U-1988-12 (Amended)bN YCit'41Cupertivu
10300 Torre Aaenue
Cupertino. California 95014
Telephone: (408( 252-450S
DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
September 18, 1989
Arthur G. Gunther
32 Great Circle
Mill Valley, California 94941
Application 12-U-88 - Arthur G. Gunther
Dear Mr. Gunther:
P.O. Box S80
Cupertino, California MIS
'this letter confirms the decision of the Cupertino Planning Commission,
given at its regular meeting of September 11, 1989 to approve the subject
application according to the findings and conditions specified in the
enclosed copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4198.
Please note these conditions carefully. Subsequent submittal of materials
for building permits or other entitlements will be checked for compliance
with the conditions listed in the Resolution; discrepancies may result in
processing delays. Please contact our office if you have questions about
this matter.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ZA-:k Lmrw'
Robert Cowan
Director of Community Development
letters\ltl2u88
12-U-88 (A:mj-ded)
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
FSOLUPION No. 4198
OF THE PLANNING CW IISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
TO CLARIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF USE PMMIT
12-U-88 (AMENDED) AND 29-U-84 (AMENDED)
SFiMON I: FINDINGS
M OW --AS, the Planning Cm ission of the City of Cupertino received an
application for clarification of a condition of approval of a Use Permit,
as described on Page 2 of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support
said application; and
WHMEAS, the Planning Ccmudssion finds that the application meets the
following requirements:
a) That the use or uses are in conformance with the General Plan of
the City of Cupertino, and are not detrimental to existing uses
or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is to be located.
b) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to
aeccmrodate the proposed use.
c) That the proposed use will not generate a level of traffic over
and above that of the capacity of the existing street system.
d) That the proposed use is otherwise not detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed uses, nor injurious
to property and improvements in the neighborhood.
NOW, TtOZEFIORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and
other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is
hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are
enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified
in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record
concerning Application 12-U-88 (Amended) as set forth in the Minutes of
the Planning cc mmission Meeting of September 11, 1989, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
Resolution No. 4198 (12-U-88 Amended) 09/11/89
Page -2-
SF=ON II• DFSCRIPPION OF PRAIECP
Application No(s): 12-U-88 (Amended) and 29-U-84 (Amenctcd)
Applicant: Arthur G. Gunther
Property Owner: Steven Gazzera
ax-ation: 19930/19936 Stevens Creek Blvd.
SECFION III. CONDITIONS ADMINI9TFS2FD BY WE COMMUNITY DEVFLOPMIINP DEPT.:
1. CLARIFICATION
Clarify that the intent of Condition No. 27 of 12-U-88 is to restrict
restaurant traffic from exiting onto Blaney Avenue, not to restrict
eastbound traffic from exiting onto Stevens Creek Boulevard.
2. FINAL PLANS
A final improvement plan depicting curbing, expansion of landscaping,
pavement markings and direction signs are to be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval prior to installation.
3. PERIODIC REVIEW
This approval shall be reviewed periodically in order to review the
effectiveness of this clarification and solution. Substantiated
complaints related to traffic flow onto Blaney Avenue shall be grounds
for the Planning Commission to review this application.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of September, 1989 at a Regular Meeting
of the Planning C omission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: OaMMIISSIONMS: Claudy, Mackenzie, Szabo, Sorensen, chairman Adams
NAYS: COMMISSIONERS:
AASPION: CCtII41SSIONERS:
ABSENP: OCI-MISSIONERS:
/s/ Robert Cowan
Robert Cavan
Director of Community Development
peresos\rsl2u88a
/s/ Victor Adams
Victor Adams, Chairman
Cupertino Planning Commuaission
Tan Jem Computers Incorporalea
�0) TANDEM 0400 NoCorporateReal rtn Tan Estate
Avenue LOC Services
Cupertino. CA 95014
September 10, 1992 (408)285-3200
Mr. Robert Cowan SEP l 4 1 --
Director of Community Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Re: Application to Extend Use Permit 13-U-88
Dear Bob:
Tandem's Use Permit 13-U-88 (site bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd.,
Tantau Avenue, and Vallco Parkway) expires on October 16, 1992.
Following issuance of the original use permit in August of 1988, the
events described below significantly impacted Tandem's plans to
develop UP 13-U-88.
• AcQuisition of Vallco Ltd. Properties: In December of 1989,
Tandem purchased 86 acres of land in Cupertino, requiring a
thorough master planning process to integrate the new lands
with existing plans and properties. In addition, the Marriott
Corporation withdrew a proposal for a full service hotel on
the adjacent site. Tandem subsequently purchased the
property and included it in the master planning process.
• City's Continuing Review of General Plan: Shortly after
Tandem began its master planning effort, the City embarked
on a review of its General Plan in May of 1990. Tandem has
been an active participant in all phases of the General Plan
Review, and has been awaiting a final decision before
making a renewed commitment to UP 13-U-88.
• Prolonged Recession: In addition to the points described
above, Tandem, along with the rest of the high tech
community and other sectors of the economy, has
experienced the impact of a prolonged recession. This has
led to reduced sales growth, and has delayed the need to
expand into space that would have been provided by
construction of UP 13-U-88.
At the time of our first extension request, Tandem asked for a two
year extension. We did so anticipating that the recession might be
deeper and more lengthy than many were predicting, and that the
General Plan Review process might take as much time to resolve as
did its predecessor in 1980. Considering that Tandem has stated its
desire to apply for a development agreement once the General Plan
process has been concluded, and that development agreements can
involve lengthy processing times, we would again like to request a
two year extension of UP 13-U-88. This would avoid another
extension request arising during the development agreement
process, and ensures that we can continue to take the long view in
planning our growth within the City.
Please call me if I can provide further clarification. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Croli
j
n Hailey
ect Manager