5.•t,} -i"sa„'k�," "F`r3�"v » 1�`` tGs
,;y��.f`o'g ''=" 'n ?r...:ipp.,a " .'t:� .,^. '� �i Wry"- r�'� r�14,5 yk� �' �, e� �r� ,',t,lf •,¢�t $S rt¢0' " t��.�> H ' 6 ' +�t�"'x�� 3"�;
—Nd
r�rf
pLANNING poMISSION MINUTES
. . Regular..Adjourned Meeting, May 4, 1995
Page 5
location. .'.
Mr. Viskovich stated today's' requirement is that once' the
subdivision is approved and construction begins, all improvements
must be installed. He noted the driveway to the garage can be left i
out, but the feeder to the subdivision must be put in up front.
s
The hearing was opened for public comment..
Mr. Mory Nelson, Civil Engineer, stated the important difference is
whether the driveway serves multiple lots or a single lot. He
stated for multiple lots the road is necessary for the access and {
drainage.
1. Erni ;c-at;on of Slope Dsrlsity Formula
Mr. Cowan; stated the action which came out of this discussion was
to hold a ,hearing to provide for minimum lots sizes. He stated the
intent is to initiate a public hearing to address the RHS
ordinance=..
2. FY�pntion Frocess
i
i Mr. . Kilian addressed the findings for the exception process and
stated this is an attempt to objectify the process and make it
clear and legally defensible. He stated the process requires the
City Council and Planning Commission to approve development of the
individual lots which don't meet the requirements of the new RHS
zone.
In response to questions regarding the 13 .findiri,,s, Mr. Kilian
•stated substandard lots can be merged and all 13 findings must be
made to grant an exception:.. Regarding 8(b) , this involves a
situation were development will not be allowed on the ridgeline
unless.'the location of the structure, elsewh4pre creates a worse
problem or the project cannot fit on the property. He stated the
criterion would include the similar houses in the area, what is
reasonable use of the property and the surrounding areas. He noted
this is ';on a case by case basis. He added if certain findings
cannot be reached they can be readdressed.
3, RFiS` Ordinance TechnicalRequirgme3its.
Grading
yR Mr. " Cowan stated they need to clarify the ordinance regarding
adequate wording for the driveway. , He asked if the driveway should
be included in the cut and fill and how is this divided .between
multiple lots?
�r r
,� ._....,. _, �,.-s- ,�_`;�+",�„"�;dsy, ti°"�. ,�,a:;:� :,,;,_� ++ - Win. +FY.• �zH,„.'� .;.
ttao i
qtr
t Y i�'`,�..... .�.�..,{,+vw,�u �•r.."`r Las$• •�M:i^:,, +�. e 4 bx "" i� +, ki�'f� sr�• _ y ta9,c3`�r ��Lfi�a ceE k .�. ,� �d y+.� � F .c^`y�`�p'.',
x s5���y vr. �'L c kr.i ?y ,t��.• r s = 'kCq�:.�'�` � yr��' 1.i..: ff r�� Z � xk-.i +�' {�i A FJ�, ���'tl�r,�
4 l� f r v �n�• 1 r,..i�{!y. '� .�r f! r- � i r.. ri � l 1
!y
PLANNING`COMISSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting, May 41 1995
Page 6 - -
Com. Harris stated she would like to see some recommendations from
staff.
rx Mr. Nelson asked how do they calculate the number and, from an
engineering point of view he disagrees with the concept of adding
the cut and fill to come up with. a total number. He added if this
is to be done a more realistic way to reach a limitation would be
the amount of square footage as a percentage of the total square
k footage of the lot which is being disturbed. He noted there is a
considerable amount of grading associated with the architecture on
a project he is working on, but the site grading i3 minimized.
Com. Mahoney asked about grading which is not visible. Com. Harris
stated' there is concern about a change in the terrain.
Com`. Roberts agreed, that the major point is what is visible.
Com. Mahoney believes they should focus on what can be seen and the
need to understand what they are measuring and then pick the right
number. He stated the Commission should review, the 2500 cubic
yards,
r Mr. Tony Carrasco stated that putting the house into the hillside
protects the views and the hillsides. He stated .restricting
grading encourages building on top of the hill which will be,
<< visible.
Com. Roberts stated building into the hillside affects the sub-•
surface flows and this may be a problem.
Mr. Nelson stated it could also enhance the stability.
The meeting was continued in the Council Chambers at this time.
House size
+� Mr. Cowan stated- the Commission needs to discuss basements and if
this should, be included in the house size. He asked if the
PlanningCommission have enough information to add this to the list
of topics to be discussed?
<. Com. Mahoney stated it was his understanding that when they
developed the. sliding scale the slope adjustment formula was
applied after the house size was determined and the steeper the
slope the bigger the penalty. He clarified that the maximum house
size was 6500 sq. ft. and reduced from this for the slope.
Mr. Cowan stated Com. Mahoney's understanding is correct.
m'tc'n`_ x " 4-'`p}"h y" dr.; ,'r ";•:.h 62. ,a+Y �4i' w,.sv..H ,....�, tz r,,�Y7-........, ,��
i
1
III
6
zICeT;3 x r
'�
------------
"2h✓ t'.f ,�, 1 �r�.St4r� .+i. t.it �14r�a rY�fY n yr1�+�,✓r�+'({ r�j� ,J' s '7
i
r
PIAIINING CORMSSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting, May 4, 1995
Pae7'-
Regarding the cut and fill as discussed earlier, Com. Harris stated
she would like staff to bring back 'recommendations. She stated
they want to encourage homes set into the hillside.
4. deologic and Drainage Information
Mr. Cowan stated it is his understanding that the Commissioners are
satisfied that the technical review by the consultant and ,staff,
a
and alsoo.' a sub-committee to look at drainage.
y 5. Timing of Driveway Grading
Mr. Cowan reiterated that driveways shall be uuilt for multiple
lots; but would not go through the lots.
Com. Harris stated the Commission do not want to require the anchor'
of the house.
r
Regarding the review of the RHS Ordinance, Mr. Cowan stated he will
advertise it so the Commission can discuss other topics which may
come up.
Mr. Mory Nelson asked, with ,regards to the slope adjustment, the
® size of a house on a slope over 30% could not be larger than 70% of
6500 sq. .,ft? Mr. Cowan stated this is close to the net result.
'# Chr. Doyle explained the adjustment, but noted there is an,
exception process for homes larger than, the square footage allowed.
E
Ms. Wordell stated lots .submitted for an exception process prior to
adoption of the ordinance have a separate set of standards.
Mr. Cowan stated before he initiates the public hearing for. the RHS
Ordinance he will take it before the Council.
E, This part of the meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the
discussion on the Diocese of San Jose.
RECESS
- s
1 r
�`,�,: at_ J may s{�., f �' a,A� �,y�,y�4 ♦., a,rm sn ?'n na f vy* r <. r �
t ��t'�, .f`'t y�i '�`'�a�'v�*y,�`��°a�� -•�j7>�t. '....'r �ty '�i;.xt�yi,�' >s�.,�"{r�"r'�ky.`,)3t ��,..il��ytt�r. �- RF�r„' tf' Yi'-. ' t ,pfv:]Vyyy'ff} `als- r' ._r'.�:�s�
5`. 'F C .tf P"'��7 �N4d P,14FF[a, .Ytl^5� �i Y 4�.hkl 'k n,��5 � t l f. ; y ,. ,'J µ •at L+��. .tr 4 i jib tf v7e .i�i%3 ;j i,✓ �l� i7''.�l rY fa ds° ,f'�,�' ..., r.
n'a
PLANNING COMMISSION !MINUTES
® Regular: Adjourned Meeting, May 4, 1995
Page ..8
SALUTE :'SO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
.i .
commissioners present: Chr. Doyle
Vice Chr. Roberts
Con. Mahoney
Com. Harris
Commission,: s absent:. Com. Austin
Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community- Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Bert Viskovich, ,Director of, Public Works
Chuck Kilian, City Attorney
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney
Consultants present: Don Wolfe
Don Skinner
3
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion
PO:STPONENENTS/REMVALS FRON CALENDAR - None
.ORAL COMIUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Council Chambers: 8:00 p.m. )
2. Application No(s) : 1-GPA-93 and 6-rte,-93
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose
Property Owner: Same
Location: Assessor Parcel •Nuffibers 342-52-3, 342-5-
54, -56, -59, -60 Located south of I-280,
west of Foothill Blvd. and north of
Rancho San Antonio County Park and
Stevens Creek Blvd.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from Very ;
Low Density Residential 5-20 acre slope density to Very Low Density.
Residential Foothill Modified 1/2 acre slope density with a cap of
293 units.
The Diocese of San Jose applied for the above General Plan
Amendment. 12he City Council directed that a total of ten
' alternatives be ana vied in the Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environmental Impact Report was
.t prepared. Ten alternatives were evaluated. Significant impacts
identified related to loss of and intrusion into open space lands;
elimination of potential park lands; loss of and intrusion into
natural vegetation, wildlife habitat and wetland areas; exposure to
adverse geologic conditions; storm run-off erosion and pollution;
tk
t�:
w:
7
g$ ?x� ��N •.w � +M,{I A{q yy..�'. 4 m,,�� k- u E r r r la •-, r -'�S r .E�'� �.>rr ¢flex} X f.
a iy
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• Regular Adjourned Meeting, May 4, 1995
Page' 9
wildfire hazard; visual impacts; water tank failure and leakage;
and. safety of school crossings.
Staf f Dr sentat?nn: City Planner Wordell presented the staff
report and outlined the discussion points of tonight's meeting.
She noted the Commission needs to decide if they wand additional
alternatives assessed. She noted the amendment could be conceptual
-in. nature, but it may be risky to have a detailed General Plan
Amendment. She noted one vision of a General Plan Amendment would
be to identify the constraint areas, identify the yield and the
distribution of units. She stated they could- also look - at.
architectural guidelines. She pointed out' that the matrix and the
summary'-in .the EIR does ,not include non-significant impacts because
y CEQA only requires that mitigation is provided for significant
impacts.
Constraint Man
lF '
Com. Harris addressed the fax received from Nadine Grant. Ms.
Wordell stated the constraint areas addressed in Ms. Grant's letter
havebeen included in the constraint map. She noted an overlay of
thy*_constraint map, which can be 'placed over all the alternatives,
will be provided at the next meeting.
Mr. Wolfe outlined the constraint areas on the map.
In response to Com. Roberts question, Ms. Wordell stated the
{ cemetery is a development area for cemetery use only.
Ms. Wordell addressed the letter from McClutchen & Doyle and noted
they are,-saying that constraint areas do not exclude development,
just that the developer should be oensitive to the 'areas. She
noted the Commission should outline their intent for the constraint
areas.
Com. Mahoney stated he had assumed that constraint areas would not
be developed, but for some overwhelming 'concern, it may be
considerel.
Com. Roberts stated the constraint areas should be off limits for
development, using reasonable judgement.
Coma Harris stated it was her intent that the constraint areas
' would define the development areas. She expressed concern about
deciding on a number of units and the development area not being
large enough. In this case they may create a larger impact than
they considered _when developing the constraint map. She stated she
would like to see the overlays. to compare the alternatives on the
constraint areas.
.r
s�
.,, ,., ..r 7✓'�� a< F r e 7� 5 J�.. / r 7.r 3 � � drn.ri tYv k r Gfrfi��r 2Yr��F��.+,? ! Ird�J �+3 9
iu
PLANNING CONNISSION NINOTSS
® Regular Adjourned Meeting, May 4, 1995
Page 10 "
Com. Doyle stated the constraint map should define the development
envelope.
Ms. Vordell stated if - and when the Commission get down to an
amendment, adjustments can be made.
Mr. Kilian stated what is important is to make clear that whatever
the -constraint areas are ultimately determined to be, these are the
areas that will- not allow development. He also addressed another
section in the - McClutchen & Doyle letter with regards to the
evaluations of the environment on the project versus impacts of the
project on the environment. He stated the letter is misleading on
this .point noting the representatives of the Diocese want to take
the position that tha Planning Commission or City Council are not
free to consider the impacts of the environment on the project
because the case (referred to in the letter) stands for that
proposition, but the case stands for the proposition that it does
not have to be done,, but the Commission is free to do it. Mr.
Kilian stated anything that would affect the livability of, the
residents in the new project would be an ,example of the environment
affect on the project. s3
The Commission discussed the alternatives. h
Chr.' Doyle asked how much more information the Commissioners feel
they need on the alternatives?
Com. Mahoney stated the alternatives they have are adequate and he
does not see the need to do, more analysis to mauve forward.
Com: Roberts stated the alternatives should have a site plan which
shows' the distribution of units on each parcel. He stated the site
plans do not have to be very specific.
y Ms. Wordell .stated in the visual analysis some assumptions were
made to the distribution of the units and the impacts.
Com. Roberts stated there is a big difference between alternative
2 and 2a° ^nd would like to see the units on a site plan map.
Mr. Skir. -jr stated they did not prepare designs for the
alternatives. He stated the assumption was that there would be
development on both parcels. He noted they looked at the
alternatives taking the larger range of units allowed and the
impacts. He added. it would require a great deal more work when
deciding the location and distribution of the units.
Com. Roberts stated he would like to see a site plan map for each
alternative, and if not feasible at least the number of units on
b
TF- �•�'
�1 l
Y}
p
t
4. '`r NT�;sa'i�`� 7�5.�a c vi'tYr..�� i�F,r,dri' ��`�y`3°�r p„�q�s .F`'Y+L•'��;^hr+ r �.t,," j'�T'r��� ¢`r�..'�i"f z _z�o"'tiG:'a�'
b r f cy• ! y r's., �+, P �' A s i fir✓` ? t ,.
;Y. uY- .. t•� r ca r•t c b a,J.'si,�" .fix.';l�r"w � x a 2 ri:�,r Ivk. ,.� � ;v'�'�f7vt-a�'�fiv,�r in,v aa., C� r ;``1� m� ��'3,«. .
•.i ,}e i .�,r r � •. 4 {. " �T��S Y% fyr 4,.irK 5`4S. ,F l
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting, .May 4, 1995
Page li
each parcel and the impacts. He stated he would also like to see
another alternative for the Seminary parcel. Ms. Wordell stated
this could be bracketed by the other alternatives. '
r
Com. Harris believes it is reasonable to inquire how many units
would be on each parcel for the alternatives as addressed by Coin.
Roberts. She requested a narrative summary regarding the number of
units on each lot and a hand drawn map which shows the general
location of the houses as they were considered to make the
mitigation.
Mr. Wolfe stated the distribution and the number of units on each
parcel can be done. in a matrix form.
When discussing the final alternative, Com. Mahoney stated he would
need to have an outline with lot lines defined etc.
Chr. Doyle stated he agrees that ultimately, what they want to have
is an- alternative -which reflects the Commissioners recommendations,
it should have lot lines and the number of units defined as well as
impacts and mitigations which are specific to that alternative.
Mr. Wolfe addressed Chapter 6.3-30 which outlines the assumptions.
�. Com. Roberts stated he would like a proposal that would serve to
fill the wide gap between the 36 and 125 units on the Seminary
property. He stated he would like to define an alternative which
corresponds to the application, but applying it to the Seminary
property. He suggested applying the Foothill Modified 1/2 to the
Seminary property.
Mr. Cowan stated the slope density formula is based on gross
acreage and establishes the yield. The number of units can then be
reduced for the constraints which can't' be mitigated.
Com. Harris stated alternative 'B is 75 units •cated on the
Seminary property.
Chr. Doyle suggested using Alternative B and addinb another level,
to close the gap as addressed by Com. - Roberts.
The Commission discussed the future meetings. It was agreed that
the next meeting will be May 31st and they would have meetings on
July 18th and 19th to try to complete a tentative resolution. e
In response to Com. Mahoney's question, Mr. Kilian stated the
Commission can discuss the alternatives, but cannot make decisions
until all the comments are in.
,tY .. .,. .�, _ ..... -.—, wN':,,,i t....,� .,iy rv'�• p`, .fx"�'�a�k<i'+'�^'r�.�`( 1,,R��:ni f _6..-''" ,y�t€rS"�,� �3�.♦+Y cy E q, ,,,+'=?r'f Yi''�°`
r
ti
4!;
t
` 5 t� �' a,,:i;i t £'✓`> '1.}"`�aVt s ;ur"!�-!ia Ott; � f r a4�� s' � -`d�' t
�� r , :,: 7_:•pc vt a' r ! fir! t'sis . !rF� �r.,gl.e
PLANNIkG C P MISSION MINUTES
- Regular Adjourned Meeting, May 4, 1995
Page 12
r The 'hearing was opened for public comment.
n
Mr.° Michael Bruner,. Sobrato Development, ,addressed .the constraint
map .and feels strongly about the ability to develop the property
south of Maryknoll in. order to keep a contiguous open space. He
stated as presented by staff the,open space is not contiguous from
a wildlife standpoint. He noted creating narrow corridors does not
provide contiguous open space. He added the Diocese is proposing
to develop 25$ of the land and the rest will be open space. He
asked the Commission to reconsider their views on the development,
(z on the property south of Maryknoll, noting the concerns are visual
and precedence setting and these can be addressed. He 'noted the
homes would be single story on this property. Mr. Bruner pointed
out the possible development areas asIwell as the private and
public :open space proposed. He noted he will provide documents
showing what constituted the number of units for the alternatives
proposed by the Diocese.
Com. Harris questioned the Regnart Canyon Open Space land. Mr.
Cowan stated the City has development rights, but it is private
,j
land.
I� Ms. -Mavis Smith, 'resident, stated there has been a lot of talk
about potential . and conceptual and asked when taeyY can see a
2a` specific plan? She noted there will be more building- at the Forum
because theiruse permit was extended. She added she is more
concerned about the wildlife than visual impacts. She added that
people need open space as well. She stated Mr. Bruner's comments
regarding the contiguous open space is more favorable. She 'noted
she regrets anything that interferes with open space available to
people and the animals, and asked that the.animals -be kept in mind.
. <7
Regarding the Mitigations, TMs. Wordell stayed the Commissioners
should focus on- additions or changes they may have.
Com. Harris stated the applicant created a' document which lists all
the mitigations with comments regarding the flaws. She noted this
is a good document to work from.
The Commissioners discussed the 11 unavoidable. significant
1 environmental impacts for which no mitigation is feasible to reduce
the impact to less than significant.
v Com. Mahoney questioned #10 and believes it does not have to. be on
this list as a significant impact of this project because it is an
impact on the project. He stated it is the Commissioners call and
this can be discussed further.
Regarding #1, Com. Mahoney stated the current General Plan was
,f
1,
�+��i��T�"' 4�r�'t� eC,h�'�'�`".s�.. `#fyF"�" s f��y h n"""�•7 Uy 77 v 1�' kaw �'_ 1. r
v y. K ✓ ;� ',. �,,44 y{`" I .�s�x�JY•v`'t� �,�,11r� `i N{ v}� .-"��Sf .`. i� t.i'' !<'� v y� •�" +t� \i4'i'1. �� � a_ u �.�¢.,,.yet,
{ �,> i s i a:;� 9..Ire h r +(" S � �..;t ,rt; �1 � w "(�,�d.f�'��! •
;. PLANNING COMUSSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting, May 4, .1995
Page,. 13
approved with , a statement of overriding concern around loss of
potential open space because it -had development in. it. This area
is targeted to' be developed at a certain density, but it will not
-be open space when developed, and intensifying the development, in
his view,, does not change this.
Mr. Wolfe stated the General Plan itself is not a mitigation and by
i�
,,developing on open space is a loss of open space.,.
Mr. Kilian stated the baseline for EIR •purposes is zero development
and they must analyze towards a no project alternative. The
` Commission could also_ use the existing General Plan as an
alternative.
Mr. Cowan clarified that every General Plan Amendment will have an
affect on open space so a statement of overriding concern will have
to be written -for all amendments?
Regarding 110 Mr. Kilian stated, in his planning opinion, it should
4 be included is this list.
Com. Mahoney addressed #4 and #5 as outlined in the letter from
® OAKS and stated he would like more information on this. . ,
-Mr. Kilian addressed #3 and noted this indicates that there would
be a' potential impact due to demolition of St. Joseph's Seminary
building, but this is not part of the General Plan project.
Mr. Cowan stated .there could be a separate application for a
demolition permit. Mr. Kilian asked would. #3 be an unavoidable
impact of. the project. He noted the seminary can be demolished
even ifthe General Plan Amendment is not granted.
Com.. Harris stated it is no different than losing grassland. Mr. '
Kilian stated the Seminary property can be demolished under any
General Plan Amendment.
Regarding the bats, Ms. Wordell stated the study concluded that the
Townsend Bat .,is present in the Seminary building, but not the
Pallid Bat. The study also concluded that the surrounding . oak
woodland areas 'offers excellent habitat and the species is present
in the. area.
Com. Wolfe stated Pallid Bats will be removed from #3. He stated
Dr. Pierson ,conducted a study and concluded that there is nesting
habitat'Ari the tree area and removal may constitute a significant
impact. ,
® Regarding #3, lir. Kilian •reiterated. that no mater what happens with
r C
i
'i
3
+'b ��� ��� 'r ` f�� s�ah �4*r�,^`•�fr sy 5�c m � ^v,;�t r, r..'
*`4in'wz'}+�
y:i 1
� t
PLAWING COMIUSSION KINUTES'
Rragular Adjourned Meeting, May 4, 1995
Page 14
this property there-'will be the demolition of St. Joseph's
Seminary,
' Mr. Wolfe stated this is a safety hazard and must be removed even
though there are valuable species.
Com. Roberts questioned #8 and thought this was+ mitigated. Mr.
Wolfe stated the second study by Dr. Hopkins concluded that this
could' be mitigated with proper design and drainage .systems. He
f noted he will look into this.
Mr. Kilian pointed out that there must be a statement of overriding
concerns for each impact not mitigated.
Com. Harris addressed the Bats and the mitigation.
Mr.- Bruner stated he did not receive the report regarding the bats
but believes this' can be mitigated through the planting of trees.
He stated he would also be willing to donate a bat house, outside
the development, for the short term while the trees grow.. He noted
there,. are ways to mitigate for the bats.. . Regarding #6 and #7 they
have proposed to plant 2500 trees and depending on what happens on
® the Seminary property there may be more trees added. He noted
information was provided for #8 and it was 'his understanding that
this should be removed. Regarding #10, he requested that this be
changed to not significant with the requirements to provide all the
mitigations. He' noted he will address the tree report at the next
meeting.
Ms. Debbie Jamieson, resident, addressed #8 and believes even with
ek-pert testimony and engineering techniques they may end up losing
the red legged frog, .which may be due to change in the hydrology.
She noted even the experts don't know all the answers with regards
to these species. She addressed. the. Non Point Source Pollution
(NPSP) and noted this is not explained in the EIR. She suggested
8(b) -which would be "Loss of marsh quality due to Non-Point Source
Pollution". She expressed concern about development close to`the
marsh and would like to know more about the .NPSP.
Ms. Maria Ceciliano, resident, stated staff and the Diocese have
done a good job and hopes the Planning Commission can speed up the
process.
Nr. Viskovich requested the, removal of the words "if required"
under the Water Tank, as the EIR has established the need for the
2 million.
® Regarding #8, Ms. Wordell stated she will bring back the language
from Dr. Hopkins report. regarding this. She also noted that a NPSP
i
t
aq
7S p.Ks�rtt {y 1Ct{ �y.f ida`Sb
t skyr ' ! y.• '✓. ,�,•hoc ' ':C`�mt }£';'Cr { X"t� rt K L'71 ej i, t ;4 u. a irJ„-
. ti ;Y•s. ,., u� M r �,t ,;�`�4 aJf°lfi�•^� t,�.s
•1 +:' ' h.`p a r'E', tt;,f'8 ,,.3;•a 'n..ts•Rt' �1�"` kf (r,,.. t'{ cam.!,R}j.,�ia.,.l,'4". F,{.P rsf� rt ly r},�,;rr.yt �"k'�,. ,;�3��-.,r�in�r�i�7i�C' N ,. ! '-s •
w
e � A�• yy4 fiJ E..LI
PLANNING N P�NDTBS
® Regular:Adjourned Meeting,.• May 4, 1995
Page 15
plan must be filed prior': to:grading permits with the Regional Water
a Quality Control Board. She noted Dr. Hopkins indicated that the .
mitigations are adequate. _
Com. Harris stated some. of the items may be able to be mitigated.
Mr. Wolfe stated he will bring back the, information regarding the
habitat in the trees .in a brief written report to clarify some
issues. Com. Harris noted items which can be mitigated should not-
be on this list.
Mr. Cowan stated the water tank will be discussed at a later time.
This meeting was continued to May 31, 1995.
ADJOURNMENT: Themeeting adjourned , at 10:05 p.m. to the next
regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 1995 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes-Clerk
i'
•
1�
i
f
i
- .+'.• 4 y3 'F'... rh. Y,�y"��Y 'r��w`° �ry'`��7 �;+.�3r}'�3`yyw.rx,"" 'Fi n�'y?a,� rte,' I+, ��'•a,> ti>`-�`.`.}.{
,a
;tib � ��Y� t. �i4�T ib .j'` •. '�y�,„ F"y , �,t t-C -:''S 3" w.
' � 4., r`"'7'•l7. wn t Rrw 'a3 �.� i� �� g.�h f',1 r.5-._': � l 1�3tntifl aib S{�x }rk.i�81r r}fV rtaan��-a�l�.l4�cttt1 �,7r,y d� � � `Y�'.�` � ,M n� ��ka y Fr .r;.
PV�
CITY .OF .CUPERTINO
® - 10300 Torre Ave.
.10300- Torre
(408) .777-3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON MAY 8, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE�;TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Roberts
Com. Mahoney
Com. Harris
Cozy. Austin
Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community bevelopment
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Michele Bjurman; Planner II
Vera Gil, Planner II
Charles Kilian, Clt,% Attorney
4
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 18, 1995 •- Special Meeting
It was requested that the Minutes Clerk review .the tape for the
above meeting and make several .corrections to be approved at the
meeting of May 16, 1995.
April 24, 1995 - .Regular Meeting
i' MOTION: Com. Roberts moved to approve the minutes of April 24,
1995 as submitted
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 3-0-2
ABSTAIN: Mahoney, Doyle
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No discussion
POSTPONEKENTS/REKOVAL FROM CALENDAR
Item 5 Application 2-EXC-95, Tom Hirano
Mr. Cowan stated the advertising was incorrect and requests a
continuance to the meeting of May 22, 1995.
r MOTION: . Com. Harris moved to continue item 5 to the meeting of
May 22, 1995
} SECOND: .' Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
,H
i a
�$,:.� i n�a'S �� k.;,�' s.-,C.: 1 `".. .��,d'+_`wK p,,'rvs�to�z L s.r.s.. x+;y,• rt,:'+t?�'.'are1£ r}:st ar i r'.'".�k, ��. ..,�,,. sxa.bl..t �;ai ( ;� x,
+ r [a x .v ih1 7`J (i 1 x:�, r r.,v f., �f✓f!� F'�"'�i.�R ,
PLANNING, COMMISSION MINUTES.
• Regular',Meeting, May 8, 1995
Page 2
CONSENT ;CALENDAR
y 1. Application No(s) : 2-ASA-95
Applicant: Landmark Property
Property Owner: Same
Location: 21060 Homestead Road, Ste. 209
Approval of a landscaping plan for a 5 unit subdivision
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 2-ASA-95 subject to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing.
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Application No(s) : . 81,004.18 and 3-EA-95
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
t
Location: Citywide
Amending various residential zones of the Cupertino Municipal
Code to add provisions regarding residential group homes.
A ® Staff presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report
noting .staff developed this ordinance as a result of iaw suits in
neighboring cities. She noted the purpose is to create land use
policies for group living environments. She explained the two
q types of shared living arrangements, residential care facilities
and the congregate residences, as outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Bjurman presented examples of both. She noted the Federal Fair.
Housing Act and new state legislation prohibits discrimination in
housing based on a person's handicap. She briefly reviewed the
issues considered in developing the regulations. Planner Bjurman
briefly reviews--d, the matrix which outlines the zoning districts and
the types of uses allowed in these zones. She pointed out that if
the ordinance is adopted, staff will insert the wording which will
relate to the matrix. She reviewed existing facilities in the
City.
In response to questions from the Commissioners, Ms. Bjurman stated
there are limited parcels in the community which are zoned A. She
noted BQ` includes churches, schools etc. , and the rotating shelter
is a permitted use ,under the BQ prdinance.
Com. ,Harris stated A zone may not be a bad place for . larger
residential care or congregate care if there was a ranch. Ms. .
Bjurman stated she made this conditional because she looked at the
existing zoning and the majority were single family homes which had
not yet .been rezoned to R1, but what Com.. Harris suggests is
J� .r
? .._ ....._,� jf�.i.._,,n:H .P3faf'R�` •�*T+�^h'.,'..i�f <#si��� ��� v�`Y "yYl za',"'Lt{"1�ud.���{����`'+� '�:w:_�� „� ������ :.
5 f.X011
y�
1
x< a � k a tirt r; ? .rS .� ".� C ¢u d +e? �.b +. zk F ✓ tY rnua
1�4
{ < I a •' R t of 9 ✓ ✓ ,`rY r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting, May 8, 1995
Page 3
s
reasonable.
Com. Harris suggested that A and Al zones be under conditional use
and then when rezoned R1 they would move into the prohibited
cateOry..
Ms. Bjurman addressed Section II - Use Regulations and stated the
sentence beginning "Nothing. . ." should be removed -because staff is
' proposing to prohibit some uses from some of the zoning districts
listed. ,,
Com. Roberts addressed Page 1 (a) of, the ordinance, and noted
anticipating the public hearings, residents will be worried about
property values etc. , and asked what would constitute a direct
threat or substantial physical damage to the property of others?
City Attorney Kilian stated the property owner claiming the damage
would have to have expert testimony to support his arguments. He
stated it is not just worthy goals they are dealing with, but
federal .and state laws. He stated there are all .kinds of ligations
involving agencie-s .who .use, their zoning powers to prohibit group
homes. He stated there are no controls existing in Cupertino, but
if they had a situation,® licensed or unlicensed, where the results' of the use -of the property we.re constituting direct danger there
can be- a , revocation, process.. He.. noted one cannot anticipate
problemin the 'future.
The public hearing was opened, seeing no-one the hearing was
closed. ..
In 'response to Chr. Doyle's question, Mr. Kilian stated 6 persons
or fewer was based on state law. He stated the City has the right
to reduce the congregate care number to six. He noted the problem
with this is that federal law prohibits cities from discriminating
against' congregate and other residences. He noted a typical home
r with seven or more people would have to obtain a use permit.
Ms. Bjurman stated under the definition of congregate residences,
it is seven people over the age of 18. She stated the number 10
F
was chosen because it related to the Uniform Building Code.
Mr. Kilian stated many cities do not have these regulations unless
there is a problem. He noted a neighboring city has a severe
problem with a group home in a. neighborhood and the neighbors
complained. He stated they are trying to anticipate these
problems.
The Commission discussed the number prohibited. Com. Harris stated
'° it comes to the right of the few over the rights of the many in a
I
s
6:.i.aitjj Mdri ms's tem ,+u."r�'7 d it d h" . c4t N.Sys''" isty+•h `� ;'"{ , r a ._$,'`k' 1, 7�.
.Y
pLA=JNG COWISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting, May 8, 1995
Page. 4
community.* , , She noted larger groups 90 into multi-family areas
'where people expect a denser use. She noted people living in an R1
aroa .have _a right to expect. less density.
Mr. Kilian-stated the question is do they require a conditional use
permit for an R1 zone for any house that has seven ' or more
residents.: because they are requiring it for the disabled? Mr.
Kilian stated the law says the City cannot discriminate between
residential care facilities and residential.
ChrDoyle asked if two levels, six or fewer and seven or more for
both residential and congregate residences is acceptable. He. also
asked if moving A, Al and RI into the conditional use category is
acceptable?
Mr. Kilian stated ,this is fine provided they. also change the R1
zone to provide that any family or group over seven persons in a
single family dwelling must have a use permit.
i
i Ms. Bjurman briefly reviewed the census and the number of dwelling
units with 7 or more residences.
i
Mr. Kilian stated that six or fewer persons for residential care is ' '
a term of. art in state law. He noted the idea was to increase the
congregate residences because seven persons or greater was a burden ,
to put on the single family homes. He noted as long as the
Commission can make a distinction between residential care and
congregate residence they only need to provide the use permit for
ll. perss or greater in an R1 zone. He noted he feels comfortable
on
with the distinction between residential care and congregate
residence, as outlined in the Sunnyvale example.,
se
Mr. Kilian suggested moving A, Al and R1 over to neStoonalule
permit, but only require a use permit for other types ng
family residences for 11 persons or. greater.
Ms. Bjurman stated to get to the conditional use permit process an
applicant would have to meet the minimum parking and the minimum_
concentration.
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to grant a negative declaration.
a SECOND: Com. Harris , 5-0
VOTE: Passed
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve 81,004:.18 subject to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the
following modifications: moving A, .A1 and R1 into the
Conditional 'Use Permit section. ,
SECOND: Com. Austin
ig
,a
i mac,}
'y rw��'�F�'t� �t*1?� �s'Y��," ��y,�..����, � ;'`'•u7..,,�eu�u�: �-r ttfi�-'�2��fi5,��FkF�:e�re'�r, d ..'%ar� 9 ap '�,fi'.". w.v- i-�' - �,t .t.w.:.�..
y .t � ? ,,s r c�' �. � s z w � a.�. r r.. .+ 1r i i'� a.rr � . .v i'€$a,�r^r ! �r ,r(d Ri r.i• 1 ary r1 d a i r
',i.. PUMING.;COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular:, Meeting,, May 8, 1995
Page"5
VOTE: Passed 4-1-
NOES: , Chr. Doyle
.,Com:, Harris asked that the chart be made part of the ordinance.
Mr. Cowan stated they can have the chart to handout ,to the public
as opposed to it being part of the ordinance.
3. Application No(s) : 12-U-73, 4-Z-95 and 8-EA-95
Applicant: Marianist- Novitiate
Property Owner: Same
Location; 22622 Marianist Way
USE PERMIT modification to allow retreats, educational
activities and receptions.
REZONING a .18 acre parcel from R2-4.25 to BQ.
Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil presented the staff report dated
` May - 8, ,1995 noting the major problem is the parking deficiency.
Ms. Gil,' presented the 'landscaping plan .and reviewed the proposed
parking; She noted the applicant has been requested to limit their
capacity to 50 people at any one time. She .noted there will be 31
® parking spaces and staff is recommending approval. Ms. Gil also
noted the applicant's request to hold receptions has been
withdrawn.
-Com. Roberts asked about complaints? Ms. Gil stated she, did
receive a few complaints about parking on the streets. She also
noted there is no longer the request for outside ampli. music.
g. The public hearing was opened.
Apnlica:it 8resertation:' Mr. Harry Lalor, 22622 Ma,rianiet Way,
stated he is speaking on behalf of the applicant. Ha presented
somebackground information on this "property. He added they
preformed an analysiE on the parking several months ago and
acknowledged the problem. He reviewed the parting proposed and
noted where staff indicates there will be 12 parking spaces there
will actually be 15. He stated notice's were sent to .the neighbors
and they had meetings regarding this,. project. lir. Lalor stated
they will not hold wedding receptions, but would like to have m
receptions which are part of the activities. He also noted they
have an annual reception for the graduates. He added there will be
no concerts' and no amplified music as the intent is to maintain the
peace and serenity of the retreat center.
Mr. Lalor addressed the condition relating to staff parking, he
noted 90% of the staff will park off-site, but he would like the
® option for staff to park on-site when there are no activities going
ti
L'
M t,
•i t ,14 rh £trNrrilC� f „ 'isr,!<+..,Ta .,. 'rY a t .ti ti ''?ji;,7'!' }r Tvtit xxft� J..ti57�N17 wid
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting, May 8, 1995
Page, 6 .
on.
In response to Commissioners questions, Mr. Lalor stated there are
r four employees plus the two permanent residences.
Ms. 'Maureen Fisher, 10413 Merriman Rd. , stated she is representing
se,•eral neighbors. She noted the meetings at this facility have
become more corporate and has counted as many as 15 to 18. cars
parked on Merriman. She noted parking is not. adequate and the
neighbors do not like large numbers of vehicles and people coming
into the residential neighborhood. She expressed concern about the
extension request and requested that the ..City protect the
residential neighborhood by- limiting the size of the facility. She
asked if there is a problem in the future can it be readdressed?
In response to Com. Roberts questions, Ms. Fisher stated if the
facility could provide adequate parking, the n"ar—her of people would
not be a concern. She noted the, overflow parking onto the streets
is at different times of the day.
Ms. Marie. Pataki, 10462 Merriman Road, stated parking on the street
is infringing on her privacy, and some cars park overnight. She
believes this is a money making venture. She stated the overflow
parking :is increasing and will get worse.
Mr. Ian' Evans, 10413 Merriman Rd. , stated the retreat center has .
been violating their use permit. since 1992. He noted there are
children as well as a nursing home on Merriman Drive and the high J
volume of cars is dangerous because the road 'is used daily for
exercise. Regarding the car pool plan, Mr. Evans stated this plan
is already in existence with little or no affect. He stated the
number-of people should be limited to the number of parking spaces.
Ms. Susan McMurray, 10413 A. Merriman Rd. , stated she has seen
people arriving late to meetings, so the car-pooling plan will not
work
Ms. Diana LaVoy, 10467 Merriman'Rd. , stated people will not park on
Alcalde and come in. the back way, because the main entrance is on
Merriman Rd. She expressed concern about parking on the streets
'.a
and noted the parking on-site is inadequate.
z Mr. Lalor stated the meeting areas are scattered throughout the
site. He noted the parking proposed will be closer to the
g administrative office and once the parking. is installed people will
be told. about this parking. He acknowledged that parking is a
? problem, but noted they are working to resolve this. He stated
® they will direct people to come in off Alcalde and everyone will
have a parking permit to. park on-site. He stated they have 22
1i
�1.
w
:r - 1,, k^'✓,,�-a ;n,".+ ..n .�. '+r v'` '?-'i"'2d-.rR 'C, .._ti.�„_ . .ty',t'F: °.'t X.
PLAMNING COMIISSION PIINUTES
® Regular .Meeting, May 8, 1995
h
P;�ge. .7 _
1
rooms for overnight guests, 11 single and 11 double. He also noted .
he would. like the opportunity to' have 50 guests.
Director; Marianist Novitiate, addressed the Elder Hostel program
and noted people come from all over to ,attend this, but most fly
x in. She noted in this case little parking is needed and they ,would
like to,= be able to offer business meetings, retreats, etc, in
addition to the Elder Hostel. She stated the plan is to increase
the Elder Hostel and lessen the business. She, noted currently
Merriman Way is the only entrance, but now they are proposing an
Alcalde entrance and they will direct people to come in this way.
Each person attending will have a parking stall and they will not
give out more parking slips thLn parking stalls. She also pointed
out that the majority of times the rooms are used by one person.
Com. Mahoney asked staff about the prohibition of the receptions in
the conditions? Ms. Gil stated the Commission can add something
specific regarding this.
Com. Roberts suggested reviewing the use permit 6 months after the
implementation of the additional stalls to address any parking
problems,'.
® The public hearing was closed.
} Com. Harris stated it is obvious the Novitiate care about the
impact on the community and this is the reason they purchased the
site. " She noted hopefully the 20 additional parking spaces, the
permits" &nd the maps, directing people to the Alcalde entrance will.
help the parking problems. She spoke in support of a review in 6
months as addressed by Com. Roberts. She noted she does not
believe the car pool plan is appropriate and would like to see it
stricken from the conditions. She added employees should park on
site, and when the site is densely impacted the novitiate should
r' plan for this. She spoke in support of the 50 people and no
amplified sound, but wouldn't be opposed to indoor sound. Com.
Han.-is also spoke in support of the annual reunion for the Brothers
and this .should be written into Condition 4.
Cot.-Roberts' stated this is 'beautiful property and an asset to the
community. He noted the City should do what they can to facilitate
it and the parking is substantially improved. He spoke in favor of
the application with the changes in condition 2 to prohibit
receptions, unless connected with the. activities and the annual
reception for the Brothers. ' He also spoke in support of the six
month review after implementation of, the new parking .plan. He
stated the car pool plan should .be eliminated unless needed.
a Mr. Cowan stated since a zoning is involved in this application
,A.
ip
.�4'S;��
"`k r�.. Ma�
PLANNING COMMISSION MIMJTES
Regular Meeting, May 8, 1995
Page--8
j there is a mechanism in the ordinance to allow the Planning
Commission to forward this. issue to the Council. He believes it
would be prudent to have the Council receive the project as a
whole.
Coms Mahoney and Austin concurred with the above comments from a
Commissioners Roberts and Harris.
Chr. Doyle stated he also concurs with the above comments. He
believes the entro.nce on Alcalde will improve the situation and
spoke in favor of the application. He noted in the long term, if
this property is not viable, potential development could be a
f secondary- affect, and this is a reasonable compromise.
MOTION+: Com. Mahoney moved to grant a negative declaration
SECOND: .- Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve, 4-Z-95 subject to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing.
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE.: Passed 5-0
+ MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve 12-U-73(Amended) subject to
the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the
following, modifications: Add 6 . month review process;
eliminate condition 3 regarding the car pool plan;
Clarify condition 2 that receptions will be prohibited
unless connected to an activity and the annual. reunion
retreat of Brothers; Condition 4 add an. exception
regarding the annual reunion; Condition 6 remove 9:00
p.m.
SECOND: Com. Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0
4. Application No(s) : 2-TM-95, 3-Z-95 and 7=EA-95
Applicant: Emily Chen
Property Owner: Same
Location: 10480 South Stelling Ave.
TENTA:'IVE MAP to subdivide a .51 acre parcel into two lots
ZONING to rezone. a .51 acre parcel from. R1-10 ag. to R1-7.5.
e
s Staff presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff
report and outlined the surrounding zoning areas. He noted the
General Plan allows for residential for 1-5 dwelling units .in this
zoning area. He .noted there is an existing structure on the
property and this would be demolished and the property divided. He
added that both properties will front on Stelling Rd. Mr. Cowan
'R"
y
t,
.�.
C �{fi Yt it'd-4 {f�
• I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
® Regular Meeting, May 8, 1995
Page 9
stated there are several trees on the property, but staff is not
recommending mandatory retention of these trees. He noted if a
common joint driveway was approved this would result in the removal
of a 20 ft. pine on parcel 2. He noted this is a busy intersection
and the joint driveway would be safer. Mr. Cowan addressed a panel
wall. along McClellan and Stelling Roads and noted the applicant is
not required to continue this wall. He noted the tentative map
meets all .the General Plan and zoning requirements. He presented
a photo.of; the tree proposed to be removed.
In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Cowan stated the
tentative ; map pertains to public improvements, so the. Planning
Commission, indirectly, can control access to the driveway by
approving access to the ,property.
Com. Harris stated she is not opposed to dividing this property
into two lots, but would like to see plans brought froward for the
house and driveway.
Com. Austin stated they will not see the plans unless on a slope
greater than 30%.
Com. Harri3 stated the pine tree referred to in the staff report to
® be,removed, is referred to as a fir in the arborist report.
=Iiccant taresgntation: Ms. Emily Chen stated she agrees with the
staff recommendations and supports an adjoining driveway. She
stated this would be convenient for the potential homeowners and
safer: She noted the -frontage of both lots is very wide and the
driveway will be. wide with landscaping in the middle. Regarding
the bus stop; Ms. Chen .stated she talked to the County and will
hear fromthem this week. She noted they indicated there would be
no problem moving the bus stop to the north.
The public hearing was closed.
a
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to grant a negative declaration
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
1 VOTE: Passed 5-0
{ MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 3-Z-95 , subject to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: Passed 5-0
MOTION: Com. A�lstin moved to approve 2-TM-95 subject to the
findings -and subconclusions of the hearing with the
following modifications: condition 4 change 20 ft. pine
® to 20 ft. fir.
i
? y c 1} x.ii� +`py,, l.,",✓�k5^ °.4�..Y r. toy� 1 d + � � 5. r `i 3 ii r ..` i +, a
i lt(Sr
® PLANNING COMUSSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting, . May 8, 1995
Page- lo
SECOND: Com. Roberts
VOTE: r Passed 5_0
REPORT OF`THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Com. Harris questioned the permit process.
3'
Mr. Cowan stated the Manufacturing Association, Joint Venture
Silicon Valley and the City put together a joint program to
expedite tentative improvements for building permit activity..
Com. Roberts questioned the Boston .Chicken application.
Mr. Cowan stated this building .will be built to .thea lans
by the Planning .Commission. p approved
Com. Harris stated the only plans approved by the Planning
Commission was for a roof modification.
Mr. Cowan stated he suspects this is a case were the roof was
removed and the building was in. bad shape.
Ms. 'Wordell stated staff looked into this and there will be.
r modifications from the plans a no
p pproved by the Planning Commission.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELgpXENT
Com. Harris addressed the Forge/Homestead application and asked the
status?
Mr. Cowan stated between the 1st . and 2nd reading of the
s application, Mayor Dean determined that his vote would be
contingent upon the applicant providing computers for the schools.
He stated. there has been on-going discussions about this. He also
n.:.ed the Council is still not convinced"that the zoning is
adsquate and have asked the developer to come back with a. further
minor amendment to reduce the density to 190-'196units. He noted
if this is not a minor amendment it will come back to the Planning
Commission for review.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to the Special
Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, May 16, 1995.
Respectfully submitted
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes Clerk <.
s• 3m.: ,+i.+'#f f ��: -;�ry,."fa•+vC*e �^y 7�Y.�xi .GKf 7 v.i-rr#, s:<,a �fl
t
tq
j5
s•
f
-
-
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014 E
(408) 777-3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR HEETING:OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON MAY 22, 1995
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Roberts_
Com. Austin
Com. Harris
Com. Mahoney
Staff 'present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ,
Colin Jung, Associate Planner
Michele Bjurman, Planner II
Vera Gil, Planner II
Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
NOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of May 4, 1995,
as submitted
SECOND: Coma Roberts,
"VOTE: Passed 4-0-1
ABSTAIN: Com. Austin
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve the minutes of May 8, 1995,
as submitted.
SECOND: Com. ' Austin
VOTE: Passed 5-0
WRITTEN. CONNUNICATIONS - None
POSTPONENENTS/RENNOVAL FROM CALENDAR
Item 1: Application No. 1-EXC-95 - Carrasco & Assoc. , 11837. and
11841 Upland Way - Request continuance to the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 26, 1995.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to continue item 1 to the meeting of
June 26, 1995
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE: _ Passed 5-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
,ti-> .xis•- r,�'°.`'_�'i 'k� ,- �'r-};:t '>J'�f s�'� ',��}S��,w' k�t�. �a*z� p.'_'�:z'"- t
h v x
s
}
y``+j Er4}4y..:. t - i%, ✓ k� r� : ��' '� ) AA..f
'1"'F
:' v i. z }i/f y"�""C K,w• >i* 3 ay y
.s L l t Y sS * �� S r .,{ 's ., s .4�.4 -. Y�'r?'��r ti'�i•r3;s �,`h'�'sd .
PLANNING CONKISSION NINUTES'
May '22, 1995
® Page 2
PUBLIC HFARING
Planner Bjurman noted that the applicant for item 2 is not present.
at this time and requested a postponement until later in the
meeting.
I. Application No(s) : 5-Z-95 and 10-EA-95
Applicant: ' City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
'Location: 11545, 11571, 11593, 11611 and 11631
Upland Way
REZONING of 5 parcels located on Upland Way from Pre-RHS with
a minimum lot size designation.
t. Staff presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented. the staff
report outlining the location of the property and the surrounding -
areas. Mr.. Cowan reviewed exhibits A thru E outlining the geologic
hazards . and topography as well as the General Plan and current
zoning maps. He reviewed the recommended zoning pattern and stated
-that staff recommends that lot, 9 be zoned FRE-RHS 20, as opposed to
PRE-RHS .15, because a '10,000 sq. ft. lot was approved on this lot
and zoning it RHS. 20, would prohibit" further subdivision.
Regarding lots 7 and 8, Mr. Cowan suggested that these two lots be
dropped from the current zoning effort and the zoning be initiated
privately in conjunction with the six lot subdivision.
In response to Commissioners questions,', Mr. Cowan noted the average
slope of 'the property is 9 to l0 .percent. . The cost to the"City for
a geology report is approximately $1500 'to $2000, but does not know
the cost for the individual property owner. He noted if "this
zoning is adopted the property owner can still apply for a
subdivision.
The public hearing was opened.
Dr. John R. Busch, 11530 Upland Way, presented photos of his home
and 'the house next door in relationship to lots 7 and 8. He noted '
he ' paid $50,000 more for his ,fomes because of the view and is
concerned "about this when development on lots, ,? and 8 -occurs. He
proposed that the houses on the front .of the, lots be single story
homes'.so as not to impact his view of the hills.
Chr. Doyle stated the Commission is not discussing design at this
time, just zoning.
Ms. Bjurman stated parcels 7 and 8 have been removed from this
calendar and will "be merged with the subdivision application to be
n
heard in "June. She, noted she will contact Mr. Busch.
:7
f
it _ .. .a-.-.-_. ,,,,.e. s`..-. :�^ -%,: W rxr .sif v.a v �;• 3 r,::-.s**�r .r 'k,.
t�
.tor+tr r
7 r .'t�t �x�y'.D}t�✓'�� baa �,p°'' Y� �` �u�T.�'= ' k� x , t
n ,.� i d sL .ay, rC",�t.0 Y �vi� "�',� ra `� Y Y K`' ,'^'9't'`?� f+.�i'"t�: * ' �",t`.'7.zi":,r a,y.r,� -5✓°i rri sCc�-�y4 +�t't+ x vt 5/G•zf u)
r ,
R
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 1995
Page 3
Mr. - Louis Lau, 21600 Upland Way, noted his home is behind lots 7
and 8 =: and believes' these lots will be addressed in June. He
expressed concern about the impact on his view and stated it is his
understanding there will be two story :domes on lots 7 and 8.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Cowan stated that staff suggests that the Commission- defer
their review of lots 7 and 8 until the zoning map is proposed.
Com. Austin spoke in support of staff's recommendation fo, lots 9,
10 and 11.
Com. Mahoney stated he would like to understand the slope of these
properties? Mr. Cowan reviewed the slope of the lots noting they
are flatter in the front. ' Com. Mahoney expressed concern about
going forward without the property owners present.
Mr. Cowan stated state law requires the City to zone properties
consistent with the General Plan. An applicant then has the ability
to apply for a subdivision with more detailed information.
Com. Mahoney suggested waiting until lots 7 and 8 are considered
before-;addressing, lots 9, 10 aipd ll.;for consistency.
k `
Com. Harris stated whatever zoning is set by the Planning
Commission at this time can be changed in tha future.
Mr. .Cowan stated the Planning Commission will set expectations for
the property owners by adopting the zoning proposed. He stated
they will continue- to rezone the foothills.
Com. Roberts stated- stafffs recommendations represent a cautious
approach to ,developing properties and in fairness to the property
µ owners, the. City should alert them that there may be a problem
before submitting plans.
j
Chr. Dolle asked about costs? Mr. Cowan stated there will be no
major additional costs if the zoning if filed in conjunction with
the' Subdivision Map.
t
` Com. Harris agrees that all the lots should. be done at once, but
the reason to separate 7 and 8 is because they have submitted a
?� subdivision map and are doing a geologist report. She spoke in
suppot of staff's recommendation and `<noted the recommendation can
t,
be changed if appropriate..
1
Chr. noyle spoke in support of the staff recommendation. He
® expressed concerned that by rezoning- 9, 10 and it it may make it
X
- xs.,.;t •.=e y�„r1,St' .sae ,';#,. c,...-.7��. �„'.�,'�' r. ,��.£'qp � �.' ��G��z ��=s'l�R°lei
,y
CL-777
1 ,
PLUMING COMISSION MINMES
May 22," 1995
Page 4
difficult for the property owner to- take any action in the future,
making it impossible to subdivide.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved to recommend a Negative Declaration.
SECOND: Com. Harris
VOTE:' Passed 5-0 '
MOTION: ,Com. Austin moved to approve application 5-Z-95 subject
r
to- the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with
the following modification: Parcel 9, RHS-20.
SECOND: Coma Roberts
VOTE: Passed 5_0
2. Application No(s) : 2-EXC-95
Applicant: Tom Hirano
Property Owner: Same
' Location: 10911 S. . Stelling Road
FENCE EXCEPTION to locate a sound wall on the property line in
accordance with Section 16.28.040
staff presentation: Planner Bjurman reviewed the request as
outlined in the staff report. She reviewed the conditions of the
subdivision map regarding noise and the fence. She stated staff is
redommending approval' of a fence exception to Lot 'Ho. 3, granting
a 5 ft. setback along Stelling Road. She noted another issue,
which staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this time,
is .the Planning Commission's ability to modify the definition of
where the front property line is. She stated this allows staff to
! fold into consideration in the future, the. orientation of the
building on t;ie lot, based upon what is best for the overall sits.
! She stated they have the ability to piggy-back the Commission's
interpretation on to the fence exception application, but not act +
i on .it at this time.'
a
Ms. Bjurman presented slides showing the existing fence setback and
the proposed setback.
Com. Harris stated she looked at the adjacent property on Tomki
Court and there seems to be' 3 ft. from the edge of the sidewalk to
the fence and expressed concern about not 'being able to line up the
sidewalk.
Ms. Bjurman outlined the location of the sidewalk and the proposed
fence. She noted it .will not Tine up with the sidewalk on the
other side of. Tomki Court.
Applicant resents
® Mr.
stated the sound wall isneeded e to rt Lmitigate2 the noise39 fromthe
Ft
xr.++y, r+r as'.t t�T• r ate{"„ '}.a'; "sr+." 7r 4 r •f"r t .. d 't 1
'y��4�,."Fk ri� r LJ 8>'� K f Ef 1'Y z 1 Y i,'?.k •i. T 7 F C J - I;
[9 i'r `,,/Jk,.°'" �1�,. ° }!5 �J. Sf''xf �C 'dXn �,-,* a c ,. . � u •
tY
UTZ
O
May',22; ' 1995 •'. . . ,
Page 5
street and the highway and would request a 7 foot wall for privacy.
Mr. Leong stated the curb is 17 feet from the sidewalk throughout..
lots 3 and 4. The sidewalk is 5" feet and there is 12 feet between
the back of the sidewalk and the property line. He stated he does
not believe that the proposed fence is out of line with the fence to
the south. Mr. Leong reviewed the grade of the property and noted
the fence will be 4 feet above grade at one end of the property. He
also noted the fence will be wood. Mr. Leong reviewed the layout of '
the homes and pointed out the entrance and driveways.
In response to commissioners' questions, Mr. Leong stated by setting
the fence back, it limits the back yard. He also noted trees will
be planted to cover up- the fence. He addressed the 12 foot
landscaping strip which belongs to the city and noted if they give'
up another 5 feet, the city will have to maintain the 17 feet. He
noted the fence will not impact the line of sight from the cul-de-
sac to the north. Mr. Leong pointed out that he will not get a
bigger house out of this, exception, but. the back yard will become 5
feet wider:
n ,
Regarding the 12 foot easement, as addressed by Mr. Leong, Ms.
Bjurman stated it is in the city's right-of-way and the uppiicant
..,• 'it,"-. required, through a subdivision process, to plant several trees
's
along Stelling and Topeka Court and maintain them.
Chr. Doyle, proposed that the wall not be "G feet above grade level
anywhere along the property:
Com. Austin.:-stated the recommendation .from staff and the noise
consultant was a 7 foot wall
Mr. Stan` Shelly, noise .consultant, stated he recohfinended a 7 foot
wall because it would give the back yard more reduction in the noise
level from the traffic on Stelling. He statee. the 5 feet is not
i enough to off-set losing 5' feet of a back yard. He stated evergreen
trees should be planted in this location to help the noise '
mitigation.
Com. Harris stated the noise report suggests a 7 foot wall as does
staff, and sha believes .the residents' concerns about noise should
take precedence over -the appearance of the wall, because in most
sections, the wall will appeal much shorter. She spoke in support
of a 7 foot fence, but was not in favor of. the setback and believes
the 12 foot setback is adequate.
Com. Roberts spoke in support of the idea of allotting the fence to
be or. the property line. Regardina the height, he spoke in support
of Chr. Doyle's proposal addressed earlier.,
,' -:T '.qr-•-°. „a.�t�7a,�x�.s,... ay. k":'`�Ag .,"yk r ,x, C^frvY„s,k-�.+'(✓,3'+ n'' �;_ � q y s.f a�.`vrv' J�..rb 1 i��a" r 't`
i. yy
r t
lS� �r1�w{,•y'` 5tfs 4 pk A
xR ? i +�'Wy. r A'*r°'s "'.S1rL r`krr'a"tit�S.+^y 5r 13 f},M Jt''+2,�raFgspoly+m ..•(i-'AircxJr"s-�' �.re5ipt}' 'reAta x PI+f}�t-"•'d ��S rT sz ,t W-:r1.
t
`{t
pJANKWG COWnSSION MINUTES
May 22, 1995
Page 6
Com. Mahoney stated he supports the setback proposed, but would
support a 6 foot wall above grade along the property.
Com: Austin spoke in favor of a 7 foot wall and the fence on the "
lot line. She noted this is unique property and privacy needs to
be considered.
Chr. Doyle spoke in. support of the fence on the property line and
a6-7 foot fence.
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve 7-EXC-95 subject to the
findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the
3 modification that the fence not to exceed 7 feet, but no
higher than 6 ft. above the adjoining sidewalk grade.
SECOND: Com. Roberts 5-0
VOTE: Passed
Mr. Cowan stated the Planning Commission has the ability to approve
the proper orientation of a lot.
Com. Harris stated she would like to see, th! in conjunction with
the plan' presentation under new business on mhe agenda.
;> This was continued for two weeks..
x' OLD J YUSINESS
4 4, Housing Mitigation Manual
} Staff H ese, tare tion: Planner Gil presented the staff report and
reviewed the in-lieu fees for single family. homes and multi-family
development 5-9 units, as outlined in the staff report.
Com. Harris stated the cost per square foot to be determined by
staff becomes an negotiable item with the developer and this needs
to be addressed.
Mr. Cowan suggested establishing a table and adjust it' based upon
appraisal reports.`
Com. Roberts addressed the house quality column in the manual, Com.
Harriss stated these are standard industry terms.
sl Com. :. Iiarris explained the formula for the mitigation fees for
multi-family development. She also reviewed the typical way to do
this- is to take the difference in the rent. and capitalise it at an
interest rate that is expected to be achieved by an investor for 30
ated to explain and the formula is
years. She noted this is complic
t easier to follow.
i
1�. < �4S rr t �iii 1 5 .s_.•.
7
j PLANNINQ COwassioN blmms °r
1 May-�:22, !(1995.
page fi.7
Com.", Harris stated no cap has been put into the R►anual and this
needs,,to be' addressed.
TheJ .commission. discussed the 3 000 sq. ft. cap in determining the
cost- to construct a single family home, as addressed under
mitigation options.
Com: Harris suggested 3500 sq. ft. cap. She noted the other issue
is how to determine a fee cap for apartments. Ms. Gil stated this
is addressed under the same policy.
The commission and staff addressed the developer choosing to meet
the BMR requirement by providing land for a non-profit developer to
construct the required BMR 'units. Ms. Gil stated the non-profit
developer isnot allowed to make a profit that does not go into the
units, but the for-profit developer can make a profit even if they
build affordable units.
Com. Mahoney,-"stated the goal is to get the units built.
Com. Harris -stated the risk 'is that a person who finds that they
need to provide this ?i,,rAl goes to a for-profit developer and works
out a rebate arrangeme :: . She stated the goal is to get the units
builtrand suggested the wording "right of first refusal" for either
non-profit or for-profit be added..
Com. Roberts spoke in support of the non-profit developer and the
. right'of first refusal as addressed by Com: Harris.
Corn Mahoney and Com. Austin concurred.
Chr. . Doyle stated he would agree with a non-profit or for-profit
with the richt of first refusal. _
Com. Harris reviewed the options for the use of the fees as outlined ,
in the manual-. She addressed the issue .of land being donated to the
city and using the fees to build affordable housing on this land.
Ms. Gil stated if- the land cost is free, non-profit, developers can
develop the units with their own resources coming from the state.
Com. Harris stated any developer should be able to develop in the
community because the goal is development- that includes affordable
housing.
The commission _discussed the "non-profit developer" as addressed in
the mitigation options.
b-V- +d �"` �'"5�r;if''F° s" a ac*-.�*�,�',,Z";� •� ,'',Yr �a u� ^>�•= fm�.' �`�",;�'sµ sH
E
�S
5yq �+f�i .uwt'ra 2.I"i �c G>'S''J`fd.f:c K'�F V�/f P 7 k'' 9�S Sv4`",jfi'`rr�A '��.,1x✓r...•n' �i of �h � 1.{
r 7
frF'r, 'Y fyi is t'"S', th' ,,'+�S',ttsx rsj;-`�k* -,�r{t r'ir ?� - ; -;:5• ' , ..
{rPF h dry s •
r,
PLANNING -CONNISSION MINUTES
May .22, .1995
Page 8
Com. Harris stated donated land should not be restricted to non-
profit developers and suggested it may go to any developer after
the right of first refusal has been given to a non-profit developer
within 60 days.
Chr. Doyle agreed with the above suggestion as did Com. Roberts.
,The hearing was opened for public input. There was no, input.
The Commission continued discussion on the single family analysis
and a cap. It was a consensus that.the mitigation fee formula is
acceptable with a cap of 3,000 sq. ft.
} Com. Harris addressed the issue of affordable housing on. site. She
noted the Affordable Housing Committee was a strong advocate for
spreading the units throughout the site. She suggested saying the
units should be "typically" scattered throughout the site.
The Commission addressed the following questions: _
1. Should developers be allowed to meet their housing mitigation
obligation by providing units off-site?
r Com. Harris stated it is .acceptable to build off-site if they stay
within the same general zone.
Com. Mahoney stated the developer skiould not feel obligated to
supply luxury residential units as BMR units.
Com. Doyle stated there needs. .to be affordable housing, but does
not believe the best use of - land would be to put. a BMR within a
development of expensive homes. ,
Com.. Harris suggested- a cap for typical house or land size:
Com Austin stated she feels very strongly about developing BMR
units on site.
Com. L..�Roberts stated it is his feeling that BMR units should not be
'developed with luxury homes, feels the units should be
encouraged to ,be built on-site so different income groups live
r together. He believes this would be better for the City.
The Commission -went on to discuss question 3 at this time.
3.. Should affordable units be' comparable to the market rate units
in terms of size and bedroom count? -
3(a) Should the units be scattered throughout the site?
P
IN R,!111�:Rjyj
s,
r
�a gg
,� iAa � r�yfrrk a. r 244,w
pLISSION -MnIT88
�� Ma 22` 1995
Y%
Page 9 .
Com: "Harris stated in 90w of the cases it should be the same unit,
but believes there are instances, such as large lots, with large
homes, where this is not appropriate. She stated if it is a
development such as Seven 'Springs, units could be developed on-site
and scattered throughout.
Com. Roberts stated he would agree to a cap of 3000 sq. ft. for the
house, excluding the garage.
Other commissioners concurred. They also agree that the lots size
should°nut be restricted.
Com. Harris stated the units . should be typically scattered
'r throughout•,-the site.
;h The commission went back to discussing question 1.
Com. .Austin stated the units should be on-site.
Com. Mahoney stated it is acceptable to build the units off-site if
it is not comparable to the development. He stated there should be
a trigger point.
Mr. Cowan ,suggested a trigger point based on value.
'Com. Roberts stated he would like to have the units on-site and find
conditions to achieve this.
Com. Harris stated for lots larger than 10,000 sq. ft. units can be
built off-site. , She would also say when development is over a
certain number of units, the BMR units must be on-site, such as a
Seven Springs development.
Ms. . Gil clarified that the units must be provided but not
constructed. by the developer. She stated the problem with developer
buying property and turning them into BMR units, is that most a
developers were considering apartment complexes behind the Target
area and this tends to be where most of the smaller complexes are.-
She
re:She noted ,this area is run down and also they do not want . to
concentrate' the units in one area.
Com. Harris suggested the following.wording, "If development on lots
over. 1.0,000 sq. ft. the developer may build or buy a BMR house over
1500 sq. ft. excluding the garage within two miles."
The commission discussed the distance for building the BMR units
- g and
after some discussion the commission, with the exception. of Com.
Austin, `agreed on one mile.
ii
J
�yy. f " y,,2 y e�' �`• y a�,.J,F"y`i?h �'y4 ikJ."rtihsl� �'kl�f4� �i rih x� t est fst FY�'n��,i,x r t��i �1?�1 e��.r'r�.,tial !�t>r�'At�x ft°. r,T t. - ,.
�✓'}S " f�'y�'�YY. ��ya� � �!' � Ft � .a-!�• i 7. C I y �, r �. ./ S FI k
PLANNING CCrAMISSIOW MINUTES
® May 22, 1995
Page 10
After some discussion on the ,cap for the BMR unit, the Commission
agreed on the following wording " A developer may provide one BMR
house for each BMR unit required on or off-site within one mile
with a cap of 1700 sq. ft. excluding the garage.
2. Should developers of several small subdivisions be subject to
the mitigation?
Com. Harris stated the issue came up that there are some developers
in town who build several small developments throughout the .town
and have no obligation to build BMR units. She . stated one
suggestion is to aggregate one developers permits over two years.
Mr. Cowan stated from a practical point, the developers would
change names. He noted phased development is another problem and
needs to be addressed.
Ms. Gil stated phased development is covered in the manual. She
also noted that if a developer builds single family homes, they
must provide these as 'their mitigation:, but if apartments, they
must provide apartments. She stated there is also- language which
deals with for sale condominiums. .
® Com. Harris stated they should state that apartments should not be
comparable .to a house for purposes of this section.
MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve the Housing Mitigation
Manual with the modifications addressed above.
SECOND: Com. Roberts 4-1
VOTE: Passed
NOES.:' Com. Austin
PUBLIC HEARING
i5. Application_ No(s).: 81,152 and 9-EA-95
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
a Location: Properties along or near Stevens Creek
f
Boulevard from Highway 85 to the eastern
1 City "limits.
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN meeting to review the progress
of the work on the draft land use and development . character
policies and the land use map, streetscape and other
improvements.
Mr. Cowan stated he attended an economic summit and one issue
discussed was Steve ns cool rt k the Blvd.
Sea of thetthed Boulevardness plan.eOple He ,
aftpresent were very
,t.,,-y ,,.-...riextt«>':. F" '7A4. ,sY; i -k t:�✓ yR t i h -v ✓d t i -Y F sc
a.. � �-xs � �,a,^.F,;c€2�'�F�er �"�.r � r�'�.rt s '�e '^ r ✓ ^n '' '�',�'''c^Y..�a�a
�s
t
r
f 1 1
yn r tt - '.4 ti r t i ai`1<��n7f' f *i-..✓{.> N' .��a 7 '.e;' .t+ ny7 e a f �, 2 3 P�N
+ € � i" f �✓ tY`�'ii .,X� r i� f t i irc s . I k i•. f 4'-':
L
PLANNING ODNNISSION KINOTES
May 220 , 1995
Page 11
stated the people representing the Chamber and merchants were not
excited by the plan. He stated there must be some expectation
about : landscaping on major boulevards and in fact, Stevens Creek
Blvd.", has been built out over the last 10 years with landscaping.
installed, but there has been no. consistency in the standards. He
t stated the groups at the summit talked about a strong identity and
the. Chamber's basic concern is 'the implementation. He noted the
main issues were, should the City front the improvements and be
{ reimbursed and how should this be done, or should the Boulevard be
built onra project by project basis?. He believes -the major concern
is that the merchants do not want the City to install the
improvements at once and then expect ' to be reimbursed by
development. He noted the Chamber is saying that the notion of
incremental.development with improvements is preferable.
staff presentation,: Associate Planner Jung presented the staff
report and outlined the discussion for. this meeting. He reiterated
the Chamber's main concerns as addressed by Mr. Cowan. He stated
from ,a staff point,of view they would like to put in the trees all
at once, because, cu..-rently the incremental approach does not have
an identity. He stated if the -trees are not put in together, there
will be different rates of growth.
® Coir. Mahoney asked about the phasing of the improvements?
Mr. Jung reviewed the phasing of the tree installation noting the
!^ .City only. has the money to install the trees at this time.
Mr. Viskovich reviewed the 5 year Capital Improvement Plan and
noted the most they can generate is $1.5 million fer the trees
which cover 36" box trees for the missing trees along the Boulevard
to be consistent with the plan. He noted it will be at least five
years before any other improvements can be done.
Com. Austin suggested installing the four seasons orchard and the
two City gateways -as opposed to the trees along the Blvd.
Com. Roberts asked. about -the difference. .in cost when doing the
improvements all at once or incrementally?
u ,
Mr. Viskovich stated overall, it would cost more for the developer
to do the improvements-incrementally because they would not receive
any discounts. He stated, the ordinance as written today, Gays if
' the property owner dedicates some right-of-way they would not pay
the 7% -interest rate. He stated the rzai issue is that the $1.5
million can instal the trees. and then reinvest the money when
reimbursed. He stated another issue is if the City should develop
the Boulevard or let it happen with private development.
. .. -... _ '�r ::'; ,:',r' a ..''(` �� iPfN.Y��;'kj k4 ry4.� i 'r .� - aw tx 8}y..�•� ..>°,�,.:
n
A,
PLANNING CCMUS3ION mINOTBs.
May 22, 1995
Page 12
Mr. Viskovich also addressed the cost of the City obtaining the
right-of-way noting this is very expensive. He stated `the plan
would be to put in the trees and hope the expansion for the double
row of trees would occur at a later time.
Mr. Jung stated the cost does not include the cost of the
improvements of the sidewalk and purchasing the right-of-way.
Com. Harris asked~if this is a 25 year project? . Mr. Viskovich
stated this depends on the City"s finances. He stated if the
Commission feel the gateways and landmarks are important then maybe
these should be implemented first. .
Coma Roberts asked about the cost of landscaping in the median?
Mr. Tung stated the cost of tree planting includes the curbside and
median at about $1200 for a 36" box tree.
Com. Roberts stated package would be to install the median
trees together with traj>- gateways and landmarks.
, a Com. Mahoney. asked hal staff, and the Commission feel about phasing
this project over 10-20 years, he noted if this is the case he
would support a different approach..
Com. Harris suggested putting in the trees in the town center area
and also the landmarks and gateways. She noted the citizens are
expecting a parkway to come out of the• Heart-of the City plan.
After some. discussion' the Commission came up with the following
four questions to discuss:
1. !:&stall initial row of trees along entire boulevard with no
new sidewalks.
2. -Complete smaller area, such as town center including
landmarks.
3. Allow development to occur incrementally with no public funds.
4. Plant trees in median and. install landmarks.
Com. Harris spoke in favor of #2 as her first choice and #4 as her
second choice. She stated the consultant indicated that all trees
j should be installed at once which includes the .medi.an. She noted
she would like to see the two gateways built with trees and the
landmarks installed. F
Com, Roberts stated his first choice is #4 and his second choice is
#2. He .expressed concern that the landmarks in the absence of
other improvements would look out of place, especially at the
gateways.:
t
4
i
t`'��'��k+."�'�`".a1,.4 atr:;:e '.�' �a.�'f,t'-y.t�1cy,�ufl..-`?'rt' x.'4�°�,J7".4'+'C"� 't ;�{,:x..k`�t;;Y�`�S1.t i�� r a�' '.iir.ry'; '.;� '+1`�� { � .:'e%?^ '..�i• Yz ...I:t'�"�i r"F`°i
�i�"'r i b r..�`�� ���'�.k`� �J'.r.a"tY✓taY-""IC r ..'a�,� ' 4vf,�}'` T _ 'T, 'b P(� -.;^' '� �I�T r,,j ;...,:,rd 1 t,,�.i � 4 ;� ��_..�.n'tal'afTi'r.';R b���!'�f��fy�lft 1 `.'�'��tf p:'.,,
® PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 1995
Page 13 . .
! Com. -I4ahoney spoke in support of #2 and 14 respectively. He stated
he would like to see how much can be done for $1.5 million for both
the options.
Com. Austin spoke in support of #4 and #2 respectively.
Chr. Doyle spoke in support of #.4 and #2 respectively. He
expressed concern about the perception of doing improvements in one
significant area.
Mr. Cowan stated staff will, come back with plans for improvements
for the center, plus the gateways and the . landmarks. This was a
consensus of the Commission.
Mr: Viskovich stated there would be no reimbursement for #4, but
some for #2.
:The discussion was continued to the joint meeting of June 5, 1995
at 5:30 O.M.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COl4MISSION None
® REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Com. Harris addressed the Forge/Homestead project, Mr. Cowan stated
the Council approve 196 units.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS - None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the special
Planning ,Commission Meeting on Wednesday, May 31, 1995.
Respectfully submitted
Catherine M. Robillard
Minutes Clerk
y
. - ;2•�,,a.... �k�..ry .''+ - 7i -.tl5 a :,rr,' �ti�:� Sri`wry'*✓�✓' -'d
' TC'
r
A u q
k A s��`'� YY' �$(!1'FW� �qAt {. tt l,{'f • tLi1 '6 :` ! rip 1 1
r
,x b �%+ y n4•�{y i,y
N"
V 'i�p E i rc-
r Sad�w� ahx�i
'1,rbt i
-iiijGITY 07 CUPERTINO
0300-, Torre -Ave
�,` ,, ,cupertino;- CA°:_95014
777-3308
i .
MINUTES . O! THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNINQ COMMISSION•
HELD ON MAY 31, 1995
ORDER. 07BUSINESS 5
SALUTE 'TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chr. Doyle
Com. Roberts
Com. Mahoney
Com. Austin
Coma -Harris arrived at 6:57 p.m.
Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordeli, City Planner
Chuck Kilian, City Attorney
L
TTZNCOMMONICATIONS - Letter from Sobrato Development Companies, dated
y 31, 1995, regarding Diocese of San Jose General Plan Amendment
Application and comments on Staff Report of May 31, 1995
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR - Ncne
v
PUBLIC' HEARING
1 Application Nos: 1-GPA-93 and. 6-EA-93
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose
Property Owner: Diocese of San Jose
Location: Assessor of Parcel Numbers 342-52-3, 342-5- -
54,5-56,
42-554,5-56, -59, -60
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from Very
Low Density Residential 5-20 acre slope density. to Very Low Density
Residential Foothill Modified 1/2 acre slope density with a cap of 293
units.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environmental Impact Report was
prepared. Ten alternatives were evaluated. Significant impacts identified
'' related,to loss of an -intrusion into open space lands; elimination of
potential park lands; loss of an intrusion into natural vegetation, wildlife
abitat and, wetland- areas; ex-iosure to adverse geologic conditions; storm
,.. , -, ., .. ,.:, y� :..,,,.,,..,..t �.-t .fv .•�'� „�:..... M r _tr t+Na# }' M ,:.„� f F.T"& 4 £ f ,�'�,r'�.
�W
ki 'gr�iv3x rC Yw�y:ap �4 "��� �iFJr. x3 c+ d !} trMr��av,vtysa py"N'S.FrI a d,:, &7777-7
r
• �a n.f `�� i t " di yi�^' s,} t.;�a t �� "� ( V .J � r t �y-r �+`�� )t ,
PZ,�I1�sMG, Ct o[ZSSION `N NUTZS
My 31,' 1995
Page 2
411un-off`erosion',.and pollution; wildfire hazard; visual impacts; water tank
failure and leakage; and safety of school crossings.
T : ' Chair Doyle Suggested that the trees be the first' topic of
!f
discussion.
Staff Presentation: City Planner Wordell presented the staff report
-display- ng the revised constraint map representing alternatives 2a, 178,
192, ;.- ;rrently alternatives 8 and 9 respectively) ; discussed the impacts .
and
associated mitigation measures; and the format of the EIR. Further, Ms.
{
Wordell introduced Don Skinner; Principal Associate Consultant, Planning
Resources Associates.
Consultant Report: Mr. . Skinner reviewed requests made by the Planning
Commission and staff regarding the :differing views of'the arborists,
explaining that Thomas Reid Associates is recommending that the trees in
poor health o;: have poor form should be eliminated since they present a
public safety haiard. He stated that the native trees, including Oak,
Redwood, Dough! Fir, Sycamore, California Bay, Ponderosa Pine, Incense
Cedar, Box. Elder, 311 trees near the riparian zone of Rancho San Antonio
County Park, trees near the center of the site that provide homes for
raptors, are being recommended for retention. Further, he said that the
Encalyptus on the west side of the Seminary should be replaced since they
0re nesting areas for the raptors; and, that all of the pines in the center
f the site aTMe'being recommended for removal since they are infested with
turpentine beetles. .
Ms. Wordell displayed a map depicting the trees discussed in the Thomas Re4d
report and discussion ensued between Commissioners and staff relating to L"e
trees displayed on the map--how they were being represented.
The City Planner noted that mitigation measures for tree removal would
involve re-planting of native varieties of trees. Mr. Skinner explained
` that differences are due to the fact that the map represents a subdivision.
Com. Roberts asked about the arborist's recommendation regarding the
removal ofIand the retention of trees in poor form, asking if his judgment
was based upon the esthetic appearance, his point of view, or upon public
safety. He expressed concern relative to habitat of animals.
Mr. Skinner responded that the recommendation was based upon public safety,
and indicated there was a concern for the safety of children who may visit
the area.. Further, Mr. Skinner suggested that Commissioners walk the site
prior to making decisions.
Discussion continued between the Commissioners and the consultant relating
to the impacts of construction upon the existing trees. Mr. Skinner
indicated that construction could impact the health of the trees, especially
he trees within the drip-line.
A
�y rrW",
d0waSSION MIKUT23
May '3 1,r .1995 .
�"Pacie `3,..'
ehe' Cityls tree preservation plan was discussed by Co,n. Austin, who was
supportive bf, preserving as many of the Oak `�trees as possible.
8nnlicant Presentation: Mr. Michael Bruner, Development Partner, Sobrato _
Development'Companies, addressed the Commission and commented that Sobrato
was -supportive of retention of near-native highbred trees and priority
trees. He. noted that the fire department had requested that the Diocese
remove dead and dying trees, and that the development company would be
agreeable to the mitigation measure of re-planting native varieties and
shrubbery where other .trees have been removed. Mr. Bruner requested that
the arborist's -report be done over prior to any project development because
grading of a specific project could potentially damage tree roots. . He
stated that the report is dated 1991.
Com. Roberts asked for the tree recommendation from the development company. ,
Mr. Bruner' urged the Commission to hold off making any decisions regarding
the trees until a proposal was before them. ' He suggested that the General
Plan Amendment not include specific tree preservation mitigation, that a
more general language could provide for retention of as many native trees as
possible, subject to an arborist report conducted at the time of_ the
proposal. Further, Mr. Bruner noted that Sobrato is proposing development
at 25% of the.site leaving the remainder for public open space.
Ar Disnussion: Discussion between Commissioners ensued regarding
he specific number of trees currently cited for retention or removal by the
arborist and the developer relating to the tree types. Also, the Commission
discussed modification to the tree priority tree list; developing
appropriate language to include within the General Plan Amendment that would
protect native trees, the habitat, and open space, yet would not discourage
development proposals. The Commission's discussion concluded with an
intention to modify the language to illustrate the Commission's desire to
retain as.many of the native and near-native trees as possible, removing the
Eucalyptus trees and unhealthy or unsafe trees; , and, to consider specific
tree preservation at the time of a proposal.
Mr. Bruner pointed out that the trees in area 6 are young trees and could be
moved to the 100% buffer area.
Com. Harris suggested language for the General Plan Amendment, as follows:
"Retain as ma py of the native trees as possible." She said that form should
not be a factor to determine whether a tree should be removed; and, was not
supportive of moving of the trees near the gym and pool, as proposed by Mr.
Bruner.
Com. Roberts concurred adding that the habitat of birds should be a driving
force to save unhealthy, or dead trees.
Com. Austin said that she would support language that would save as .many Oak
trees as possible.
],Irt'
t4 X' }�'ir'py h'.y �{ 11�d t v1 ery� t 1". y�y f p� -�ti +• yf ) aJ 1 !r hzl �!{ k/� � - ,
'�e x . • • t �§�� f+� � � ')y Ki`f .! '" �r'Tf z s c , to L=, t
;2 May
3L',-1995
Page 4
Wair. D'o,yle"rieguested that the language state the City's intent to save
healthy trees ,and those trees defined as priority trees.
i
On'.consensus of the Commission, it was agreed that Eucalyptus trees pose a
fire hazard and should be removed after replacement trees of a native or
near native variety have matured. Further, that dead trees that pose no
safety issues. should be retained for wild habitat.
The Commission supported Com. Harris' suggested wording to "Retain the
healthy native and near-native trees, as outlined in #9, the Deadora and .
Cedar. in #4; ,that the- individual project plan should be based upon existing
trees; that the Eucalyptus trees should be removed when replacement trees
have grown to maturity or a size and provide similar screening; and, that
any individual project plan provide a realistic balance of existing native
trees with priority for native trees, near-native, and non-native trees in
good health."
Constraint Man: Chair Doyle requested that the revised constraint map be
addressed at this time.
Applinant s _o m _n : Mr. Michael Bruner displayed alternative proposals,
specifying the proposed location of single-story homes and noted the visual
impacts upon open space.
10r. Steve Haze, -Diocese GPA, 22681 San Juan Road, Cupertino, addressed the
ommission and expressed support of the revised constraint map presented by
he applicant.
'o mission _o m _n -: Discussion ensued between Commissioners and staff
relating to development of the Seminary and the Maryknoll areas; the parking
lot dedicated'to the County Park; and, whether the constraint map should act
as a guideline indicating what portions of the site should not be developed.
After lengthy discussion regarding the new revisions to the constraint map
presented ,by *staff, and after discussion of alternative proposals, the
Commission agreed that one-story homes on the Seminary site would be favored
over the alternative with would allow development on ,residential area 2,
The visual impact was not as .great. The Commission concluded that leaving
the .Maryknoll site outside the development area would be supported.
Com. :Roberts supported development inthe Cristo Rey area on the cemetery
side.
Com. Harris favored Exhibit Z, however, expressed concern about visual
impacts and opted that the area on the map indicated in gray, be limited to
b one-story structures.
Chair Doyle suggested that the Seminary parcel be developed with one-story
units with a buffer on the end, and that development envelopes be presented
by staff for the Cristo Rey area with one-story units on the "finger" area
'splayed on the map. Further., he asked that one-story units be developed
n "this" side of Cristo Rey.
1
;^,��`"'K darx'F'Y�yi kt �„,�yd-�`M,'wP f }.t�Pafi4�'"'"�."� � r•�': } r� Lt �� �y �4A4y tifk�Y�if y r'� t r,•
aY�1 a,�Ys yR�'F�',,,�K fd��"'� i���'S x•�� 1z `�'� t � f l <�;..
P'iYWpfZA
May,.31 "199s ,
Pane" 5
Com. Harris requested that the Seminary be added to the constraint map, and
suggested that it be traded for a portion of the property adjacent to the
Maryknoll Seminary.
4 Commissioners were unable to agree upon the Maryknoll area and whether to
leave an open corridor.
Mr. Skinner drew attention to alternatives distributed prior to the meeting
and those that were distributed at the prior meetings. He compared them to
-the -constraint map and displayed alternative plans by overlaying them atop
the plans to provide the differing perspectives, vehicular, pedestrian and
bike traffic patterns and their impacts. Further, he noted that
alternatives 8 and 9 are lower in density relative to land use.
On order of the. Chair, there being no objection, the meeting recessed at. -
8:45
t -8:45 p.m., and reconvened at 9:05 p.m.,. with all members present.
Environmental Impact Refit:
Com: Harris asserted that calculations and definitions for alternatives are
inconsistent and requested that the staff revise them. for consistency. The
Commission concurred.
The Commission requested that staff find mitigation measures for all impacts
Apecified and .:the they be provided to the Commission prior to the -next
e'eting.' "Additionally, the Commissioner requested that if there are no
impacts or insignificant impacts listed, that they be deleted. The
Commissioner asked that corrections be, made. relating to alternative 9,
paragraph 11 second sentence discussing the ,,density ' that specific impacts
on drainage be listed; and, that all discrepancies relating to ratio of open
space to the ratio of developed lard, including private land and yards, be
corrected. Mr. Cowan explained the ratio used by staff noting that 2
methods of calculations are provided.
The applicant, Mr. Bruner, was asked to explain what method he used to
determine the available open space, and he explained that the 25% cited for
development include the buildings and the yards, and that. the remaining 75%
would be available open space.
Discussion ensued between Director Cowan and the Commission regarding the
exact percentages of open space indicated relative to each alternative
proposal. Mr, Cowan was requested to provide percentages of open space,
using one .method of calculation for .each of the alternatives presented; and,
that the method of calculation be consistent within all documentation-
prepared and presented by staff and by the consultant.
Mr. Bruner discussed property relative to the Williamson Act, the magnetic
field where there can be no development, and requested the Commission favor
alternative proposal '193..
i: ,t:^', s+•`x .. ,: ?s' art 4"i`~f}:t 3'^s'" s'`^�`
.yr!x M t! d#4Y r�," �L•. . 1f .T Y'i,t si,...�,k'S {'�' k°k`r+,L 1�,,asv,f+� 2k X tt 4y�. ..tt �,'+t ash , ,�^.'t > ,Eili"u .�r" x..F.v.. 4rP!i_uri``f r i y ante r y
y
..:..k �,tn t'7"S,F�fu'N'r5^�+r'� "Fr� t::..art�:y;T $ �' # ���"-'S. W( 'tc rT TrC'�} �✓`,,5dt t -�SrY �dF.rt'S t ?k t ..y t.
I s a'j t k t t
May`�31`, �•1995 �, -
Pa�c e NXII UT6
�ir 'Cowan.requested that the consultant provide a modification to the
section of the. EIR relating to the Williamson Act and to include its
provisions and its requirements.
Comi"Mahoney.'discussed mitigation measures for significant 'impacts and asked
that all significant impacts 'be accompanied. by mitigation measures for all
of the proposals. Regarding items 3 and �8, he requested that they be
eliminated from the GPA entirely.
Com. Harris asked that the portion relating to in-lieu fees be eliminated
from the 1EIR since the Commission is not considering ,in-lieu fees; and that
certain non-significant impacts be removed, . specifically .regarding parking
lot signs in the County park. She stated that the applicant should not have
to enforce parking: Further, she ,asked why- the applicant was being
requested to redesign the roadway access.
City Planner Wordell explained that "non-significant" is .a phrase used with
EIR's providing for the addition of conditions to projects; and, she
. explained that.the applicant has agreed to redesign the roadway access
because of theedifficult intersection.
8gplicant's comments:
Mr. Hruner "presented recommendations to the Commission from the development
company, also included the letter noted on page 1 of these minutes.
�om. Mahoney asked when items 1-2 and 6. 1 became impacts.
Ms. Wordell explained that these items relate to. the construction phase of
the prcposal.
Com. Mahoney discussed inconsistencies between the EIR and the GPA,
expressing concern that ,the provision indicating that th3 building of
affordable housing is an impact, should not be listed in section' 6-1. Ms.
Wordell indicated that she would make the necessary changes. .
Chair Doyle asked that staff correct all inconsistencies and provide the
j list requested by Com. Harris above, and that list be combined with the list
{ provided by the applicant. Further, he requested that staff provide this
11 combined list to the Commissioners prior to the meeting of June 29, 1995.
Meeting s _h du _
Discussion regarding the appropriate date to agendi_ze the review if items
requested of staff surfaced and staff was directed by the Chair to designate
the first hour of the meeting of June 12, 1995, for review of the list and
modification to the EIR. Further, Chair Doyle requested that the
Commissioners review the GPA; dated May 25, 1995, review the applicant's
letter, dated May 31, 1995, and be prepared to offer a decision regarding
impacts and mitigation measures on June 12,- 1995.
Format:
�fter discussion of format for the General Plan, the Commission preferred a
written document rather than a map.
U
M
tam" ', yy
y
i
u
pr
ur ,F � }� Nr� , e,.� AE ¢ � k`,tk•it =�tfgtk �,r p ;r�,�j.�t nL ,
i y.:,...t: 't '`f^'. y,.'"f'�"5 r' �, Y?:it`',"2�r.'• M1r br �C*ty,"u"y Ar yr k •*.ir'"ar"7�. f' z Ya' r� rli, n y, + r q'°'f°'+fsw s
r r t ! ,x �x .ai f�+�'. t j wtw �K''a*C,...,to#'h iSts�t'^`d •^S. �f T., t ryg rJ � tti. ��1 fid; -s-.es rort � '7Y f 9f 4S t' fl(r.y
r'.✓Ylyt t't`i pr"N _ ���5 Y.1 r 7 t i.st 4 bt t �. kAt � Y U
, r � :eta J a..: t• o .e - .,
�1QIIR'!S i
.'t PL11Nlffl��``, CO�[IS�IQ� t r
May ,31 .':1��5 ` '
Pae 7
ned the•appropriateness of a GPA map, and requested that the
Staffexplai.
Commission approved its use.
Discussion regarding the format for the General Plan ensued.
Com. Mahoney asked how building of affordable housing units would impact the
environment. Ms. Wordell listed visual impacts and potential removal of
trees. Additionally, she explained that mitigation measures could be
expressed on the map, would be useful for setting policy, and would allow
more flexibility to developers.
Chair Doyle ;directed staff to prepare both a map and a written text for the
GPA. with consideration to ,flexibiiity to developers.
s revised Com. Harr adesire to haall
rovidedntoent the Commissiondand�to
one document reflecting the amendmentsp suggestion.
the public.., The Commission agreed with Com. Harris
Staff expressed concern about the cost oreraresa revisedg thePGPAand wast excessive.
Commission determined that the cost to p P
PA, and f the
Ms. Wordell outlined the schedule for completion
ionsideringrthe timeMr. Cowan
x indicated that the Council would be flexible
constraints:
Ott was
determined that the goal for completion of the Commission's review of
the GPA was July 17th and 18th, 1995•
Ic
f to prt
Regarding the list that Chairperson requestedithat find ngsobe
rperson Doyle d
g
impacts and mitigation measures, Com. Harr
e' Chairdeveloped for each mitigationfomeaeechmitigationy'listected staff to
ed
n , prepare appropriate findings
NEW BUSINESS - None
REPORT OS, THE PLAN - None
NING COMMISSION
REPORT .OF TBS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVZLOI?NZNT - None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSP�ER CLIPPINGS - None
at 10:38 p.m., to the meeting. of June
ADJODRWMNT• The meeting adjourned
12, 1995, at 6:45 -p.m-
Respectfully submitted
Karon Fleming
r
Minute Clerk
i
Pi 11
•,ry - •�'3 _+m' -s r . �w;;;,a �'kr - s3 Pr X- s rc• a >; ,, s z:.a+
r' d '' r.,sx '".� r t•.. T'' s «, t.• S ,P;, C,.''h4° -tr ^`i �q.
i
i
t
i ro e, k
`.:E, .J1Yi^..hf .1 ,A IYa'r. Y�BI�+�A^'.L"'�3,�L.,,.i n�a'� -� �'e�l? n i� �?;A � .a• � '� r r3-� f (. 1.^. FS'$�.!r �S4 P 4T F D"5 %"f5», `S;t
:+ ,,lt` Jr r.-: C,;..p, kin _.C.x4 Fja � r # { � k1 i yKt: '{ .i.� li slir+ •1'r mfr{a/7S.}f ,,r: 1." ,g jr+r,ea.-�.1. $.✓ t�'�,nY'r•..
•••tt s y x. L_ r.r r x ? � wA } + r o k ` r t r A }k•x r vey1
i XrR
CITY OF CUpERTINO
10300 Torre Ave. .
i Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
NIINUTES OF'THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON JUNE 12,1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG.
kOLL CALL
..Commis sioliers-present: Vice Chair Roberts
Com.Austin
Com.Harris
Cbm.Mahoney
Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development
Staff present: City Planner
t Ciddy Wordell,
Charles Kilian,City Attorney
Consultant Present: Don Skinner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Com.Harris requested the following revisions to the Minutes of the May 16` 1995 meeting:
t line: "architecture"should
Page 4: second last paragraph,lasread architect .
akup"should read"breakdown Third last paragraph,Com. Harris
Page 7: second paragraph,"bre
. There
oncurrence
t the
g was
questioned the wording"Westgate' andhould ead'"driveway"',"street width"(second o cru Tence
correct. Last paragraph"street width s
inline)should read"driveway width"
Page 13,last paragraph,"lanes"should read"sizes".
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 1995 meeting as
amended. 40
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: 41. Passed
Com.Harris requested the following revisions to the Minutes of the May 22,'1995 meeting:
Page 51 second paragraph,last sentence,"20 feet"should read 5 feet .
n
,,.. +,X;i
.#!'r rQ''..
rlwp'rd;s{�la•},.
� n. .
)+t � {} rr
® Page 79 sixth paragraph,last sentence,change"for either non-profit or for-profit be added"to read
"for non-profit be added"
Page 9,third line,"W'should read"She".
Ccm. Harris stated that the issue of building onsite BMR unitswas discussed at the meeting and
was to be.continued at a future meeting. She requested the issue be agendized for an upcoming
meeting. Following a brief discussion, it was agreed that the City Council would receive the
meeting minutes and that was adequate.
Page.10, first paragraph. Com. Hams stated that the intent was only for lots over 10,000 tbet;
everyone was not entitled to build them offsite. Staff stated that the second last paragraph of page
10 addressed the issue.
Page 12,paragraph 7. Com.Harris stated that Item 2 did reference the gateways and landmarks.
She stated that the minutes were correct as written. However,when the item was formulated and
sent to the City Council at the study session,the gateways were not included. She pointed out that
I+em 2 included both the gateways and landmarks.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the minutes of the May 22, 1995 as amended.
PP Y
i SECOND: °Com.Mahoney 4-0
VOTE: 'Passed
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS-Press Release
Mr.Cowan stated that the press release from the Diocese of San Jose would be discussed during the public
hearing.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAI,S FROM CALENDAR
'y 3. Application No.2-V-95,3-EXC-95 and 12-EA-95
Applicant: Matthews Land Company, Property Owner: Jensen Corporation, 10950 North Blaney
Avenue.
j:
Request,continuance to'the Meeting of dune 26, 1995.
MOTION: ;Com.Austin moved to continue Item 3 to the meeting of
Y June 26, 1995
SECOND: Com.Hams 4-0
VOTE: Passed
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None
CONSENT CALENDAR-None
There was consensus to change the order of the agenda to allow discussion of the scheduled agenda items
prior to the Diocese of San Jose issue.
Chair Roberts moved the agenda to Item 2.
2
4. '
1y 1
4 b ? 4
N
:v:p,» is :"•y" z s ar T +fh Fk ar wrt'. '�2, i k �+Kg s".r 45 '�.` .S sc -A 'rik E's'3 r:,t' �a wJ�:f +'
IV
r7e a�X 3'' kirSs`�✓ �a f ^' °.N v :fit i..3t r �� p?tfi -t.' aril- �' ,/i-y 's
•*aEaa� � t��+t i cK t t ;
2. ApplicationNo.(s): 8-U-94(Mod.)
® Applicant: Citation Homes Central
Property Owner: Citation Homes Central
Location: Southeast comer of DeAnza Blvd./Homestead Rd.
USE PERMIT modification to delete a.condition of approval related to issuance of occupancy
permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE:June 19, 1995.
t Staff presentation: Planning Director Cowan reviewed the request as outlined in the staff report. He
explained.that the issue before the Commission related to staging of improvements, and whether or not.the
Planning Commission and City Council should approve a change in the policy to require the units to be
withheld until work begins on the project. He stated staff recommendation was to change the condition to
delete the phasing requirement.
Using a wall map,Mr.Cowan outlined the present Citation development. He stated that some time ago
there was concern about allowing development to,occur on the eastern side of the property as low
density still maintaining overall density of 18 units per acre. The request was approved changing the
--development to single family detached homes and the idea of maintaining the concept was.adopted. The
® requirement states 28 housing units be maintained in a stage 3 category.
In response to Com.Austin's questions,Mr. Cowan explained that 160 units or 200 units are built,the
action is that the BMR housing component is a burden on this property as opposed to this phase of the
development. He stated that the purpose of Phase 3 is to insure property was built at the high end of the
density.. Com.Austin stated it was her understanding the purpose was to develop BMRs. Mr. Cowan
stated the intent-is contained in the actual condition of approval.
Mr. Cowan reviewed the General Plan consistency. Com.Austin questioned if the dwellings:per acre
had changed from 20-35. Mr. Cowan stated that presently the General Plan stated 20-35 but time original
Portofino development approved plans for 18 per acre. He stated property owners would probably be
seeking a lower density than the 18 before the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Cowan explained that the deletion of the defacto policy to pave the way for lower density property
would not present a problem with the state in terms of reduced density.
In response to a question from Com. Mahoney, Mr. Cowan stated there were three storeys over parking.
Com. Mahoney stated that there were issue3.raised about three storey dwellings, but they were adjacent to
j two storey residential. He.asked if it might be an issue on DeAn7a Boulevard. Mr. Cowan said it was a
possibility.
Referring to the tract delineation on the wall map, Com. Harris noted that there are 79 units in Phase 1 and
® 3,of which all but 28 have been constructed. Com. Harris questioned if there were 7 or 8 I3MRs required, .
and what would happen if the ownership of Phase 2 changed. Mr. Cowan stated that the requirement
3
'•at` `:r rw1 t'"�,ad`.4r"°• 'L x�'.x Y• %�„Sz'#k`"f 'rbN . �3'� +.1ryr,
ip
-t ,�! Y� ,.� ir. x= , <fU, z w+i'� !� °'S i k Y' ,+ y `,"�T' y ✓ 'LY.a.-4'`
dt-.�� A�' ��t wF, l4+wi v '�".`+�:;,. I:. t ��)� �r Le � a�,�� S`�Y �f * .r:ti'u �, ,'•�.��+` fl�.l., ,rt .r F}idai}V S�l�t. r.�w��ed � �.; >52�J. -:ryi'�:.`•.'��i .
d is 4 1 fir•, ryi�,-f,a� ! �Ast Lr v i-,.t
x tib y� r7 ifr isf y" �L�, i is Tt � r et '�1 Sl Y i4I�. Y' i. .
would be 8.n He-explained that it is a common master plan for the property and if sold the buyer should be
aware of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Cowan stated.that if it changed to retail or industrial development,the General Plan would have to be
modified. A defacto decision would have to be reached.
Com. Hams pointed out that it could be stipulated that in order to allow the final 28 dwellings to be built,
5 the 8 BMR units needed to be, cited in Section 3.` Mr. Cowan commented that it would become more
burdensome to the developer because of the higher cost. Com. Harris stated that if the developer built 79
units,he would have to provide 8 of those units as BMRs.
Mr. James F. Sullivan,Project Administrator,Citation Homs;discussed issues of concern. Fie stated
that Phases Land 3 comprise a total of 84 units of single family detached homes. Phase 1 has final map
urrently built out. He reported that the developer has built out 35-40
3
units including the 3 model homes already constructed. A final map and improvement plans an Phase
approval for 44 units which ate c
has been submitted and street improvements are being considered.
n .
§ Mr. Sullivan stated it was correct that the 84 units will be added to those units approved for Phase 2,.and
10 percent of that number will be provided in Phase 2.He reported that it was the developer's intention
to build out Phase 2 and added that they have been approached by several companies to consider an
® apartment project or consider a multiple use such as a retail project. Citation does not see it as feasible
and intends to develop on their own. 'He stated it was doubtful that the City would approve commercial
a or retail configuration on the Phase 2 site.
Mr. Sullivan pointed out that Citation had to commit to 226 units on Phase 2. He explained that the site
i totalled 342 units when added to Phase 1 and 3,which was what Mar+anis had originally proposed for
the site. In speaking with.some of the homeowners in the area and city members, Citation decided it was
build a reduced project of 135-150 units on the Phase 2 site which
more appropriate and cost effective to
brings the density for the overall site from approximately 18.9 units that would be based on the 342
units,down to about 14 units for the entire site. Citation is currently working with an architect and land
t planner for the development of the Phase 2 site and hopes to come before the Planning Commission in
the near future,and in order to proceed will need to seek an amendment to the General Plan.
In response to a question from Com.Mahoney,Mr.Sullivan stated that the plans are for lower density,
which is-the reason they have not submitted a plan for the multi family site at this time.
'
sident read the following statement into the record on behalf of Ms
Mr. William Lapson,a Portofino re .
Sandy Adams,a resident at 1.1030 Via Sorrento(in the Portofino development).
iI live at 11030 Via Sorrento(in the Portofino development),
"My name is Sandra Adams,
® adjacent property to the Citation Corsica'Development. J want to have my comments noted for
the record regarding the lifting of this or any other,,restrictions previously placed on Citation's
4
1
• ,,t rc+�'�q Oji'� i��j� a .4w.+I` i "5?`
r '.�i7 x"''��,f,G',�.,•P �' y: , 5'-+'y�", ���.�11WA-;� 3 m/4M d��i e}1 t°° y', aakf�. •i..� .l'` �...��
¢t Fa u y r x v o f v4 F
i R � ISYi k� �c.,�� t Lx M`k �'S x .. 4 ��. S� �°5r. �., h xtxiY dr t. ' r
Y r ,3 •
developn.ent of the property at issue. Please consider the following information prior to making
your decision: The Portofino homeowners have just been notified in writing from staff that the
city is prepared to require our Association to allow the Corsica Association Homeowners to us,
our recreation facilities. As we have until June 28th to respond to staff, I feel there is a need to
have this record noted in case this requirement by staff is at a later date held by the Commission,
the Council,or a court of competent jurisdiction,to be invalid or is modified in any way.
Presumably,there will be"a need for additional park and recreation area"as stated in the letter to
the Portofino homeowners and as was provided for in the development of the original lots 99 and
100.Thus,there should be the ability to modify the Corsica approval to require such provision of
additional open space for the Corsica homeowners,or in the alternative another solution would `
be to insure the provision of the additional open space by indicating it as a dependent condition
this evening. Thank you."
Mr.Lapson read his letter for the record.
"My name is Bill Lapson. I live in the Portofino Development adjacent to the Citation/Corsiea
development. I speak on behalf of concerned homeowners in the Portofino development. It has e
come to our attention that Citation would like to complete the Corsica development in lot 100
along the freeway,without providing adequate open'space for recreational purposes for the
residents of the Corsica project. We feel that since the City of Cupertino requires adequate open
space for its citizens,the question of adequate open space for the Corsica project should be fully 4
addressed before the final approval of the building on Lot 100.Adequate recreational space for
the Corsica residents should_be made zvailable at the undeveloped Corsica site,or the Corsica
residents should have available the recreational facilities on the Citation development about to be
planned on lot 99 along De Anza Boulevard. We note that in both of these locations, Lots 99, d
100,there is ample area for recreational facilities. We at Portofino recently received a statement
from the City Planning Commission-that our Portofino pool and park was to be made available to
the residents of the Corsica development,because the neighborhood has a defined need for
additional park and recreational area. However,we consider the pool and the'park as Portofno's
private,property. The pool and the park were deeded.to the,Portofino Homeowners upon the sale
of the first unit in the development in 1991. We have,through the rules of our City-approved
f CC&Rs;:voted against annexing the Corsica development three times,one time informally
through a show of hands,the other two were formal-votes. We are consequently not sure that the
City claim is correct that the Corsica development has the right to the use of our pool and park,
and therefore request that the issue of open space for the Corsica project be carefully considered .
before the approval of the building-out of Lot 100." `
Com:Mahoney requested clarification on the issue presented.
j Mr. Cowan explained that a.dispute on open space exists between the original homeowners in the
development and"the c7urent developer. Using a wall map, Mr. Cowan illustrated the open space area in
question. He stated that there is no design issue in question; there is an approved tenant subdivision map '
approved for the 84 units. He pointed out that the only issue at present is phasing. ;
7 .. ...`,F,R+l
7WN CS��d' '}'`1 2�,5},("�.r 4 c','y>•-l' y .�: fkfr ltc,.w sf. i�hr''p
. ;r. wN 9,ti 1 sd'F v i+ i >t fix.' "t'v3 "?M.",,t. Y t- w; .y,:L, f 1 4-•- � {C/ �1�'.-.'f�r�I fa l` F`Y x t�? S';(;` '� � ) ,��. 1 r-.r r c,..•
! ,` tr
..t 4• y y t t 3"PQlly f{ s ,.a.� � ���{ '+ yq [�1 �y..t tom. i � ! •-- � t` } -z ! Y.v 'S'�r�Jt.' I �'tvd , t Y
Mr.Cowan stated that the issue of open space could be addressed at a later date. He said it was feasible
'to look upon the adequacy,of open space for the apartments or townhouses when they are built in the
bigger lot,`but is a separate design issue. Com.Harris stated it was her recollection that the development
for the 84 units was approved based on the fact that the common area would serve both projects,and if
the Commission had thought there was no common space,green area or swim pool for that area, it might
not have approved the subdivision in that format. Com. Harris emphasized that it was a key issue at the
time as well as discussions about poor drainage for the area.
Mr. Cowan remarked that he didn't recall it being a major issue at the time.
Com.Harris stated she was concerned about looking at the'remainder of the development in light of
those facts,because the 84 units were approved based on the fact that there was a common park and
open space area.
Mr. Cowan stated that there is no specific requirement for open space in each development; it is merely a
design issue for the particular development and if the developer wants,to get credit for park,
development,open space must be provided.
Com.Harris pointed out that the commissioners considered layout,parking and open space when
approving developments.
Com.Mahoney requested clarification from Mr.Kilian on the Planning Commission's obligations on the .
issue.
Mr.Kilian clarified that the issue presently before the Commission is whether to delete the phasing
requirement. 'He stated that Com.Harris was correct in stating that if the phasing issue was part of
something that might have been viewed differently had the Commission known that the open space was
for only one portion of the development,it would have the right to revisit the issue. He explained a
letter has been sent to the developer to make the existing open space available to the other homeowners
or pursue the option of getting an amendment to delete that condition requirement.
Mr.Kilian explained that there has since been a foreclosure and bankruptcy causing new developers to
come in and sell properties to various homeowners with a CC&R provision stating the swim pool is only
for Portofino residents,which is in direct conflict with prior conditions. The conditions of the City have
precedence.
Mr. Sullivan stated dhat it was the developer's original intent that the pool would be shared in the
common area. Despite Citation's best efforts'to work on an agreement with the existing homeowners, it
has been unable to reach an amicable solution. He said that current homeowners have been instructed
not to use the pool area because Citation does not have a legal right at this time.
Mr.Kilian stated that it was likely a request will go before the Planning Commission eventually to
modify that condition to delete the requirement and if granted,a different design for open space may be
required for the remainder of the units.
6
r
I "b
Y
-r ar gg
:�7,,°ri�„.7 'v°�.��`ts f_'�tY �r �. ��s. .ESi+ W,u��:'� �"f` �e4a.�*`�14�� k°✓Y '�f� �.':£r -.�n z u;,n � �^ t., d �drev t ;u r'�wa.
{ 1 t H°: ;r7:-,. F.yS .. :. 7:.>�',+�'” •;' t iw�4�X;, fan 4, _ tl" ,r�a ..,-+,..-: dt y rS r° a'�.y':;i.., +,��'! . •'.s.�i r°`t rc v 14tr
S.. r z i K a r °`l q 'h C i r✓ i � ;°:, .y+•X �,F'{y.+�� f s,i..'
�NSeT}�Fa>q`a �3't""��rJ�.� � , '� 14 try � mrv.�>•�1 i J It i N FP.rCi i e t9 Pf.�'d7✓ 'Yp�kV y:..
t1 11" t r r l yk J S
r f q t r r ra l
® Chair Roberts'questioned if the resolution of the issue would effect whether or not Phase 3 would be
. carried out. Mr:Kilian stated that it might-have a bearing on it.
Mr.Cowan questioned if the Planning Commission has the ability to go back and redesign Phase 3 to
require open`space:
Mr. Kilian stated that it was an option as well as trying to enforce the condition as written.
f.
Mr. Cowan questioned if a decision could be made on the phasing without clarification of the open space
issue'.
h
Chair Roberts reiterated that if Phase 3 is approved,the Commission would be giving the go ahead of
Phase 3 as designed,and if the facts had been known,there is a distinct possibility that there would have
been an open space requirement in Phases 1 and 3.
Mr.Kilian stated that the applicant was correct and had done everything legally possible and it was now
up to the City to enforce that condition with a civil action if it wished to adhere to that condition.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the present issue was the developer seeking a deletion of the holdback
restriction: He'cited that Citation homes has been a strong,viable company for over 3-1/2 decades and
has made a strong commitment and.spent considerable money on architecture in designing Phase 2,and
% ack requirement remain in place,or does the Planning
the issue at hand is it essential that the holdb
® Commission feel comfortable in allowing deletion,knowing Citation will be going forward and
returning with a plan for Phase 2? The common area open space is a separate issue.
Mr.Kilian asked Mr. Sullivan if Citation intended to apply to modify the condition as to Citation's use
of the pool.
Mr. Sullivan responded that in Ms.Buhrman's letter to the Portofino's Homeowner Association they
would have to come back to modify that condition and in her letter she stated that staff's
recommendation would likely be against approving that. .It would ultimately be a decision that would go
3, to the Planning Commission and the City Council. According to Ms. Buhrman,the Portofino
Homeowners Association is in violation of the condition.
Discussion continued regarding the upen space issue.
Com.Harris stated that the holdback provision wad to get.the BMR units built,even though it may not
be in the text of the final approval. It was a protection against a developer building the unit and having a
new company come back in later and not have a requirement for the BMR units. Com. Harms stated she
was riot comfortable with the shifting of the units but agreed because of the holdback provision. She
,r
stated she would not vote in favor of it. Com. Harris stated that she was not.willing to vote in favor of
the approval of the last 28 units until the open space issue was resolved.
p
Com.Mahoney said he was not willing to penalize Citation on the open space issue. He stated that as
long as it is as presented,the City overrides the CC&Rs ofrthe first units. Both parties were well aware
7
. - .�: �. -r..'�4= 1 "`".v-1,�s-v,a., ;.ks� r,�aiy:¢;'•�4 ,,,��"� m,,yw �'z�,er ,``tft"`` y�.r S" '^sN ;� t,,r,�� w'.^`��-,'''e;.
e
;s.� Jr T�;.;�s)��� lF•� yY +I'�4'�� � 7_ ': trk"V'`'(
3.
of the facts and great pains were taken to work with the existing homeowners to reach an amicable
solution. He said from that point of view he would like to see it taken off the table and hope fbr a
k
satisfactory solution.
Com. Mahoney stated it was his understanding that the holdbacks were a density issue;specifically the
concern was that it is less economical to build at the high end of the density range,and if there were no
holdbacks someone might come back with a lower density proposal,which has happened. He stated he
felt confident that the BMRs would be built. Com. Mahoney stated he would vote in favor of releasing
the holdback.
Com.Austin stated she visited the Citation development and was impressed with their efforts. She
expressed concern about the open space issue and whether the BMR units would be built. Com. Austin
stated she was not in favor of releasing the 28 units because it is the only hope of getting Phase 2
developed at whatever density. She stated that she opposed the staff recommendation.
Mr. Cowan reviewed the General Plan Consistency,stating that nine could be issued when the Council
approves the high density project,and another nine could be issued when there is a loan commitment.
The final ten units would be released when the foundation is poured for the apartment project.
t
Chair Roberts explained that he was prepared to support the staff recommendation until he learned of the
open space issue dispute which he stated he felt might have possibly affected the approval of Phases I
and 3. Chair Roberts asked for clarification on why the issues were separate. He stated he didn't view a
the open space provisions as being design,but a condition apart from the design of the developer.
Mr. Cowan explained that the Portofino project was approved with 1.4 acres serving the entire
development. He stated the only Hay to get open space verith people down below is to remove about 10
} or.more units and put open space there.He explained,it was a design issue as well as the configuration of
the subdivision.' Mr. Cowan pointed out that there is no provision in the General Plan requiring a gi
specified amount of open space in a private development. Open space is to be provided by public parks-,
and the developer has the option to get open space credit. He stated that in theory the open space is
' required to be provided by public facilities.
Chair Roberts asked if staff could provide assurance that the open space condition could be enforced.
Mr. Cowan responded that it had to be litigated. Mr. Kiliaq.stated that litigation was the practical way
of enforcing the condition. a
Following further discussion, Chair Roberts stated he would support the staff recommendation.
Mr.Kilian stated that although it not a requirement,the item could be continued to allow the absent
commission member to have input and vote.
Chair Roberts informed Mr. Lapson that the public hearing was closed.
® F91lowing a brief discussion, the item was continued to the special meeting of Tuesday,June 20, 1995.
a
� p
o
m '" �; za„,r„ ` '� �,Y�u ;.�&hrh ,•��3 f .��.i.ro./"a';,s'f�;'+�xi r�.,�sy,� '�� s��`t��Z��i
s,
4
�f-.34w'�..s.,�.`s� ? .s .ea-.,r.a �;°� t ,.'t°�. .y•i� -¢o. "..A,�.�+ �`,V."i �gl .1`,.�f1,.„.t i,- a rx t tNC f',. ,,. t ,(,�, / .t'r tP.r ':R.t.,�-x -
s
; w
MOTION: Comp Austut moved to continue Item 8-U-94 to the June 20th meeting.
® SECOND: Com:Mahoney
VOTE: Passed
4. Applicant:- Tom Hirano
Location: 10911 S. Stelling Road
DETERMINATION of front setbacks in accordance with Section 19.08.030 of the Municipal
Code. '
PROJECT DATA
Site: 1.03 acres gross
Land Use Type: Four single family homes(to be.built)
General Yan Designation: Single family residential 175
dwelling units per gross acre
} Zoning: Single family residential,minimum net lot size.of 6,000 square feet.
Staff presentation: Referring to a wall diagram,
Mr. Cowan reviewed the application and-request for a
fence exception for a sound wall at the May 22 meeting. Mr. Cowan stated staff recommended Planning
Commission approval of the required setbacks.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to approve the reorientatio4n.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed
Chair Roberts moved the agenda back to Item 1.
1. Application No.(s): 1-GPA-93 and 6-EA-93
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose
Property Owner: Diocese of San Jose
b Location: Assessor Parcel Numbers 342-62-3,342-5-54,-56,-59,-60;
Located south of 1-280,west of Foothill Boulevard and
north of Rancho San Antonio County Park and Stevens
r Creek Boulevard.
GENERAL, PLAN AMENDMENT to change the land use designation from Very Low Density
Residential 5-20 acre slope density to Very Low Density Residential Foothill Modir '/: acre
slope density with a cap of 293 units. .
The Diocese of San'Jose applied for the above General Plan Amendment. The City Council
directed that a total of ten alternatives be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An'Environmental Impact Report was prepared. Ten
alternatives were evaluated. Signficant impacts identified related to loss of and intrusion into open
9
: - _ nl11l1Y�ITITF�S17A3TpAT�
,,. -„ ....,: : �,., ^r'6 M�..� .r-��•r^,�,p,�;., ^i.r�-tt�+v &.k -'"�".t�°n�'af^: � .M �d; �
:t
A 1
,T��4.+- h u. v,,�s '� S ..:�W' '�s^r' ' y "- W qi� "".J;.r k - r •3' lT,,PS- .sr a,,„`. T'3 t f Y At <--
.,it"`ryY rz'✓ :7;:'rt 7' ,, .t , c �+ r 9 •s 'fart v'l i s+ j � ha s ',- ! �.
k,' q aysr {+• T+ is J tL F� '' k to x {,. i ✓ ,, r 1 t t lij r ah �� ✓C '� `s .
az^,>
space lands; an elimination of potential park lands; loss of an intrusion'intonatural vegetation,
wildlife.habitat and wetland areas; exposure to adverse geologic conditions; storm run-off erosion
and pollution; wildlife hazard;visual impacts; water tank failure and leakage; and safety of school
crossings.
Staff presentations City Planner Ciddy Wardell requested the Diocese of San Jose to enter into record the
press release,presented and discuss how it may effect the June 29th meeting. Ms. Wardell stated that other
items open for.discussion w--re the impacts of mitigation,and.if time permitted,the open space detinitions.
Fn Mitchell,from fire Diocese of San Jose,stated that the diocese has determined that they can develop the
32 acre parcel as described in the press release without a completely accessible public street at the
boundary line of the current existing property where it confronts state highway property.
Fr. Mitchell stated it would be in the best interest of the diocese that it be a thru street, but if it involves
extraordinary litigation, they are in a position to develop it in another way. He pointed out that other
people have rights to that same roadway that were sold to them by San Jose Diocese predecessors and the
diocese was not surrendering their rights for them.
Chair Roberts asked Fr.Mitchell for further clarification.
Fr. Mitchell explained that Los Altos School District.has the same road access,as well as the County of
Santa Clara They may come forward to defend the diocese development of the 32 acre parcel without
i surrendering the rights of anyone else in interest.
Ms. Wardell stated that discussion of the pros and cons or related issues would not continue, but clarified
the point that this.is a project related statement and if the City concurs,it would only be for that project.
Chair Roberts asked Mr. Kilian to comment on what bearing it would have on the public hearing
•proceedings. Mr. Kilian explained that it didn't have a bearing on this evening's proceedings but governed
how to proceed at the next(June 29th)meeting when the comment period is completed with respect to the
additional access through the seminary site. He explained that the Commission could take the position that
this is a General Plan Amendment.that deals with only the diocese property and that since they no longer
want to use the site for access,that the EIR studies on traffic for purposes of this development need`not be
considered. Some language could be put in the General Plan that states this project does not involve any
vehicular access in that location.
Mr.Kilian stated that the Public Works Department wants to retain emergency access in any event but any
General Plan language has to,specify that this does not preclude consideration of other properties utilizing
that area or that an amendment would not come. in under this development, in which case the
environmental analysis would have to be done at this time. Legally,the Planning Commission can shorten '.
the EIR process: Mr. Kilian recommended deciding on what information would be discussed at the next
h meeting.
r �iI Chair Rola: ;polled the Commission members for comments.
10
•. _.. .,.fi,. ,. �v, ,f ;�;,r � .,ia.,�;tF"'" ::-„ 4fn��E ,,::,�-� •`�,�-.`�� e q+t��'. >t.r7x3. 9 ff�y,g;��`�' •rr'a,�`sr�+�r ,� ,�dt�
1:
�.'�"ti 'r,.o = .r - ,,"t '-...,.. . , A,. r.:, ,.W., > d ..�rsr', i`its.� i r+,1 o-� 'S+r i � r�'�'�`P.Xr ,x a.���*�•a +,5 5 t a ,,r i-�S��g,,, rri
. C _�r5` .""�33 ,q•�t i,. 7� C .. r i"a x....,t S r^; r^ ti. ... r 'h6t ti rY'r> .1 .r,-pI i� '� .,,bt.t rrs ;h'rd.`.uo Ir r�..ss
:',5rMi1�.'t#¢a.`R,a'°,..e .:.;ds
v �u: ✓ N
® Com:Austin stated she had no comment.
Com. Harris asked if the school district or county could enforce the access if they chose to and how the
residents. of the 32 parcel could be prevented from using the road as a.thoroughfare. .Fr. Mitchell
respondd that.it is a public'highway. The Los Altos neighborhood residents do not want a thru street and
the diocese is willing to adapt its plan so it will not be a thru street. It does not preclude emergency
vehicles.,The posture of the diocese is that it is planning to go through with the development. However,
there are people who have rights to that road because of the sale of the property by the diocese's
+ predecessor.
Ms. `Mardell stated that Mr. Kilian was referring to whether or not the discussion at the next meeting to
i reflect this different position could be compacted. She discussed some strategies for saving time on public
comment.
Chair Rob;srts summarized that the Planning Commission has carried out the analysis to date without
having considered the opening of St. Joseph.Avenue, and stated it appeared that no Commission member
has been a strong proponent of forcing that open.. ,
Com.Austin concurred and pointed out that the Commission has considered it being closed in the past,but
the possibility existed that it might be beneficial for Cupertino environmentally to keep it open, and
consideration should be given to that option. Com. Austin suggested an analysis of what is best for the
City of Cupertino.
s Mr. Kilian reiterated thatthe issue before the Commission was whether or not the analysis should be
truncated(shortened),or.did the Commission want to continue with the analysis?
Com. Mahoney stated he would be in favor of truncating the analysis.
Com. Harris concurred with Com.Austin in favor of a second access. She stated that she felt the
original EIR should have contained the possibility that the road should be opened. Com. Hams pointed
out that another public hearing for input would be beneficial to the end result of the Commission making
a decision.
t .
Following a lengthy,discussion about the public hearing process,the vote remained divided at 2:2. Mr.
Kilian painted out that the issue at hand for the present meeting was to decide on the process for the
public hearing,not to reach any final decisions. He further explained that at the public hearing a
statement could be made announcing support of the secondary access.
Mr.Michael Bruner,Sobrato Development Companies(consultant to the diocese)addressed the
Commission and pointed out that the City of Los Altos planned to appeal its lawsuit and recommended
® resolution of the issue.
h
i�-
pt i
r
1
i
i
i
� 7 t y 4. �' d{ *..:a '°_ati�'r§•r � � $ina S l� ;�r,41'r�� �
j`+.
1 r ;l�a c 'G�"'�yx� ,�. 5> �+xt1; d"r" �ti:1�,,,F(n si�,r •r tt 49 t ti.,
y, •
• c
i
Ms. Wardell,stated that'a decision was needed by'the Commission whether a full staff analysis and
® presentation would be made at the bearing,or just a preliminary indication given to help direct the
comments of those present. She sa'd that public input would be requested at the hearing. Ms. Wardell
explained the process followed in the public hearing., f.
Com. Harris stated she felt that public input would be helpful in reaching a"decision.
Following a brief discussion,staff was directed to continue the process to June 29th.
6. IMPACTS OF I EnQA_TION:
Ms. Wardell suggested using the document containing the matrix of the impacts of mitigation as it
contained the revisions made at the last meeting. She state d'that.the applicant mitigations do not contair•
the changes made at the last meeting.
Ms.Wardell explained.that the first page of the matrix contains the impacts for all the alternatives
related to those categories,land use,etc.,and the second page is a combined list for the remaining
elements and includes the impacts and mitigations contained in the alternatives. The second page
contain several mitigations that were proposed for the removal of non-native and native trees.
Com.Harris stated it was her understanding that the commission,would go through the matrix rather
than the developer doing it in the form of rebuttal. There was consensus from the Commissioners that a
review of the matrix should be accomplished during the meeting.
Com.Mahoney,asked for clarification on the term"combined". Ms.Wardell stated that it was a
combination of all the alternatives. Ms.Wardell pointed out that the because those they matrix contained t have t he si fibPant
impacts,and recommended concentrating on the significant impacts b
mitigated as part of the EIR She stated that the applciant has a number of comments on the non.
r
significant impacts.
l
fi Chair Roberts concurred with Ms.Wardell because of the number of impacts and mitigations to focus on.
ations from the tables was that there were signficant impacts and
Com:Mahoney stated that the implic
mitigation measures on each one,yet it was known that there were tennot
itighebeforels.the list c oluld be
explained that they were mitigated but not to a less than signficant
used in conjunction-with the matrix. Com.Mahoney stated that mitigation is proposed and it does not
reduce the impact to less than a sigificant level. Com.Mahoney suggested that it be noted in a future
revision which ones are mitigatable.
Chair Roberts invited the applicant to comment. The applicant reserved the opportunity to respond late
in the-meeting.
Com. Austin`stated she had no comments.
12
1!Y
rr
1 R.
,,.t.F
S.,itlf 6.T�v''is drya4 �. ab4 1 1 p ' u4 -L 'J,Y' ..I.�
L�jA 2 phi �^r� Eh _
5 1 i L'.7 t-..•I� .- f.
4 '
® Com Mahoney addressed the issue of direct development away from Williamson Ac!parcels(4-7)and
questioned how tt'would mitigate the loss of potential future open space? He also questioned why the
Williamson Act parcels were called out rather than maintain some open space.
Mr. Skinner rioted that it was one of two mitigation measures suggested; the first one being to acquire
additional open space and the second to avoid development on the Cristo Rey Parcel. He stated it was a
measure that could be used to insure the continuation of open space in some form. Mr. Skinner stated
that the Williamson Act is still in effect and will remain in effect until the City cancels it out or it
expires. He
p pointed out that the citymay elect t,- -ancel the Williamson Act contract in which case
recognizing a way of maintaining open space by i approving development on the Cristo Rey'Parcel.
Chair Roberts-asked if cancellation of the Williamson Act contract required an EIR. Mr. Skinner
responded that the present EIR is intended to cover it.
Com.Mahoney recommended removing it as a mitigation, because the loss of open space didn't mitigate
it below the significant level. He stated he felt.it was a constraint that should not be imposed; that if it
was to be developed, it should be developed according to the best plan.
id
Com.Harris clarified that the document specified"...direct development away from Williamson Act
parcels until the contract non-renewal,period expires,unless the city finds that other more appropriate
dioceselands can be substituted for more permanent open space." Com. Harris stated she was in favor
of the mitigation,but noted that the applicant raised some legal issues;one of which states that it
shouldn't be adopted because'it requires the city 6 impose',an unauthorized..",and secondly"...it gives
the appearance the city is using its land use powers to reduce the value of the land..."
Mr.Kilian explained that he was not aware of any city plans to acquire any property by eminent domain
or purchase. Mr.Kilian suggested expanding development away from Williamson Act parcels to
r include not only Williamson Act parcels but other open space and conservation easements and other .
\y
?ProPer
property is permanentlyor temporarily open space; why just limit it to the Williamson Act
Com. Mahoney stated that lack of provision for affordable housing is not an impact of this project.
Mitigation 4-5:
Com. Harris discussed mitigation 4-5 regarding visual impacts on parks and open space. She expressed
disagreement with the statement..."residential building and site design shall orient back yards and
outdoor activity areas away from park and open space preserves." She stated that it was her opinion that
a propertyowner would want to put their backyard and green space near the open space preserve instead
j of putting the.structure near the open space preserve. Com: Harris commented that the visual et?ect of
'( R;
the green space next to the park would be more attractive.
0.t VPY
Ms. Wardell clarified that there was a wildlife noise consideration involved,.
13
- - r 'zg- ��x.M s 'y,.�?R<�+P al'#�*".,u�yi��;�td `�itr-,t•^`�7x.�.< .,s` �'I`p`;° ,a 6",era
'J
f;ar7�` i''$F..- .:a'' b�.,l,v; .� a '. r M r..✓.5.d`t ji. I..fi'f ii?f�'S! ,rr-f.2ui.!-f'„jD i'� ,r;` rr� .M1�rF� w F,tx f � '*.ii v�t.s.?•(r3 srr ,3.
�. `�v.e�`e,t r ,�P'. r�� �y :�sk.�R yt�.1"u�•„yfi+' 1..�'^f�i f sS4 c''�S L�rri� i 1 }° �._r Iy i{.,L y � 'r 1 r°.. g zl`T! tit
iti J f '.rj I 1 h i.,, i '9: .!, a• '1 J i Ty r 1
Following a bnef discussion;there was consensus to remove the mitigation,
Mitjgation 5-3•
Com:Harris stated that she favored that larger oak trees be planted,not planted from ac
urns because of
the length of time required to grow to a significant size.Com. Harris asked staff for clarification on the
H.T. Harvey Report.
Ms. Wardell responded that the H.T.Harvey Report required the replacement of the oak trees on a 5 to I
f ratio,specifying that for every oak tree removed,five replacements are planted from acorns.
Com. Harris requested that the mitigation be changed to specify that some replacement oak trees be
saplings and full grown trees,in addition to acorns to develop the replacement oaks. Com. Harris also..
recommended that the replacements be specified as 3 to 5.
There was consensus that the original text from the consultant be used,specifying the replacement oak
trees not all be acorns,and that the replacements be from 3 to'5 of the same or other Northern California
native species..Core.Harris requested that the sentence"These trees should be irrigated and maintained
for a minimum of three years"be added to the requirement.
A discussion ensued regarding the water tank. Com. Austin recommended that the mitigation refer to
the relocation of the weter tank. Chair Roberts stated that it is listed as a visual impact and staff has
been encouraged in the past to explore alternative locations for the tank to minimize the visual impacts.
There was consensus that a potential mitigation be listed to have the water tank relocated to location
with less visual impact.
Com.Mahoney questioned what relation 11-5 under 11-7 had to public service. Ms. Wardell stated that
it was the impact of the water tank and should be listed under the water tank.She explained that trees
would be removed to put in the water tank.
r
Chair Roberts discussed a visual impact of alternatives 4 and 5,relating to view from viewpoint 2B
which is the water tank.
Mitigation5-13:.`
Com. Mahoney asked if mitigation 5-8 implied a preclusion for any other watering other than drip }
irrigation in the project. .
Mr.Cowan stated that the xeroscape standards adopted during the drought would still be applied,but
there are-some areas-where there would still be sprinklers. A water budget would be established and the
landscape architect would need to certify that the irrigation meets the water budget guidelines.
14
..>. r ...............
,.p
µ
P
�„'""}'��7'•1,+!��?��.0 }x+F�u� .v.,.sC^ �}`4�' �7Vz.'
Jtar,
Com Mahoney indicated he would prefer to have that specified in the mitigation rather than a specific
® requiremenffor the project..
ed that the mitigation be removed in its ennttiirety as it was a detriment of the
Com: Hams recommend
development. She stated that the xeroscape plan should be enforce
Ms.Wardell stated that the xeroscape ordinance could be cited,requiring conformance to the plan. '
Chair Roberts stated that he preferred the policy as written,and would like to see the landscape
maintained in a natural state as opposed to turfed and green.
Chair Roberts polled the Commission for their opinion on the preference of natural vegetation versus
green lawn area.
tire
Com.Austin stated natural vegetation;co usoney stat ahe rnlrffigation too readd area in the e"encouragetthe use
Following a brief discussion,there was �
of drip irrigation and minimization of non-native turf areas."
In response to a request for clarification,Mr.Kilian explained that cancellation of the Williamson Act is
pl
P
primarily a City Council decision. He stated that it is a proper mitigation to say that the loss of potential
i future open space car,.be'partially mitigated by directing development away from Williamson Act
® properties,
,9
Alternatives 4 and 5: "
Chair Roberts discussed the- pec-✓isual impacts of alternatives 4 and 5,re is ca3 9 v eiwpoint 2B disruption of
" viewpoint 2b,the water tank- He stated that under alternative 6 the
continuous open space. He said the justification for putting the knoll
trettm tact washe tl std as no raint zone was the
impact on the view from the open space district. In fife Impact report,
P
that area in the constraint zone,it upgraded it'to significant.
significant,but inputting
�
Mr. Skinner stated that Chair Roberts was correct that it was not listed as significant impact. He
reviewed that subsequent discussions of the commission reasons for concludingoncluded that it at was significant be to avoid a
to
the visual impact at that point.He recommended that
stated. Discussion continued whe.-in"Ar. Skinner noted�ot it can be mit if it was d gated,anded to identify it what
as signiticant
impact,the commission would ne: to identify whether
mitigation measures would be appropriate.
ose of designating it as a constraint area is that it could not b
Chair Roberts pointed out that the purpe,
ld be a partial mitigation.
completely mitigated. Landscaping wouE
a Chair Roberts stated that the commission was in agreement with the matrix insofar as subsequent
Iy
n the applicants list or the public might change some of them.
discussion of impacts of mitigations o
�5
,5
II a i t- ay.�x.ih r rtt pm' xVl ia; kkt9"'.Y 7Ar ai >X.fi{`ldX? W
In, .,� �, y,� 'ryitr•AryC$5 4 x Fd P'� ` -y'i' ts+r!tu �x Pr�' '1ia'F`Ca.,F! �+° .�� ra,�..w X... i� t,R �) a -!,. A e ..4 a v�
j' '' �ry�Nr `4 r-.l '�f�t h�jr. Ko .Cf+la`� r.. �r
t'�yi��,g` ►) 5��i. r: iP i� i a x ,>„+ i ,>H s ,L pesr ip sd rr �1a
A A I n� f�"t t 1,�� ti ••i k1 Y ,- I �a
Chair Roberts invited the applicant to speak on the list of comments and proposed revisions.
Mr.Michael Bruner, 1144 Derbyshire Street addressed the commission. He requested clarification from
staff as to the intent and where it would be codified as to the intent with impacts that are not significant
and whether or not the mitigations shown are being recommended to be required or for review.
Ms.Wardell stated that the resolution for a General Plan amendment will include policies that will
encompass the mitigations for the significant impacts,anl,unless non-significant impacts get changed to
r significant,they will not be included in any of the General Plan amendment documents. it would be at
the project stage for referral purposes. The only place it would be housed,is in the'EIR document. Ms.
Wardell indicated,that it would be clear that they would be a requirement of the project,just for referral
purposes.
Mr.Bruner asked for clarification on the staff comments on the mitigation measures made on the
applicant's document and staff concurrence.
Ms.Wardell responded that the list distributed at the meeting pert aitsed to statements staff wanted to
change or delete content.
Mr.Bruner commented on the staff report. He stated that applicant agreed with detention basin
wording. He questioncd whether or not the tree wording would state to the extent possible,i.e. 5-X. Mr.
Bruner referred to the H.T.Harvey Report,stating that applicant agreed in principle to certain parts of
the report and some of the suggestions,in addition to the Harvey report,flexi!)ility would be needed at
the General Plan stage to'deal with balancing issues.
Mr.Bruner stated that in 5-3 there was little"woodland"within the development. He stated applicant
has no problem with developing plans and giving handouts from the Native Oak Society to the
homeowners. He noted that an open woodland management plan contained some connotations and
would like to clarify that it is not something that would be circulated and discussed beyond the City of
Cupertino in terms of review.
x
Mr.Bruner stated it was his understanding that 13-1 on the schools would be deleted. He said the v
determined that the traffic signal was the crossing guard. Discussion followed regarding crossing
guards.
Corr,.Hands stated that the commission was informed that the city would review the need for a crossing
guard. She;, ecommended language stating that the city will review as necessary the need for a crossing
guard as part of this project.Mr.Bruner expressed concern if the development was responsible to pay for
the crossing guard.Ms. Wardell noted that no mitigation was requir:.d.
r Mr.Bruner reviewed the Williamson Act(1-2 and 4-7)and stated that applicant had a proposal allowing
® for dedication to a public agency of approximately 127 acres.He expressed concern with the specific
requirement of 150 acres and suggested adding"to the extent possible"to allow flexibility to allow
�y
�. eS:. ;:3.'7. s*�f� ':+5� �.-,•�,�.. �. ,�`)a �.apt,
1
S{+" �Mh �t yyL'i� aP ;�'a�. .r s �' �� �pr..c{ + ..� it"7+ }"� ��"jl�th�11 .1•� jl t,.y wjtl¢ �' ,� �� .f6J�y ty ,t
donation of less than150 acres in the next 8 years to allow for the donation of open space. 'He pointed
a ® out that iwhen the contract expires'ex in 8 e
p years it will no longer be a mitigation measure.
3
Ms. Wardell suggested adding'until the contract}s nonrenewal period'expires or is canceled."
Mr. Bruner asked for-clarification on Page 5 (3-2)on the final wording and agreed to wait for the next
meeting when a decision would be reached.
Mr. Bruner—stated that on Page 12,there needs to be flexibility in putting a road against a riparian
- corridor. _The impact of animals getting hit by cars is a more important issue than sounds from
neighboring yards.
Mr. Bruner pointed out the reason for the detailed language on Page 16 was that the thought the
commission was going to take the Harvey.report. We are in concurrence with trying to minimize the
:5
complexity at this level.
x:
Page 20, (45). In response to Mr. Bruner's request for flexibility in working with the public agency,
Ms. Wardell stated that it would fall under the public open space scenario, and it could still be private
open space,in which case it would not fall under what was stated.
® Page 29(11-2)Mr.Bruner clarified that there was-no objection to the wording as long as there is
clarification that applicant felt no need for a locked gate.
Ms.Mavis Smith stated she would reserve her comments until the June 29th meeting.
The.Commission reviewed the.'impacts and mitigations.
Sections 1-1 through 1-4:
Ms. Wardell reviewed the recommendation discussed earlier in the meeting: "Direct development away
from the Williamson Act parcels until the contract's nonrenewal period expires or is cancelled."
Section 2-i through 2-S:
Not contained on the matrix. No significant impacts. Ms.Wardell`stated staff will make changes unless
otherwise instructed.
z Section 3-2: _
Com. Hams stated she was in agreement with the consultant recommendation retaining as many mature
trees as possible in order to continue the tree canopy as a backdrop. Applicant has suggested adding
wording"mature trees may be removed under the guidance of a registered arborist". Com. Harris
{7
r
s�
l4.4lU 7��t', .,'1(75 n+st}k,,iFry7 i i jl ."y pti 4' �,A:T t r�,Rr^T ,} Lhtfdr a ry rig ,y x:'Yrr
W .1 q,Y#� .c1t{{, 2 a3 t ! f(h
4.r yAs ,fir' a}Mtt a i.J
7°�1�, � it..;l 1 C 7 h4i,1 1i ��_b:..- 1 �j,1r..,�'iylM''rYR X•..{ 1 ...r C� 1 thN j Z r f'dtFl ik% 4.,x7`.s
YYN` 4
a t
i
recommended"matuze trees'represe'nting'a safety issue-may be removed,"because an arborist can tell
you how to remove'a tree that is in perfect condition,and that is not our intent. Chair Roberts proposed
"unhealthy or unsafe mature trees may be removed." There was consensus that the wording suggested
1 by Chair-Roberts be included.
3-1: (sioificant impact)
Chair Roberts agreed with the conformed natural landscape contours and avoid berms where possible.
Following a brief discussion regarding berms,there was consensus to include the word"possibly".
34through 3-8 All acceptable.
Mr.Bruner stated the wording"unhealthy or unsafe mature trees'.'in the previous 3 should be included
in 3-13 as well.
.JL4:
Following a brief discussion about the applicant's request to remove the second sentence referring to the
height of the trees,it was proposed that the second sentence in mitigation 3-14,"The height of the trees
should be selected..."should be deleted Coms.Roberts,Austin and Mahoney voted in favor of deleting
the sentence. Com.Harris voted in favor of keeping the sentence as is. -
The applicant recommended striking the language referring to the berms. Chair Roberts stated that he
felt the argument had merit: Corns.Harris and Austin stated they were in favor of keeping the language
as it stated"consider the installation".There was consensus to keep the language relating to berms.
4-1 and 4-2: - Accepted
4-5:
Mitigation was discussed earlier in the meeting. There was consensus to strike it.
4-7: Discussed earlier in the meeting.
�t
Ste:
Com. Harris stated she was not in favor of the additional language regarding the bats. Ms. Wardell noted
that the consultant concluded there were no bats in the building. There was consensus to remove the
language regarding the dead snags.
— t4
will
•�• - ,ty',�"-.�';' 1 "�,� ;", --.�:s t rx� �„ �fiiN `",��. 7 'xs;..{;;>_;� x3Y's+^.,•.'',s`�.,�&-:f-""���.�� �,a'"� p,,�' x �:
Jj
i
.• r �j
#'�'�+d.
�A k � �'rl Y bw. t i. �• �'d"j^k'x5'.+ f r: 1 Y}.�iC�� o �:fig,a *Y=t,f)1 4' a �7 4�f{ �a ,rf7 p 3 M f
_ a xS • '�
s ry to r r 1 r-
L
00-
There
There was consensus to delete the paragraph relating to the small nursery stock,acorns,etc. and revert
back to the original paragraph language. .
Q: Agreed to., r
{
: No changes.
5-7 through 5-9: Acceptable to applicant.
I -
i
q
Also applies to alternative#5- Com.Harris stated that the commission concurs with staff
1 recommendation.
Chair,Roberts expressed concern about a provision for the type of fencing to allow wildlife to pass
through and stated his opposition to acceptance. He stated he would favor it if there was some
restriction on fencing used along wetlands. Ms.Wardell stated that she would compose the general
s� intent languagespecifying type of fencing.
Discussed earlier in the meeting.
6-4: There was consensus to delete mitigation 6-4.
ILI:
Com.Hams asked Mr.Kilian if the comment regarding the Kaiser Permanente facility was appropriate
for the mitigation. There was consensus to delete the reference to the Kaiser.Permanente facility.
Z: There were no significant impacts. #°
Com. Hams stated that the setback should be 100 feet from the riparian. ,
$ All acceptable.
Q: All acceptable.
=,VANE I I'lill
fes.
g�,„ wn��'[+` t 3'�a"�a 7n `r �7��yFa +,�4+t. tvr'�' '. �a4 x ���a✓�'i}a yr X r�,1,,2 n�� �.i}?�f� ?8,��� r y { y t ' s .4� u� e T�_: r �
•<a^ v('h, ' .4 d a k ,yr 7., 'k wt q.v' ``a.'.y r7 Ja t 3 u +: 5 a 0 •).. +' A� n. a
h iN,4h
Acceptable.
I LI
Com,Hams recommended removing the locked gate aper applicant
suggested.
Mr. Skinner stated that the
j remove the locked gate for bicycles and pedestrians and emg y
fire district wanted a locked gate in terms of controlling entry of vehicles.
i
12-1 through_12=4:
Ms.Wardell reviewed the changes. Staff agreed with the first sentence which was added; staff
recommended"continue to monitor results of scientific studies". Keep"potential formation available to th all effects
all new residents
Staff suggested expanding the sentence and make all current in
of that portion",so that you would not have to notify persons in the seminary area: Staff recommended
deleting last sentence(reference to PG&E).
s Com.Harris stated that it was her understanding that the developer was required to set the dwelling
back. Com.Mahoney stated that it was not a significant impact in the EIR. Ccros.Austin and Mahoney
were not in agreement.
Com.Harris stated that was decided in the constraint map. Com.Mahoney indicated he would agree.
ges: Retain the next two sentences: continue to monitor and review
Com.Harris reviewed the chan
nt information available to all new residents,add"of the Cristo
potential health effects and malr:all curre ;
Rey area";. remove"request PG&E to change configuration of high voltage transmission". Com. Harris
questioned the sentence"request the developer....to substantiate the appropriate .:' Staff stated that it has been precluded the decision to impose a setback.
a
Devised to non-significant.
t,ef;n�ti(In of Develonmen in Ooen Space Arm
Ms, Wardell stated that staff did not have any comments to add.
Com.Harris asked where the fences were located. Ms. Wardell explained Could be hat if an area is as part of
d
as open space;the private property owner does not have control over it,it
the 90%. It is possible that fencing would he allowed. Ms.Wardell sten methodtneeds t be used. She explained
different methods used to calculate opeed that there had been two.
n space and a concisopen
that staff set consistent definition which stated only areas that are dedicated of a em
lot on thele s de was
space,private open space limited in some way are counted as the 90
part
E., not developed,unless restricted in some way, it would not count as the 90%, nor are the streets open
4 space.
"+ 20
. . ._... ... .- a:�..�._h ,u�;-+ , .5�,�.-N" 7k-"� s urt•4 ..�: ,„* � ro. �..r �:n rr r - x} � av r ' `kt�-�., ..
j
r +
`• .3`!'. .,' 6�'..�;..- h+9 .�i`r �z �� 4;. yi�t",}x c++��. y �.?a�Gg .tq".ur; ..�wj{��,41 '
5 ,.� 4, I v,u 4 � -Mit x tq )> .}'r Z u �i�. 4.rY ux aa.-K � 1"`�'.his n b' I i 7-; { -.G �t n? r rs• 2.:. ! Pf.�d. s t t
�Y Y. ♦G �t N �..- .` tb Vt `w 7 a
� _
r
r
Referring to a chart,Ms.Wardell explained that some of the alternatives on 7, 8 and 9 that were
® presented previously were indicated as 8 and 9 having 90%open space and 10%development and that'is
incorrect:. Staff agrees with.what the applicant said is the ratio for those alternat,s.
5 "
Chair Roberts noted that the chart indicated the definition and the den.%' And gross areas including
streets for each lot for each project parcel. Ms. Wardell indicated tr Lac chart would be available as
part of the packet on June 29th to discuss the alternatives.
Chair Roberts discussed alternatives 8 and 9 of the applicant's proposal and questioned the missing
acres.'Mr.Bruner referred to the illustrative plan shown in the exhibit of the public open space
dedicated to a public agency versus the exYabit outlining the three different areas of open space in
applicant's proposal. Mr.Bruner stated there were three large open spaces.
Com.Harris questioned the figures presented in alternatives 8 and 9 relating to the 178 unit and 192
plans. Mr.Bruner stated that the figures had not been reviewed by him and he was not certain the
method used for calculation. He stated that he was not aware of any develnpe: :area that was more than
f 5 or 6 units to the acre. Chair Reberts asked that the figures be verified bei) real ration of the
document. 5
7 NEXT�TEPS
® Ms.Wardell explained that the next meeting for discussion of the item is June 29th. Agenda items will
include traffic and preferred alternatives. Bubble diagrams of the alternatives not containing site plans,
will be distributed. Ms. Wardell stated that copies of the traffic report would be sent out with the agenda
packets for the June 29th meeting. She asked that commission members bring copies of the alterritivcs
to the meeting. Discussion of the item is continued to June 29, 1995.
8. CANCELLATION OF AUGUST 28, 1995 MEETING: .
. 3
Motion: Com.Austin moved to cancel the August 28, 1995 meeting.
Second: Com.Mahoney 4-0
Vote: Passed
9. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.to the meeting of June 20, 1995 at 5:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Elizabeth Ellis,Minutes Clerk
- s
21
iy
3
-
h
® CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON AUGUST 14,1995 i
q
ORDER OF BUSINESS
a SALUTE TO'.'_'HE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Harris,Mahoney,Chairman Doyle.
Commissioners absent: Austin,Roberts.
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner;Michelle Bjurman,Associate Planner; Robert Kilian,Attorney; 3
Anu Natarajan,Planning Intern;and Tom WiNs, Planning Intern.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
d
' July 13, 1995 adjourned meeting:
3 Com. Harris requested that reference to votes taken be amended to indicate the names of the
dissenting votes.
r MOTION: Com.Harris moved that approval of the minutes of the July 13, 1995 meeting
be continued to the August 14, 1995 meeting to allow the corrections to include I
the names of the dissenting votes where mentioned.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
'i ABSENT: Coms.Austin,Roberts
;t
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
July 18, 1995 adjourned meeting:
The following amendments were made to the July 18, 1995 minutes:
f Page 1, Item 1: Com. Harris questioned the reference to ten alternatives under"Environmental
Detennination"pointing out that more than ten alternatives were evaluated overall. Com. Harris
asked staff to report the correct number of alternatives to reference in the document.
Page 11: In response to Com. Harris' question, reference to "POS" on Page l I of the minutes
was clarified as"public open spare". She requested that the term be spelled out in the table.
' Page.12: Com. Harris requested clarification of the first motion. City Planner Wordell Ix
s f
explained that Mr. Kilian recommended wording along the lines of "any open space that is �
normally required of other developments would be required of this."
111111C11 1,
Elm
Y 'I�
x yli
v `gyp nta'c ;k
r�,+ (.� f x. aa,;�a�. ' �.,�'s;:'j� t_"ao} '.r', ✓ r� .l A vy {.'a� "r rye.p'�,> e"y ;Jtit'.+,r'fi�r ..
'fid� i1,.]
s 1 ,,, f � •` ;' .: -, ' . . Z: �Augusf 14, 1995
Planriing'Commission Minutes
Page '121rYthparagraph om bottom: "Following a lengthy discussion..." Com. Harris
requested that the minutes be reflected to indicate specifica!ly what the Planning Commission
discussed for the property relative to the 55 units,and stated that the minutes should reflect that
range and what the three different ones were.
MOTION: 'Com.Harris moved that the approval of the Juiy 18, 1995 minutes be postponed
to the August 14, 1995 meeting to incorporate the changes mentioned.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Coms.Austin,Roberts
VOTE Passed . 3-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Communications received from Mr.Tim Robertson
referring to the Portofino project,and the addendum to the development agreement between the
City of Cupertio and Hewlett-Packard were noted.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
3. Application No.: 9-U-95,8-Z-95 and 16-EA-95
Applicant: Cupertino City Center
Property Owner: Cupertino City Center
Location: East side of Torre Avenue between Stevens Creek Blvd.and
Rodriguez Ave.
Use Permit to construct 25 single family homes on 2.41 acres. Zoning to allow low to medium
density residential development.' -
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 5, 1995.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF {
a
AUGUST 28, 1995.
4. Application No.: 25-U-90(Mod.)
Applicant: PG&E
Properly Owner: Same
Location: 10900 No. Blaney Avenue
A
r�
Use Permit Modification to install a soils recycle power screen. a
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt. *
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 28, 1995.
.5. Application No.- 1-TM-95
Applicant: Maximo Perez r
Property Owner: Same "
Location: 21221 Rainbow Drive
r
.t
r
1
r✓1t Fk:a.iid ..:i n +tT Y'[ YAd y�i. a X' L /� r'
r.
� 2 �-r
• "-S}+ kT;.�a "la.r�'�.„w , 'S.,.i.t¢"x �..1t 4 t2.,H +.�+f'� 5 �f��y F �5 ty;�.3.sr�".� u`+;,'_l`.bf I..I�'�'� ,{s. �'��" '�'S 'jF� :�;�'+ - - .a h 2. . �•
..e S "a •�C ati- Fa h , H y .l. ,; a�`...f fd^� x.':— `t y�, $'yi' c a ,n, i,,i. e' l7 si H r.P. s�aria .,e.;.e d,SL' Xi
, ;($ '4�• :r i r r•' Y d;;r, F �,,.>'�a��rys5u�tc, `'S..
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August`14; I9SIS
' Temative M to subdivide a.49 acre
Map parcel into one lot and one remainder parcel. _
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA;70N: Categorically Exempt,
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 28, 1995.
F '
6. Application No.: 3-TM-94(Mod.)
Applicant: Ju-Ping Chang(Emily Chang),The E&H First F.L.P.
Property Owner: Ju-Ping Chang(Emily Chang),The E&H First F.L.P.
Location: 19340 Phil Lane
Modification regarding tree protection bond.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt.,
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
? REQUEST CONTINUANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 28, 1995.
1
7. Application No.: 2-V-95,3-EXC-95 and 12-EA-95
Applicant: Matthews Land Company
Property:Owner: Jensen Corporation
Location: 10950 North Blaney*Avenue
vp Variance to allow a 3,foot setbac'. and•a 4 foot side setback where a 50 foot setback from
property lines is required(Municip .; Code Section 19.60). Exception to allow a 75 foot cellular
telephone monopole antenna wherf j5 feet is allowed(Municipal Code Section 19.108.030).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
° PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION _FINAL UNLESS APPEALED. APPLICATION
i WITHDRAWN.
,MOTION:. Com.Mahoney moved to continue Items 3 through 6 to the August 28, 1995
t:
meeting.`
SECOND: Com.Harris
s ABSENT:� Coms.Austin,Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
It was noted that Item 7 was withdrawn from applicant and would not be d'cscussed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
-1: Application: Interpretation of front yard setback
Applicant: Joyce Knight
Property Owner: Richard T.and Joyce J. Knight
Location: , 10222 Carmen Road
4
r_x r AA
w 'fzr -.Sr.
'.'� A
i z S r
` Planaing Commission Minutes August 14..1995
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
�. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
4 MOTION: Com.Harris moved that the Consent Calendar be approved in its entirety.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Coms.Austin,Roberts
}
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
ARCHTI!'ECTURAL REVIEW:
2. Application No.: 5-ASA-95
A?plicant: Cary Queen
Property Owner: Same
Location: 228:10 San Juan Road
Architectural site approval to modify landscape and architectural plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt. .
9LANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
Staff presentation: Associate Planner Bjurman reviewed the background of the item as outlined
in the attached staff report. Referring to the site map, she pointed out that the items for
discussion were modifications in the landscape plan and building..iodifications as set forth in the
staff report. Ms. Bjurman summarized that staff recommended approval of the proposed
changes.
In response to a question from Com.Harris,Ms.Bjurman stated that the'tree replacements would
be planted in similar locations to the original trees.
Ms.Bjurman stated that there are up to 150 existing oak trees and additional reforestation of the
hillside given the concept of the architect's design is not necessary.
Mr. Andrew Stewart, Kornberg and Associates, addressed the Planning Commission. Referring
to the site map,he explained the proposed landscape plan and responded to questions.
k
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved approval of Item 5-ASA-95 for the model
resolution.
SECOND: Chairman Doyle
NOS: Com. Harris
ABSENT: Corns.Austin and Roberts
VOTE:. Passed '2-1-0
'
Com. Harris stated she felt the original plan was convincing because of the commitment of the ,
owner to plant saplings on the hillside behind the property. She stated that part of the beauty of
the original design when viewing the property from the hill and the valley -would be a forested
hill, and;it would now be a blank hill, which was not-the original presentation and was not
t ® acceptable to her. s
8. Application No.: 1-DA-95 and 20-EA-9-` bf
y
at
t 31
s
r
T y „,
i
, � °'til bid-•gnY>3Z•! ��� YF �,'Sruy} i7a' Y Wi 1 1 { :-f s. 1 a .
MCI
Planning Commission Minutes s August 14 1995
Applicant: Hewlett-Packard
Property Owner. Hewlett-Packard
r Location: The Hewlett-Packard site contains approximately 95 acres and is
r1 bounded by Homestead Rd.,Tantau Ave.,Pruneridge Ave.,and.
Wolfe Rd.
A public hearing to consider the approval of a Development Agreement to permit Hewlett-
-Packard or successor in interest,to construct new buildings and develop a master site plan based
{
upon the entitlements contained in the.City of Cupertino General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 5, 1995.
Corn. Mahoney indicated that he would abstain from voting ion the item because of his
association with Hewlett-Packard. Mr. Kilian clarified that for purposes of a quorum, when
there is a.conflict of interest declared, it does-not defeat the quorum, therefore the Planning.
Commission would still be meeting as a legal body on discussion of the item and could make a
decision on the item.
Staffpresentation: Director Cowan reviewed the attached staff report which summarized the
application to seek a Development Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Hewlett-
Packard (HP) for building construction-and development of a master plan based upon current
general plan policy.Mr.Cowan explained that the modification of the language of the agreement
was necessary. Using overheads,he reviewed key elements of the Development Agreement and k.
® the addendum to the Development Agreement. .
r Mr. Cowan stated that the main approach to file item this evening was to discuss the agreement
in concept, and decide if'it should be recommended to the City Council to embark upon the
if so, discuss some of the concepts. He stated that staff
Development Agreement, and
recommends the Development Agreement in concept.
In response to a question from Com. Harris, Mr. Cowan stated that the Heart of the City did not
apply to the site.
Mr.Cowan explained that the property owners would be able to develop the properties based on
the application of the floor area ratio(FAR). In addition,for the Industrial and R&D users,there t
is another pot of 150,000 square feet that would allocated among the three large companies. HP
would;,be requesting that as part of the agreement. He,stated that Apple Computers was
requesting their proportional share of the 150,000:quare feet. He stated that if the Deveiopment
Agreement was approved,HP's allacation would be locked in.
In response to questions from Chairman Doyle, Mr. Cowan stated.that the agreement wouid not
!I
lock in Tier 2 space.. He pointed out that the City Council indicated that it would not grant f6
Development Agreements for Tier 2 space. Mr. Cowan explained that future proposals would
follow the normal City Council and Planning Commission processes.
Mr. Kilian explained the fee structure and the locked in fees. He stated that the use of theAM P
property, the maximum density, we maximum, height, schedule of development and the
exactions in terms of dedication of-land would be locked in subject to use permit approval. Ile
ig
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 14, 1995
explained that the City imposed fees such building permit fees, city taxes, etc., would he
applicable like any other development at the time of the building permit. However. file City
would not be free to add a new type of fee to the development except in certain limited
circumstances and would not be allowed to extend an existing fee that is on tite books but does
k` not apply to the,particular land.
;r
A brief discussion ensued regarding fees wherein staff answered Commissioners' questions.
Mr. Marcel Koren, Hewlett-Packard, clarified that under the Dev elopment Agreement, IIP
wanted to ensure that it could proceed with plans to expand, to build morebuildings as needed.
HP was not asking to lock Tier 2 at this time. He stated that the present site is underutilized. I le
provided an update on the progress in R&D and outlined the impact, if any, of the fulurc
development of HP at that site. He stated HP agreed with the Planning Commission's
µ interpretation of the fees as discussed.
' In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Mr. Koren stated that there was a lack of
precision in HP development agreement because HP is not ready at this time to design in detail
every building,the exact location on the sites,and was looking at concept only at this time.
�i
Com. Harris questioned if some of the buildings on the site were office as opposed to R&D or
industrial,and whether the floor area ratio of.37 would apply or would it be .33 industrial? Mr.
Cowan responded that it was difficult to distinguish between office and R&D. The General Plan
map designates it as industrial and the language in the General Plan is quite clear.. "rhe industrial
classification is.33,plus the extra 50,000 square feet.
Responding to an earlier question, Mr. Cowan stated that there is a provision for landmark
buildings in Vallco Park and in the Town Center area, if the buildings are of extra high quality
and include public gathering places, the Commission has the discretion to go from 60 to 75 feet
for the:height of the buildings. Mr. Kilian pointed out that it applied not only to height of
buildings,but also to intensities,sizes of buildings,and floor area ratios.
keep g
Com.Harris asked,Mr.Cowan to address the issue of requiring development in order to khe
- P t
right to develop. Mr.Cowan stated that staff felt that there needed to be some assurance that UIP
would proceed,and that-the square footage could not be set aside for a period of 20 years.
Com. Harris asked what the benefit to the City was to requiring the 250,000 feet be built in order
to keep the agreement in effect. Mr. Cowan said it was a matter of not hoarding the space; if
there is'a Development Agreement granted, something Should be built. He stated there is also a
financial benefit to the community; major electronics companies provide a good tax measure for
j`. the city as well.
r�
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input.
Mr. Douglas Aiken, Attorney representing Hewlett-Packard, addressed the Commission and
g questioned if a conceptual approval on the strategic issues could be granted at the meeting; to bo
forward to the City Council. Mr. Kilian responded that the law mandates a Development
Agreement be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and if all the issues are
dealt with, it is not necessary that there be a finalized document for their approval assuming that
ff�yr
111 :1 Ni
WE
{ '4i
..� - oe
4� r
-1-�; �,.;._ a {r. 3 a { G,dxr7 °-M ^ 'cit :,�n x F{�,,,a ;,4 A✓ .e..,r�Klia�fy,� rr^F�y�T���y� l,l�'t,xc/a^7! i�h"s ix�' �, f e.:1Ew
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 14, 1995
the conceptual ideas and decisions are thorough; HP would not have to return to the Planning
Commission if it was comfortable making decisions at this meeting.
Chairman Doyle stated that he felt he would not be able to make a final decision at this meeting
because he was not comfortable with reaching a decision on making a 20 year commitment in a
period of 15 minutes.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the public hearing.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle, Mr. Kilian explained the terns under which the
agreement could be terminated or modified. Mr.,Kilian stated that it could be terminated only on
j mutual agreement of the parties unless breached by one of the parties. Normally there would not
be the ability for the City to unilaterally change conditions of development or rules regarding
development or exactions.
Mr. Cowan stated that the Planning Commission should decide if it is interested in
recommending to the Council the agreement and then give direction on fundamental concepts
j discussed at the meeting.
Com. Harris supported the development plan and said a 20 year period was acceptable. She
stated that it was.acceptable that the design was not specified because what is being locked in is
the size of the permitted development. The affordable housing mitigation manual is being
worked on and if the agreement is signed prior to the City Council acting on the manual.
whatever conditions.are approved on the affordable housing as it relates to this project, those
items should apply to this project. She stated that she didn't feel that development needed to be
mandated to keep the agreement in effect, or at least spread it out longer and not require that
250,000 of the feet be completed within 10 years; 90,000 is.adequate for the first 5 years,
100,000 by 10 years, and stage it out some at 15. She pointed out that if the owner commences
construction of new structures,that language should be adjusted.
x
Com. Harris stated that she had a different opinion on the fees. The intent of the user is to lock
in the right to build,not to lock in today's fees, and it is not.appropriate.to lock in today's fees
and fee levels on a development to take place 10 or 15 years from now because the effect of
inflation is not known. She said she was not comfortable approving the section as it stands. She
said she would support tying it to the stages of development; in the first 5 years using the present
fees, at the 5 year point, use the applicable iees at that time and at the 10 year point use the
applicable fees at that time and so on; or build inflation in. She reiterated she was not
comfortable locking in today's fees. '
Chairman. Doyle supported a Development Agreement and stated that they werebeneficial if r
they were.-in existence to protect both the City and the business. He said lie would like more
information on the 20 year timeframe as 20 years seemed excessive for a building development.
In response to Chairman Doyle's question about housing, mitigation, Mr. Cowan stated that-it
was being reviewed by the City Council and Com. Harris' comments were well founded. Staff
would inform the City Council that the Planning Commission's recommendation was that the '
housing mitigation program be adopted prior to adopting the Development Agreement, or that
the agreement state that the housing mitigation manual rules apply. Chairman Doyle stated that
Tier 2 should not he a part of'the agreement. He requested a clear model of how an agreement 3
would be brought before the Planning Commission in the future for a clear understanding of the ,
t
1
t'r:.'�.., 1
+,x�C r..._ n✓.1 4���> r`�" r ��K> f +;5 t � s }� w: ' d n.c r
.. _>t S •l �t� t S`1 r �t� .., r�,t S �� , r r t9 l` l +P r Fx�r �H�� � f ..
Planning Commission Minutes a August 14;-.1995 ,y
t" content and scope.. He said it was important to have performance requirements such as square
footage in a time period to make sure there is some commitment and some development going
on.He supported the 50,000 square-foot requirement. Concerning development rights.Chairman
Doyle stated the importance of entering into a long term agreement with an organization such as
a HP to ensure,that they can.execute on their plans, and from the City's standpoint it is important
for:the city to have a good relationship with a company.
Mr.Kilian stated that a decision was needed on fees as the direction was unclear.
Chairman Doyle stated that inflation should be covered as well as additional fees which may
exist in 10 years that are not in existence today, that this proposal isn't exempt from those Ices
on what is yet to be developed at that time,not what is developed ahead of that time.
j
i Following discussion regarding a feasible fee structure, there was consensus to implement a fee
structure with increments such as five year or on a per project basis.
Com.Harris pointed out that the Development Agreement was of vital importance and stated that h
she felt a 2:0 vote would not be advantageous on record and requested the matter be held over
until a time when a full Planning Commission was present to vote on the matter. Chairman
Doyle concurred with Com:Harris. A discussion followed regarding continuance of the item.
Mr. Kilian asked for input on the assignability of the rights, and questioned whether HP should
be held responsible and not be able to assign it to a different company.
® Chairman Doyle.stated that it should not be assignable unless approved by the City Council. i
Com. Hams stated she supported the right to assign because a company in its business plan
should be able to make a decision to transfer their interest or if they were involved in some
unforeseen circumstance such as bankruptcy.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to continue Item S to the September 11, 1995 meeting.
SECOND: Chairman Doyle
ABSTAIN: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Corns.Austin and Roberts
VOTE: Passed 2-0-1
Mr. Koren stated that HP would prefer to proceed on the item today or at the next meeting.
Referring to'assignability of rights, he stated that HP would not assign the right outside of thc
site boundary,but he felt it should be assignable in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
a. 9. Applicrtion No.(s): 2-G?A-95 and 18-EA-95
Applicant: Citation Homes Central
X Property Owner: Citation Homes Central
Location: Southeast corner of DeAnza Blvd.and Homestead Rd.
General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from 20-35 to 10-20 dwelling units '
per gross acre.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended.
y
' TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: September 5, 1995.
1�
k^
fr,., ,C;..w"M K����ya��i��� t�S�� � Y L•t..f! kt 2'�'�'' E4. ^yP�. r t r..,,7 { r J.,,. },. • t. + y : a ° Yaw:•sT {,A
Planning Commission Minutes 9
_ August 14, 1995
Y Staff pa=ntatoon: Mr. Cowan reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the attached !
staff report. Referring to Exhibit A illustrating ranges, he disrusszd the density comparisons.
Mr.Cowan stated that staff recommended approval of the general plan change to redesignate the a
subject 18 acre site from residential 20-35 to residential 10-20.
+, Mr.Pong Ng,Citation Homes,stated that the request was to initiate a general plan amendment to
lower the density designation to 10 to 20 units per acre and stated he felt it was a proposal
' beneficial to the City and Citation Homes.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input. /
Dr. Frances Winslow, 20405 Via Volante, Cupertino addressed the Planning Commission and
read the attached letter regarding the construction of the multi-family dwelling phase of Corsica.
specifically the change in density of the development.
Referring to the overhead map of the original development, Dr. Winslow clarified that in Phase 2
the Planning Commission in 1989 specifically required the development of the recreational open
space before Phase 3, so that before all the homes were built there was adequate recreational
`4 amenities for the entire 18 acres and the last group would become additional users of existing
amenities. She expressed concern that if the Planning Commission grants the downzoning, the
developer might come back and say there is no land to put the basketball and tennis courts in the
open space areas shown on the map around the buildings because they are consumed with ground
Icvel parking.
Chairman Doyle asked Mr.Kilian if the downzoning was approved,would the issue in Condition
15 be nullified: Mr. Kilian stated that it wouldn't be nullified, but that there was a pending
x lawsuit and condition that applies; however, by downzoning, open space would need to be
' clarified without tying it into either the existing Condition 15 from 1989 or a particular solution.
He stated if downzoning was approved, there should be some general language in the general
plan recommendation stating consideration for recreational and open space areas should be made
not only for Phase 2 apartment development,but also for other parts of the total development.
Mr. Cowan expla mcd that the City Council has not completed deliberations with regard to the
issue of transferiIII rights of open space access to the particular development, but the model
resolution clarified that the City Council and Planning Commission would have the ability to
evaluate the pending multi-family development to make sure that it met the internal open space
needs as well as the needs of the adjoining Corsica development. He stated that the 140 unit s
proposal submitted by Corsica might not be feasible and more open space would have to be
made available and a loss of units to a lower density to make it work.
k
t
Mr.Kilian stated that the issue did not have to be settled at this meeting because the City Council
would be addressing it,but the general feeling for availability of open space could be expressed.
Mr. Cowan added that a statement could be used that the 6.2 acre property might have to meet .
recreation needs of the entire development.
Chairman Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. l
I
NMI I
Muo-
t I
t
a 1
J. r e..r •. ^v;YE }Nay1.,.. f�,.•.� A'«+'t ah' }". •:.,, u! +r
# 37`
.t,.. # y*# .✓y-.4 � �w ! 3't.:,t ,+� .:s S :' t>' �,:t` -+'aNk_6r
sE � v ertf s 4
to August 14 '1995
Planning Commission Minutes
Mr.Ng said he felt the opposite was true of Dr. Winslow's comment that do
wnaoning actually
® limited the alternative projects to be built on site. He said if the project was downzoncd to 10 to ;
20,a podium design of 226 units could be done because it would bring the density to 18.9 on the
average site. Without the downzoning, there wouldn't be the possibility of building a 140 unit
project.
Chairman Doyle asked if Citation, was including the original agreement for open space in the
proposal. Mr. Ng stated that the developer would not be building exactly what Mariani had
proposed. He said the developer does not have the identical elements that Mariani had shown
on:the illustrated plan but have alternate things not shown on Mariani's plan.
_suggested that it be informally, stated that the
Com. Mahoney expressed his support, but
objective is not to reduce potential.recreational area or open space in a general sense; he said the
applicant should net be misled that it may not be an issue when presented to the Planning
Commission.
Com. Harris stated she supported,the lower density development, 140 units is better Than over
F 200;there will be less traffic. She said she did not like podium developments because they are
tall and very visible; the tradeoff is worth it. There will be less open space needed to support
.�R 140 people than to support over 200. The original Phase I open space which was intended to
serve Phase 3 did not have basketball and tennis courts and if ,�: lawsuit proceeds and if tl�c
space is open to the Corsica owners,they will have the benefit to that space. However, we have
aiready,stated in our last proposal to City Council that Phase 3 should have open space provided
t in Phase 1 they are required to have it in Phase 3
at this development and if they do not have i
and would tike to have it included in the general plan agreement.
Chairman Doyle stated he supported the lower density development, but said that the
downzoning should not reduce the requirement for open space provided in the original proposal.
Com. Harris stated she supported providing Phase 3 with the open space existing in Phase I. If
that fails, legally the proposal made that whatever develops in terms of amenities on Phase 2 be
' utilized.
Chairman Doyle stated that he would keep it simple at the rezoning level and worry about the
details.
Following a brief discussion, there was consensus that a minute order would state that the
undeveloped multi-family property should be designed to accommodate some of the open space
needs of the other phase of the development.
Chairman Doyle suggested approval of the :'.,:•,,vnzoning as stated, with a statement being added
f that it should not impact the open space requirements that have been previously stated.
r y
:mss. Kilian suggested approval of the downzoning with an understanding that the issue of
. ,
whether open space is available for the Corsica development adjacent is a reserved issue
depending.upon the outcome of othe-decisions with respect to the property.
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve Application 2-GPA-95 general plan change
based on the model resolution adding the subconclusions incorporated by
;rr ,
� 4
IYa — y
.� r
IV,a"jµd}e �, 3 x"� wy a'i„ti't e{
1 Y a C"Tr s i fS'. x > b .a'YLrt t 4 I a Sal fw a d:
rt
�t 14, 1995 ,
Planning Commission Minutes August
references as fully set forth herein in the development of the property at.
t`rat density. Consideration also needs to be placed on the potential for
supplying recreational space to the adjacent units. ry
n
SECOND: Chairman Doyle
ABSENT: Corns.Austin and Roberts
sNOS: Com.Harris
to
VOTE: Passed 2-1-0
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to approve the granting of a Negative Declaration for
Application 2-GPA=95 and 18-EA-95
�x '
SECOND: Com.Harris
ABSENT Corns.Austin and Roberts
S VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
Com. Harris asked to go on record as.approving the downzoning with the issue being the open
space avaiiability to the adjacent units.
Chairman Doyle declared a recess at 8:50 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:10 p.m. the same y
members were present.
10: Application No.: 7-U-95 and 17-EA-95
Applicant: Target IIomestead
Property Owner: Sam:-
AMk Location: 20956#Al Homestead
Use Permit to locate a restaurant in an existing shopping center.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended..
PLANNING COMMISSIOW DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
slaffpresentat : City Planner Wordell reviewed the background of the item as outlined on the
proposed arkingthe
attached staff report. Ms.Wordell stated that
at the applicant pprovallofthe usestpermalls �rand
restaurant and will restripe the parking to
r;
the negative declaration.
The Planning Commission had no questions of the applicant.
a Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input. As there was none, the public
input portion was closed.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved approval of 7-U-95 and 17-EA-95 as per the model
resolution.
SECOND: Coro.Mahoney
ABSENT: Corns.Austin and Roberts
Y
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
Chairman Doyle moved the agenda to Item 12.
12. Application No.: 24-U-88(Mod.)
WE'a" '- u4
A
r:, [•. .Ix, --rt t c} .h si,,i ;hi +iH, i .'`A<+1(d,{ri h�;JktY"ret ?°T+.r`f kp^�f� 1s.k:�� F-."hy-+ ��}}�y� �-+�14 xi'��.� 'v->"r r S
.,i ,.-1�: 1 :4 r}7-�.. -F•yv d ,.d ! f i. r� I ( � i• � r t ,�n x� ,y,!` i i:s;.t �x1 4 �k
A Planning Commission Minutes .. 12 August,14, 1995
rApplicant: YMCA -Santa Clam Valley
" Property Owner. Same
Location: 20803 Alves Drive
Use Permit Modification to construct a paved area.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
a recantation: Ms. Wordell introduced Planning Intern Tom Wiles and provided a brief
kground. Referring to the site master plan, Mr. Wiles reviewed the attached
history of his bac
staff report. Mr.Wiles stated that staff recommended approval of th--�model resolution.
Mr. John Heckforth, Higgins & Root Architects, 400 Blossom Hiil Road, Los Gatos, addressed
the Commission. He stated that he has worked with closely with staff on the project.
;r In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Wiles stated that the 8 foot high fence would be
used in the play area along the north property line to mitigate noise and safety concerns. lie
indicated that staff had contacted neighbors about the building of the 8 foot high fence and they
voiced no concerns.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for public input. As there was none, the public
>`* input portion of the hearing was closed.
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve Application No.24-U-88(M)use permit
modification per the model resolution.
':.
SECOND: Coin:Ilar,'�s
e j ABSENT: :oms.Austin am's Roberts
VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
PAW BUSINESS:
` 13. Application No.: 9-U-94(Mod.)
Applicant: Charles O. Forge/Eileen Hutching Co.Trustees
Property Owner. Charles O. Forge/Eileen Hatching Co.Trustees
n Location: 20691 Homestead Road
} Use Permit recommendation from the Planning Commission for an administrative approval of a
minor change in a project in accordance with Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipaj Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt.
PI,AIv'NING COMMISSION DETERMINATION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
c n a on Ms. Wordell reviewed the background o:th%; item as outlined in the attached
�fff prPP-�-�1�--
staff report and answ-red Commissioners' questions. Referring to Exhibits A and B diagram of
the elevations of the buildings,Ms. Wordell reviewed the proposed modifications. Ms. Wordell
r ` stated staff m ommended approval of all suggested changes.
r Y
k
�qqq
.�'•.?l` r }
,•r nt `f ta }y} Y 5�1 Jl,y o�, A t. k... ]nr 4 i''.'� �i 'J0.t� 'f,3• tas,l � fr*.,! t,y,,c ,s
Planning Commission Minutes 13 August 14. 1995 '.
MnAft Jim:Sisk, 19622 Stevens Creek Boulevard addressed the Commission. Referring to the
Mr. Sisk explained`the revised fire trudk access. A discussion
diagram of the.complex,
followed regarding the impact of the fire truck access on the picnic area.
A brief discussion followed regarding the location of trees. Mr. Sisk responded to questions
about the modifications to the recreation and picnic area.
Com.Harris expressed concern about the change to the turf field because of the fire truck access.
21 She stated that the concept of the turf field was to allow a place for children to play in a large
area. Following a brief discussion,there was consensus to contact the fire department regarding
the change of the fire truck access.
MOTION: Com.Harris moved that 9-U-94 modified according to the model resolution
with a caveat that the fire department be approached to see if they could have a
plan that would not encroach on the two public spaces as much.
r SECOND: Com.Mahoney
ABSENT: Corns.Austin and Roberts
t VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
Chairman Doyle moved the agenda back to Item 11.
11. Application No.(s): 3-U-66(Mod.)
Applicant: The Stewards of the Church of Assembly in Cupertino
Property Owner: Same
Location: 20075 Bollingee Road
Use Permit Modification to increase parking spaces at an existing church site.
1 k
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FINAL UNLESS APPEALED.
Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell introduced Anu Natarajan, Planning Intern and gave, a brief
history of her background. Ms. Natarajan reviewed the background of the item as outlined in
the attached staff report, stating that the applicant was seeking to increase the.parking spaces ir
the parking lot from 37 to 72 stalls. Ms.Natarajan explained that the applicant has a two phase
proposal,the first of which was being presented for increase in parking stalls. The second phase
would be improvement to the existing church site and was being presented for information only
at this time. +
Mr. Joseph Chang. The Stewards of the Church Assembly in Cupertino, addressed the k
Commission, and provided a background of the church. Referring to the aerial map, he L,
r illustrated future plans for the growth of the church and the adjoining property. Mr. Chang
explained the need for the expansion of the parking lot. Responding to questions, Mr. Chang
i+ pointed out the proximity of the church to the residential and commercial properties.
Ms. Billie Cramb, 20090 La Roda Court, discussed the attached letter regarding flooding t f
problems relative to the church property dating back about fifteen years. She explained that the
n previous property owners brought land fill onto the church property which raised the ground ,
y` level approximately four feet,creating flooding problems and privacy problems for the neighbors
; ,..,-,.,.� .. 4..��.0 a ���` m`ta r .r�� ���sfz N ^ac�c'•- s ry� �ar •r.'a .�y'�;e:a# #
t r
{ 9`
11�� ��41W `MT n"{ 1 br IYAr'x•4q F�'h TY11 A, k Y a Y .Sf � Y(. t'
Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995
behind the fence. In resNnse to a question from Com. Harris, Ms. Cramb stated that the City
made improvements to the drainage ditch in the northeast corner of the property and a large ditch
„f was duff east to west across the property line.
In response to a question from Chairman Doyle about the City's involvement in the issue of the
different elevations and mitigations, Ms. N'atarajan stated that there was a Cupertino Sanitary
District 10 foot easement that runs along the site adjacent to the property line. She stated that a
r
condition exists in the resolution which specifies that the grading plan will be approved by the
Cupertino Sanitary District and the Building Department before any building permits are issued.
3, Com. Harris stated the permit for the parking spaces was acceptable to her because it doesn't go
near the area brought up by the public, and at the time further development plans are brought in,
the issue could be addressed further. She pointed out ;hat av the property did not suticr in the {
floods last winter,the mitigation efforts made by the city probably was effective. She said the
y city should address the issue on future development plans. Com. Harris supported the proposal
at this time without it.
Com. Mahoney supported the use permit modification,stating that in the future he would like to
take another look at the landscaping. He suggested that the applicant work at levelling the area
in the back when the equipment is available.
Chairman Doyle supported the parking improvement. He recommended Ms. Cramb working
' with staff to know the options available to mi4igate the area.
k �
Ms.Natarajan stated that the present landscaping plah was adequhte but applicant would add to
the landscaping in the second phase. !
MOTION: Com.Harris moved to approve 3-U-66(Mod.)use pe-mit modification as F r
j model resolution.
SECOND: Com. Mahoney
r'4W ABSENT: Coms:Austin, Roberts
Y' VOTE: Passed 3-0-0
OLD BUSINESS:None
n
RE,PORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Com. Harris discussed the attached letter she wrote to the City Council regarding the affordable
housing mitigation manual and asked for input from the Commissioners on the content of the r
letter. She reported on the recent City Council meeting when the Council reviewed the Planning
Commission's recommendation of changes for mitigation,stating that tt .--•e appeared to be a lack
of understanding on their part of various issues. Mr. Cowan stated that the issue will be
discussed at.the August 28 meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
There was a discussion regarding the modifications to Fontana's Restaurant. Mr. Cowan +�
reported that the number of seats in the restaurant will not change. He stated that the Council
was concerned about the flat roof elements of the building.
r,
,f A i r"+. i° ,y L �Fi H S• k .K �' ��. S ry,�: l rJ�r S"h Y-e� 71'sk1��
• ± f._ h ! -Sh ro m, � Y .;--.�, '4.^ h k .}s,-_5�' 4 r n„L t•!y - $ P 4aa d"+r ri4 1 T Pf '.•Y y 5 b
,•,+ti:' } - ,r t v rt., R r), �� S a r S• �s-: I'+p -} s ht C' ^+
1 y + r °` i. "'i,v"• � rs°1:Y.��5n•a?ti�'+ :%�"�” �w � ;`fir•' P ' r �t "N v a };:? �' �:,�' i i ,fY l r`.T�'1
1. l V ♦ '/ 'ry L A f.. r Y i y 5 tt {a y a }� IA +'
o`,
e,
ji n • 1 f 1. • ,5-N
1 'U
a•t y -
JtY, - iz
4h:
kc{.
a _
rrtrl%
t�•''
41`y f•,
h�j^
Sf�*
yr :Y•
y�7-{
�•�Hri
t�w,
•.k i.+ vs. ,,.1,,+;6i�::,;Y .: s'f....a .. y�t�, i n eyv � SafN.�*, "(�. #1' .d�"P ft
1�t�"'t e'E-1
P .R'141',
k• '•,� S9 +�'>,.wk.,`'u't•,
'4�s: .�'- # '"ik t .. r rdl_;, --•4 +x x.�� .tc�a u :"fir#43trr�":f�r
J;' a: v„lp+, Fids•"s., t c "�.',� 'tz �; '�.a, s:;es�.x*,r3tw.4^�,#K s�?Yr,..ta� t v' +' t, x�" ;;�:+ .f'(EJ'^ �F"r�Fira� .�Y s�. St+:
.;•� R t4 " y: d^ ..ya '�4 t.�j..t f � +�� "' Y,:k :L )s Y,,.uk 1a(•: w 'F"l:*
tL a r;: " x y�� . X Sky ' uwuxY� iti4rt,r,.<� aYS �P�• r c.
r •s. R S.� :.'.h:t t :y! ,.).; �; F> 1 "., y,.P•.''.,�y: ice. ,s" r , ;+4uY4.s ,.7[�•�. t •t"i., ,.�}q Cz '{lt i:�a
Ir
.f ,r,r...A" ygtk. '.•ve >.
7", —.1;;.,-.• ,n Y,..itlY t. ','i Yr ,r�.? � T x���n'fky'�-1 n.G�; ,s 1,i y �)':.£ v:.^a,f,M +b...u:a. .4' .y,....1, ��x,,•Yv`�F-k
• @ .r. 7 i,` r Y
aLYri;" r �..ul. •+ •5 f^,srs;"A '}"r r�•i«^C+S,. F r�r r.�` �A'4';�; -.'e.. �t '��.3 � t" {,�.. }�sy• +iii,2:PTv:G v. v,y ,}"�N� '�+ ,a •ye•+ W.v.
s;
�r
r i
ti
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Ave.
^E
Cupertino,CA 95014
h
t (408)777-3308
t MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO14
HELD ON JUNE 20, 1995
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE Tn THE FLAG
ROLL CAt,_.
Commissioners present: Austin,Harris,Mahoney,Vice Chair Roberts.
Commissioners absent: Doyle
t7
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Colin
Jung,Associate Planner,and Bert Viskovich,Public Works Director.
Consultant Present: Tent'Bottomley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES-None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS- Letter from the Fine Arts Commission stating their
desire and intent to participate in part of the City's,discussions pertaining to art in public
places and issues.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
item 1: Application No:- 8-U-94(Mod.)
Applicant: Citation Homes Central
Property Owner: Citation Homes Central
Locatk)n: Southeast Comer of DeAnza Blvd/Homestead Rd.
t
Request continuance to the Planning Commi;.:'.,ri i:.;ee::ng of Jane 26,
1995.
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to confi;ji.,.Item 1. to the meeting of June 26, 1995.
SECOND: Com.Austin
NOES: Com.Harris F
VOTE: Passed 3-1
j
r r�
,[y�d��i^''t'•J� ,�•dt rx , '
3 cid'GA'�l n �1:• A�ffd,j{'wr CSV � ahst �N} b,,art �i r..s,7 4Ff �,..°Y' t lF�..ti7 r ra, -' •n .z J AXI= ,, �; '.s S -.sxb t A +
;1 Cupertwna Planning`Commission Minutes2 June 20, 1995
2• Application No: 81,152 and 9-EA-95
Applicant: City of Cupertino
r
Property Owner(s): Various
Location: Properties along or near Stevens Creek Boulevard
from Highway 85 to the eastern City limits.
HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN meeting to review the progress
of the work on the draft land use and development character policies and
the land use map,streetscape and other involvements.
Staff presentation: Associate Planner Jung reviewed the staff report and outlined the
discussion for the meeting, which would include a review of the standards and design
guidelines and completion of issues included in the staff report. Mr. Jung stated that
staff anticipated finalizing the review of the Specific Plan in July to enable City Council
to begin its own review in August.
' Mr. Jung stated that Council input would be discussed as the design guidelines are
covered. A discussion ensued regarding the Council input on issues. Mr. Cowan stated
y that the primary objective of the June 5th joint meeting was to get a progress report and
direction from the Council.
Aft Vice Chair Roberts explained for the benefit of the public the comparison table of
tentative Planning Commission positions and City Council direction on the Heart of the
r' City Specific Plan.
Mr. Jung reviewed the focus of the Council's review of the draft Specific Plan. The first
area of development was along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Council agreed with the
Planning Commission's preliminary stance that the development, while it should be
encouraged in certain cental activity centers, should be available to all the commercial
development along Stevens Creek Blvd. in the specific planning area.
The second area related to mixed use development, wherein it was reported that Mayor
Dean stated he was not in favor of mixed use dwellings in Cupertino. A discussion
followed regarding mixed use developments. Mr. Jung stated that the guidelines were
neutral on horizontal,vertical or mixed use.
Mr. Jung stated that another issue was parks; specifically pocket parks. The majority of
the Council favored the pocket park concept and they directed the Planning Commission
to investigate how they could be implemented on Stevens Creek Blvd. The Council did
not clearly define pocket parks and Mr.Jung pointed out that Parks and Recreation define
pocket park.as an area with a tot lot and recreational apparatus. Planning Commission
defines it as a smaller, passive area with benches and landscaping, no recreational
equipment.
I WAAF"
_. s
in 4"}iFeF.;
{(� s fkpd til t�'t4< F °[r. lkv �'¢ .+fir.h nq a}N w� Fl��> 4 1. 1t i _ RP Y 3� `'YS.� .fid` a {x Y• a'v Ja J:1� u�-i"
,f , ^�.�' j i ! ,r, r ;Y7 d � i nti S 1 Y g •R t%��r
a Planning t;oinmission Minas 3 eluate 20;IS�3
Caipertiat
Mr.. Jung stated another issue was the informal :linkages�beMeen propetdies. The
� pedestrian Ii*tkages between adjoining commercial properties is important and shoo
ld
reflected in the Specific Plan. The visual functional access of public facilities to the
boulevard should also be considered. Quinlan Center was cited as an ek Blvd.xample of how it
tevens Crw
could be brought at least visually and functionally cI try in the guidelinnes. Mr.
Jung stated that the Council was reinforcing the language
There was a brief discussion about support for opening up Calabazas Creek to the public
E
with above-ground pedestrian oriented path and bike path.
but not a
Mr. Jung stated that Comicil was in favor of haulng
edesi architectural gn asFTopoS d by
reconstitution of ASAC. He said Council endorsed pe
the consultant.
the Comparison Table of Tentative Planning Commission
Mr. Jung reviewed Exhibit A, ific Plan, which
Positions and City Council Directions on the Heart of the City Spec design. He
included retail, office, residential, parks, access, creek access, and streetscape g
stated that on the signage issue, Council directed the Planning Commission to submit a
recommendation for a variety of signs.
`t Mr. Jung reported that although there was $1.5 million allocated for the capital
improvement program for the Heart of the City's improvements,the Council did not want
AML
to spend the entire allocation.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding parking lot landscaping requirements wherein
staff answered Commissionersquestions.
ateways. He stated the Finc Arts Commission
Vice Chair Roberts addressed the Issue of g
#
had agreed to review public art and questioned at what point would they be brought in.
Mr. Jung responded that their input would be critical when the funds were available.
Vice Chair Roberts said the gateways were envisioned in Alternatives 2 and 4. Mr. Jung
stated that there would be some mechanism for including the Fine Arts Commission input
in the design of the gateways. Staff will seek their input.
i
Discussion continued. Mr. Cowan suggested that the commission eliminate the fine
grain detail from this particular plan and have it come back at the third level if necessary.
Mr. 'Viskovich, Public Works Directory explained the n.exuy issue pertaining to the
requirements of a development and what can be expected from the developer.
Mr. Bottomley, consultant, explained the breakdown of the financing of the Mountain_
View improvements referred to earlier. He stated that from develo developers beeIausetypically
publ c
z advocate that the city try and exact whatever they can p
improvements are difficult to get.
j,
�. qq
,> ay. `tfi n ^'s, H ��c'S ! t'A�/,va7 t rvark � s.c �..x !C . —:"�: sr. Z r , "'�f et '•7.:r:, .
Cupertino Planning Con mission Minutes 4 June 20,1995
Lift
i
Vice Chair opened the hearing for public comments.
Mr. Farouk DeBoo, 10257 Knoll Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the
allocation of 500 housing units, stating that prior to the Heart of the City Plan being
implemented, 120 residential complex pennits were issued and questioned how many
more would be allowed before the Plan is solidified. He stated that he felt it questioned
the credibility of the process. Mr. DeBoo said•he felt the problem with visibility and
access was relating to design, not the trees. He also expressed concern about spending
funds on a plan and approving projects before the plan is completed.
In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Jung explained that both the City Center
project and the Swenson project calculate out to over 40+units to the gross acre on both
sides. He stated that both projects are at densities higher than what is currently proposed
in the Specific Plan.
Vice Chair Roberts responded to the 500 unit cap concern stating that the Planning
Commission is mindful of it and the staff is monitoring it.
Mr. Cowan'pointed out that it was decided not to enter into a moratorium. In the Swenson
case staff relied upon draft documents and it will be consistent with the General Plan.
Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendhal Lane, stated that she was present at the recent Council
s meeting and felt that the time to cover the issues was not sufficient. She asked if there
was some way to contact the council members and find out their stance on issues.
Mr. Cowan stated that the idea of the joint meeting was to get direction from the Council
on a number of options. He stated that recommendations may be submitted that may be
contrary to their direction. The summary will be part of the minutes packet and if there
is a challenge it will come up when the minutes are discussed.
John Statton, Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. He concurred with
Mr. DeBoo that it is a design problem. He pointed out that trees, single rows, view
corridors,etc. can be accommodated when redevelopment occurs and it can be done from
the beginning with the idea that this type of vegetation will be an integral part of how that
property is oriented and utilized. He stated the fundamental disagreement with Council is
that if it is forced on the existing environment, the rules change at that point and people
who have investments in the properties are faced with a changed retail and :since
environment that may not work for the kinds of businesses th,at they currently have. By
spacing it out over a redevelopment period a more intelligent way of approaching the
<s process can be instituted, and in the long term it will be more beneficial to the
L
community.
l
Mr. Statton pointed out that the Chamber is not in,favor of a resurrection of ASAC as
well. He stated that double row may work eventually if in the design plan from the
beginning, but urged use of a single row, allowing option of double row at the
n
i,
: r
S
5 s
t
%k�i�"nC'�aY"J'Y�ij��'1�°9� '��s:t•'�1��${i`"r''�'T:t� /h�r.�:T''n ''+` �r,ta td,�y., wt � p,S� �4 i {.^•}{j9'+ N.�p `'}q. v ''� S '4 ,i` "}+ �_
Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes S dune 20,1495
developer's request. Mr. Statton recommended double row in front of office and-
residential. He reported a recent survey of retailers who agreed that retail visibility was
`{ critical along Stevens Creek Blvd.,and cited examples of offices that felt visibility would
be obstructed with double row. Relating to the "eyesore" approach, Mr. Statton agreed
that it was a good idea to monitor it but questioned where the line would,be drawn
between a disuse property and a current property that is just not appealing to the eye.
Discussion followed regarding signage andithe importance of the street numbers being
highly visible. There was con-census that it would be advantageous to have street
numbers mare visible. Recent sign ordinance requires all new businesses have six-inch
high numbers on the signs,but the existing sign is exempt from the ordinance.
w
Vice Chaiir Roberts returned the discussion to Council direction.
Com. Harris recommended that the issue of pocket parks be acted on. Mr. Cowan
concurred that it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to advise the Council
on the issue of pocket parks so that on July 17th some alternative language could be
presented to the Council. a
A discussion followed regarding pocket parks. Com. Mahoney suggested that the park be
renamed as it was not the intent to have "pocket parks" with playground or recreational
equipment on Stevens Creek Blvd. There was clearly a desire to have a passive park area 1
' with benches,and landscape..
Nancy Burnett spoke on behalf of CURB. She concurred with the Council that pocket
parks should be reconsidered. The funding when available could be used for benches,
and some pleasant surrounding shrubbery, making the area an inviting place for a rest
stop. She discussed one disadvantage of having benches is that it might encourage people
to take naps on the benches. She suggested putting arm rests on the benches to
discourage it.
In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Cowan stated that Public Works administers
}r the. project. Mr. Viskovich explained that it was a matter of collecting funds from
developers for the purchase and development of neighborhood parks. He recommended
the name of the area be changed as they would not be active parks,but merely enclaves of
seating.
Com. Harris stated that the Planning Commission eras asked to consider deleting the
fences and come up with berms. Mr. Cowan suggested that staff come back with
sketches to ascertain if there was enough room for berms. Mr. Bottomley discussed the
use of berms and fencing. lie stated that the consultant is willing to work with the
Planning Commission when the decision isi made to go forwardwith fencing, berms or
shrubs. .He requested another opportunity to look at the fencing.
'';f k �.�"1t���,.�17 t, v � t ti �,�e.ti��Y�51 Jt.. ,, r• 1 1 r =,.tj �n � :rr, �m �t' _
Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 6 June A.1493
;r
Mrs. Burnett stated that CURB was skeptical of fences. She reported that CURB sent a
letter to the Planning commission listing CURB concerns and their discussions in recent
meetings. She stated that repositioning the sidewalk would add continuity to the
landscape design. CURB had no preference about berms:
discussed by Mr. Bottomley. He stated that there was
Fencing specifications again were
no requirement stating shrubs or vines were required by fencing. The key thing Kith the
fencing is getting a fence design that people like. He explained that there was plan
flexibility allowing different landscape schemes in the parking lots and on the.sites. The
shrubs could be varied,but should be similar size and shape.
Com. Harris stated that there is a resistance to the fencing by the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
Mr. Jung reviewed P!�.:>�l:1ig Commission comments about the setback and indicated they
had been incorporated :, .-i the draft; however,the draft copy that is being reviewed at the �
meeting was not the current copy with all the revisions incorporated.
k,
The Commission reviewed the standards and guidelines and made the following
decisions:,
3 .
j a�nNage to address�Y�sti la�ndsmingrl re ail parking lois incl inns�n-v trr�e
removal allowances.
7
Mr:Jung state4 .hat the basic concern at one point was that the landscaping reduced the
parking,:ots because of theadditional landscaping on the perimeter.
Referring to Exhibit E, Mr. Jung reviewed the ratio used in various cities and stated it
was much higher than Cupertino bad in existing centers. He referred to Exhibit D which
illustrated retail parking lots with a ratio of 1 tree per 5 spaces. Mr. Jung explained that
the landscape standard that staff is recommending pertains to interior parking aisles,
exclusive of anything done with the perimeter or any passive recreation area. lie stated
that there is language in the design guidelines, specifying depending on the size of tfie
d
building,that a certain portion is dedicated to passive recreational areas or outdoor eating
areas.
Mr. Cowan clarif ed that in the ratio of 1 tree per 5 spaces, the trees could be arranged in
3 e visual access which is a major a manner to proved Jor issue. The language should stress
that.
Mr. Bottomley concurred that 1:5 ratio for trees was adequate. Pertaining to shrubbery
in a parking lot, Mr. Bottomley stated that the typical ratio would be 7.5 percent, which .
would be a five foot wide strip of shrubs between each double loaded bay of parking.
The height limitation for shrubbery on the view corridor is 32 inches; there is no height
`C requirement for shrubbery against fences.
NINE!
NEI
Ig
I in
NNNN
f
j
,#
.. - y r,e.w... .. -w•. .mud. ..- ..... - ii
Via
01 m
A. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 20,1995 �.
w
a
in response to a question from Com. Hanis, Mr. Jung stated that the requirement would
?r apply to'new developments or a substantially rehabilitated development. Most of the
existing developments don't meet the 1 to 5 standards. Mr. Cowan recommended not
allowing the second row of trees to be removed in an existing retail center.
Mrs. Burnett stated that CURB suggested deciduous trees that were visually attractive
from the street, cool in summer, and warm in winter, opening it up in the winter for
visibilitypuMoses. CURB is opposed to having trees removed.
John Statton expressed concern about the staff recommendation for planting with a 1 to 5
ratio, which would double the interior planting on a lot of commercial properties in
existence and.put an additional row in the front. He stated effectively it is increasing not
only the interior planting but also the trees along the front and felt it would make ?
Cupertino an undesirable place to do business.
Com, xiarris ques-ioned if the City had a tree standard for Stevens Creek Blvd. which
J
specifies that properties have to adhere to the present tree standards. She asked if the
density had increased.
Mr. Viskovich responded that there was a current tree standard for Stevens Creek Blvd.
He indicated the spacing was closer. He clarified that on developed areas, there has been
a condition of an integrated design that street trees have been placed a lot closer. Upon a F
developed area,street trees have been placed much closer than the standard.
Mr. � Atton stated that in discussions with businesses, none of them indicated they want
N
to take out their interior landscape if the new plan is approved. Concerns were expressed
about the visibility when the additional row goes in. He also expressed concern about the sib
interior design of the Marketplace center.
Mr. Steven Haze, San Juan Road, expressed concern about the planting of trees and said
the technical issues and impact on businesses could be addressed and the visibility
problems could be solved with proper pruning and maintenance of the more established «?
trc:s in the centers.
Vice Chair Roberts requested Commission input.
Cotio, with single row trees in front of retail.
m. Austin stated she favored 1 to 5 ra
4
Language to be included that if they have double they cannot pull them up.
Com. Harris recommended grandfathering the double row.
Vice Chair Roberts summarized discussion of the 1 to 5 ratio; shrubbery 7-1/2 percent;
shrubbery 32 inches high, 5 ft wide in the center; and view corridors. He asked if it
applied to rear parking lots also.
r
. a
4
+ 1b N
u 4 "i L s.. , .f7': ) ...r .�� 5�9 iY.rt*•} 4>f�1'y,�S N( .4fia7.,s r�'` yY,�'7'���yt�..?.S 1 s :1
��;{ �ti �v� r
Cupertino Planning Ca wnission Minutes 8 dune 20,1995:1`1:
a
l Mr. Bottomley stated that the guidelines recommend that the trees in parking lots be i
'e deciduous as Mrs. Burnett suggested. He said that was the problem in the Marketplace
with the pine trees.
Com. Mahoney stated he favored the I to 5 ratio if similar to what is there now. He said
he would like to edge it down to 1 to 7 because of the street tree issue; but would accept
s the 1 to 5 ratio.
Following a lengthy discussion there was consensus that the building height of-10 teet for
sloped roof, 10 feet to the eave line for sloped roof, 14 feet for parapet roof.
Vice Chair declared a brief recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m.with
the same Commissioners and staff present.
•� )�yplon reco fronta�P for two one-wav c rb cu s.
I`
The goal of the Planning Commission is to avoid a narrow lot that looks like it has all
driveway in front. The Public Works standards for one-way driveways for commercial
properties range from 20 feet to a maximum of 32. From a planning standpoint the
th of the
minimum frontage for such a lot if two one-way curb cuts than 1/3 depends on the the parcea frontage
3 driveway. Planning Commission.does not want
devoted to the driveway curb cut for the property frontage.
;l5 '
pgv_elovs m Iler fade module fo re�taii commercial end office.
Mr. Bottomley stated that the last recommendation was for retail commercial to 4o from
50 to 25 and for office to go from 100 to 50. He said those were the standards 'rI; uses
for main street right-of-way abutting development. Recommended maxinniun Quld be
's no greater than 50 feet for commercial retail, but 25 feet is preferred or recommended; 4
for office 100 is recommended but 50 is preferred. ` t
Com.Harris stated that the Council directed the Planning;Commission to choose a variety
i f,
of signs available and develop standards for theta. Associate Planner Sung stated that
staff had not yet developed a recommendation on the signage. He reviewed the five wall
diagrams illustrating a range of sign concepts.
In response to Com. Austin's question,
Mr. Jung stated that Diagram 4 was the only sign r
t
that conformed to present codes. Mr. Cowan pointed out that there cannot be a sign in
the public right-of-way. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding-the ground sign options; '
and the concerns and issues relating to each design concept.
description of each sign;
Mrs. Burnett, representing CURS, agreed with the Council's direction that freestanding
Y, signs should reflect a consistent set of guidelines but not be identical. Signs should be
r
Q11110M
ti
•h.
`ra i
}}
Cupertino planning Commission Minutes. 9 June 20, 1993
AM visible but not --•',:a usive.. The beauty of the tree-lined boulevard could be severely
{ impacted by'a clutter of distracting signs. CURB emphasizes the need for highly visible
street numbers and shopping center names where they can be seen by motorists passing
by. Garish, ugly domineering sighs can ruin the enjoyment of stopping as well as the ti
lI experience of driving or walking by. Clear and beautiful signs can serve as a useful
advertisement for business at the same time adding to the pleasure of shopping.
I
I
Vice Chair asked the Commission for input on the signage.
Com. Austin stated she favo-r!d Sign 4, the large sign behind the sidewalk, out of the
right-of-way.
Com. Mahoney said he would like to sec more elaboration on Sign 4 and Sign 5; Sign 4 �
is most favorable; Sign 3 has potential problems,
Com. Harris stated her preference for Sign 3a and Sign 4. She stated that Sign 4 was
acceptable as long as it had a base and was attractive in character. If there was a double
row of trees, the closest it could be to the curb would be 16 feet. The banner signs are
unique, attractive and could be placed in the public right-of-way because of their height.
Com.Harris stated that she felt property owners should have.a choice of signs,and would
like to give them an option of a monument tyf a or a banner.•She'stated her opposition to
Sign S.which she felt resembles the gas-station type signs visible from the freeway.
Vice Chair Roberts stated he found Sign 5 objectionable and it was inconsistent with
Council_'s directive. Sign 4 was acceptable; some businesses might not like it as much
as some of the alternatives because it is less visible. Sign 4 is closest to present practice.
Sign 3 is also an acceptable option. Signs 1.and 2 do not serve the purpose because of the
distance from the entrance to the center; also pose a danger for children to play around.
Discussion continued regarding the placement of signs and intervals between each sign.
Mr. Cowan explained that the sign ordinance states that there can be a sign for every 100
feet of frontage, in no cases can you have more than 2. Sites with over 500 feet of
frontage can have one additional sign.
Com. Mahoney recommended adherence to the existing ordinance for sign interval
language. Com. Austin stated she favored a sign every 200.feet. If a property has less
than 100 feet frontage,it has..a wall sign.
Mr. Jung clarified that the banner sign was an illuminated.sign, not the type used for
special events. Discussion continued regarding banner signs. The major modifications
to the banner signs would be the overall height to the.top and the height to the bottom. i
L Appropriate size: 6-1/2 x 13.
a�
1'.
S1
ri
!M6 W � �•,. f��.�77�� �'i k figg,, 4 y6A� `LSA k n��w(e �?if th a'. SV ,U ay
Cupertino Planning Conimission Minutes 10 June 20, 1995
Vice Chair Roberts summarized the choices for signage: Signs 1 and 2:no support; Sign
` 5: Little support/strong opposition; Signs 3 and 4:More support.
Vice Chair reviewed the staff recommendations:
1) Accomplished. Com. Hams addressed the issue of implementation regarding the
charging of interest. She cited an example of an investment of$1.5 accruing interest of 3
to 6 percent for 20 years-and that as we are not investing the money, we are not losing
interest by advancing it to do street improvements. She stated she felt it vnis not
appropriate to charge the cost of those improvements plus 6 percent a year if the money is
advanced. Vice Chair Roberts responded that the issue would not be decided at the
meeting.
:
; Mr. Viskovich expiained the rationale for charging interest is that the city usually
expends moneys for improvements that benefit the community. When improvements are
made that benefit the property owners, money is spent for other than a public benefit,
f
therefore interest is charged for advancing the finds to the developer.
Com. Harris addressed the issue of the city being reimbursed for street improvements if
the,use permit approval for an activity during a calendar year involved more than 25
percent of the space. She stated that if part of the development was completed in
November.and the remainder in February, and it was greater than 25 percent, they would
be exempt from the requirement of doing the improvements. She suggested the 25% be
considered over a period of 18 to 24 months. Mr. Viskovich stated it was intended for a
12 month period.
2) Seems premature as we do not have the standards and guidelines as amended
through May 22,1995.
3) We.have preliminarily closed on the item. ¢
4) Began discussion on ground signage and narrowed alternatives down.
A brief 'discussion. followed regarding the issue of color palette. Com. Austin
recommended that there be color palette guidelines. Further discussion was tabled to a
future date.
Com. Hams suggested that in lieu of specific details on such items as the overhang, ,
windows, ete.; more general statement of intent, of character, that would be specific but 1
broad enough to allow a variety of designs. Vice Chair Roberts urged the commissioners
who feel strongly that the guidelines are too restrictive to send the comments to staff. He'
fi stated that all changes agreed upon will appear in the next version Plan.
F E
ii
I
f
F �
u
Y
r
a n 1 ro is
� e t �a srr -.s.`«s-s l A �.4 S� 3 rb'�r�,5 + t•a� �k � ; ty o EST/`� r ��.al'�µ�,,,.*r� �'
.:v,:a'r.. `�*.jtts.. »•;f+3 ''""p.� } t3:k �+� ixarr ��a n,�'r'x"a'* t�'.''�' k1"4;� -�t'`��r1.,iti'�,�' e`t�.,+�f r T'v Vr -�L. r �i the" �,�4 .. 7 fr.` ��iA .
t -J+:F.Y4����.� f4 y.�iM llt��'a✓ei,.*`,7V'��y � � �� ��a,T�J� �ISyy r ..'rt � Sr `�v k�tr str(�f"��$��h�t' `{�y a � r �'",�r i k -.
t,t rx i f+r 4°,11 ��YY::. a� ,5✓fid vS K _:' j c e r (r .� �Sx: ,�� •a ss rt 11iZ Zd'4j,1
' � v..t t . }�hlh;rti+ } t.a :l•. 4 � �, p rf, k ,`f t .:,� �-,
q' Ji.ta 20�1935
Cupartiino Planus$Commission Minutes r
5) The hearing was continued to July 13, 1'995.
k ,ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.to the Special Planning
a
Commission Meeting on Thursd3Y,July 13,1995.
a
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretary
f
Gtemm
9x
4
t
i�
r.
+r
ip
9
r,
;r
;yk
,A
E
7
3d
R
E," 7s''R, s45�rd Y r�'^n.ars' '"Fn';:'; s: r• s z.s G "�. r#"'w .1's.. J•;... 'a.
�,`v .� `n r 'r r ";+,t :.k; •a 'tn•t. t�: nt ,+:.e. x 3.
t ! �;-0. a�'6,� t r ♦ �1 e' t •u i..,^r-K�' c,+`�,?�� n�sl v.�✓ rh, S7- '�t C �� i"n
'h .ti a ?" a \� 2.«�r �A is rr�fi-.�s♦.. n,f t�a:.ti v,�i','�,"r:.r_ ti��1:. rfi:";,a{V,�"N,•.rfPR �.s ,�J:t'ns
y s'.y :4 � � t C l,i � i ry�4r+yfr:�F'a fir-.T;fGa°t,,•a"`t��,!c�r.y 5'2+u.`.",�j '�.#g.�'�,1�"� �'i'.'.` °K.t;�:)t•L-:^sst.ryt�A.iC't d r f ii.,'1",'� it{a," "'r 4 V,F pr a 5pA T ��•a
( .{ .k � C 4 y,� �`fl i ��,{?'4�� k 4'J � �`�t M11 �i'Jy 1�= r t:�C Yl� } A 'i!1 1 ��. � Vt.r (1,] A .t"� �)/• p,j��.
A ♦ 1 n �' v k T 5 T� t n,• r..-.4 � vs Y - 5 ¢ t �'eYS y.
�, a��, 1 k,t 4� r s Y +,'t�' t .;�.{S r sr z r +.�,. -:i 't r •LE
i r~ � a L�I: a t:� X t.S „..�L u.'r.,a.' W'J.,XT ��xc,u'S;� s' '��-"ir s "S ,t ( +..J� i. •F� y .:{ F 4 e �'�Y t✓ I�:,efi
urpu;
T�.
11 • �
i
a.
F
pt:t:•
'
fir'=4 • {
' W c
'rT
Ft1..
rr • 's •
w •
YJi
it •A 1 •
t '� r .f � f - • • f f 1 ••. r.
r r 4 :txf!.r 2- x^ryY.. 'p.. i �'d.:l 4 eta?4,!)(Y Y')i•�f4a talk �',�Jf�.•r'F'x�•�:p`�i�%
•r;R an n. 4 x'>•...'t•:,t.p,a�'�s'.+zp;Y E,�'.- --.a,�`tM��.;,w"1�n,. s`��'fir., .J°r,'r\ Kt'+�',•'�^".� �A A4.,rs.r y yrp>. �,>t�3..�.'. ,,T, P �T. , d Tv,T�;+ee
-fit:•ti 1 . �::2�5 ...rS y, ..a.s,. e 1• '`r�"• v95.•-t„ " ,.r�'�_�),T �.'tiF7�'.'yr, .,{ ..�„�t•�'i;t,c, „,'Y 'r,d..� 1. `Y” '� fit.�y -:.'r•s. '�`'.
.., 0..a..s,d {. 4 w.� nv..,� n�"'C•,.'F„ .4 P tr” � nJy 41 '' ;. a�`"��•,<... .;i.'A..'4:f� T�ri3",4`ti�. � f ^ref -•��'�:,r..�,,fi..,G;r �' �,.( arr' �' ,4+s'�.' J `�,..,. $:F
`f`4 r� a. �`-lv �yL.#2xF' T. �. .�,. a ;? a. ,Srv.aa..nc�•yi.-J..�� v,.. _ �.. %A. yr Fr,.a"�4 c,�t:5i:1 �Ti�'':R .,,y�„ •i'�y. �� � ns,t�tia..i a t�? .
�....�a .,7 'd. 'T 'li �t" �°Y° ,dt '•,P YT,�. �'�:'v� t� !,. rc`. •p'�.`� 1 '�tY ��"" 1• -KS,q•..
.:++= !?t L. rty^^. ,n 3a,,.M1 .i??1" �J,�,d .Y�-L hY��'�:.,M1,r ,.�SA...T..,�, ��,t�-V "`J. t�. S±t yj-+ ,.•��-i sy .v £Y• ✓:,�vh d :'at.'� t`,4 Yik` ��'.` t•uiy�,•KaS 1 3 ���'.
,.a. 1 { f ,�.y ♦ K,. �•f I 41' 4� .i' .� s."G♦� '��,V���,�'`'a y r�, .y e��.:�,tv. � ?�,4 ` t�n.,.,Y.-�3 45 z-a`*,..n,a� ,;�':T w fis' sz'l'7.� et
F '44 »;$"�� _ � � A �� � .v: � �.`+,� V k f •{. �Q -f•l, �• y R4° fU` 1,'� a�hY4 t ^[,,,�'.-"'1,
rr X71 J 9 i.'�x�,J'c•� ��4'k•T' d"�k .�`v a r.i.,f'4 .S�°L. �t�Yr`'' r�l��- '��ai � �i••„`.�1�.E+^'`�.'``'y4 .�FT.}:'cv?tr �.+ ,�C"'`��� ,� `^"lie, '`'r�'`Y^C � ..i �L -t,;�`i.e �{.,f 2 s',�'` -�;�i�.
max.na�,,., r�. t"S� ti. I R ,� :�;.- '`ti , : ..:�`£h .�a�' �;:� �, •.; ,rr.��.�T t- ti`s.:.
)u`L^ij"3—M
.h '"Ct,'.: r .f .y .�+•5. 1 .q ty yy„ ,.
si 7Ks ,yx.: . € { 1 Fc y q•4 wt. riJj# 52 �5i e 'C x e jai s;< a rc;
vy eE . ' . * � r-, k„ `� r x. � +'i=,vs ixf 4 v wt C '�] + i t r aM. + a m, �'v, 1<;•
'fanning Commission I1�f�iirtes pane 26;
Community Development Director Cowan explained the reason for the
contimaance to July 10, 1995.
MOTION: Com.Austin moved to continue Item 1 to the July 10, 1995 meeting.
SECOND: Com.Mahoney
VOTE: Passed 3-0
2. Application No: 2-V-95,3-EXC-95 and 12-EA-95
Applicant: : Matthews Land Company
Property Owner: Jensen Corporation
s Location: 10950 North Blaney Avenue
Request continuance to August 8, 1995 meeting.
MOTION: Com.Mahoney moved to continue Item 2 to the August 8, 1995 meeting.
:r SECOND: Com.Austin
VOTE: Passed 3-0
3. Application No: 1-EXC-95
Applicant: Cariasco&Assoc.
Property Owner: Prakash and Sujata Bhalerao
Location: 11837 and 11841 Upland Way
Request continuance to the July 24, 1995 meeting..
q Y 8 .
t MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Item 3 to the July 24, 1995 meeting.
z SECOND: Com.Austin
VOTE: Passed 3-0
4. ApplicationNo.(s): 3-TM-95 and 11-EA-95
Applicant: Marguerite V. Roberts and Blanche Grose/Leroy
t Grose Trustee
Property Owner: Marguerite V. Roberts and Blanche Grose/Leroy
Grose Trustee
Location: 11545 Upland Way and 11571 Upland Way
Request continuance to July 24, 1995 meeting.
MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to continue Item 4 to the July 24, 1995 meeting.
SECOND: Com.Austin
VOTE: Passed: 3-0
l�
6,
ORAL COMMUNICATION- None
CONSENT CALENIDAP- None
OLD BUSINESS
s
r
'"S!C"M5x�i'��'� 4{
oa 1•r
;;f � t.��� 1 �9'r(c'�!�;a • i s - ? r'r;r -t�ax•�., ry;'"i°b� 5 4i44 �✓�6.
-� '1!`•
' Planning Commission Minutes 3 Jutta
Ah
Report to City Council.
5. Application no.(s): 81,165 and 23-EA-94
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendment to various sections of Chapter 19.56,General Commercial Zones,,of
the Cupertino Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration Recommended
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 17, 1995
CONTINUED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1995.
Staff presentation: Planning Director Cowan reviewed the background of the item. Ile
Y explained that at the June 5 hearing the City Council decided to return the matter to the
Planning Commission for a report.
Using overheads, Mr. Cowan.reviewed the recommended changes by City Council to the
General Commercial Zoning Code as outlined in the Summary distributed.
w
Chairman Doyle opened the meeting for public comment.
Elaine Lyon, representing CURE, addressed the Commission. She reviewed CURI3's
comments and recommendations regarding. Chapter 19.56, the Proposed General
Yl
Commercial Zone Ordinance Amendment as submitted with the staff presentation.
Chairman Doyle suggested that in the future input be submitted earlier in the process.
Com. Austin requested clarification of the language relating to the agricultural-residential
zone in Section D on Page 2 of CURi3's summary. Ms. Burnett stated that"whichever,is.
greater"language would be appropriate.
t
k, Mr. Cowan briefly discussed concerns raised in the June 26, 1995 letter from the
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. He stated that as a result of a child care study
conducted by the Council about four years ago, it was recommended to facilitate child
care operations in the community and pointed out that great strides were made in that
z area. He discussed the possibility of recommending a fee waiver for child care
operations in the community.
The Planning Commission reviewed the General Commercial Ordinance.as follows:
19.56.030 Permitted Uses
AM
Page 2, Item C: Revert back to 10% floor space.
jj
y{� x'��'��>�� dt� n`�'�'���/y;tsT'' 't�v-'kd•> ��6je`..,�+� v^e kN�'�',:, >."!,y.fy{ rt f a^vr;.. S" I M
y t • �t :�r i„� f x `,'•ti .tip f,a , Y � y r f 6� by,�. ,
,. Planning -ommission Minutes 4lune 26, 1995
zAll
Page 2, Item R Laundry facilities: Following discussion, there was consensus that
laundry facilities require a conditional use permit.
Page 2, Item,L: Specialty food stores: Add"not to exceed 10,000 square feet".
19 56,040 Conditional Uses
Page 3, Combine Nos. I and 15: Automotive repair.
:P
Page 3, Item 10: Child care centers, day nurseries. An external playground would
require a permit. If regulating daycare centers and day nurseries, playgrounds would be
included.
Page 3, Item 21: Late evening activities: Add wording"which occur between
11.00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.
Page 4, Item 25: Business activities which incorporate contracting services for which a
contracting license is requirvd. Following discussion, there was consensus that if the
operation requires a contractor,licensed by the state,a use permit should be required.
19.S6.050 Excluded Usev
Page 4, Item A:, Following discussion, there was consensus that the v'oa.iing should
read:. "Businesses where a primary amount of the activity is related to the on-site
:{ manufacturing, assembling, or storage of building components intended for use by
' general contractors or wholesalers."
Page 4, Item I1: A lengthy discussion ensued regarding wholesale businesses such as
lumberyards and computer sales. There was consensus that the wholesale-type
operation would be. in an industrial zone or plant office zone. Chairman Doyle
recommended the word "wholesale” be inserted before the words lumberyards,
warehouses,nurseries and greenhouses in Item B,Page 4..
Page 4, Item C. Leave as is.
14.56.060 Architectural and side review for new development
Ms. Burnett clarified that it was CURB's position that residents should be notified before
the approval process happens, rather than after a decision is.made, necessitating the.
appeal process. She stated that because there would be few properties, the notification
process would not create any hardship. ` Mr. Cowan reviewed the present process for
r color and architectural modifications. Following a lengthy discussion regarding color
Aft modifications, there was consensus that no notification be required for minor changes to
new construction or modification of existing construction.
• I
1! 11 M�jl liiiill :11
�3
't
ii
air
e, ..,� .. 'P. 5.t t. oa.o,ly • , n .,;fix i.. . .:...,, , . b. �
_ MQQ, l� t 'IrJt\�tttla7 �i xi..rf�`l Y.F .szy
111 r",;
xL,f
rPlamung Commission Minutes 5 June.,, 1995
Com.*Austin recommended that the appeal fee be eliminated.
19.56.070 Land Use Activity and Site Development Regulations
Page S, Item e: Wording should be "Incidental activities must comply with noise, all
applicable health and safety standards and should not be audible on the residential
property:' A lengthy discussion ensued regarding power tools and potential limitations
for outdoor use.
Page 5, Item 3: Mrs. Burnett stated that citing percentages makes it difficult to define
how much floor space is being used for what activity. She said that CURB is opposed to
the wording "semi industrial". Mr. Cowan clarified that at least $0% of the floor space
had to be geared toward the retailing or service part of the operation, the balance being
contracting or some other operation.
Page 6, Item D (2): Mr. Cowan clarified that the required setback is related to the
building and the fenced in patio or atrium space as well. It was agreed that the wording
"1.5:1 or 20 feet, whichever is greater" be included.. Mr. Cowan stated that the latest
language considered with regard to the Heart of the City would be used.
Page 8, Itcm G: Mrs. Burnett clarified that it was CURB's intent to delete the 12 foot
minimum setback requirement,to read..."in the setback area".
19.56.090 Interpretation by the Planning Director
n
Mr. Cowan reviewed the process followed for interpretation of the regulations and
4. provisions of the ordinance. He pointed out that the language dealing with the .
interpretation of the Planning Director is common in all ordinances; howeverit was not
included in the commercial ordinance. Com.Austin stated she felt the community should
be more involved in the input. Mr. Cowan responded that in most cases it would not
result in any input from the neighbors.
;4.
CURB s Comment #S - Change of Use: Mr.: Cowan suggested that as part of the
business pennit application process, permit applicants be contacted annually informing
them if there is a change of activity on the site,to.contact the Planning Commission.
5 Mrs. Burnett emphasized the geed for a process for notifying businesses of the
requirements of use permits.
Discussion ensued regarding the appeals fee. Chair Doyle stated he felt the$100 appeals
fee should be maintained. Com. Mahoney expressed his opposition to the waiver of the
appeals fee of$100. No action was taken.
r.
k
Y
• _ '.', 6 June 26. 1995
Planning Commission Minutes
I Mahoney nested clarification on the Pluirnbing Bank issue. Mr. Cowan
Corn. Maho y req
bing operation
explained that because the plumin presently
that aplumbing conntractoritrequires a
ordinance gets adopted with the suggested g
conditional use permit, they will have to follow the process. Mr. Cowan clarified that
pending flee completion of the commercial
the Council decided not to prosecute the firm pe g
ized that you cannot have a plumbing operation in a retail
ordinance. Mr.Cowan emphas
area. Discussion continued.
Mr. Cowan summarized that a report will be sent to Council; the sidebar issue of fce
;.
appeal did not receive a majority vote; the notification process for chanil ges a method of
be submitted to the finance officer and staff will report back to oun
notification process for change of use is recommended.
MOTION: . Com•Mahoney moved to forward the report as amended to City Council.
SECOND: Com.Austin 3-0
VOTE: Passed
NEW BUSINESS
6, General.Plan Consistency Expansion of Creekside Park.
Applicant: City of Cupertino
�5
nfa=: Mr. Cowan reviewed the staff report and presented a progress report
on the project and answered Commission members' questions.
MOTION: Com. Austin moved that the City acquirel or
conss to wof ith th he lth Generaomes in l
Fremont Older area,and stated that it w
Plan.
r SECOND: Com.Mahoney
VOTE:
Pasmd 3-0
RE
PORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION-None
t �
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-None
{ SCLTSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING-None
DI
,IOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. to the special Planning
AD
Commission Meeting on Thursday,June 29, 1995,at 6:45 p.m•
<y Respectfully Submitted,
Elizabeth Ellis
Recoding Secretary,
5. P
t'
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenrz
' Cupertino,("A 95014
(408)777-3308
AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMI ION MELD ON JUNE 29,1995 ,
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO TETE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Austin,'Harris,Mahoney,Roberts,Chairman Doyle.
Staff present: Robert Cowan,Director of Community Development;Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner,Bert Viskovich,Director of Public Works.
Consultants present: Donald Wolfe and Bob Harrison,Planning Resource Associates.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Statement of Qualifications from Consultant Robert
Harrison
POSTFONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
look ORAL-COMMUNICATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1: Application No.(s): 1-GPA-93 AND 6-EA-93
Applicant: Diocese of San Jose
Property Chvner: Diocese of San Jose
Location- Assessor Parcel Numbers 342-52-3,342-5-54,-56,-60
Located south of I-280,west of Foothill Boulevard and
of Rancho San Antonio County Park and Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change'the land use designation from Very Low Density
Res3ential 5-20 acre slope density to Very Low Density Residential Fthill Mod;fed UZ note
Y slope density with a cap of 293 units.
?` The Diocese of San Jose applied. for the above General Plan Amendment. The City Council
a total of tem alternatives be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report.
directed that ,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Environental Impact Report was prepared. Ten
m
alternatives were evaluated. Significant impacts identified related to loss of and intrusion into
open space lands;elimination of potential park lands;loss of and insusion into natural vegetation,
s wildlife habitat and wetland areas;exposure to adverse geologic conditions; storm run-off erosion
and pollution;wildfire hazard;visual impacts;water tank failure and leakage;and safety of school
crossing.
k
Y
i
9
%� i ;}.r� i t��-"t:c4 r t:3 } f t ..V '�'e"�i t.. " A"��} n Ott �, �����, �s'X�.u,t�1.�5.5'3§}'siYLu^'^t✓�''is�} � ,
Plaemng Comffiission Minutes 2 June 29 1995
StA f'presentation: City Planner Wordell explained that the purpose of the public hearing was to
include discussion and public comment on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) related to traffic on St. Joseph Avenue and biological impacts; discussion to review site
plans for alternatives with 50, 60, 75, 100 units; the preliminary decision on General Plan
Amendment;and discussion of the next steps.
j Com. Austin questioned if the EIR would be discussed. Ms. Wordell explained that the
Commission would decide if an Amendment was needed, what the Amendment would be, and
based on the decision, staff would make a presentation of the environmental analysis at the July
I ft meeting. At that time the-Planning Commission wound indicate if those impacts and
mitigations were prepared appropriately and take a vote.
i
Ms. Wordell reviewed the staff report, stating that oral comments would receive written responses
and would be available on July 1 8th as part of the final EIR.
Mr. Robert Harrison, Planning Resource Associates, reviewed the executive summary. He stated
that the purpose of the traffic impact analysis was to look at the impact if the St. Joseph Avenue
gate was removed. He explained the previous documents were completed assuming there would
not be access via St.Joseph Avenue. He explained the evaluation completed under three different .
roadway assumptions.
In response to Com. Mahoney's request, Mr. Harrison r•,larified Table 2-E2.
Ms. Wordell restated for the record that the diocese had announced that they proposed not to use
access on St.Joseph Avenue.
r
Mr..Michael Bruner, mpresenting the diocese, addressed the Commission and reiterated that the
diocese would tike to design a project that does not take anything but emergency access off St.
Joseph,Avenue and reminded the Commission that the access road currently has a barricade on it.
He reported that-the first round of the lawsuit was won by the diocese, but the City of Los Altos
has filed an appeal and if they win the appeal, the issue would be moot. Mr. Bruner stated that it
is part of the reason the diocese feels it wants to design it since the EIR made it clear the access is
not needed.
Chairman Doyle opened tate public hearing.
Ms. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oak Way, Cupertino, .stated that in the past traffic was a
problem when
en there was a gate on St. Joseph Avenue. She stated she was relieved to hear that it
would not be a genera access road, but stated her neighbors.have expressed concern about other
roads and also the traffic. She expressed concern about the various impacts of the automobile and
the autos housed along with the people in the project because of pollution, driveway runoff, etc.,
Ms. Smith stated that she was a docent at Deer Hollow Farm and was hopeful that the wildlife
would remain and the children could continue the positive experience of visiting the wilderness
area.
Mr. Robert Gray, Mayor, City of Los Altos, addressed the Commission regarding the EIR. .He
stated.that the proposed project had the potential to cause significant effects-on the Los Altos
residents, particularly those along St. Joseph Avenue and Cristo Rey;Drive. He stated that the
most notable aspect was that all traffic generated by the.development must travel through Los
Altos for'access, and the additional traffic which could result from the General Plan Amendment
- t
A
a f,h 3{Z, x 4�.d �fC t" Yl �,�t Y> °°(4�...4 '•,.,.p�f.,,{1*a� rxi '':14'�f`' `> 71.'s' <f.v:.l,Ca 2+�^e Y*., c". xr "ato' M t+. p
Jl i,�'•"w,l�d .rt 1 ti Fs�y t "S..t^� s � �..r�r tY� ,, r ;�'l 14Y- >i� � J' k . �9qf`m,,,, �'(,#�vr""y,�''9*f�%.1`i• "sfp .�,p"t�Y!:;�k'''r'!:,•
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 29. 1995
a
would create significant impacts on the quality of life on.the Cristo Rey and St.Joseph m0dential
neighborhoods. Residential streets such as St.Joseph and Cristo Rey were never intentidd to have
traffic volumes approaching the physical capacity'of the street. He stated the local residential
streets also serve as bike pnths, walkways, perking areas, driveway entrances, playgrcunds, even
r neighborhood social centers,and are the things that make the iesidemial neighborhood a desirable
place to live and why it is so important that the City of Cupertino be sure that the potential effects
of the proposed General Plan Amendment are fully addressed and mitigated in the EIR.
Mayor Gray said that the impacts of new development should be accommodated as much as
r
possible by the community in which the project is located. Accordingly, Los Altos has asked in
previous letters that the EIR address an alternative circulation plan which seeks to direct and retain
project traffic within the City of Cupertino. He stated it appears that construction of a new
roadway from Stevens Creek Boulevard has the best potential for providing alternative access
which in turn would help provide mitigation for the potential traffic impacts on the City of Los
Altos and its residents. The Los Altos residents and council members were very encouraged by
the recent statements of the diocese that access via St. Joseph Avenue would not be pursued, and
are committed to working with the diocese to resolve the issue. He pointed out that the City of
Los Altos has been firmly opposed to any use of St. Joseph Avenue for vehicular traffic
associated with further development on the diocese land since first commenting an the project in
1985. lie urged support of the diocese statements and stated that access to St. Joseph Avenue is
neither necessary or appropriate and asked that language to that effect be included in the final EIR
and the text of any General Plan Amendment. In closing, he stated that an alternative circulation
system with an access road to Stevens Creek Boulevard appeared to be the best way to mitigate
traffic impacts on Cristo-R.y and should be fully analyzed and considered in the EIR, and stated
that the EIR and General Plan Amendment should expressly exclude the use of St. Joseph Avenue
for vehicular access. Mayor Gray thanked staff and the Commission for the cooperation and
hoped for a.positive response to the concerns bf the City of Los A]'os and its residents.
Mr.JimMackenzie, Senior Planner,City of Los Altos, commented on the technical aspects of the
draft EIR. He stated that the City of L.-is Altos has provided written comments on the draft EIR
on three occasions and looks forward to reviewing responses to comments as part of the finnl EIR.
He referred to letters of August 9 and October 27, 1994; addressing the potential signifleant
A effects the proposed General Plan Amendment would have on the Los Altos residents in the Cristo
Rey neighborhood, as well as the impacts on Cristo Rey Drive, a City of Los Altos Street. He
pointed out those significant effects would result from the addition of up to 3,120 new vehicle
trips per day, or over 1.1 million additional trips per year. The seismic safety of the bridge on
Cristo Rey Drive and the maintenance impacts on Los Altos due to the additional traffic generated ;
by the traffic were also mentioned.
'Mr. Mackenzie reported that the City of Los Altos provided additional comments in the form of a
letter and report dated June 21, 1995, and while the comments were in preparation received a
press release from the diocese stating their intention to not use St. Joseph Avenue for access.
However, since the announcement occurred during, the formal. comment period on the
supplemental EIR,the City of Los Altos felt obligated to submit both written and oral comments
for the official record.
The Jane 21, 1995 letter and report on the recirculated EIR identified seven major areas of
concern and potential inadequacies in the environmental review of this project. He reviewed the
seven major areas. of concern and potential inadequacies in the environmental review of this
project:.. (1) Mitigation measures which require action by the City of Los, Altos, such as
}t•
M _
1
V
r
7
1�?T'➢3` ,�'yilxt a.y"...��"'St c.3"1 t �.. T?��t.'c't'r W., ! ��.tt 1��',:�r'�s v."'.,' r r ? 1.� 0 , '
Ing
Planning Commission Minutes a June 29, 1995
'h improvements on St. Joseph Avenue will make Los Altos the responsible agency under CEQA.
Aft (2) The final EIR must address the relationship of the project to the Los Attos General flan; of
particular relevant importance are some of its policies related to regional, subregional and
V' neighborhood traffic. (3) The EIR is inadequate because it fails to evaluate an alterative full
service access road to Stevens Creek Boulevard. This option was studied by Cupertino in 1989
and found to provide the best access. '13tis analysis was also requested by the City of Los Altos in
August 9 comments on the draft EIR and our October 27 followup letter. (4) Use of'Revel of
service as the criteria of significance for evaluation of traffic impacts on local residential streets is
not appropriate in this instance. In the City of Los Altos letter it was recommended that an
alternative approach, the fire method, be employed in the final EM (5) if St. Joseph Avenue is
pursued for vehicle access, the mitigation measures for impacts on St. Joseph Avenue are
inadequate; the recirculated EIR reports that the project would have significant impact on St.
Joseph Avenue, but fails to acknowledge that St. Joseph Avenue is not needed for access or tc+
consider the obvious mitigation by maintaining the status quo by keeping the barricade in place.
(b) The opening of St. Joseph Avenue must be dropped from further consideration in the final
EiR. If it is not, potential noise impacts from traffic on St. Joseph Avenue will also have to be
addressed. No mitigation measures have been provided to address the increased maintenance
burden on the City of Los Altos as a result of the traffic generated by the project, nor has the city's
request for an appropriate contribution from the project toward the seismic upgrade work for the
Cristo Rey bridge been addressed. (7) Finally, the mitigation measures for the identified parking
shortfall and open space lands are not adequate.
Mr. Mackenzie concluded with the following City of Los Altos requests: (1) that St. Joseph
Avenue not be used for vehicle traffic for existing or fuhue development in the City of Cupertino;
and requested that the final EIR and any General Plan Amendment include specific language to
that effect; (2) that its written and oral comments be responded to fully in the-final EIR; and(3)
'that an alternative access road be developed to Stevens Creek Boulevard for the purpose of
reducing significant tx #fic related impacts on Cristo Rey Drive. He pointed out that the City of
Los Altos recognizes that responding to its comments will require substantial additional work by
the applicant and the EiR preparers, but stressed the issues are ofgreat importance to the City of
>
Los Altos and its resident;. fie stated that the City of Cupertino has an obligation to provide full
and comprehensive responses, and careful attention of these matters will result in a much better
a
development project with great benefits to both Cupertino and minimal burden on the City of Los
Altos and its citizens. Mr. Mackenzie thanked Ms. Wordell and the planning staff far their
cooperation and assistance.
Ms. Marlene Zimmerman, 2081 Madeline Court, Los Altos, member of Los Altos Residents
Opposed to Access Roads(LAROAR)addressed the Commission relating to the use of St.Joseph
4` 'Avenue.She stated she was encouraged that development without the use of St.Joseph Avenue is
being considered and urged the Commission to pursue that effort. She stated that the final EIR
should formally state that St. Joseph Avenue is not available for acces.to this development, and
requested that the General Plan of Cupertino be amended to recognize that St. Joseph Avenue is
m
not available for access to any existing or future development.
Mr. James Dozier, 972 St. Joseph Avenue, Los Altos, member of LAROAR, stated he has been
`4 involved in the project for ten years and commended the attitude of the diocese and particularly
Fr. Mitchell. He provided a brief history of LAROAR. Mr. Dozier said his main concern is that
St. Joseph Avenue not be used as an access road, pointing out that at present there are about 200
cars per day and if opened up, traffic would be 2,000-3,000 per day. He urged that it be
czars
a
IN
,. <-
I�
Planning Commission Minutes June 29, 1995
4w
approved with the provision that St. Joseph not be used as any access except for emergency
vehicle traffic.
3
Mr. John Johnson, 2405 Cristo Rey Place, Los Altos, stated that the increased traffic on Cristo
Rey Drive would be unacceptable and stated that the reports did not adequately address alternative
access methods.
Ms. Diane Moreno-Ikeda(no address given) stated that 192 units is a fair compromise allowing
flexibility for the developer as well as the best interest of Cupertino, meeting the E1R criteria for
this amount and gives a definitive boundary to the City of Cupertino to develop the land at this
time. She stated that it is a critical time in the history of Cupertino and as we move forward. ;
people will not be as environmentally concerned and they would probably.want to build on that
land, This is a chance to get 65%of the land dedicated to public open space and 10%private. It
is a win-win situation for the City of Cupertino and the diocese, and.pointed out that the 36 units
would be.a potential disaster as a private party might return in the future and develop on it. At
"1 present there,is control and there can be a pleasant development with surroundings comparable
and pleasing to Cupertino. She requested the Commission consider 192 units as a proposal and
the Amendment.
;{ Mr. •David Medin, 940 St. Joseph Avenue, Los Altos, stated that it seemed. the diocese had
submitted a plan not requiring the use of St. Joseph Avenue, but still plan on building the access
road. He commented that although the diocese has issued a press release, they will not make the
commitment on paper to withdraw their lawsuit to open St. Joseph Avenue as a through street to
the development. He questioned the possible reasoning, posing the question that perhaps the
diocese in reality i.,�asking the Planning Commission to approve the plan without considering the
tremendous impact on Los Altos. Mr. Medin questioned how the City of Cupertino would handle
the situation if it were reversed. He stated he went to the Planning Commission office and
researched the Cupertino circulation plan to see what would Cupertino do if St. Joseph Avenue
F were part of Cupertino. Would it build the development and allow traffic down St. Joseph
4 Avenue?He stated that it clearly violates the Los Altos circulation plan,the wad is too narrow,:the
houses are already at minimum setback,and you can't put in sidewalks. He stated according to the
Cupertino circulation plan,St.Joseph Avenue would first have to be reclassified from a local road `
to a minor collector. Then the road at the gate would have to be widened to more than one lane
and 20 foot California oak trees would have to be torn-down. He reported that the intersection of
St. Joseph Avenue and Foothill Expressway is already a C in traffic flow according to the
Cupertino plan and said for being this level of traffic, it would change to an E.
s Mr. Medin discussed the traffic flow and safety issue. He stated that opening the gate would
increase traffic four-fold and walking children to school from Los Altos or the new development
would-te too dangerous. He shuddered io think how many school children would be injured or
worse if traffic were increased. He stated that two children were hit by cars next to Montclair
Elementary School earlier in the year. He quoted in the lawsuit by the diocese, Judge Levenger,
wrote"A city does not have the power to close off a street simply based on the best interests of its
citizens". He emphasized that, in his opinion, if St. Joseph Avenue were in Cupertino, Cupertino
would not allow that much traffic to flow down the road. He reluested Cupertino to extend to
Los Altos the same respect that it would its own citizens. lie stated that the lawsuit concerning the
gate will greatly impact any plan the diocese has submitted. :
ill Bill milli ll:,,I
i
0
.
'i f 4Fx X14 trg'.lf;j„� �+t^�Y" '�".�'y. p '�tti+: SwSt•nh .5�1.1� s'..;r F`rayy}�C"�n ,, r �,� „-�w � ';7f. t ! '�y„ !Sr }..
Plaotting Co atnission Minutes i b June 29, 1993
Mr.Medin concluded by suggesting postponement of the hearings until the gate issue is M101ved;
stating the lawsuit is in the appellate stage. He urged the Commission to resist the desire to rush
through the issue before the final ruling..
Mr. Clyde Armstrong, 2465 Cristo Rey Place, Los Altos, addressed the Commission. Using the
i wall map, Mr. Armstrong suggested putting an exit access road crossing a ridge and mitering the
in freeway. He also urged that another exit/entrance in addition to Cristo Rey be considered
' In response to Chairmen Doyle's question, Ms. Wordell stated that questions brought up at the
hearing will be reviewed and responded to as part of the process between now and the next
meeting.
Mr. Bob prrr�kel, 1208 St. Joseph Avenue, Los Altos, spoke about a cloud hanging over the Los
Altos.neighborhood for the past year. He stated it appeared when the diocese filed suit against
the City of Los Altos to open St. Joseph Avenue and grew darker when the Superior Court Judge
funds for an
j` ruled that the gate would have to come down. The Los Altos City Council
oved
ful but the cloud still existed. A campaignwasconducted to
s appeal and neighbors were grate
ff in working on the F.IR and the outpouring from the
raised funds for a consultant to assist city sta
neighbors was astounding. Volunteers were stuffing envelopes in preparation for mailing and
aszed
because of the June 9th press release from the diocese, elthe stressed thathe�cloud ss 'as halt . He l exhstsrand
that the issue of the traffic is a very,serious one. Mr. Du
y the neighbors can't relax until the diocese legally drops the issue.
Chairmsm Doyle closed the public hearing.
There was a brief discussion regarding tete communication from the County of Santa Clara
regarding the trail tc_study and the EiR. Com. Austin noted that the County said that the EIR was
incomplete without further study and requested clarification on the issue.
Mr. Harrison responded that the concerns contained in the communique from the County were
unwarranted and stated there were not significant impacts based on the numbers.
3 Corn. Harris asked for clarification on the statement that Los Altos would become a respansrblm
agency unifier CEQA and having a requirement to certify the.EiR.
Mr.Wolfe responded that with regard to the designation of the City of Los Altos as a responsible
ti agency, a responsible agency pursuant to`the Environmental Quality Act is an agency that has _
discretionary regulatory authority over the project, which means permit issuing, patent issuing,
licensing issuing. Should in measures resulting from the approval of this project be
required within the City of Los Altos, e. g., work within their right of way, and h that work.
requires an encroachment permit, that is a discretionary approval of autleotyan mem are noefore t City of Los Altos at that time would b-.come a responsible agency; but presently Y
responsible agency.
In response to Corn. Hartis' request for clarification on maintenance costs, Mr. Viskovich stated
that he would address the maintenance issues based on a nexus condition.Normally developments
are.required to install improvements and do mitigation, after which time the public takes on the
maintenance responsibilities unless the road is a private roadway, at which time the homeowners
association would maintain it. He stated it is normal practice that once the improvements are
identified and installed it is the commumty that pays for maintenance such as signals, roa is,
f.
s
5{{.. � rr^i- 'wt'4F��'&Y!;7�R Ti 9,;st ,-i.'v S•.sa?c r F<7 r (-:tt' �tv g �
`� � ,'f zip •.� r;.{..:v •:-'cyty
w �• .. . . ,, �:. , .���,i„ �.�z ,n.� �ti t,., �w,ry�:qr�`�.,e�sr a,wave -. ..
Planning Ccmrnission Minutes a
Juno 29, 1995
sidewalks,etc. He added that possibilities exist of creating maintenance districts so that everyone
utilizing.the roadway in the project. would share the maintenance costs if there are s
treatments added to the roadway. special
Relating to the retrofit of the Cristo Rey;Bridge, Mr. Viskovich stated that if it was identified that
the bridge was in need of retrofit, and it could be finked to the project, and there is a nexus that
this is the only one that is benefiting, then the retrofit would be completed. However, there are
other users of that bridge so there would be some sharing of the retrofit. Mr. Wolfe stated that the
bridge currently requires seismic retrofit.
Com. Roberts stated it was not clear how to separate the issues of the diocese project and the
k
existing Forum, .rnd questioned if the Forum was a party to the suit. Mr. Kilianstated that if
public access is the issue,other people would have rights over the road besides the property owner
that is the subject of the General Plan.
Discussion continued wherein;taffanswered Commissioners'questions.
In response to Commissioners'questions,Mr. Viskovich stated that emergency vehicles would go
through the Fo-um to gain access if the diocese was completely sealed off from access. He stated
that an emergency access which would not be used on a day-to-clay basis could be incorporated in
s the design.
Chairman Doyle reopened the public hearing for further public input.
Ask Mr. Steve Sparks, 22953 Longdown Road, Cupertino, stated that according to his calculations, if
there, was a proposed road goin
g south. from the, development to Stevens Creek, it could �
potentially add 403 miles per day to get to 1-280, which would contribute greatly to air pollution.
He questioned the purpose of forcing the construction of a road. He stated that there would be no
significant increase in the traffic along Cristo Rey, and the visitor traffic to the county open space
district would not increase as a result of the dedicated land if it is accepted. If there was a foot
trail from Stevens Creek into the open space, it would be a great walk in access from a densely
populated part of Cupertino, it would discourage driving trips and reduce the open space car
traffic. He stated that the new residents would not be using St. Joseph Avenue. Fie said itwas his
opinion that it might be construed as some Los Altons,seizing on a perceived opportunity to move
most of the Cristo Rey traffic to some other neighborhood, and pointed out that what would be
added is insignificant, building another road would force that traffic down to Stevens Creek, and
r, add three miles to the trip and put the traffic in someone else's neighborhood.
,2
Ms. Betty Tyson, St.Joseph Road,a forum resident, stated she was delighted the road was closed
oft. She stated that the residents of the Forum use St.Joseph road for walking and enjoy the road
without automobiles. She urged the Planning Commission to restrict the number of homes in the
diocese,portion to a few because the residents need privacy and the residents of the Forum need '
privacy also.
Chai"an Doyle closed the public hearing. l'
Y�
The Commissioners discussed their positions on St.Joseph Avenue.
Com. Austin stated she was in favor of keeping St. Joseph Avenue closed, but that .r remain an
emergency exit only, and not using the Forum access. She pointed out that the police and fire E
Sc
f
1 f�
a
> sV' i n W,o- 34"KPr t*1t tY9vtt 5 r' .�,t',a,rsr
,g ti � xhibrk �_ +s+T,�a�� ✓tiv ,e.tiT�",'i�i{eTF 412 v .N'f�s �
1..a1
Plannin&Conmission Minutes g June 29. 1985
departmentshould have an emergency route• She stated she was not in favor of a Steveng Creek
s
}
exit except in emergencies,but was in favor of a 1-280 exit.
Com.Mahoney concurred with Com. Attstir.. -
Corn. Roberts stated he favored Cristo Rey as the primary accew.with St. Joseph and Stevens
Creek as supplemental emergency access-
that the emergency exit routes should allow people out of the
Com. Harris concurred,but stated
community as well as emergency vehicles into the community, and the access routes should
provide for bikes and pedestrians.
Chairman Doyle concurred t:7th Com. Austin. He added that it was important to have a good
working relationship with the City of Los Altos and working with then►on the St. Joseph project
was a step in.the right direction.
f reconvening, the same members were
Chnina�an Doyle declared a recess at 8 P.M. Upon
present.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the water tower wherein Mr. uiskovich explained that the
City of Cupertino would abandon the use of the water tower. ,
#t Com..Mahoney requested
Referring to the table of comparative densities and land use summary that it was a possible error
clarification on the 2.28 acres per dwelling unit. Mr.Wolfe responded
but would clarify the issue as soon as possible.
Ask
A discussion ensued relating to open space
conscry "on easements wherein staff asiswered
Commissioners'questions.
4 reviewed the site plans for alternatives 50, 75'and
Using overheads, Mr. WlQQ units 11c
olfe,
explained the original alternatives were identified in the Draft EIR as other alternatives. He stated
the consultants have,defined an area of proximately 21 acres which is equivalent to 10%of the .
entire planning area including Cristo Rey planning area and the seminary
e18,1 parcel. Mr. Wolfe
explained that 'Alternative A for 50 unit equals l dwelling unit per 18,12{ square feet gross
density;the 75 units is one dwelling unit per every 12;081 square feet,with more cul de sacs;and
e dwelling unit per 9,060 square fee_ Mr. Wolfe painted out that the impacts
the 100 units is on "
are referred to in the original draft EIR. He stated that there are no traffic impacts.btHe
impacts associated with the diagrammatic plans;the only relevant impacts
clarified that the nomenclattue and designations will be consistent in the final document.
Ms.Wordeil explained the sequence for detennining an alternative as outlined in the staff report.
Chairman Doyle reopened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Michsel Bruner, representing the Diocese of San Jos..; stated that it was important for the
diocese to get a fair remm on the property. He said there were three altematives ranging from the
178 plan and the 192 plan that the diocese was comfortable suggesting. Using the Conceptual.
ive
ativcs. He
cated
Use .Plan (178 Plan) he illustrated the different abo c the three
alternatives r shown that there
Bruner stated
extra acres on the seminary parcel o
that it is the hope of the diocese to perform on the dedication of the open space and donate the
land to a public agency.
t
x _ .
Planning Commission Minutes v June 29, 1995
Ash
Mr. A4elvin Caldwell, 10300 E. Estates Drive, Cupertino, stated that three or four Years ago the
s argtttneot was for open space and the diocese met
.all lite open space objections with the 65%open
spam. He pointed out that the diocese has continued to revise their plans to conform to public
legged frog problem,and met
input;they provided the migratory pass for the animals,met the red
the objection of views. Mr. Caldwell urged the Commission to approve a plan to allow the
diocese to proceed with their plans.
?` Mr. Steven Haze, San. duan Road. Cupertino, stated that a letter was submitted fmm the
Committee for Green Foothills expressing its concern about the development project. Using wall
maps; Mr. pointed out the areas with -visual impacts. He stated that there were a number of
-in, cultural,hheritage of and natural heritaof the areas.
organizations interested
Using the wall map, Mr. Bruner reviel the diocese recommendation taking into accoun'troffer
impacts. He stated the intent was to increase the 6,000 foot lots to 3,000 foot lots,patting t:nost of
k the density where it is flat. He pointod out that in the least visual area there would be 8,000 foot
r.
lots, more cars closer to the freeway, and fewer traps past the entry to the park, which was the
genesis of tying to adjust the densities. Mr. Bruner said that either size would be acceptable.
recommended the 173 units, which would be 1/5 acre homes on the seminary property ,
acre lots on Cristo Rey, and stated he was persuaded with the specifics of the 192 and could go
with that. He stated he preferred the 116 and 62 on a pure density level.
Com. Austin asked Corn. Mahoney if they could redistribute the 178 in the 192 confeguration,
Com. Mahoney responded possibly and said he was open to furtiter discussion. He favored
basically 116 spread over those 2 without offer of public open space, 178 to 192 with the 178
distribution more appealing but could be persuaded about the 192 as proposed. Com. Mahoney
clarified that if somebody really wanted that and it was a triggering point for being public open
. space,it would be fine;however,if further in dime nobody wants it anyway and its just going to be
w private open space, then lowering the density on the Cristo 'Rey land keeping it low would be
favored. He reiterated that he was open to the two depending on what is found further;the l78 to
192 if the public open space is dedicated.
Com."Harris stated that she visited the site and felt that the seminary parcel should not have only
An allocation.of.6 units, commenting that it was not appropriate for the topography and a more
ptypical density would be 116 units that is proposal in one version of the 192 plan and the other
version of the 178 plan. She saidhe felt that the Cristo Rey parcel shoul
she not be densely
populated. it is rolling hillsides and 30 units is what would be allowed under the current General
Plan on that site. She felt that the tradeoff'for the open space dedication would be to allow more
units on the Cristo Rey parcel since 116 units or some similar number on the seminary should be
r permitted.
x Cont. Hams said that doubling the number from 30 to 60 would be appropriate. Also a wide
eparate from the constraint map to allow wildlife to flow, similar
corridor should be maintained s
to the192 unit plan. She reiterated 60 units(178 plan has 62 units)would be acceptable except
that the corridor needs to be expanded,with larger lots on that side. She stated that the BMR units
belong it,the denser area of the seminary parcel
f
Com. Roberts stated he would distinguish between the seminary and Cristo Rey parcels, whereas
the seminary parcel by .reason of its topoL!xaphy, prior development, and its,proximity to an
already dense development.he saw no reason for relenting from the strict requirements of the GP
i
5
t
i
✓ ,.ar t+�t,�.� `x�ilk�f r,t�r�.�v'',.e+yij'�rr.,y.ij 3;"��K��� 1 �,.� 4 r 's `k�,� }.. is �tA t r� �. r tr F- __n_ x�c.y'.� �W�F,:¢� !a'k , � a.K
7� f.r,."1 \ .r k .r ,` r ,, '� r ;i• 5 i��r f}i iii t-�
Planning Connnission Minutes 10 Jima 29,.1995 f
on the seminary, on the other hand would adhere to the GP on the Cristo Rey parcel, He said it
would be a bad start on the flying hillside policy •;o look at the Cristo Rey policy as other than
undeveloped hillside and should continue to be looked at it in that way, Com. Roberts suggested
the seminary parcel be considered in the light of previous land use designation, which would
correspond to Alternative 10. It would permit 60 units there,on 20.6 acres, and could be coupled
with what is now called Alternative 7, clustered hillside policy Wtemative which would allow
development on 30 units an 17.6 aces, which totaled 90 units on 38.2 acres. The 90 units are
about 2-1/2 times as much as the GP allows, the 38 acr—es are almost twice as much as the GP
allows, and while they come short of what the applicant has asked for, about half the number of
units and 3/4 the acreage seems to be o suitable compromise.
In response, to Com. Mahoney's question, Com. Roberts stated that according to the applicant,
public open space has not been offered.' r
Com. Austin concurred with Com.Roberts,and stated that the General Plan should be amended in
the Cristo Rey area. She Zaid she agreed with Com. Roberts except as a compromise grant the 60
and treat the seminary site differently,which would bring it up to Alternative 7 and Alternative 10.
Chairman Doyle summarized that Com. Harris supported the 60 units on the seminary and 30
units on Cristo Rey.
r Cbairman Doyle stated that he and Com. Mahoney were fairly close in understanding, the
difference being the factoring of the public open space or private open space as he didn't consider
. ' it. Com. Doyle supported 1/4 acre lots on the seminary parcel(84 units). He said Alternative 5
Alft had a good distribution because it had some -Iustering and larger lots. On the Cristo Rey parcel
he supported one acre lots, preferably one story fic�. :es.r He supported 116 units in his proposal.
He stated that no one has accepted the private of public open space yet, and he didn't see it as a
win situation.
Chairman Doyle summarized the recommendations: Com. Hams and Com. Mahoney support the
proposed 178 or 192 units; Cum. Roberts and Com. Austin are in the 90 range; and Chairman
Doyle supported a 116 unit range, being flexible on the upside depending upon the resolution of
the public open space dedication.
Y In response to a question from Com. Mahoney, Com. Harris stated without the open space her
stance would be 30 on Cristo Rey, and she would still allow development on the seminary parcel
on preferably 8,000 square foot lots,so that would be 85 and 30,identical to Chairman Doyle.
Com. Mahoney asked if the Planning Commission could recommend both the non-public open
space and the public open space as an alternative for evaluation to.the.City Council. Mr. Cowan
stated that two recommendations could be submitted to the City Council.
The possibility of recommending non-public open space and public open space as an alternative
was discussed. Mr. Kilian said the Planning Commission could send both alternatives to the
Council and not create a situation where it constitutes a taking because it is the applicant that made
a the suggestion,and it is more than reasonable to consider.
A discussion ensued wherein Mr. Kilian defined open space and private open space.
�t
y
iA
}
ti
a
�i
r
Plat>sing Commission.Minutes t June 29, 19J5
Chair Doyle stated he would prefer to make a decision on a specific set of units and stated he
Ask
could support. 178 if there is a reasonable return from the public open space and not a huge
liability.
Discussion continued.
Com. Roberts stated that a central issue in the decision is the question of the dedicated public
open space, and pointed out that a public agency needs to express willingness to receive and
maintain the state stewardship over the open space. He commented it was his recollection that the
public agencies had accepted only a small portion of the open space.
Ms. Wordell responded that several months ago the Count; expressed an interest in the area
around the cemetery mud thewestem hills. The City staff is supporting the idea of city ownership
of the knoll area No public agency has expressed interest in the riparian corridor area, and the.
open space district has not expressed interest in that area yet.
Mr. Bruner stated that the County has indicated an interest 'in the 70 acres and willing to discuss
the balance. He reported that in discussions with the County they have reiterated their interest its
discussing the alternatives when they are presented with a final alternative from the City of
Cupertino.
Mr. Cc.wan stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to comment on the acceptability
of the northeastern open space area as well. The Parks and Rec Commission support both
;a elements along Cristo Rey. Roberts questioned if a decision could be made without knowing what
maintenance costs the city would,incur. Mr. Cowan responded that it is difficult to maintain,
primarily because of security.
Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing for comment.
Ms. Maria Romero Thomas, 2281 B Medina Lane, Cupertino, expressed frustration regarding the
length of time to reach a solution. She said all the constraints have been addressed, the open
t space has been discussed,S:.Josephs road will be closed, and the houses will be bniit without any
z. visual impact..She urged the Commission to make a decision in favor of the diocese.
Mr.Jack.Burkholz,21381 Milford Drive,Cupertino,stated that he telt it was the appropriate time
to make a decision as the offer may not last because of changes in political ideas and environment.
}
He urged the Commission to act as he saw the opportunity as a win-win situation.
Mr. Michael Bennington,20325 Northglen Square,Cupertino,noted that the Los Altos contingent
was no longer present at the meeting and said he did not hear a lot of comments that the property
values in Los Altos would be effected. HP urged the Commission to reach a decision.
Chairman Doyle outlined the process, stating that the impacts need to be either eliminated or
mitigated and any remaining impacts that cannot be mitigated need to be addressed by a statement
of overriding co:icern. He asked each commissioner to state his/her position and to specify the
level of acceptable development for each parcel, and what the key considerations were to define
that position.
Com. .Roberts asked if the city would have any recourse if the Planning Commission
Aga recommended the General Plan Amendment and the City Council approved it based on the
•
A
4
( ����^xa,ke="4`h,4�.- dP.'�',• �,,�=N.,,. xw � r'f t:{+fi.r4'+ t-YL..1^!r�'1 .n, F'r°t�"�''`x S..Is. ffi a. y ., �y'\ q�� Sit 4 t G '. 1 w !r - Sti' G..,..'.
Y�tv i, .—r ti ,� `�""x {�.:,L,k r.r , _;,. r'4Ss� �'s� '.rryK J'A.+s S�F;`•aF7 `,�.i�i�-r" ' ,�r.. '�.'��i Y
Planning Commission Minutes i2 J,=29, 1995.-'
A
assumption that a certain portion of the property would be deeded to public agencies, and the
conditions were not fulfilled.
Mr. Kilian stated that it was the diocese that was offered the open space and the situation is not
such where the city is causing the developer to dedicate against.his will open space in renun for
zoning. He pointed out that the General Plan could designate that area as public open space
presuming that there was a general agreement with respect to the General Plan Amendment. Mr.
Kilian said that assuming the 192 units were approved with the offers of open space thaf have
been verbally stated here,it could be relied upon and put in the General Plan.
Com.Mahoney addressed a base level of development,that is without an offer of open space. He
f said based on the constraint maps there is approximately 21 acres of seminary property that is
„ developable. He stated that while he agreed that the hillside density should be a 5 to 20 acre
minimum,he did not feel that this particular property should have'been included in the line drawn
at that time,particularly the seminary property.
Com.Mahoney recommended on the seminary property 84 units on quarter-acre lots,and 32 units
on one-acre lots, which would total 116 unit;;. For an additional 62 homes over 50 acres, using
the 178 number, he stated it would be worth-the increased density on those two spots for the
public open space. Com. Mahoney emphasizeA that the public open space is very valuable and it
! is an offer that should be taken advantage of.
(�► a pure density level Com. Mahon. said thrt since the approval of 120 unit apis and ground
P ty Mahoney
level parking and a three story office building, a very short term has changed, and it was never
dedicated as open space. Whatever the decision, Com. Mahoney stated that he would like to see
something that has the possibility of lasting more than 20 years. He said he would like the
decision4to be the best, whether it Nr dedicating it to a public agency or private open space with
some restrictions,with some thought of five to ten years in the future.
Com.Mahoney stated tie would like to see the advantages of it not being private.
5, Chairman Doyle said he had a key concern that there were several characteristics of property in
question; some of them in riparian corridors which have very 'tittle use and have environmental
impacts. There are s.:nne areas that are quite prominent;high value to the community. Chairman
Doyle asked for clar: � .ation before he could justify the 178 number; otherwise the 1 l6 is where
the commission stane:
Com. Mahoney pointed out that on a fundamental split of densities, he favored the 178 concept;
"s but there was some testimony that the 192 really gives more use for public open space.
Com. Roberts asked if there was a possibility of another majority centered around 116 or 118. He
said it seems as if there are other alternatives that envision more; the important principle is
adhering to the General Plan on the Cristo Rey parcel and not permitting development on the
Maryknoll side of Cristo Rey Drive. He sai i that on the --,-minary property one could envision
greater number of units on the seminary parcel within the same development envelope and apart
from concerns about tree, preservation would be acceptable in exchange for smaller offering of
Y open space.
Com . Mahoney stated that with the 34, he would put the Maryknoll thing back in the constraint
area on that.
f
�llilli 01115
IM SRI 1
+,
i
t.
9
�' v i�:�t'�F ��� ', YnG}tb''�"3`„�'' ',�c��ir_'�t fyr'�t e'S. ,��. 't7'1�"�.''! �;�.a"��°!j; „-,^t�;'GT �+ �'p_ �. s �'r.• �•,
lis � s ha a w h �' °E�ties z t... w s;°i'R `r1,ip�°. t t a.1 t KS; R �'f, r��lv .+. � +•. t:
y ;:rx 17 �idl tr A 7 s 4 jb N�1£ t A pp 7Sy
Platin[n�Commission Ivltttutes 13 jit(itl .'195 t'.
AOL
Com. Harris,painted out that many people favored the open space. If only 30 unitA aae approved
for the Cristo Rey parcel it is not economicidly reasonable enough to cause a church to allow non-,
development and a possible solution might be to try and work on-the seminary parcel to eget as
many units as possible.' She said she favored the dedication,now'because at one time 400 units
were approved on the parcel and she preferred it to remain a smaller number.
Com. Hams stated she favored 85 and 30 without the open space, and 116 and 60 with the open
space as long as a wider corridor is maintained.
Chairman Doyle summarized the need for a review of the alternative of 116 and 178, and
discussion about utility of open space.
ivlr. Cowan suggested that a plan be packaged that would encompass both options and get a report
r from Steve Dowling on the utility issue in order to make a decision.
There was consensus to continue the item to the special meeting on July 18, 1995.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
DEPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: None
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMi1NITY DEVELOPMENT: None
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None
ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Monday,July 10, 1995 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Elizabeth llis
Recording Secretary
Amended Minutes Approved: j u!y 24, !995
Y
4.
7
�3I
i