The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 01-08-01 Scan Date Retention Review Date /._ CUPERTINO [ ~~o~ ~i~ ~[~i~ ~o~I~o~ Monday, January 8, 2001 David Doyle Patrick Kwok ~,~~ Andrea Harris, Chairperson Steve Piasecld, Director, Community Elizsbtqth Pill.% Recording Secretary Assistant City Attorney Jerry Stevens, Vice-Chairperson / ~ .. ' Speaker's -Public Works Staff Podium -Planning Staff -Ciddy Wordell, City Planner CITY HALL, COUNCIL.CHAMBERS, 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 408-777°3308 (Comm. Dev.) ~ Website: www.cupertino, org i I City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 AGENDA OF TI-W. REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers January 8, 2001, 6:45 p.m. ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 11, 2000 December 18, 2000 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR 3. 05-TM-00; Pinn Brothers; 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Boulevard Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on issues which, are not already included in the regular Order of Business) CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 2. Application No(s): 08-DIR-00 Applicant: Mingshiang Wang Location: 10300 Phar Lap Drive Director's referral of an application to remove an oak tree on a single family residential lot. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 2000 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny 08-DIR-00 Planning Commission Agenda of Janv__~_~y 8, 2001 Page -2- 3. Application No.(s): 05-TM-00 Applicant: Pinn Brothers Location: 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Boulevard Tentative map to subdivide a pexcel into two lots for an approved planned development; one lot for the residential use (46 condominium units) and one for the retail/office use. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request postponement to meeting of January 22, 2001 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny 05-TM-00 4. Application: 06-U-97(M) Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Kirk Law Location: 23595 Oak Valley Road Use permit modification to remove a eucalyptus tree protected as part of the O'Brien Group (Oak Valley) development. . Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny 06-U-97(M) 5. Application No.(s): 04-SP-00, 14-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise. Postponed from meeting of December II, 2000 Tentative City Council date: February 5, 2001 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny 14-EA-00 2. Approve or deny 04-SP-00 OLD BUSINESS 6. Confirmation of Goals for 2001/2002 NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Agenda of January 8, 2001 Page -3- REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Committee Mayor's Breakfast REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at or prior to the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak fbr I 0 minutes and individu_als to speak for 3 minutes. G:Planning/Agondas 14-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 DRAFT SUBMITTED (408) 77%3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris (Com. Doyle arrived during Oral Communication). Staffpresent: Steven Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Veto Gil, Senior Planner; Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer; Peter G-illi, Associate Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner;. Eileen Murray, AssiStant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 27, 2000 Regular Meeting: Chair Harris noted changes to the minutes: Page 15, No. 8, Application No. should read: O1-MC,4-O0 Page 16, (first motion), Application 19-AA-00 should read: 19-EA-O0 Page 5, second paragraph, last sentence should read .... "in the beginning" MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve the November 27, 2000 as amended SECOND: Com. Kwok ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to postpone the November 1, 2000 special meeting minutes to the December 18, 2000 meeting SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 VVRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted written communication from Rolph Meyer, relative to the CCS application, and a petition opposing the neighborhood /-4 Plannin~ Conunission Minutes 2 December I I, 2000 alternative plan for the subdivision of the Wallen property, and supporting the original plan as submitted by the developer. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 8. Application Nos.: 04-SP-00, 14-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise Postponed from meeting of November 13, 2000 Request postponement to January 8, 2001 meeting Com. Doyle arrived during Oral Communication. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Donald Burnett, City Councilman, expressed his appreciation to Corns. Harris and Doyle for their eight years of service to the community. He said as a member of the City Council, he was in a better position than anyone else in the community to appreciate what the Planning Commission does because their work lessens the work the City Council has to do and it is important that a lot of the details be taken care of before they get to the Council. He thanked Com. Doyle and Chair Harris for their work Com. Doyle thanked Councilmember Bumett for his support over the years. Chair Harris clarified that the item on the consent calendar related to trees should have been the public hearing item and the public hearing item related to trees should have been a consent calendar item, since staff was supporting one and mitigating the other. She requested Item 2 be removed from the consent calendar to allow it to be part of the agenda as originally intended; and stated that Item 3 cannot be now put on the consent calendar because it was not Published as such. Consent Calendar 3. Application No.: 08-DIR-00 Applicant: Mingshiang Wang Location: 10300 Phar Lap Drive Tree removal permit to allow the removal of one 62 inch circumference (20 inch diameter) oak tree from a single family residential property. Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remove the oak tree from the single family lot. Staff'supports the removal of the tree because the orientation of Planning Commission Minutcs 3 Dcccmbcr I I, 2000 the primary trunk over the residence puts the safety of the occupants at risk. Staffdoes not recoramend a replacement tree in this location but recommends planting a 24 inch box oak tree in the front yard. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within. 14 calendar days. Mr. Peter Oilli, Associate Planner, illustrated thc location of the tree and said that staff was supportive of the tree removal with a replacement tree in the front yard. Mr. Gilli answered questions regarding the tree in question and the proposed replacement tree. He clarified that the new homeowner was not able to secure insurance because of the safety risk of the tree. Chair Harris questioned if staff followed up on the arborist's remark that removal of the tree is only one Option. Mr. Oilli said that staff had not contacted the arborist. Chair Harris noted that it states that the tree probably will not complete full compa~hnentaJiT~tion, meaning that they do not feel it would fail over, and removal is probably one option. Com. Corr commented that it would be interesting to see what took place at the time the house was built because of the concern the city has had for oak trees over the years, since it is a grove of oaks along Phar Lap; what were thc conditions, what happened at that time; (although it may be a moot point since there is the issue of the cavity and the possibility of it falling over) the tree existed fu'st, the house was nestled in with the tree, and now the tree is recommended for removal. Mr. Gilli indicated that the Cupertino arborist had not yet examined the tree. Com. Doyle recommended continuing the application since the applicant was not present; to evaluate the risk and see if there is an ability to insure it. Chair Harris said there were many unanswered questions, thc issue of insurance, a letter from an insurance company, and the arborist providing the other options. Com. Kwok also requested that staff check to see if there have been any modifications to the building since it appeared the tree was very close to the building. Chair Harris also requested that staff look up the original development appwval of the house to sec if the tree was required to be kept at that time Chair Harris opened the meeting for Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 08-DIR-00 to the January 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 The applicant, Mr. Ming.~hlanE Wang, appeared after a decision was rendered to continue the application. Chair Harris explained that the application had been continued and said he should work with staff to help answer questions on the application. Planning Commission Minutes 4 December I I, 2000 2. Application No.: 08-DIR-00 Applicant: Michael Heckrotte (Ridgecerst Homeowners Association) Location:. 10300 Phar Lap Drive Tree removal permit to allow the removal of nine redwood trees from a single family cluster development Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to remove nine redwood trees from a single family cluster development. Staff recommends removal of six of the nine trees, the remaining three trees are not close to any structure and are in good health. Further growth could be maintained by root pruning and use of biobarrier. Mr. Gilli illustrated the location of the trees recommended for removal and those recommended for retention. Ms. Phyllis Matheson, 21989 McClellan Road, landscape chairman of the Ridgecrest Homeowners Association, said that the complex was constructed about 27 years ago, and they planted redwood and maple trees two feet from the homes or fences. The trees have grown large over the years and pose maintenance problems. She said of the three trees not approved for removal, the tree by the pool was not a good tree because it had two trunks, has been root pruned and lifted the deck of the pool on the other side of the fence by the tree, and the deck had to be replaced. She said they were concerned that the tree will affect the pool aixacture itself. She said they have cut the root and it still continues to grow. Ms. Matheson said they recommended removing two other trees because a similar tree uplifted the patio of a resident's home and they had to replace the patio which was very costly, and they fear a similar incident would happen with these two trees. She said the complex had 28 units, and they were constantly in debt because of landscaping and other things, and expenses were divided by 28 units. The owners are seeking ways of not increasing their expenses by poor management and for that reason wanted to remove the specific trees. She said it will be a financial hardship to remove all the trees recommended, but they feel it is important overall and various arborists agree. She said that redwood trees were planted by the builder for fast growth, without any consideration given to their rapid growth. She said there would still be approximately 10-12 redwoods remaining on the property. Chair Harris questioned how the request went from removal of 2 trees to a request to remove 9 trees. Mr. Oilli said that the applicant originally requested a handful of trees to be removed for purposes of expediting the process. There was strong disagreement between the applicant's arborist and the city arborist over tree No. $ which was one of the original two trees to be removed; and at that time the applicant realized that it would be better to -request all of the trees that they were concerned about, and discuss it with the Planrfing Commission. Mr. Oilli said the original two trees that they requested were trees No. 1 and 5; and he explained the rationale for staff's recommendation for removal of trees No. 1, 4, 7, 8, and Planninl~ Commission Minutes 5 December I I, 2000 some that were close to structures. The city arborist looked at tree No. 1, 5, 6, and 7, and felt that No. 5 was fine and was a prime candidate for the biobarrier root control system used in the public fight-of-way to prevent root damage to improvements. The arborist recommended that the tree close to the garage, No. 7, be removed and that one of the other two be removed also. Staff and thc applicant recommend No. 6 because it is close to a fence. Staff is not recommending approval for removal of No. 2 and 3 because thc only damage is to sidewalks. Mr. Gilli summarized: No. 1 appears not to be healthy; No. 4 too close to, the structure and rather thinned out at the top; No. 6 has some canopy damage; No. 7 is healthy but too close to the garage; No. 8 appears to be healthy but is pushing on the retaining wall; No. 9 is healthy but is close to a residence. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Matheson referred to the picture showing the retaining wall being pushed away, No. 8, and explained they had just replaced the retaining wall last year, which indicated how much it had moved in that period. Referring to No. 4 as well as No. 8; she illustrated the retaining wall and said that last year it cost $10,000 to replace the stone wall when a car damaged the wall, and they feel the tree will affect the retaining wall also and it would have to be replaced. She said that because of the limited budget, there is not a regular schedule for root pruning, She said they did not expect to do all the trees at once because of the cost, which is why there are more trees than the original two in addition to the need for them. Com. Stevens said that there would be a lot of similar'comments in the future relative to Cupertino becomi~, g a mature neighborhood relative to the trees. He said he felt the Planning Commission should wait for the revised landscaping plan for the entire relative to trees 1, 4, 7 and 8, if staffand the city arborist feel that'they should be removed. Com. Stevens said that they have had several requests for removal of trees, many of them on an overall plan, and he wished to convey to the community that a well thought out plan of what can occur and when, is much easier for the Planning Conunission, than listening to individual requests, especially with trees of this maturity. Com. Kwok added that there should be a regular root pruning schedule, not just topping the trees because it is too expensive to do any root pruning, but it should be done on a regular basis to ensure that every step is taken to prevent the roots from hitting the retaining walls. Com. Kwok said he supported removing unhealthy Tree 1 and the tree that is close to the garage, but for those that are still healthy, which could tolerate root pruning, he recommended trying that before killing the trees, because a full grown redwood tree takes such a long time to grow. Com. Doyle said that in the infomaation provided, it is difficult to say how much forestation there is on the property or how many trees there are; and removing one out of four trees is not significant, but removing all of them is a big impact. He said he supported staff recommendation; however, more information would have made the decision easier. Planning Commission Minutes 6 December I I, 2000 Com. Corr said he also supported staff's recommendation, but concurred with Com. Stevens relative to an overall landscaping plan for the area. He said knowing that redwood trees have a very shallow but wide root bail, they will tear up concrete slabs and walkways close to redwood trees. He noted that the State and National parks have gone to raised walkways to protect tree's root system. He said he would prefer an overall landscape plan, but would support staff's recommendation. Chair Harris said that she felt the trees add character to the community. The trees on McClellan Road in particular are very prominent and benefit everyone in the community, and have more of an impact on removal; staff is recommending that two remain, Nos. 2 and 3, and two be removed, Nos. 4 and 8. She said she agreed with Com. Kwok that the first step should not be to remove healthy trees; the ones that are sparse, 1 and 4 could be removed, and the health ones should not be removed until another tactic has been tried fu'st, and only removed it if does not work. She said as pointed out earlier, people tend to prune the tops of trees because they see the tops of trees, but redwoods have a spreading root and the cost of pruning those roots is probably similar to the cost of pruning the canopy; therefore it needs to be part of the regular maintenance instead of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' and destroying the character of the community. Chair Harris said she supported Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8 that staff feels need to be removed at this time. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to remove trees No. 1, 4, 7, and 8; and retain the others. SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the decision was final, unless appealed to the City Council within 14 caiendar days.. 4. Application Nos.: 10-EXC-00, 14-U-00m 18-EA-00 Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Services) Location: Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (north of new fire station) Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan that requires a 30 foot separation between onsite buildings. Use pe.,.it to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apartment building and a 6.089 square foot Cupertino Community services building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 2 7, 2000 Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001 Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed that the application had been heard twice before, the most recent in October when the Planning Commission gave direction to the applicant to make changes relative to concerns they had. The first concern was that the office space was too large and the applicant was requested to reduce it by PlanninS Commission Minutes 7 December I I, 2000 approximately 1,000 to 1,500 sq. ft. to accommodate additional parking. By reducing the sq~zre footage of the office they were able to reduce the parking demand, and would meet the shared parking requ'u-ement the Planning Commission had requested they meet. Responding to concerns about the architecture of the CCS office building; the architect trimmed some office space and made architectural changes to the building. She noted that the applicant changed the building materials on the CCS building to match the proposed materials for the residential, instead of stucco; changed to siding. She reviewed the changes to the carports and the office building, and noted the second story space was reduced. Five additional parking spaces were added by making some site changes. Ms. Oil showed the various elevations from different viewing angles, reviewed briefly the matrix of concerns from the previous meeting; and discussed details such as the trellis work and some other minor architectural details that the Planning Commission agreed by consensus would go to the Design Review Committee (DRC). The model resolution needs to be amended to reflect the reference to the DRC with final review to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tom Early, Bridge Housing Co~p., said that they followed the Planning Commission direction and reduced the overall square footage of the project and spent considerable time with CCS and the architect to review the removal of program space as well as examine some new efficiencies in the overall design of the floor plan. Those changes yielded in a reduction of overall sqnare footage of the project of 1266 square feet in the services building alone which yields a net reduction in the parking demand of 5 parking spaces. In addition they reviewed and took direction of the Planning Commission with regard to the massing of the building and the impact of the front and the additional elevations .in conjunction with the changes in the volume of the building of the building. He said they also adjusted the building materials to be more cohesive with the overall residential project and the reductions in the volume and the square footage space allowed them to reduce the impact of the building and the overall massing. Mr. Rick Williams, Architect, Van Meter Williams Pollack, emphasized that they worked closely with staff and took into consideration all the Planning Commission comments and consideration throughout modifying some of the design pieces. He referred to the site plan, and reviewed changes to site plan, including relocation of the carport; reduction in size of the overall footprint of the CCS building; and by stepping back in a few small areas, we were able to provide the landscaped area in the front to set it back far enough to add some trees in the front of that building. Also discussed at the last meeting was due to the size of the footprint there was approximately 18-1/2 feet from the property line to the face of the building and there is now 20 feet, gaining an additional 1.5 feet separation on the other side between the residential, with an overall modified footprint. The reduction in square footage of the building allowed an additional equivalent of 5 parking spaces discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Referring to the model of the facility, Mr. Williams indicated the changes in building height, building style, treatment of overhangs, building materials, brackets and details. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Planning Conunission Minutes g December I I, 2000 Com. Stevens noted at the last meeting that the public made several comments about an island or divider against Stevens Creek for a one way mm only, and questioned if staff had addressed the issue. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, responded that staff has looked at the possibility of removing the median island off of Randy Lane. Although the process has not been finalized, staff'will ask City Council to endorse the removal of the island. Com. Kwok said that the report indicated that at the discretion of the city, if the office space proves to be too intense or has an impact on the neighborhood, the applicant may be required to curtail activities or submit a revised final parking management plan. He questioned what the elements of the revised management plan would be if there was a need to curtail activities. Ms. Gil explained that if evening board meetings or events at the location created an adverse impact for the residents relative to parking, the evening activities would have to be curtailed after a certain hour. She said they could specify that after 5 p.m. they are not allowed to have meetings in the office, or they could discuss the number of employees that would be allowed to be onsite in the office space. Mr. Piasecki said it would also apply to · daytime activities, although they did not expect to have problems in the daytime. He said if they found that there was an overuse of the parking facilities during the day, CCSwould be asked to curtail or schedule things in such a way that that the neighborhood would not be affected in a negative manner. Mr. Piasecki said that potentially there is are a lot of things occurring that need to be managed, and if well managed, there will not be a problem with parking. For any reason it gets beyond the available onsite or immediately in front of the building on the street, it is felt the neighborhood has an expectation that staffwill review it and curtail the activities if necessary. Chair Harris referred to the letter received from R. Meyer, relative to the delivery of pallets of food. She questioned if the design accommodated a place to park trucks delivering pallets. Also, the residents are concerned about people coming out of Quinlan Center with shopping carts, and leaving the carts in the neighborhood. Ms. Gil said that she was not aware that there were large trucks making deliveries, only smaller trucks making food deliveries. Ms. Jaclyn Fabre, Executive Director, Cupertino Community Services, said that the tbod was delivered in small vans, not large tracks, and were mostly in boxes because women are unloading the 'food from the vans. She said that shopping carts were not provided to the clients for picking up their food, and were likely brought onto the premises by the clients. It is the client's responsibility to remove the carts. She said that the only carts were cafeteria-type racks that were used to move the food, and the CCS had only two of those. Planning Commission Minutes 9 December I l, 2000 Mr. Dan Sailer, 350 Bridge Pkwy., Redwood City, Promethius Real Estate Group, said he was fortunate to be involved during the latter stages of the design alterations and minor modifications that took place, to sit work with the architect who has done a lot of design work in Cupertino. He said he was pleased with the direction of the project, and said that it would be an excellent addition to the city. He said they were happy with the changes that took place in the CCS facility and said it now speaks with one architectural vocabulary for the entire site, and will now be a much more inviting building tbr the community members and clients who are utilizing that facility. Ms. Shehnaz Khan, Vista Drive, asked for clarification on the parking changes. Chair Harris explained that five spaces were previously added and the Planning Commission f~lt there was a need for ten if they kept the office building the same size. The applicant reduced the office building by 1250 square feet, which removed the need for five parking spaces from the previous requirement. Ms. Khan said if the activity in the building is not affected by the building becoming smaller, then it does not address the problem that there would be as many number of clients coming in and as much parking being required and as many people being catered to, but in fact there would not be any additional parking, and . they would probably be parking on Vista Drive. Chair Harris clarified that when thc Plaonlng Commission approves an office building, a city standard is used for space, when there is an assumption of a certain number of people and a certain number of square feet because the building is approved for all time, not just approved for the particular application. She said they were good standards that have worked throughout the city for all kinds of office use. Mr. Piasecki said they also added another condition that said should there be a problem they can revisit the uses and activities both during the day and in the evening; therefore there is a safety mechanism built into the conditions as well as the parking. Ms. Khan expressed concern about the excessive parking on Vista Drive recently as a result of recent development in downtown. She said that her neighbors are also concerned about the parking issue, however, were unable to attend the meeting. Cbalr Harris said that staff seriously considered the issue and that is why there is a specific condition about a re~riction on activities problems come up. She said that the apartment was 24 feet tall, and CCS building was 29 feet tall. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 18-EA-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris clarified that in the staff report it discusses bringing the details back to the DRC, but in the condition it discusses bringing it back to staff. The recommendation at the last meeting was to go to DRC and then have final approval with the Planning Commission, which would require a change in.condition No. 5. The change would be to remove the word "staff." The sentence should be just as written without the word 'staff Planning Commission Minutes 10 Dc'c~ml~r I I, 2000 and the heading withOut 'staff' and it should say ... "be approved by the Planning Commission subsequent to review by the DRC". Com. Doyle clarified the parking requirements. There were four actions taken in an attempt to reduce the impacts: Increased 5 parking spaces in a previous meeting; reduced the size of the building which resulted in 5 less required parking spaces; there is a shared parking requirement that will handle the overflow so that there is additional information and staff has come back with a history of other similar developments that are currently 2 parking spaces per unit, which has shown to be somewhat excessive. If the parking is not successful, there is a fallback mechanism, with some assurances from the people there to be able to do that. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition No. 5 as modified SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris noted that the resolution should include Application No. 10-EXC-00 in the heading MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 10-EXC-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 AMENDED MOTION: Com. ~wok moved to approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition No. 5 as modified, and 10-EXC-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 The application will be forwarded to City Council on January 16, 2001. 5, Application Nos.: 02-TM-00, 22-EA-00 Applicant: Kelly Gordon Development corporation Location: 7825 & 7851 Orion Lane Tentative map to subdivide two parcels 0.01 acres) into 8 single family parcels with an average lot of 7,800 square feet in an RI-6 zoning di-klct. Continued from meeting of November 13, 2000 Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide two parcels into 8 single family parcels on Orion Lane. The application was presented at the November 13, 2000 meeting where residents expressed concerns over the P~nning Commission Minutes I I December I I, 2000 proposal. The item was continued to address traffic and mad location, creek restoration, and an existing 14 inch oak tree, and to allow for a neighborhood meeting regarding thc application. Staff recommends approval of the application; and the item is scheduled City Council presentation on January 16, 2001: Chair Harris noted that a petition signed by 15 people against the neighborhood alternative and for thc original plans submitted by the developer. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the vicinity map and illustrated thc modifications made, including thc redesign of the entrance of Wallin Court onto the existing cul de sac bulb; also the trail becomes a sidewalk and extends all thc way out to the cul dc sac. She referred to thc issues that were addressed since thc last meeting: Most of thC issues were discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Traffic Issue: The primary issue was traffic and road configuration. Thc residents had various points of view on what their preferred option was and they are included in thc staff rePort. One of the items from thc discussion was that the traffic safety committee normally does review the possibility of adding stop signs; therefore there is a condition of approval for that issue to be discussed by them, and the neighbors will be invited to attend. They will discuss thc Possibility of adding a three way stop or some other possible configuration to make that intersection safer. Ms. Wordcll stated that another proposed change was that thc existing cul dc sac could be changed into more of a regular T intersection; by paring down thc bulb more, which would require wording change for Condition 12, Page $-5, to make it Intersection Improvements, to include that staff would be able to possibly modify thc intersection to create a T intersection for safety reasons; and the second part o£ ~he condition to include that staff would be looking into thc possibility of stop signs with thc traffic safety committee. Staff does prefer this configuration with some of the slight modifications. She said that staffproposcd it be done at staff level and the property owners who might be affected by the direct changes would be contacted prior to making minor amendments.. Issue of creek restoration: Ms. Wordcll said that thc Planning Commission asked that the water district have a chance to review their improvement plans and restoration plans prior to this meeting so that staff would know their stand since there was some concern from adjacent property owners. She reported that thc water district was supportive of the creek restoration plan as presented to them by the developer; however, since that time because of concerns by the neighbors, the water district did have concerns about one of the areas across from the creek on thc north side. There were some improvements proposed here and it was not clear cut that what was proposed really was going to be acceptable. Ms. Wordell said that in any case, a condition of approval has been added to thc resolution which says that all thc creek restoration plans must be approved by thc water district prior to finzl recordation of the map, so rather than thc city being in the middle or second guess what thc water district is or is not going to require in the way of creek improvements, it will be their decision and they must make that prior to recordation of the final map. Plnnning Commission Minutes 12 December ! ~, 2000 Issue of retaining wall: The Planning Commission requested that the retaining wall material be specified; the sample has been provided and a condition states what the material will be. Initial Study: There was a request m look at it again to be certain that ali the environmental impacts were addressed. There were two areas which needed further modification. One was that the project was near a proposed trail and secondly that it did change the drainage pattern. None of those impacts were found to be significant. Trees: The applicant had asked staff to look at a tree in front that they had shown to be saved and staff recommended retention and planted in another location. Ms. Wordell said that it was not a good sU'ucture in terms of replanting, and should be replaced with something else. A condition has been added that says that the tree can be removed and replaced with a 48 inch box tree somewhere else along the frontage of the property. Relative to the trees, staff conducted a site visit and recommends adding a condition relative to having the trees in the creek on the north side, evaluated to see if something more needs to be done for those. Presently the condition states that the trees will be protected; however, staff is recommending that language be added specifically regarding the trees with exposed mots potentially being a b~7~rd or if they need to go. She said that it would be a water district jurisdiction; however, staff'would like the developer's arborist specifically look at the trees prior to recordation of the map to see if something special needs to be done. She noted that the two new conditions would be added to Condition No. 2 relative to trees with exposed roots in the creek, and Condition No. 12, relative to the intersection improvements. Responding to a concern from Com. Doyle, Ms. Wordell said that a condition of appwval could be added relative to parking restriction at night related to security concerns. Chair Harris asked staff to create the language for Item 2, and that it have a conclusion, not that it just be review, but that it be reviewed and what the result would be that they are seeking from the review. Ms. Wordell read a fax from the water district stating that conceptually the creekbank stabilization measures proposed are acceptable to the water district. Adjustments will likely be needed as final construction drawings are prepared. She read the contents of the fax outlining the water district's request to review various documents. Mr. Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development, distributed a drawing showing how the street relates to Orion and Milky Way with the modifications made, making the intersection more predominant and for easier access. He reported on the neighborhood meeting and said that the modified design was based on the concerns voiced by the neighbors. Stop signs have also been discussed and are open. for further discussion. He said that they have had a number of conversations with Sue Tippets at the water district and at this point, she has the final package in hand and is on board with the creek improvements. [-"l 2- Planning Commission Minutes I:~ December ! I. 2000 Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Bar~y Spieler, 1087 November Drive, said that he had problems with his fence and part of the back yard failing in due to the erosion caused by the creek. He said that he felt at the last meeting he did not feel that the magnitude of the problem was. understood, and he provided photos relative to his concerns. He said he was in favor of the tentative map, but would like his concerns addressed, such as moving his fence back on his property line and the section of the back yard repaired. He said that he has talked to Mr. Kelly Sr., and he indicated that he would talk to his soil expert. Mr. Spieler noted that ten years ago he had I0 feet of land on the creel(side on the other side of the fence and it has gone. Relative to mitigation of the issue through the project, Ms. Wordell explained that the water district previously agreed at the time the subdivision was put in, that they would require the erosion control measures at that time. There was a history of a lawsuit and the water disizict said they would require this remediation, but that it was not specified. She said that the remediation is being proposed through this tentative map, the dedication is required through the tentative map as well as the condition that the improvement plan or erosion plan has to be approved prior to map recordation, hence it is getting locked in to the subdivision. The exact plan will be up to the water district. Ms. Wordell said that it was in the erosion plan to deal with this particular property, but the property owner affected does not feel it is what he would like to see. Mr. Alan Stocldmeir, co-owner of 1087 November Drive, said that it was their understanding with the water district that a remediation would be accomplished on the property line at the time the subdivision was done and it would need to be done before they accepted the dedication. He said that the water district would require remediation of the bank area before they accept any dedication from any developer. He stated that the water district was putting a retaining wall in across the creek from his residence, that will enable the bank to be moved out six feel and have a slope down to the creek, because they need the support for the roadway being put in. He said he could utilize something similar where the water district does the improvements on their side of the property, create a situation where the fence can be put back in a straight line aiong with the other neighbors and move the repairs out a small distance. He said it appears that they have addressed a lot of the problems there other than the portion of the property, 2 x 15 feet, that was lost on the top, and they wanted to restore their fence line so that it is straight with the fence line with ail the other neighbors in the area. He asked that the developer work with the homeowners and perhaps make some accommodations relative to fixing the problem, and if they can meet his concerns about getting the fence back, it would be fine. He said he was not concerned with what happens on the other side of the fence as long as it meets the water district requirements. Ms. Wordell di~izlbuted a drawing of the proposed district plans. Mr. Piasecki clarified that Condition No. 3 requires that a creek restoration plan be prepared and that the water district approve it. Nothing in this condition precludes all the Planning Commission Minu~es 14 December I I, 2000 affected parties coming together and having a discussion, and staff would encourage it to OCCUr. Mr. Lou Gilpen, engineering geologist, said that he prepared the documents distributed and the creek restoration program. He said that relative to creek restoration and creek remediation in the last six to nine months, a lot of the creek bank restoration projects have come into the limelight in the Bay Area because people want to preserve the riparian corridors, plants and restore some of the creeks to their original habitat. He said in undertaking this project, they tried to reduce the impact on the natural environment to stabilize the banks and that is both good for the people owning the property adjoining it as well as the creeks; it reduces the sediment input, reduces the clarity of the water, and helps the water as well as stabilizing the banks for the trees. Relative to the repair, they tried to stabilize the toe of the creekhanks for the 25 and 100 year floods so it will reduce the undetti~inlrtg, it will protect the banks and the property of the people who live along it. He reviewed the mitigation measures to be taken. In order to replace the two feet so the fence can be straight, the repair would have to encroach further into the creek. What ps shown is their ideal alignment to allow the creek to go back to its natural course. There is a characteristic curvature to the creek that got pushed off into the property by a tree. He said he felt they took a conservative approach and made a permanent repair on this one part of the project that is encroaching offsite at the present time. He answered questions about the materials used in Creek restoration and mitigation. Mr. Russell Blalack, 1081 Milky Way, said that he felt the plan had many good features, but one bad feature, the siting of Wallin Court, as it creates a traffic hnTard and violates the subdivision street design. He said a cul de .sac off a cul de sac is referred to a knucklebead by traffic engineers and with good reason. He presented a signed petition from two-thirds of the homeowners on the affected cul de sac, objecting to the siting of Wallin Court as it stands because it is unsafe and unsightly. He urged good sense and good planning lines to prevail and that the Planning Commission listen to and read the report of the city's tra_ffic engineer.. Mr. Bruce Eckstein, 1091 November Drive, distributed photos of the other area on the north side being addressed. He said the proposed fixes were for five foot high rip rap rock along the bottom edge, with a vertical distance between 15 and 17 feet, and also undercut. He said he did not feel it was sufficient since in the 13 years he resided there, he has seen the water come up higher than five feet. He showed a photo of a three foot diameter oak tree with exposed roots. He said he did not know what the city's jurisdiction was with respect to the water district, and who takes cure of the trees once someone gains control of the property. Ms.. Wordell said that staff was suggesting they receive a recommendation from an arborist of what needs to be done, with a schedule of what needs to be done. Relative to the safety issue, Ms. Wordell said that there were steep banks along the frontage and as it becomes accessible to the public, the city wants fencing on the city side, not accessible from the other side. The trail is on the south side and staff would like to have some fencing and will work with the water district on a compromise relative to Planning Commission Minutes IS December I I, 2000 fencing because the water district does not want the creek walled off from pedestrians. She read the language from Condition 21 relative to the issue and indicated that wording could be added stating that the city will work with the water district regarding safety protection fencing. Mr. Dave Craeknell, 7818 Orion Lane, said that he was speaking on behalf of the petition sent to the city earlier, representing the series of neighbors that will be impacted if there is any change in the layout to Wallin 'Court, since a street would exit directly onto Orion Lane. He said one of the main issues would be the lights from cars exiting out of Wallin Court shining directly into the bedrooms of the neighbors affected by the road coming out. He said the intersection has been reviewed by the txafflc department and has been viewed as safe. Mr. Pat Flav'm, 7834 Orion Lane, said that the residents of Orion Lane are the people most directly affected. He said the traffic lights will shine on the properties, whereas if it is coming out where the planner illustrated, the headlights will shine on Milky Way. Another development which includes Orion Place, goes in and makes the same type of diagram and that also comes out onto Derbyshire Place so the traffic lights from those people shine right up Derbyshire, they do not shine directly onto any houses. Chair Harris questioned if the T intersection would require a taking of properties not part of 'the discussion, 41, 42, I, at the bulb. Ms. Wordell said that it would involve abandoning some of the right-of-way to square things off. Chair Harris said that it would then cost the people in some fashion, and if there was a cost involved, it should be discussed at a public hearing where they could speak on the issue. Mr. Piasecki noted that Condition 12 states that the developer shall pay for any Wallin Court, Milky Way, Orion Lane intersection improvements. Staff intended that if the traffic engineer feels that T-lng the intersection off and abandoning some right-of-way makes sense, the property owners will be contacted. He said staffwas concerned about leaving the knuckle of an old cul de sac as. a leftover one which should be straightened out. Ms. Wordell read the lang-~ge for Condition 2: "An internationally certified arborist shall provide an evaluation of the oak trees on the north side of the bank and any special protection needed for the exposed roots as well as a schedule for implementation of any special protection measures if needed prior to recordation of the final map." Condition 12: The last sentence of Condition 12 will state that the developer will have to pay for the intersection or private or frontage improvements, including any modifications occurring to equate a T intersection for safety reasons as detertifined by the Director of Public Works. Ms. Wordell said that it was the intent to include private property. Condition 21: Insert in 4~ line, before "This final design ..." "The city will work with the water district regarding safety fencing." Planning Commission Minutes 16 i~¢mber I I, 2000 Relative to the narrow appearance of Wallin Court, Mr. Chong said that with proposed intersection modification and frontage improvements, staff will be looking at more of a traditional T-intersection, which would Create the appearance of a normal intersection. Mr. Piasecki said that it was considered a frontage road and parking was peri,fitted on one side only. Ms. Wordell said that the fire department had reviewed the street and determined it safe. She said that a condition could be added that the sheriff will review the tentative map for security and safety issues prior to recordation. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 22-EA-00 SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Con' moved to approve Application 02-TM-00 with modifications to Condition 2, 12, 21 and the addition the security notation as appropriate. SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 Ms. Wordell noted that the application will be presented to the City Council on January 15, 2001. Chair Harris declared a recess from 9:10 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. 6. Application Nos.: 08-EXC-00, 17-EA-00 Applicant: Daryl Fazekas Location: .22350 Regnart Road Hillside exception to construct a 6,500 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30%, and for an exception to the required second story offset. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a hillside exception to construct a 6,500 square foot home on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes greater than 30% and for an exception to the t~quired second story offset. Staff recommends approval of the application. Ms. Wordell answered questions about the visibility of the residence, the proposed landscaping, and house color and materials. She reviewed the information in the staff. report relative to the two landslides on the property and the mitigation for both; one to be re-engineered with fill and the other will require a setback. Corns. Doyle and Kwok expressed concern about approving a hillside exception to allow a home to be built on an existing slide area. Chair Harris said that she felt the environmental document should be amended to show that there is a significant but mitigated issue, rather than indicate that it was not significant, which would later hold the city liable for not having considered it as the document is what is approved. She said she 1-16 Planning Commission Minutes 17 December I I, 2000 would be more comfortable saying that it was significant mitigation proposed, taking into account the best advice of the seismic experts stating that with this mitigation it would be safe to build, but at least it has been acknowledged that it was considered, Ms. Wordeli said that it was acknowledged in the comments on the report that the mitigation was occurring, hence the Planning Commission could choose to change the impact to significant. Mr. Martin Kasik, 11496 Lindy Place, representing the applicant, said that the colors have to be approved by the homeowners association as well as the city. Mr. Richard Rowland, engineering geologist, clarified that the home would not be built on a landslide, but built at the edge of what presently is a small slump or landslide, that is mitigated by taking the whole landslide out and replacing it with engineered fill which is a common procedure. Mr. Dick Randall, 22348 Regnart Road, representing the Regnart Road Homeowners Association, said the plans and design are in keeping with the neighborhood; the house has minimal visibility from the valley floor and the association is fully supportive of the home. He said that the architectural committee is very stringent about the colors and materials of the house. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, commented on the landslide issue. She said that on the landscape plan there is trees and landscaping over the slide area; in the recommendation of the geologist, it says that the drainage system has to be designed by the' project civil engineer and maintained by the property owner at all times. Over periods of time the maintenance program usually degrades and when you start putting irrigation of landscaping into the slide that is when you undermine that slide area; it is water that causes a landslide, not jnst loose earth. The water creates a cushion, therefore there has to be some consideration in the conditions about the maintenance of the drainage on the property to avoid that area where they are going to be irrigating and having landscaping right on the slide. Ms. Mm,ay said that there should be a check system that the drainage system is being maintained. Ms. Wordell said there was a condition in the A exception that said any irrigation plans in the slope area had to be reviewed by the engineer that would get at it at the beginning, and ongoing reports were another matter. Ms. Wordell said that a soluti°n could be that the additional shrubs could easily be pulled back to be out of the landslide area, and suggested a condition that said that there shouldn't be any planting in the landslide area, which would eliminate the need for monitoring, as monitoring is difficult to do. Mr. Randall said that many years ago he built a barn down the hill, and was confronted with the same issue. The same issue was addressed with the lot above the barn and they conducted an analysis and the engineer designed a series of drains within the wall because the water drains down and gets underneath. A series of rock drains were put in the hill that then drain underground, and is something that does not need to be monitored because it is designed in the fill when it was put in place and there is a row of rock compacted into planning Commission Minutes IS December ! I, 2000 the ground, and the water comes down the rock and is picked up by piping and taken further down to the creek. The same design could be incorporated into this fill without any trouble. He said he concurred with it, and was certain the contractor would too, that this side needs to be controlled and the water drainage needs to be controlled. Mr. Rowland said that he did not think it should be called slide area because after they do the mitigation which is the repair, it would no longer be a slide area and there would be pexii~anent improvements underground. He said there would be subdrains which are pexa,anent drainage ways that carry off water so you can have landscaping over a repaired landslide, hence a repaired landslide technically is not a landslide. Relative to the other area, about 14 years ago and examination was taken and a proposal to do a soldier beam wall at the top part of that, which was not made; but the landslide has not advanced at all and is not growing on that side. It is a very large feature going down in the canyons and is not feasible to repair. Com. Doyle said that he understood that it was not the issue that it was the vegetation location or the ability to repair the slide, but the issue is making sure that the system of draining that area is well maintained. Ms. Murray concurred, stating that even the geologist recommended maintenance of the drainage system; if they are going to put in a repaired slide, with a drain system and some protection of the toe of the slide perhaps, then you do have a repaired area before it slid and that would probably prevent it, but if you are going to rely on the homeowners to maintain a drainage system to prevent a slide, that will degrade over time. Mr. Piasecki suggested wording for Condition 18, landscape plan: "The applicant shall develop a detailed landscape plan with appropriate subdrains to help stabilize the slopes and insure no additional drainage impact on the existing slide areas, subject to review and approval of the city's geologist prior to issuance of building permits." He said part of the solution may not be drains at all, it may be native materials that you might even hand water during the winter, let the rains water them, and they become established and help to hold these slopes; it will be accomplished in the landscape plan. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. CoTM. Kwok questioned whether it was warranted to seek a second opinion about geological studies and the design in a situation where you feel you put a building in an area where there is historical landslides because it is so critical and there is so much liability within the city of Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki said that it was built into the system with the applicant's geologist developing an analysis and the city's geologist double checking that. In this particular case, it is not expected that the house will be impacted. He said there are some existing ' slide conditions, they are going to have the landscape plan try to assist with that but that is not going to be a guarantee that those slides won't fail and end up coming down the hill, /-la7 Planning Commission Minums 19 December I I, 2000 but the message is that with this particular plan, it is not going to be impacted. He said he felt the system is the best available, and Bill Cotton's reputation is exemplary and staff feels comfortable with that. Com. Doyle said that relative to the comment about changing the EIR to note a significant but mitigated impact, he said he felt at least the soils report and the plan for mitigation need to be included also. Chair Harris said that Ms. Wordell added the language in Condition 17 about following the geologist's recommendation according to the reports; the box on the environmental form will be changed to indicate significant but mitigated; and the mitigation is included in No. 17. Mr. Piasecki said that the colors could be added in a No. 19, that states the building colors are subject to review and approval of staff. The concept is to have it be earthtone and muted, and non-reflective, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 17-EA-00 with the changes on Item 4, (be located in the area of soil instability), and change to "significant, mitigation proposed" SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 8-EXC-00 with the changes to Condition 17, statement about adhere to the geologist's recommendation according to the reports provided; addition of Conditions 18, landscape plan, No. 19 on building color, change to "significant, mitigation proposed" SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 7. Application No.: 14-SP-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise. Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to adopt the Eichler Design Guidelines for the Fairgrove neighborhood, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, said that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Eichler design guidelines in the handbook. Over the past three years staff has worked with a committee of residents from Fairgrove with an architectural consultant as well to develop design standards for the Planning Commission Minutes 20 December I I, 2000 neighborhood's Eichler style homes. The Fairgrove neighborhood is the area generally bounded by Phil Lane to the north, Miller Avenue to the east, Bollinger to the south and Tantau to the west. The neighborhood consists of a group of 220 Eichler homes built in the early 1960s which has maintained a consistent Eichler style. At the September 1 ! meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Rle single family Eichl~r ordinance which cstablishes development standards tbr Eichler homes, the rezoning of Fairgrove from RI6 to R16e and also directed staff Io prepare Eichler design guidelines. Subsequently the City Council approved the RI e ordinance as well as the rezoning and both are currently in effect. Staff has prepared the handbook which is the subject of the discussion today. The Eichier design guidelines handbook is a resource of Fairgrove homeowners which provides infomiation on the basic principles of the Eichler styles to guide homeowners towards designs which preserve the identity of Fairgrove. She reviewed the contents of the design guidelines booklet. Discussion ensued regarding thc contents of the guidelines and suggestions were made Jbr minor changes before finalization. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mrs. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendahl Lane, said she was proud of the guidelines. She suggested changes to Page 6, relative to the size of the vertical grooves; Page 9, remove the word "mostly" referring to gla~ing; Page 11 photo depicting setbacks; and minor changes to the matrix. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 14-SP-00 with the suggested amended changes SECOND: Com. Corr VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Housing Committee: Com. Kwok reported on the November 16"' meeting, which included teacher housing; retaining affordability in the redevelopment apartment complexes. Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Doyle will attend the Mayor's breakfast on December 12'~. Com. Stevens reported that Mayor .lames will be attending other committee/commission meetings to pwvide guidance. Mr. Piasecki noted that a schedule will be compiled for the Planning Commission representative to attend the City Council meetings, once or twice per year. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 DRAFT SUBMITTED (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 18, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Also present: John Kolski, Stevens Creek Quarry APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: There was a brief discussion on the self guided tour of the Town Cente~ put together by the developer. There was consensus that it would be beneficial for the Planning Commissioners to participate in the tour as a group. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None OLD BUSINESS 1. Follow-up report on the Hanson Cement and Stevens Creek Quarry operations. Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, said that they had received some answers to questions, some limited answers, and some were not responded to. She suggested that if the Planning Commissioners wanted to pursue it further, it could be included in the goals for next year. In response to Com. Doyle's request for clarification on the noise info~mation, Chair Harris commented that the statement that the noise did not exceed the decibel rating for more than 30 minutes per hour was bizarre, and needed further review. Com. Doyle said that Cupertino is impacted in many ways from the two projects, and there are different things that the city has put in place to make sure they are mitigated and there are no resulting health concerns or health impacts. He said it appeared the operations have Plannin§ Commission Minutes 2 December 18, 2000 been scaled up in the last two years, whether true or perceived, and the Planning Commission wanted to understand what has happened and what is in existence that makes sure everybody is safe from the two polluters. Ms. Wordell said that communication with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air Board) was very fragmented and that their staff was difficult to communicate with. Mr. John Kolski, Stevens Creek Quarry, repor~t that they provided an annual report to the Air Board on their production levels, and Hausen Quarry does so on more things; the Air Board reviews the reports and sends letters and if the quan'y has no violations and passes, the peru-dr is issued for the next year. A discussion ensued regarding whether or not there was an adequate monitoring process by the Air Board, and compliance documentation. Ms. Wordell indicated that she felt the Air Board was not following through on some of the monitoring they said they would. Chair Harris suggested that they include the monitoring follow-through as part of the General Plan in order to protect the residents of Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki said that they have not been successful in getting the answers to questions being asked, nor were they happy with the feedback they received. He said they were willing to pursue it further and questioned where the issue ranked with the other things the Planning Commission wanted to work on. He pointed out that they could have General Plan related goals and policies relative to the quarries issue, and there were the fundamental questions to answer such as what is going on with the requirements of the Air Board and the County. Com. Stevens said that the residents should be able to come to the city for answers and there are several other agencies involved; and that the city of Cupertino was very successful in getting information. Cupertino has been known to be a city of information, and he said he felt the quarries would like to have that known also. He said they should be aware of anything that crosses the county line in Cupertino, such as pollution. Com. Stevens said he felt the comment that the bike path was not feasible was unacceptable, since it is a city created problem in that the quarries were there before the city, and people have moved out there and are using a previously little used county road. He said that on a recent visit up the road, he could understand how bike riding on the road was a nightmare. He said that since they accommodated parking, picnicking, and camping in the area, they could certainly accommodate the bikes, as a good neighbor gesture and community service. Com. Stevens also questioned iftbere could be another truck entrance. It was reported that it was reviewed and the reason was that Caltrans was hesitant of adding another entrance onto 280. He pointed out that he could hear the noise from the rod and gun club nearby over the qnArry's no~mal operation. He said he felt they should at least look at the feasibility of adding another track entrance. Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 18, 2000 Mr. Piasecki said that there had been discussion about adding another truck entrance and at the time, those involved felt it was not feasible. The Los Altos residents were not in favor of adding another entrance because of the impacts on its residents. Com. Kwok suggested that in order to keep informed about the permit compliance, that they ask the Air Board to send copies to the Planning Commission of all correspondence ' relative to violations, so that the information could be documented for interested parties and the Cupertino residents. He noted that the monitoring reports were public information. There was consensus to send the recommendation to the Bike Committee to address the issue of implementing a bike path. Chair Harris reported the issue of two Stevens Creek Quarry pe,uits which state different things; one states because of the litigation the quarry is functioning under the later one which is in litigation and allows them to work at night; the other permit is from the previous year under the county which should remain in effect until the litigation is settled, which does not allow them to work at night. Since there is a major difference, the Planning Commission is looking to the City Council to get the county to work toward enforcing whatever permit they feel is appropriate at this time. She said that one of the quarries is functioning under a grandfathering deferment from many years ago, and the other quarry has similar rights, with one exception. Com. Doyle said that Cupertino feels the most impacts and vested interests of what is happening at the two quarries, and recommended in the next year that the city receive the data and reports on how the q~]srries are adhering to the requirements, followed by an annual report of their adherence to the requirements, in order to maintain consistency. He also recommended including impact mitigation in the goals in the General Plan update, to look at how the General Plan might reflect the businesses so everyone understands what the rules are. Com. Doyle said that at some point it appears the quarries will change how they do business, and it is important to understand what are the impacts today and how to control those impacts so that they do not change. He cited an example that a quarry changed from a quarry to a recycle center; what will happen in the future with that facility, and with Hansen Quarry which is very large with many potential opportunities. He said it was important to understand what their cun'ent mitigations and impacts are and how do they want to control those going forward, so if these businesses change they have some voice. He pointed out that Hansen Q~rry is looking to bring limestone into the community, which is an indication of changing the way they do business. Chair Harris s~d the issues: noise; make sure testing is accomplished; address health and safety; bike paths; which peuhit at Stevens Creek Quarry; get existing reports. Mr. Piasecki concluded that the General Plan goal with the policies would be reviewed to ensure that they cover the inte/ests of the Cupertino residents. Follow-up would include Planning Commission Minutes 4 December I g, 2000 reports back to the Planning Commission in terms of what will be needed to get the necessary information, and staffwill continue to pursue it; and bike path referral. Chair Harris pointed out a discrepancy on the summary from the Design Review Committee relative to approval or denial of the application. Following a brief discussion, Ms. Wordell said that she would follow through to correct the discrepancy. 2. Study Session to set goals for 2001. Staff Recommendations: 1. Remove Items 6 and 10 from the goals list 2. Add Items 11-13 to the goals list 3. Consider removing or adding goals Discussion: There was consensus to remove Item 6 (Heart of the City landscaping and DeAnza intersection (Fine drts}. Item 10: A discussion ensued regarding the impacts of the Planning Department staffing level being approximately 15% below noLt~aal. It was suggested that staff consider a plan for rotation and develop a plan to follow for staff and time allocation. Mr. Piasecki concurred that there should be a base allocation of time for ordinances and plans, followed by priorifization. Addition of Items 11-13: There was consensus to add Items 11-13; also a mixed use ordinance and mixed use parking scheme. Other: Chair Harris recommended redoing the R2 Ordinance. Ms. Wordell indicated that No. 7 included multi residential. Chair Harris noted that they redid the single family ordinance because of the monster house issue, and people feel they can get a duplex and turn it into a monster house. The Planning Commission wants to remain ahead of the curve and avoid being attacked by the media. Com. Stevens said there was a legacy, with the annexation of Rancho Rinconada where the lots were 6,000 sq. fl. or smaller and the Plapning Commission was going to review in part how the existing R1 ordinance, fit the small lot because of thc setbacks, and it was tentatively agreed that they would be 5 feet on both sides, but it was not known whether it was official or just what the city was doing. He said he was mentioning it because they would be discussing Monta Vista and Garden Gate. Ms. Wordcll said that there were some Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 18, 2000 concessions in the R1 to the small lots. Mr. Piasecki said that FAR would still apply. Com. Stevens said that he wanted to be prepared rather than consider one application at a time. Com. Kwok questioned traffic studies and the impacts of a D rating. · Mr. Piasecki said that the General Plan element would have to address the whole issue of what strategy is related to traffic. A discussion ensued regarding traffic studies and traffic impacts. New 11. Monta Vista Annexation: Mr. Piasecki reported that the General Plan policy states what they should be annexing, and said they were trying to react to that policy. Secondly, in conjunction with the negotiations on the Vallco redevelopment project area, and in working with the county in trying to work out a deal, it was agreed with the county that the city would pursue taking in Garden Gate and Monta Vista; the County says they did not want them in their jurisdiction. This suggests that they need to at least define the distinct islands of the Monta Vista area, and to ascertain which ones may want to come in voluntarily. Chair Harris said that it would be satisfying if they could claim Garden Gate a success. She said that if the city is committed to do it, they would do it, but consider it a low priority. 12. Definition of second units: Ms. Wordell said that the issue was that people come in with guest houses or pool houses that looks like a second unit with a kitchen, bathroom, etc. and over 1,000 square feet, and claimed not to be second units. A small amount of staff time is involved; and has to be able to be defined. 13. Definition of a remodel: Ms. Wordell said that the issue is people apply for a building permit for a remodel, and leave only one rafter; it is done on a case by case basis. Com. Corr said that the school fee would be the standard fee if the house was not torn down completely. Ms. Wordell explained that the goals and tasks became merged over time because over time the gOalS and work plan are flexible and the project tends to stay the same. In progress Garden Gate Annexation: Com. Doyle said that annexation is probably a good thing for everyone except for the residents who feel they do not want it, and why force it upon them. Ms. Wordell said that the City Council wanted to pursue it, and there is a community meeting on January 24'. Planning Commission Minutes 6 December I Ii. 2000 Compact Car Parking Ordinance: Mr. Wordell said the issue was carried over and the cars were not compact any longer, and are getting bigger. Chair Harris smd that it should be pursued since a lot has been done to encourage high density. Residential: Chair Harris questioned whether work had to be done on lot sizes; she said the Planning Commission was willing to raise the FAR, however, the City Council was not agreeable. Mr. Piasecki said that it was not a high priority as they were not deluged with small lot single family residential lot applications. Review RI-FAR: Chair Harris said there was a .45 FAR R2 and R3 Ordinance: Chair Harris said the R2 ordinance had to be redone to deal with the monster home issue. Now that the R1 ordinance has been written, some of it needs to be applied to the R2 ordinance. Motor court zoning can be dealt with at the staff level. Hillside Exceptions: Ms. Wordell said she was not aware of any outstanding issues relative to the hillside exceptions, as there were rules set forth. Infill Housing: Must be done and is part of the General Plan. Housing Policy: Same as #1, lot sizes and setbacks. The City Council has spoken on that. Review F~4R for Multi Family: Same as R3. Development Intensity Manual: Ms. Wordell provided an update on the manual. The manual is being foLmatled similar to the General Plan and is being fine tuned. Private Projects: Mr. Piasecki provided an update on the Summerhill project. They are working on getting their site plan together for a 56 unit tOwnhome development. Live/Work Unit Guidelines: Following a brief discussion, it was decided to include Live/Work Unit Guidelines under new projects for the PC to work on. Ms. Wordell clarified that Item 16 City Center (Civic Park) was the Deke Hunter project. The Planning Commission summarized items to consider for goals for the next year. Com. Corr restated mixed use ordinance, including parking and development standards. Com. Stevens selected Item 6 (Goal A) flooding, especially since the passing of the bond measure, as well as a guide to the accelerated issue on the B°llinger bridge. He said he wanted to ensure that the city has a guide; on the area between Bollinger and Miller, which is a very unique area, the city should come up with a guideline stating how it should remain, otherwise it will end up with a gabion canyon. Planning Commission Minutes 7 December Ill, 2000 Chair Harris said that the reality is that the city hag a General Plan that says they will go thr a 3 year to the 10 year flood capacity. They are waiting for the developers to do it; the plan is 85% drawn up, and if the developers are not going to do it, it needs to be under the 5 year capital improvements plan and the city needs to do it. Relative to creek preservation, Com. Doyle questioned how to ensure that they do not reach some level of development that forces them to make all the creeks into concrete ditches. There needs to be a broader look and guidelines developed. Relative to No. 7, Com. Stevens said he mentioned it when he first came on the Planning Commission to look at parks. Parks on the north side have been non-existent and are still non-existent and nothing has been done to change it. There is a large portion of the city, Garden Gate included, with no park area. Are neighborhood parks a concept that the city wants to maintain? The city has an obligation for parks and how that is distributed is something the Planning Commission should be aware of, it is an area definitely lacking. Com. Doyle said that there was a General Plan requirement that says so many acres of parkland per population are required, and its distribution amongst the community, and it has been exacerbated significantly. Chair Harris said the other issue is that the standard has already been set that a park is three acres; but now the city is majorly and intensely developed and there is a need to get hack and look at pocket parks. Com. Corr said that after Measure T, the city bought many sites and developed 9 school sites throughout the. city in terms of upgrading them to be park sites. He asked what was being considered and where were they? Mr. Piasecki said that the open space element needs to be reopened. Chair Harris reiterated that pocket parks need to be addressed again. No. 10 of Goal A: General Plan. Mr. Piasecki said that what the City Council is suggesting is to look at the densities to see what best attracts and works with transit, either go higher to make transit work, or is it high enough to make transit work. Chair Harris suggested that the Stevens Creek Plan did not need to be redone since it was just completed. It needs time to see if the plan will work. She said that making it walkable with biking and eating areas along Stevens Creek is in the Plan. Com. Kwok said it was important to protect thc residents' health and safety. Also the mass issue, how to keep a tighter control. Com. Corr said that progress could be seen with tighter control on the newer permits, noting that there were some older pem~its that were just being built. Com. Doyle recommended that the quarry monitoring program be included on the list. Also tree retention, taking into account the two different aspects including the trees in the large developments with approximately 500 trees planted at the beginning of the development, where they want to thin out the trees and still have forestation. The other is the issue of removing a large tree that perhaps the house was originally constructed around. Planning Commission Minutes ' s December 18, 2000 Com. Doyle said he was not certain if updating the traffic model with some linkages to neighborhood traffic mitigations or impacts would be done as part of the General Plan, the school impacts of new General Plan actions and how it will be mitigated and resolved; and the housing locations for thc ABAG requirements. Chair Harris said that shifting industrial potential to office retail and commercial was discussed when addressing the Development Intensity Mao-nl, and said if it was still being considered, it should be stated as such. Ms. Wordell said that it would be part of the General Plan. Also include a metrics comparison with other cities as suggested by Com. Doyle. Ms. Wordell said that it was planned as part of the General Plan to be handled as an ordinance. Com. Doyle said that part of the issue was, when they were starting to redevelop a lot of apartment buildings and the like, which was an issue for higher density, were they being consistent with what was being proposed relative to other folks, did they have the same kind of requirements for such things as traffic intersections as other neighborhoods or other cities; were they being consistent, or is the R1 much tighter than everybody else's. Ms. Wordell said that when an ordinance is done, staff compares it with other cities'. Com. Doyle said that as part of the General Plan process the city sends copies of the General Plan for comment to other cities so they have input and the city obtains copies of their transportation elements. Chair Harris addressed mid-block standards for Iraffic, not just the same intersections used in the past, and said it was learned from the traffic engineer this year that they were getting average in their section numbers, which is something to consider when doing traffic in the General Plan; what is the best and worst case; and should they look at some new block; do they want to look at things such as Wolfe Road, apartment complexes. She said they need to look at the whole picture. Mr. Piasecki said that he felt it would be the central part of the General Plan, and how much could they absorb in traffic. Chair Harris said she had asked when they redid the code enforcement to include the text regarding motorhomes which was worked on about three years ago and is not included. She said the rules need to be updated. Chair Harris discussed other items. She said the noise complaint section does include the decibel section to info,in people what the decibel rates are on an offsite property line. She said the pet ordinance should reflect the current practices; assign a staff person to update the brochure. Chair Harris also said the drive up Federal Express boxes needed to be addressed again. Com. Stevens said that the problem of shopping carts in the city needed to be addressed and was a concern of the City Council also. He suggested a staff person work with the Chamber of Commerce on a potential solution. Planning Commission Minutes 9 Dcc~,mbcr 18, 2000 Chair Harris discussed dete,,,,ining the location for General Plan buildout to see if the General Plan numbers are reasonable or should be changed. Ms. Wordell noted that office industrial was based on FAR, parcel by parcel; .37 for industrial and .33 in most cases office. Mr. Piasecki said that there would be an opportunity to address the issue because of the potential number of people coming in asking for more square footage. Chair Harris addressed the displacement issue (shift to housing types). Ms. Wordell noted that only the ones dedicated for BMRs count for meeting the numbers. Mr. Piasecki said that the General Plan process will have to identify adequate sites to accommodate the additional 2,000 units over the current General Plan. In addition, they will have to identify how many of the units are going to be affordable. Ms. Wordell summarized additional projects to be included on the list: Fed Express boxes in the right of way; and shopping carts. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Doyle reported that Teresa Smith was the new Parks and Recreation Director; Mayor Sandra James is planning to attend the commission meetings in January; the Mayor has requested that each commission be represented at the State of the City address on January 31'. He reported that cameras would be installed at some intersections to record red light offenders. Chair Harris noted that Com. Corr would attend the January 9~ Mayor's Breakfast. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTB: None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 6:45 p.m. on January Ii, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 08-DIR-00 Agenda Date: January 8, 2001 Applicant: Mingshiang Wang Location: 10300 Phar Lap Drive Application Summary: Tree removal permit to allow the removal of one 62 inch circumference (20 inch diameter) oak tree from a single family residential property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Approve 08-DIR-00 based on the findings and conditions contained in the model resolution. BACKGROUND: This item was originally heard at the Planning Commission hearing on December 11, 2000. The item was continued in order to provide additional information including: 1. Documentation of the applicant's inability to attain homeowners insurance due to the oak tree. 2. Expanded description of the status of the tree from the applicant's arborist. 3. Additional review of past building permit applications to determine the timing of the ' improvements on the site. DISCUSSION: Insurance Documentation The applicant provided a letter from the California State Automobile Association, dated October 31, 2000, which states that the homeowners insurance policy would be cancelled. An e-mail message sent on November 2, 2000 is included as well, which describes the reason behind the cancellation, specifically, "trees are touching and overhanging the roof of the entire house." The applicant intends to trim the tree branches that overhang the roof, but the subject tree entirely overhangs the roof. Trimming the section of the tree that overhangs the roof would remove more than 25% of the tree and would be considered removal. Arborist Information The Planning Commission requested additional information from the arborist concerning the state of the tree. The arborist provided the following information: The tree is in good health, but is unusual in that the trunk hangs over the roof (see photos). The point where the trunk turns to project over the residence corltning a cavity ~om a past wound. Decay is present near that cavity, and the decay is progressive in that it will spread over time. In time, the decay will destabilize the tree. If the tree were to fall, it is highly probable that it would be in the area of the cavity and the associated decay. Past Building Permits The tree is present on the original 1977 building permit plans. The section of the residence that the house covers is part of the original residence. There are no records of later additions to the residence, and there does not appear to be any additions based on visual inspection of the site. Findings Section 14.18.180 requires that the Planning Commission make one of the two following findings in order to allow removal of specimen trees: ~1. That the tree or trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services; or The tree is in good health and does not interfere with utility services. The decay is not a disease, but does increase the potential of damage due to the cavity and the associated decay. The tree poses danger to the existing residence and the danger will increase as the decay progresses. B. That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of sitnilarly zoned and situated property. The trunk of the tree overhangs the roof and restricts the ability of this homeowner to attain homeowners insurancc. This tree is not typical in nature, and staff believes that this owner is experiencing a restriction that is not typical of similar properties. Staff believes that the both findings can be mcr, and continues to support the removal request. Staffdoes not recommend a replacement tree in the side or rear yard, since those areas have considerable tree cover. Instead, staff recommends the planting ora 24" box oak tree in the front yard, near the northerly property line. Enclosures: Model Resolution for 08-DIRo00 Staff Report for December 11, 2000 hearing Insurance Letter dated October 3 I, 2000 Insurance E-mail dated November 2, 2000 Arborist Report Photographs Plan Set Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Approved by: Stev. e Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ G:/planning/pdr~port/pc/O8-DIR-O0 SR2. doc 2 08-DIR-00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, C~lifomia 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE OAK TREE FROM A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: 08:DIR-00 Applicant: Mingshiang Wang Location: 10300 Phar Lap Dr SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application 'to removal one specimen size trees and replace them with other trees, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The tree, due to its unusual orientation, can cause significant damage to the residence and is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Director's referral of a Tree Removal is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 08-DIR-00, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 8, 2001, are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval for the removal of one 62-inch cireurnferenee oak ~ee from the northerly side yard of the property is pemfitted. 2. REPLACEMENT TREE The applicant shall plant one 24-inch box oak tree in the fi~om yard of the subject Site. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ga. day of January 2001, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Andrea Harris, Chairperson Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission g:/plann~ng/pd~port~OSdtrO0 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMF~NT OF CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 08-DIR-00 Agenda Date: December 1 l, 2000 Applicant: Mingshiang W~ng Location: 10300 Phar Lap Drive Application Summary: Tree removal permit to allow the removal of one 62 inch circumference (20 inch diameter) oak tree from a single family residential property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the removal of the oak tree, subject to the model resolution. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a permit to remove one oak tree from the subject site on the east side of Phar Lap Drive. The area slopes up co .nsid. erably to the east, and is covered with a grove of mature oak trees. The tree to be remove4..is.dpscribed in the attached arborist report. Attached are photos of the site and the tree in question. Staff supports the removal request due to the potential danger involved with a tree with this orientation. The tree is in good health, but the orientation of the primary trunk over the residence puts the safety of the occupants at risk. Staff does not recommend a replacement tree in the side or rear yard, since those areas have considerable tree cover. Instead, staffrecommends the planting ora 24" box oak tree in the front yard. DISCUSSION: EnclosuFes: Model Kesolution for 08-Dig-00 Arborist Report Photographs '~';"~ '-: Plan Set '. · ' · Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Approved by: Steve Piasccki, Director of Community Developme~ G:/planning/pdreport/pc/O8-DIR-O0 SR. doc Calffom/a State Automobile ~atlon Inter-Insurance Bureau 150 Van Ness Avenue P.O. Box429186 San F~ancisco, CA 94142-9186 Ootober 31, 2000 Mr. & Mrs. Mingshiang Wang 10300 Phar Lap Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Policy No.: HO-82-27-05-0 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wang: After a careful review of your file, we regret that the Bureau is unable to continue your homeowners '~' ~ star~Sm'd time c~. 11/30/2000. Tb.i~ decisio~ is b~cd upon an i~surrmce, which ',v-'ill cancel at 14.0, ~.~-. inspection of your home that shows that the overall condition of the property does not meet our undczwriting guidelines. This policy may not be continued or reinstated and acceptance of any premium payment or policy .amendment by the Inter-Insurance Bureau or any'hr its representatives shall not waive this cancellation. Cancellation is on a pro-rated basis and you will be charged only for the time coverage is in effect. If there is a return premium, a check will be mailed to you. If there is an earned premium, a statement will follow. We suggest that you use this time to place the insurance you require elsewhere. You may be eligible for insurance through the California Fair Plan. For further info, uation, you can contact the Fair Plan at the address and phone number below. California Fair Plan Association 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite #1200 Los Angeles, Calif. 90010 Telephone: '1 (213) 4870111 or Toll-Free: 1 (800) 339-4099 While we currently are unable to provide insurance coverage for yom- home, we encourage you to continue to enjoy the many other services available to Association members. Should you have ar~y questions, please cot, tact yom' Sales Repr~.sentative at the San $osc - Sic-cons CYeck District Office.at 408-985-9300. : Sincerely, Co~ F~~~, Underwriter l. lnderwriling and Policyholder Services DEC-12-2000 11: 19 CSAA SALE~ 408 984 8165 P. 05 Gumyd|n, Mithat A From: Fayne, Corey Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 9:45 AM To: Guraydin. Mithat A Subject: Homeowners 8227050 Good morning, This e-mail is to advise that a letter of cancellation is going to be sent on the policy above due.to.the'oonditlon of property. The inspector noted that trees sm touching and overl~anging the roof of the entire house. ,~ photo of this condition is attached. If evidence that this problem has been fixed is recaived in Underwriting Servicas prior to the cancellation date, we ~ould review for possible reinstatement. TOTAL P.03 I Min~shian§ Wan§ 10300 Phar Lap Dr Cupertino, CA95014 Phone:(day)4084 41-7819x28 -Approximate I D · Type oftrce: Oak Ciwumference of Wink measured 3' from grade: 62/nches Purpose of proposed removal' Will lose my home insurance because almost th~ whole tree grows over my roof with only about 3 feet of clearance. There is no other big stem to balance the weight of the tree. The tree will fall down eventually. Now it's very dangerous dudng a storm. R~-planfing program: My house is currently surrounded by several oak trees. That's why the proposed removal tree can only grow over my roof. Need city advise on where to plant a replacement tree. Arbofist report as attached. ,,Z-lO CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM AppLication: 04-SP-00, 14-EA-00 Agenda Date: January 8, 2001 AppLicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Citywide AppLication Summary: Consideration of modifications to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the following actions to the City Council: 1) G-ranting of a negative declaration 14-EA-00 2) Approval of 4-SP-00 based on the findings and conditions contained on the attached model resolution. BACKGROUND: At the September 27, 2000 Commission hearing (Exhibit B), staff presented a list of proposed changes to the noise ordinance: 1) Tighten up early morning construction hours and prohibit activities on the holidays. 2) Address the long duration construction activities of hired building contractors without affecting sporadic work of homeowners. 3) Evaluate controls on loud radio playing. 4) Review penalties for noise violations with a possibility of increasing fines or other punishment. 5) Clarify conflicting and confusing language. 6) Add specific limitations on construction deliveries and pick-ups. 7) Add more time re~ictions on helicopter usage. In addition to the above items, the Commission requested that the entire ordinance be reviewed to see if 'other changes were necessa~ to update the ordinance, such as back-up beepers on trucks and penalties for violations. The Commission requested that staffreview the regulations of other cities tbr additional ideas (Exhibit C). The pu~ose of these ordinance changes is not to reduce construction activity, but to reduce construction noise when it is expected to be the most disturbing to adjacent neighbors. DISCUSSION: Current Construction Activity Regulations Construction activities are governed by the noise ordinance, CMC 10.48 (Exhibit A), which generally sets noise standards for different hours and types of construction as shown in the two tables below: Development Activities Regulated by Noise Levels and Hours Construction - site 87 dBA at 25 fL 50 dBA at 87 dBA at 25 fl. 50 dBA at preparation, grading, or 80 dBA on residential or 80 dBA on residential assembly, erection, repair, nearby property property line nearby property property line substantial alteration or similar action Demolition 87 dBA at 25 t~, 50 dBA at .87 dBA at 25 fl. 50 dBA at or 80 dBA on residential or 80 dBA on 'residential nearby property property line nearby property property line Street Construction, grading & Not allowed near Not allowed near Not allowed near underground utility work residential area residential area residential area * New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day Other Development Activity Regulations Construction Delivery or Pick- Not specifically regulated Not specifically regulated Not specifically regulated up from a Residential Site Use of Helicopters Allowed between 8:30 Allowed between 8:30 Not specifically regulated, n.m, and 6:30 p.m, n.m, and 6:30 p,m. on See weekdays nnd weekends, Saturday only, Prohibited on Sunday Noise Complaints Planning staff interviewed the Code Enforcement Officers to understand the nature of the construction noise complaints. Most complaints relate to early morning noise: 1) building contractors who start before 7 a.m., and 2) the leniency of the City's early construction hours. There is also a practical problem, in that Code Enforcement Officers start work at 7 a.m., which is too late to address an earlier construction noise violation. The vast majority of noise complaints were directed toward hired building contractors and their crews, working on longer duration construction projects, rather than, the weekend homeowner. There are not many complaints about weekend work, except for very early morning construction. There were also numerous complaints about contractors playing their radios too loud at the construction site. The Code Enforcement Officers also felt that construction noise violation penalties were not punitive enough to deter or halt violators. Officers documented instances where contractors chose to continue working in known violation of the noise ordinance because it was less expensive to pay the infraction penalty then to stop working. Regulations of Other Cities Staffhas compiled the construction noise/activity regulations for Santa Clara County and its 15 cities (Exhibit C). The regulations were quite similar, with some variation in the hours and noise levels. Some cities were more restrictive than Cupertino by not allowing construction on Sundays and holidays, and setting lower noise thresholds. Setting lower noise thresholds is not practical as many types of construction equipment generate high levels of noise. About 50% of the agencies were more punitive toward violators by setting penalties at the misdemeanor level ($1,000/daily violation) or resorting to permit suspension/revocation. Cupertino is in the less punitive category with the other half of the cities, charging violators with an infraction penalty ($100/daily violation). Proposed Changes to the Ordinance The noise ordinance is found in Exhibit A. Changes are in boldface type with deletions stru¢l~ thro-I~h and additions underlined. 1. Tighten up early morning construction hours on weekdays, weekends and prohibit activity on holidays. Construction hours were tightened up. Weekday construction will start later, 8 a.m. instead of 7 a.m. Weekend construction will start later and end earlier, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., instead of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Construction on holidays is prohibited with specific exemptions. 2. ~4ddress the long duration construction activities of hired building contractors without a. lTecting sporadic work of homeowners. An ordinance change was made to prohibit construction activities on holidays, but exempt construction conducted by the homeowner or resident of a single dwelling between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on holidays. 3. Evaluate controls on loud radio playing. Code enforcement staff believes they have adequate regulatory authority to police loud radio playing. Their authority falls under the catch-all section 10.48.060. 4. Review penalties for noise violations with a possibility of increasing fines or other punishmenl. Staff increased the penalty for violation of this ordinance to a misdemeanor. 5. Clarify conflicting and confusing language. This was accomplished in various places throughout the ordinance as noted in the revisions. 6. ,4dd specific limitations on construction deliveries and pick-ups. Vehicular deliveries and pick-ups oF construction materials and demolition debris are included in the definition of "construction" and are subject to those time restrictions. 7. ,4dd more time restrictions on helicopter usage. Helicopter usage is delayed until 9 a.m. and prohibited on weekends and holidays. 8. Investigate the regulation of back-up beepers on construction vehicles. Califbrnia State OSHA regulations require audible back-up warning devices on certain work vehicles. This state law pre- erupts any local regulation. Enclosures: Model Resolution and Draft Ordinance Initial Study and ERC Recommendation Exhibit A: Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48 Exhibit B: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated 9/27/00 Exhibit C: Survey of Conslruction Noise and Time Limitation Regulations of Other Cities Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development~-~.~,_ O:plonnin~pdreport/pc/pcO4spOOb 04-SP-00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECO~ING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 10.48 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A-1. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ga day of~Ianuary 2001 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Andrea Harris, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:planning/pdreport/res/res04sp00 Proposed text addition~ are underlined and Exhibit proposed text deletions are struck through ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 10.48 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING COMMUNITY NOISE CONTROL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code of cUPertino is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 10.48 COMMUNITY NOISE CONTROL 10.48.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter: "Commercial area" means commercially-zoned property as defined in the community zoning ordinance. "Commercial establishment" means any store, factory, manufacturing or industrial plant used ibr the sale, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or storage of goods, wares and merchandise. "Construction" mean~ any site preparation, ~ assembly, erection, repair, substantial alteration, or similar action, of public or private property, rights-of-way, structures, utilities or similar property, including vehicle pick-up or delivery of construction materials or demolition debris but excluding demolition and grading. "Daytime" means the period from ~ eight a.m. to eight p.m. on weekdays, and the period from ~ nine a.m. to ~ six p.m. on weekends and holidays, "Decibel (dB),, means a unit for measuring relative sound pressure, logarithmically referenced to a pressure of twenty micronewtons per square meter. ' "Demolition" means any dismantling, intentional destruction or removal of structures, utilities, public or private right-of-way surfaces, or similar property, "Emergency" means any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or imminent physical danger, crisis, trauma,' or property damage which demands immediate action. "Emergency work" means any work performed for the purpose of preventing or alleviating the physical danger, trauma, or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency, or restoration of conditions and property to their status prior to the emergency. "Holidays" means the following days: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day. "Industrial area" means industrially-zoned property as defined in the community zoning ordinance. "Muffler" means a device for reducing or dissipating the sound of escaping gases, or other types noise, from a mechanical device or engine. "Multiple-family dwelling unit" means a residential structure containing separate living quarters two or more families, each unit with similar and common access to the outside. "Nighttime" means periods of weekdays from eight p.m. to twelve midnight, and f~om midnight to ~ eight a.m., and periods on weekends and holidaya from ~dgig six p.m. to midnight and from midnight to ~ nine a.m. "Noise" means any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which causes or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans. "Noise Control Officer (NCO)" means the municipal agency, department or individual having lead responsibility for implementation and enforcement of this chapter, as designated by the City Manager and approved by the City Council. "Noise disturbance" means any sound which: a. Endangers or injures the safety or health of humans or animals; or b. Annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivities; or c. Endangers or damages personal or real property. "Noise level" means the same as sound level. "Nonresidential area" means land zoned for other than residential uses, such as commercial, professional office, industrial or public, as defined in the zoning ordinance, but not including public rights-of-way. "Person" means any individual, association, partnership, corporation, or public agency, and includes any associated officer, employee or department. "Property boundary" means an imaginary line along the ground surface, and its vertical extension, which Separates the real property owned by one person from that owned by another person. 3--7 "Public area" means any property or structures thereon which are owned, utilized, or controlled by a governmental entity. "Public right-of-way" means any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, parkway, alley or similar place which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. "Residential area" means residentially zoned land as defined in the community zoning ordinance. "Sound" means a rapid variation in air pressure, which, because of its magnitude and frequency, can be heard by a human with average hearing ability. "Sound level" means the maximum continuous or repeated peak value measured by the use of a sound level meter and the "A" weighting network, as specified in American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4 - 1971, or the latest revision). The reading obtaincd in decibels is designated dBA. If the meter response characteristic is not indicated, "SLOW" response shall be used. "Sound level meter" means an instrument which includes a microphone, amplifier, RMS detector, integrator or time averager, output meter, and weighting networks used to measure sound levels, and meets American National Standards Institute specification S1.4 - 1971, or latest revision, for Type I, Type 2 or Type 2A operation. "Weekday" means any day, Monday through Friday ~ that is not one of the a Hholidays. "Weekend" means Saturdays and Sundays nn4~,b that are not Hholidays. "Vehicular deliveries or pickups" means the delivery or pickup or the arrival for the delivery or pickup of goods, wares, merchandise and waste material by the use of motor vehicles, including, but not limited to, the operation of motorized commercial ground-sweeping or waste-removal machinery, whether portable or self-propelled. (Ord. 1107, 1981; Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.011 Notice of violation. Except in the case where there is clear evidence that a person is acting in good faith and with all deliberate speed to comply with provisions of this chapter at~er a verbal or written warning ora violation, the continuing violation shall be cause for either a citation, complaint, or an abatement order to be issued by the Noise Control Officer, or other responsible official. (Ord. 1022 § I (part), 1980) 10.48.012 Violation--Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a~ infrastion misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12. (Ord. I 179 § 2 (part), 19822 Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.013 Multiple section application. In the event that more than one section of this chapter apply generally and simultaneously to a given noise source or incident, the least restrictive regulation shall be in effect, and the most restrictive limit shall not be invoked, except as sources and incidents are specifically identified in the most restrictive limit which is applicable. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.014 Other remedies. No provision of this chapter shall be construed to impair any common law or statutory cause of action, or legal remedy therefrom, of any person for injury or damage arising from any violation of this chapter or from other law. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to affect in any manner, violations or arrests of persons for a violation of Section 415 of the California Penal Code or any other provision of State law. The unavailability of a sound level meter to enforce the provisions of this chapter does not preclude the enforcement of any provision of State law. (Ord. 1278 (part), 1984: Ord. 1022 § I (part), 1980) 10.48.020 Lead agency/official. 'The noise control program established by this chapter shall be administered by and the responsibility of, the Noise Control Officer. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.021 Powers of the Noise Control Officer. In order to implement and enforce this chapter and for the general purpose of noise abatement and control, the NCO shall have, in addition to any other vested authority_, the power to: A. Review of Public and Private Projects. Review of public and private projects, subject to mandatory review or approval by other departments, for compliance with this ordinance, if such projects are likely to cause noise in violation of this chapter; B. Inspections. Upon presentation of proper credentials and with pe,nission of the property owner or occupant, enter and investigate a potential ordinance violation on any property or place, and inspect any report or,records at any reasonable time. If permission is refused or cannot be obtained, a search warrant may be obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction upon showing of probable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter may exist. 'Such inspection may include administration of any necessary tests. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (pm), 1980) 10.48.022 Duties of the Noise Control Officer. In order to implement and enforce this chapter effectively, the NCO shall within a reasonable time after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter: A. Guidelines, Testing Methods and Procedures. Dev.elop and promulgate guidelines, testing methods and procedures as required. Any noise measurement procedure used in entbrcement of this chapter which tends to underestimate the actual noise level ofth~ source being measured shall not invalidate the enforcement action; B. Investigate and Pursue Violations. In consonance with provisions of this chapter, investigate and pursue possible violations; C. Delegation of Authority. Delegate functions, where appropriate under this chapter, to other personnel and to other departments, subject to approval of the City Manager. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.023 Duties and responsibilities of other departments. A. Departmental Actions. All City departments shall, to the fullest extent consistent with other law, carry out their programs in such a manner as to further the policy and intent of this chapter. B. Project Approval. All departments whose duty it is to review and approve new projects, or changes to existing projects, that may result in the production of disturbing noise, shall consult with the NCO prior to any such approval. C. Contracts. Any written contract, agreement, purchase order, or other instrument whereby the City is committed to the expenditure of five thousand dollars or more in return for goods or services, and which involves noise-producing activities, shall contain provisions requiring compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.29 Homeowner or resident-conducted construction work exception. Construction conducted by the homeowner or resident of a single dwellinl~, using domestic construction tools ls allowed on holidays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. 10.48.030 Emergency exc. cption, The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the emissiox~ of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency, or the emission of sound in the performance of emergency work. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.031 Special exceptions. A. The NCO shall have the authority, consistent with this section, to grant special exceptions.which may be requested. B. Any person seeking a special exception pursuant to this section shall file an application with the NCO. The application shall contain infoi-mation which demonstrates that bringing the soume of sound, or activity for which the special exception is sought, into compliance with this chapter would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, on the commUnity, or on other persons. Prior to issuance of 5ol0 an exception, the NCO shall notify owners and/or occupants of nearby properties which may be affbctcd by such exceptions. Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by allowance oftbe special exceptions may file a statement with the NCO Containing any information to support his claim. If the NCO finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing may be held. C. In determining whether to grant or deny the application, the NCO shall balance the hardship to the applicant, the community, and other persons of not granting the special exception against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, the adverse impact on property affected, and any other adverse impacts of granting the special exception. Applicants for special exceptions and persons contesting special exceptions may be required to submit any information the NCO may reasonably require. In granting or denying an application, the NCO shall place on public tile a copy of the decision and the reasons for denying or granting the special exception. D. Special exceptions shall be granted by notice to the applicant containing all necessary conditions, including- a time limit on the permitted activity. The special exception shall not become effective until all conditions are agreed to by the applicant. Noncompliance with any condition of the special exception shall terminate it and subject the person holding it to those provisions of this chapter regulating the source of sound or activity for which the special exception was granted. E. Application for extension of time limits specified in special exceptions or for modification of other substantial conditions shall be treated like applications for initial special exceptions under subsection B of this section. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.032 Appeals. · APpeals of any decision of the NCO shall be made to the City Council. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.040 Daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels. Individual noise sources, or the combination cfa group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those specified on property zoned as Follows, unless specifically provided in another section of this chapter: Land Use at Location Maximum Noise Level of Complaint on Receiving Property Nighttime Daytime Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA Nonresidential 55 dBA 65 dBA (Ord. 1022 § 1 (pm), 1980) 10.48.050 Brief daytime incidents. A. During the daytime period only, brief n°ise incidents exceeding limits in other sections of this chapter are allowed; providing, that the sma of the noise duration in minutes plus the excess nois~ level does not exceed twenty in a two-hour period. For example, the following combinations would be allowable: Noise Increment Above Noise Duration in No, mai Standard 2-Hour Period 5 dBA 15 minutes 10 dBA 10 minutes 15 dBA 5 minutes 19 dBA 1 minute B. For multifamily dwelling interior noise, Section 10.48.054, the sum of excess noise lc,del and duration in minutes of a brief daytime incident shall not exceed ten in any two-hour period, measured at the receiving location. C. Section 10.48.050A does not apply to Section 10.48.055 (Motor Vehicle Idling). (Ord. 1022 § I (part), 1980) 10.48.051 Home maintenance activities. Daytime use of motorized equipment for home and yard maintenance activities is exempted from the limits of Section 10.48.040; provided, that reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize the disturbance to nearby residents by, for example, installation of appropriate mufflers or noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period necessary, and locating equipment so as to generate minimum noise levels on adjoining properties. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.052 Outdoor public events. A. Outdoor events Open to the general public on nonresidential property, such as parades, rallies, fairs, concerts and special sales and promotional events, involving generation of noise levels higher than would normally occur, by use of the human voice, public address systems, musical instruments, electronic amplification systems, and similar sound-producing activities, are allowed upon obtaining an appropriate permit from the city, and subject to the following general limitations: 1. The event shall not produce noise levels above 70 dBA on any residential property tbr a period longer than three hours during daytime. 2. The event shall not produce noise levels above 60 dBA on any residential property during the period from eight p.m. to eleven p.m., and above 55 dBA for any other nighttime period. 3. Continuous or repeated peak noise levels above 95 dBA shall not be produced at any location where persons may be continuously exposed. B. The conditions imposed upon the event or activity in the pemiit issued by the City, regarding maximum noise level, location of noise sources, or duration of activity, for example, may be more limiting t~an this section, .to protect certain individu8ls, areas or nearby activities which would otherwise be disturbed, and these permit conditions, when in conflict with this section, are overriding. (Ord. 1022 § I (part), 1980) 10.48.053 Grading, construction and demolition. A. Grading, construction and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours; Provided, that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two criteria: 1. No individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet (7.5 meters); or 2. The 'noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. B. Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053(A), ~t is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within seven hundred fifty feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030. C. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. D. C,, Crading~ c0nstruetion or demolition Construction, other than street construction, occurring during nighttims psriodt shall not b~ allowed is prohibited during nighttime periods unless th~ it meets_ the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040. D. The use of helicopters ~ a part of a construction and/or demolition activity shall be restricted to between the hours of ~ight thirty nine a.m. and six thirty p.m. Monday through Saturday Friday only, and prohibited on the weekends and holidays. The notice shall be given at least twenty-four hours in advance of said usage. In cases of emergency, the twenty-four hour period may be waived. (Ord. 1278 (part), 1984: Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.054 Interior noise in multiple-family dwellings. Noise produced in any multiple-famil~, dwelling unit shall not produce a noise level exceeding 45 dBA five feet from any wall in any adjoining unit during the period between seven a.m. and ten p.m., or exceeding 40 dBA during hours from ten p.m. to seven a.m. the following day. (Ord. i 022 § I (part), 1980) 10.48.055 Motor vehicle idling. Motor vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, moWr scooters and trailers or other equipment towed by a motor vehicle, shall not be allowed to remain in one location with the engine or auxiliary motors running, for more than three minutes in any hour, in an area other than on a public right- of-way, unless: A. The regular noise limits of Section 10.48.040 are met while the engine and/or auxiliary motors am running; or B. The vehicle is in use for Provision of police, fire, medical, or other emergency services. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.056 Noise from registered motor vehicles. A. It is a violation.of this chapter to own or operate a motor vehicle, including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles and other similar devices ora type subject to registration, as defined in California Vehicle Code, which has a faulty, defective, deteriorated, modified, replaced, or no exhaust and/or muffler system, and which produces an excessive and disturbing noise level, as defined in Cali/brnia Vehicle Code Sections 27150 and 27151. B. The Stationary Vehicle Test Procedure, as adopted by the California Highway Patrol, may be utilized as prima faeie evidence of violation of this section. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.057 Noise from off-road recreational vehicles. · It is a violation of this chapter to own or operate: A. Any off-road recreational vehicle, including all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, dune buggies and other similar devices, as del'reed in Division 16.5 of the California Vehicle Code, which has a thulty, defective, deteriorated, modified, replaced, or no exhaust and/or muffler system, and which produces an excessive and disturbing noise level, as specified in California Vehicle Code Section 38365; B. Any off-road recreational vehicle producing a noise level: 1. Exceeding 98 dBA within twenty inches of any component at an intermediate engine speed of two thousand to four thousand revolutions per minute in a stationary position; or 2. Exceeding 80 dBA under any condition of acceleration, speed, grade, and load at a distance of fifty feet. At greater or lesser measurement distances, the maximum noise level changes by 4 dB fbr each doubling or halving of distance. The sound level meter shall be set for FAST response tbr this measurement. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.~18.060 Noise d~turbances. No person shall unreasonably make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, any noise disturbance as defined in Section 10.48.010. (Ord. 1022 § I (part), 1980) 10.48.061 Animals and birds. It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to keep, maintain or permit upon any lot or parcel of land within the City under his control any animal, including any fowl, which by any sound or cry shall habitually disturb the peace and comfort of any person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of life or property. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) 10.48.062 Nighttime deliveries and pickups. It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to make or allow vehicular deliveries or pickups to or from commercial establishments (defined as any store, factory, manufacturing, or industrial plant used for the sale, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or storage of goods, wares and merchandise) by tbe use of private roads, alleys or other ways located on either side or the back of any building housing thc commercial establishment where such private road, alley or other way lies between the building and any adjacent parcel of land zoned for residential purposes, between the hours of eight p.m. and eight a.m. weekdays (Monday through Friday mornings) and eight p.m. and nine a.m. on weekends (Saturday and Sunday mornings). (Ord. 1149, 1981: Ord. 1066, 1981: Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) I Environmental ~etting -- PROJECT DESCRIFIION: Sit~ Ar~a (ac.) ~ Building Cowrag~ % Exist. Building_s.f. Proposccl Bldg. s.f. Zone ~ ~.¢: G.P. Designation ~/a,~l"t ~,~ Assessor's Pm~el No. - -__ If Resid~mtial, Units/Gross Ac~ ..... Total0 Reutal/Own Bdrms Total Lf. Pri~e Unit #1 Unit Type Unit 03 Unit Unit Type Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ['-'--} N; De ,.&n~ ConCel~__~.! I----1 S. Sam-Snnny C(:mceptuel [T--'I Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual f---'l Stevens Creek Blvd..~TV,~' L'scape If Non-Residential, Building Area s.f. FAg Max. Employee, s/Shift.__ Parking Required Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban $~rvice Area YES--NO A) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D) OUTSIDE AGENCIF..S I) Cupe~no ~neml PIs~ Land Use Element 23) Corem/Plmming Depamnem 2) ~ Genrad Plan, Public Safmy Element 24) Adja~nt Ci~'s Plmmins D~ 3) Cupm~no C~n~nd Plan, Housing Elmncnt 2~) County lkparunenUd ofanvironmental Health 4) Cupeflino C.~ Plan, Trmnpoftafton Elemcnt 26) Midpe~a Regiond Opm Space Disuim · S) Cupertino Genrad Plan, Envi, umt~-',,*,,! i~om 27) County Pada and Re~malian Depamnent 6) C~ Csenmd Plan, Appendix A- Hillside Development :~8) Cupe~tlno Sanitn~ DMri~ 7) Cupertino General Plan, Land Use Map 29) F,~,,,,mt Union High School Disuict S) Noise Element Ammdn~nt 30) Cupcrfino Union School Dimia 9) City RidgeJine Policy 31) Pacific G~ and ~c 10) Cupertino Genml Plan Constraint Ms~ 32) Sm Clara County Fire lkpmmm 33) County Shatff ~) CUPF. RT~O SOURCE DOCUM~r~ 3~) County Tnmpomtion l 1) Trc~ l~csmvation ordinance 778 36) Sama Clara Vallcy Watcr District 13) "Cul~tino Cluonid¢" (Cailfl~nia ITmary Cnnm., 1976) ~$)l~tdnsOrdinsnm ~277 "' 3~)n~tA~a~D Stm~/ofCommim~ ~6) Z~nins Mnp- 3s) PEMA l~aad Msp~CVWD ~ood 17) Zoning Code/Speeflic Plan Doomnmm 39) t/SDS., "Soils of Ssma Clam County* 18) City Noise Onlinsnce 40) Camm/Hannrdm~ Wmm lvlanasmnent Plan 41) County l-ledtage Resources Inventmy C) t:r,t~' AGENcAJg~ 42) Santa Clam Valley Water District Fu~l ~9) Cupertino Commun~ Dev~opn~nt Dept. Leak Sitc 2O) Cu~ Publio Wodn Dept. 43) CalEPA l-l,,.~om Wine and Sutmanccs 21 ) Cup~'tino Pnrks & Rg~tion D~ S~ List 7.2) Cupe. r~no Wa~r utmty 44) PmJc~t Plan Set/Appllca~on 45) Ficld 46) Ex~ with Project of shnilar s 4'0 AnAo P~ojcctians Saks 1) Complete al.~l information requested on 4) Whml expJnlning ally yes response, label tho Initial Study Cover page. I.I~.a. VE your answer clearly (Exnmple "N - 3 BLANK SPACES ONLY ~ A Historical") Please try to respond concisely, SPECn~IC ITEM IS NOT and place as many explanatory responses as APPLICABX.~.. possibl~ on each page. 2) Consult the Initial Study Source List; use s) Upon completing the checklist, sign aad the materials listed therein to complete, the date the Prcparer's Affidavit. through O. 6) Please attsch the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the You are encouraged to cite other relevant City. sources; if such sources are used, job in their - Prokct van sa orL~Sme~ve Domnm 0) copy - Lomiou rasp wl~ ~it~ ckady nm~M (w~m title(s) in the ~Source~ column next to the mak~a). question to which they relate. IH Al RI: ~%()! R I\'l l'l,\l. ~l'[.:l)'%r 3) lfyou chock any ofthe "YE3" response k~l l:%11H'\[. I~ ('()31l)lJ=.ll,i - to any questions, youmust atlach a sheet Ikq[ '()~11)1.1,~1'1' '~I,\-I~I,~RI \L~ \i %'% mitigation if needed. IAfl)ACT YEs WILL THE PROJECT.., t~ot significant Significant '.umulalive SO~C~ NO ~d) A) ~ USE G~ P~ ~) ~q~ s~g~of~ ~ 4) ~t ~ sub~ ~ ~ ~ ~tl~d. of~ si..~ of ~ 0 0 0 0 7.12 ~jo~i~ ~) ~t ~ divi~ ~ ph~i~ ~on of~ ~1~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ B) GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD !} Be located in mi aroa which Ires :3) Be Iocat~l on or a~e_ _,~m,t_ m ~ Zone/ 2 4} !~ located in an s~n of soft shfink/mv~ll, soil ~ or e~oSiOM)? S) CaUS~ substan~ ~rosion ss~undon ora watt, ourse?6) Came substantial dJssuptJoo, ~ [] [] [] [] 2,5.10 ove~,overins of soil eit~ on-si~ or off- 'site T) Caos~ substantial chanse in ~) lnvolw ~mmn~tion of ,, buildin& C') RKSOURCKS/PARICS I) h~;rus~ the mdsdn~ mnovsl rat., o~ 5,1o result in the removd of a n-h,,al r~somce [] [] [] C'] [] for ~ommm~M pm'pm~s (in~,,di,,_* items such as rock. snnd~ arav~, ~ees. minerals or top. on)? 3) COIIVefl prime ~Ficuilurd hnd ~ [] [] [] 0 '.39 (ClaSS I or II soils) to non-qficulumd use - or impair th~ qrimdtural pmd~'fiviq, of " nearby in*ime asricultural land? 4) Involve lands m~.~.dy protectcd under the TVIIliamson Act or an~ Open Space easmnent? WILL THE PROJECT... ~ot sisnmcm s~snm~nt C~mu~ SO'CE Si~ifi~t (MiSsion ~o NO ~) ~) ~ Su~ly ~ ny ~isfin~ D) S~AG~AT~R QU~ ~ limi~om? ' - 2) P~ult h a ~tJc field ~J~ I~ ~h 50 ~ ora ~e ~e , 36~9,42 3) ~t h ~ion ofa ~r ~n li~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 19,20,40 ~1o~ 4}S~ly ~ ~ ~ ~ q~i~, or ~ ~blic ~ ~j6~7 s~t ~ ~ l~ ~n~ ~s ~ ~ lo~d b ~ ~ of~ s~ly ~n ~u~ ~i~ of~ .E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING 1) Intcffue substm~ally with ground 20,36 2) Substantially chan~ Ih~ dJl~cfion, rm or flow or quantity of ground-. wet~s' ' M"+lands eifl~"r thr°~h d~u~t ~ [] [] N ' 0 20,36,42 promus or tl~ rm/smount of mrhcc ~ [] [] [] [] 20.36 runolfor wetland? 4) Involw a natural d~i~ .,,~- ehannd m' ~,~.ambed m' ws~' eoune sur. b .. ~ [] [] [] [] 36,42 alter ~he Io~tion& eom'se m' fiow of ils reptiles Or plnnt li~ by dtm~n~ ~ ~ [] FI [] . [] $ : divinity o~ numb~n of e~.~stin~ n~c~ng mi~stion o~ movement~ 2) Substantially r~du~ WILL THE PROJECT... N~ $iSniflcfnt Significant Cumuivl/ve SOURCE Signiflcam (Mitigl~ion (No NO ~r~d) M~** Proposed) ,) Change the existing habitat food sourco or nesting placo for a toro or .~ [] [] [] [] ~. I0 speciuwn scale treu, whcther indJgmous~ [] [] [] [] 11.12.41 m ~he ~ o~ introduced? G) TRANSPORTATION 1) Cau~ an increase in traffic which is substm~bll in relation to the symm? 2) C~,~_ m~publJc or prlvsm slre~t. tntmecl~n to function b~low l.~v~l of 4,20 pedl~fims, bicyclim md vehicl, es? ~ [] [] [] [] 20,3, 4) Advwsely affr, ct access m commercM embfishmenls, public ' buUpin~; schools, pmt:s or other .~ [] [] [] [] 4.10 peclo~'Jan nrJented activity S) Cause a rcdu~ion in public . 6) lnc~uso d~mmd upon existing psrking f~Jlitks, or engexd~r dcmsnd for '/) lnhJMt mo ofdl~rnstive mod~s of' Il) HOUSING !) Padnce the supply ofatfurdchlc [] [] [] [] ,,,, displa~m,mt of i~rso~ ~ ~ 2) Incmm th~ cost ofhousin~ in Ibc 3. 16 ofho~ing ~ fomd in fl~ ! ) lnvolvothetpp~,-,,~_ usc, ~ [] [] [] [] 32.40.42.43 dispofsl or mmufac~c ofpomfially [] [] [] [] ,,.4, 2) hwoive ri~ofexplmion oro~r . 3) Involw the rmovld o~ continued ~. [] [] [] [] 33.42,43 use of my existing or immllation of any ~ undu.~ound chmical ~ ~ 4) B~ I~ in m 8re, a ofsemond tim [~ [] [] [] [] 2.32 S) ~-.?loy~echnolngy which could advmely _.~'t public slay in the ~L [] [] [] [] 40,43 event ora breakdown? THE PROJECT... SOURCE Not Sianificant Sipiificant Cumulative Significant (Mitigation (No. NO Proposed) Mifi~tion 6) Pmvid~ b~lins srounds for J) AIR QUALIFY I) ~ ~ly ~ mbi~ d~ ~ of~ pmje~ 2) ~ult in s~ in~ h L) AESTHETICS 1) Be at variance with applicable '~- 2) Crm~ mar. sth~ticfdly offansi~ site open to public vieW? [] [] [--] [] 1.17 3) Visually htrude upon an ar~ of visible ~,,,,, the valley ,loo~? hillsides from re~idemM m~as or publi~ 10. 21, :34, 41 ~) Advmoly affect the arc]dte~ bus~n~ss dis~"/ 1.17,19 or public madv~s? M) ENERGY quantltics •ir ~o~sil foels ~ nmi- r~n~wable eucr~ sourccs? 2) i~novo vqs,ht;on providJns smnm~ '""b o~ wind't~eaks to an ,~l [] [] [] [] ILl9 e~istinS o~ Imposed buildin~ 3) Sian~mnfly ~ sol~ 8Gcess to ARCHAEOLO~iCAL 1) B~ I~=~r.d in an a~.a of potm~ resou~? IMPACT WILL THE PROJECT... )~o~ $igniflr. lsnt $i~.ificird Cumuhtiv~ SOURC~ Sisnificant (Mitigation (No '' ]~0 Proposed) Miti~tio. 2) Affect adversely a property of historic~ f---]. [] [] [] I, 10,41 except aS pm of ~i scicr~tific study? O) PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES qmntitiaS?1) Pmdu~ .lid .~ in .ubs~ntild [] " L~_]~ ~ ~ ~ ' 40 2) ~ sult~latJal ~rowlfl, or Id~' [] I, 46,47 ~ Io~loa, dist~ibufio~ or densit~ o~ tl~ bnm.~ Polmletloa of an area? 3) Cram substantial impact upon. or imus~ d~ n~cd for:. ~ [] 19,32 d) P,rks/l~p:rextiofl Facilities? [~ [] [] [] [] $. 17. 19.21 · ) Maintemmce of Public Far. iii,.? .~ [] r'-] [] [] 19,201,21 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To Be Compkted by Ci~ Staff) YES NO 1. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environmen..t, to F---'] ~ substantially diminish the habitat ofa f~h or wildlife species; to cause a fish · or wildlife population to &-op b~low self-sustainable levels; to threaten or eliminat~ a plant or animal c~mm~lit~; tO redllCe the numbcr of or restrict the range of a rare or ~nclengered plant or animal; to eliminat~ important examples of the major periods.of. Califorflia's.histo~ or 2. Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long t~m environmental goals? ' I I ~ 3. Have anvironmenml i~pacts which are individually limited, but al~ ~ ~ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable: m~ans that the I I incmnental effects of an individual project are sub~antiw when vi~wad in conjunction with the after-'ts of past projects, other corrent projects, and probable fumm projects) 4. Have anvironmen~ effects which will c~us~ substntial adverse impac~ ~ ~ on human ~ings, either directly or indirectly? I hereby certify that the information proviclcd in this Initial Study is Uue and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding nccura~ly to all qucstiom herein, end havc consultcd appropriate source refinances whm necessary to ensure full and complet~ disclosure oFrelevant environmental data. I hereby ecknowladgc than any substantial rotors dated within this Initial Study amy cause delay or discontinuance of' related project review procedures, and hereby agrec to hold hfumless the City of Cupertino, its staff'end authorized Preparer s ENVIRONME~AL EVALUATION · (To be Completed by City St~f0 IMPACT AREAS: [] Land Use/General Plan [] Geologic/Seismic Hazard [] Resources/Parks [] Housing [] Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding [] Flora & Fauna [] Transportation [] Historical/Arohaeoiogical [] He~th & Safety. [] Air Quality ~ Noise [] Public Services/Utilities [] Energy [] Aesthetics STAFF EVALUATION On the basis of this Initial Study, the Environmental Review Committee (F_RC)'Finds: Stlm On, That the proposed project COULD NOT have a sirificant effect on the environment, and recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That although the project could have a si.tm!ficant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur because mitigation measures m*e included in the project. ERC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be gnmted. That the proposed MAY have a s~?i~mmt effect on the environment and recommends that tn ..~ /~/~"~ ENVIRO~AL ! MPACT RE]~QR.T be prepared. Staff EvaluatorDate ¢:~ ! (~ iO~ LJ Date f,/Idannin~latstdy4.doc .. CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 13, 2000 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as mended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on September 13, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: 4-SP-00, 14-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Considerations for modification to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Envirg~amental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration fmaing that the pr ~Jeqr~]usistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. ~leve~l'la ec~,l Director of Community Development g/erc/RECl4ea00 Exhibit A 10.48.010 ---'--:' ' .. Clmpter 10.48 ."Commercial establishment" means any store, -factory, manufacturing or industrial plant used for COMMUNITY. NOISE CONTROL the sale, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or storage of goods, warm and rnm'chandis~. Sections: "Construction" means any site preparation, grad- 10.48.010 Definitions. ing, assembly, erection, repair, substantial al~mmiun, 10.48.011 Notice of violation, or similar action, of public or private property, 10.48.012 Violation--Penalty. ~hts-of-way, structures, utilities or similar property, 10.48.013 Multiple section application, but er,~.luding demolition. 10.48.014 Other remedies. "Daytime" means the period from seven a.m. to 10.48.020 Lead agencylolticial. -- eight p.m. on weekdays, and the period from eight 10.48,021 Powers of the Noise Control a.m. to eight p.m. on weekends and holidays. Officer. '~c. ibel (clB)" means a unit for measuring rela- 10.48.022 Duties of the Noise Control live sound pressure, logarithmically referenced ro a Officer. pressure of twanty micronewtons per square meter. 10.48.023 Duties and responsibilities of "Demolition" means any dismantling, intentional other departments, destruction or removal of structures, utilities, public 10.48.030 ~mergeney exceptinn, or private right-of-way surfaces, or similar prope~y. 10.48.031 Special exceptions. "Emergency" means any occurrence or set of 10.48.032 AppeAls. circumstances involving acmsl or imminent physical 10.48.040 Daytime and nighttime danger, crisis, trauma, or property damage which maximum noise levels, demands immediate action. 10.48.050 Brief daytime Incidents. "Emergency work" means any work per~orm~ 10.48.051 Home maintenance activities, for the purpose of preventing or alleviating the .~_~. 10.48.052 OuMoor public events, physical danger, wauma, or property ,t~mage threat- 10.48.0~3 Grarli~g, conslrucfion and ened or c,m~ed by an emergency, or restoration of demolition, conditions and prope~y to their status prior to the 10.48.0~4 Interior noise In multiple- emergency. fan~y dwellings. "Holiday" means the following days: New Year's 10.~18.055 · Motor vehicle idling. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, 10.48.056 Noise from registered motor. Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day. 10.48.0~7 Noise f~'om off-road ty as del'reed in the community zoning ordinance. recreational vehicles. "Muffler" means a device for reducing or dissi- 10.48.060 Noise di.~urbances, pstlng the sound of escaping gases, or other types 10.48.061 Animals and birds, of noise, ~'iom a mechanical devic~ or angine. 10.48.062 Nighttime deliveries and ''Multiple-family dwelling unit" means a residen- plcimps, rial structure cov~ining separate living quarters for two or more families, each unit with similar and 10.48.010 D~l~tions. common access to the outside. For purposes of this chapter. "Nighttime" means periods of weekday~ from "Commercial ar~a" means commercially-zoned eight p.m. to twelve midnight, and from midnight property as defined in the community zoning ordi- to seven a.m., and periods on weekends and hollo nance, days from eight p.m. to midnight and from midnight to eight a.m. lO.4&OlO "Noise" means any zotmd which annoys or dis- fications for sound level meters (ANSI S 1.4 - 1971, turbs humans or which causes or tends to cause an or the !.t~-st revision). Tl~e re~Ing obtained in dcci- '.~.~.~ adverse psychological or physiological effect on bols is designated dBA. If the meter response char- humnns, acteristic is not indicated, 'SLOW" responsc shall "Noise Control Officer (NCO)" means the munic- be used. ipal agency, deparuuent or individual having lead "Sound lcvel meter" means an instrument which responsibility for impleru~ntation and enforcement includes a microphone, amplifier, RMS detector, of this chapter, as designated by the City Manager integrator, or time averager, output meter, and end approved by thc City Council. weighting networks used tb measure sound levels, "Noise disturbance" means any sound which: and meets American National Standards Institute a. Bndangcrs or injures the safety oi'-health of spccificatinn SI.4 - 1971, or latest revision, for humans or animals; or Type l, Type 2 or Type 2A operation. b. Annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of "Weekday" me~n.~ any day, Monday through normal sensitivities; or Friday, which is not a holiday. c. Endangers or damages personal or real prop- "Weekend" mesas Saturdays and Sundays which erty. are not holidays. "Noise level" means the same as sound level. "Vehicular deliveries' or pickups' mcans the "Nonresidential area" means land zoned for other, delivery or pickup or the arrival for the delivery or than residential uses,~ such as commercial, profes- pickup of goods, wares, merchandise and waste sional office, industrial or public, as defined in thc material by the use of motor vehicles, including, but zoning ordinance, but not including public rights-of- not limited to, thc operation of motorized commer- way. cinl ground-sweeping or waste-removal machinery, "Person" means any individual, association, part- whether portable or self-propelled. (Ord. 1107, --.~ nership, corporation, or public agency, and includes 1981; Ord. 1022 § 1 (patt), 1980) any associated officer, employee or depa~t-~ent. "Property boundary" means an imaginary linc 10.45.011 Notice of violation- along the ground surface, and its vertical ex~ensiun, ~,xcept in the casc where there is cl~r evidence which separates thc real property owned by one that a person is acting, in good faith and with all person from that owned by another person, deliberate speed to comply with provisions of this "Public area" means any property or structures chapter after a verbal or written warning of a viola- thereon which are owned, utilized, or controlled by .. tion, the continuing violation shall be canse for a governmental entity, either a citation, complaint, or an abatement order "Public .right-of-way" means any street, avenue, to be issued by the Noisc Control Officer, or other boulevard, highway, parkway, alley or similar place responsible official. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. 1O~.Ol2 ¥iolatio,' Penalty. "Residential area" means rcsidevfiAtly zoned land Any person who violates the provisions of this as defined in the community zoning ordinance, chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and upon "Sound" means a rapid variation in air pres~ore, conviction thereof shall I~c punished as provided in which, becanse of its magnitudeaud frequency, can Chapter 1.12. (Ord. 1179 § 2 (part), 1982: Ord. be heard by a human with average hearing ability. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) "Sound level" means the maximum continuous or repeated peak value measured by the use of a sound 10.48.013 Multiple section application. level meter and the "A" weighting network, as spec- In the event that more than one __~ction of this ified in American National Standards Institute speci- 267 ¢c.~m t~-~) 10.48.013 - · chapter apply generally and simultaneously to a If pe~m;-~sion is refused or cannot be obtained, a given noiso source or incident, the least res~ctive search warrant may be obtained from a court of regulation shall be in effect, and the most restrictivecompetent jurisdiction upon showing of probable "'"' limit shall not be invoked, except as sources and cause to believe that a violation of this chapter may incidents are specifically identified in the most exist. Such inspection mayincludeadministration of restrictive limit which is applicable. (Ord. 1022 § 1 any necessary tests. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (pan), 1980) (pan), 1980) .. 10.48.02~ Duties et the Noise Control' 10.48.014 Other rem~lJes. "Officer, No provision of this chapter slmli be construed to In order to implement and enforce this chapter cf- impair any cerumen law or statutory cause of ac~Ton, teodvely, thc NCO shall within a reasonable time or legal remedy therefi'om, of any person for injury si~r tbe effective d~te of the ordinance codified in or dam~ srising flora any violation of this chap~ t~i_, chapter. or from otbet law. Thc provisions of this chapter ar~ A. Guidedin~s, Testing Methods.and Procedures. not intended to affect in any manner, violations or D~velop and promulgate guidelines, t~,sting me,odS arrests of persons for a viol~ion of Section 415 of and procedures as required. Any'noise me,asurement the California Wad COd~ or any other provision of procedure used in enforcement of this chapter which S~ato law. The unavailability of a sound level rne. tertmlds to uaderestimat~ tlm a~-m~ noim level of the to eni~ome the provisions of this chapter does not soure~ being measured shall not invalidate the preclud~ the enfomen~nt of any provision of $~t~ forcera~t a~tion; law. (Ord. 1278 (p~t), 1984: Ord. 1022 § 1 (p~_~t), B. Inwstigate and Pursue Vio~ons. In conso- 1980) nance with provisions et this chapter, investigat~ md pursu~ possible violations; ~0.48.020 Lead ngen~-y/ol'fl~d. C. D~legation of Authority. D~l~gam functions, The noise control progrmn established by this wbem appropriate under this chapter, to other t~r- chapter shall be ~ami,,isrered by and the re-~pon- soenel and to other departments, subject to approval sibility el', the Noise Uontrol Office. (Or~ 1022 § of r~ City Mam~ger. (Ord. 1022 § I (l~rt), 1980) 1 (yin), 19so) 10.4~.02.3 Duties and responsibilities of ~0.4~.02! Powers 0t the Noise Control other departmeat~ Officer.' A. Dapamnental Actions. All City dcpartmemts In order to implement and cr~orce this chapter shall, to the filllest extent consistent with other law, and for the general purpose of noise abatement and can'y out their programs in such a manner as to control, the l~l'CO shall hav~, in addition to any further the policy and intent of this chapter. oth~r vested authority the power to: B. Prelect Approval. All depmments whose duty A. R~view of Publi~ and Privam Projects. ~ it is to mvi~w md approve new project, or changes view of public and private projects, subje~'t to man- to ~xisting proj~'ts, tlmt may result in th~ produ;-. datory review or approval by other dapartn~ts, for tion of disturbing nois~, shall consult with th~ NCO compliance with this ordinance, if-,uch projects am prior to any such approval. lilcely to cause noise in violation of this chapter;, C. Contra;~s. Any written contnmt, 'agr~ment, B. InSl~ctions. Upon presentation of proper pomham order, or other in--i~ament whe~by the credentials en.d with tm'mission of the prolmrty City is committal to the expenditure of five thou- owner or oc~upent, enter and investigate a potential sand dollars or more in return for goods or services, ordimmce violation on any property or pla~, and and which involves noise-producing ~;tivities, shall inspect any repor~ or records at any reasonable time. ~c,~,, ~ 268 10.48.023 contain provisions requiring compliance with this D. Special exceptions shall bc granted by notice ,._.... chapter. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (pan), 1980) re the applicant containing all necessary conditions, , including a dine Umit on the permitted activity. The 10.48,030 Emergency exception, special exception shaJ] not become effective until all The provisions of this chapter shall not apply m conditions are agreed to by tho applicant. Noncom- the emission of sound for the purpose of alegdng pl~mce with any condition of the special exception persons W the existence of an cmergoncy, or the shall terminate it and subject the person holding it emission of sound in the performance of emergency to those..., provisions of this chapter regulating the work. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (parr), 1980) source of sound or activity for which the special exception was granted. 10.48.031 Special exceptions. -- E. Application for extension of time liraits speci- A. The NCO shall have the authority, consistent f'md in special exceptions or for modification of with this section, to grant special.excaptions which other substantial conditions shall be Ireated like may be requested, appUcations for initial spec.iai exceptions under B. Any person seeking a special exception put- subsection B of this s~don. (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), suant to this s~:fion shall file an application with thc 1980) NCO. The appUcation shall contain informspon which demonstra_t_es that bringing the source of 10.48.032 Appeals. sound, or activity for which the special excaption is Appeals of any decision of the NCO shall be sought, into compliance with this chapter would made to the City Council. (Ord. 1022 § I (part), constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applic~t' 1980) on the community, or on oth~ persons. Prior to issuance of an exception, the NCO shall notify 10.48.040 Daytime and nightlime maximum owners and/or occutumts of nearby properties which noise levels. may bo affected by such exceptions. Any individual Individual noise sources, or the combination of who claims to be adversely affected by allowance a group of nois~ sources located on the same prop- ' of the special exceptions may file a st*wmcot with err7, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those. the NCO contsi~ing any information to support his specified on property zoned as follows, unless spe,- claim. If the NCO finds thai a sufficient controversy cifically provided in another section of this chaptec. exists rcganting an appUcation, a public hearing may C. In determining whether to grant'or deny the et C, mapl~at ea l~'~---~,~s ~ application, the NCO shall balance the hazdship to the appUc, ant' tho community, and other persons of RedclmUi $0 dBA '60 dBA Nom,,,.sidentiai 55 dBA 65 dBA not granting the special exception ~,.~nst the ad- (Ord. 1022 § 1 (part), 1980) verse impact on the health, safety, and welfa~ of persons affected, the adverse impact on property 10.48.050 Brief daytime incident~. affected, and any other adverse impacts of granl*Jng A. During the daytime period only, brief noise the special exception. Applicants for special excep- incidents exceeding limits in other sections of this tions and persons contesting special 8xcaptions may chapter are allowed; providing, that the sum of the be required to submit any information the NCO may noise duration in minu~es plus the excess noise level reasonably require. In granting or denying an appli- does not exceed twenty in a two-hour period. For cation, the NCO shah place on public file a copy of example, the following combinations would be the decision and the reasons for denying or granting nllowable: the special exception.. 10.48.050 -'~=' 's~,~ x~.,...~t ~ s~ ~ '~ 3. C~uo~ or m~ ~ no~ le~ls No~ ~ ~r ~ ~ove 9~ dBA sh~l not ~ pm~c~ ~ ~y l~on ~ ~A ]~ ~ ~h~ ~ons ~y ~ ~n~u~sly ex~sed. ~" 1o ~A i0 ~ ~s ~A S ~ B. ~e ~i~ons impo~ upon ~ ov~ or z~ ~A i ~ ~fivi~ ~ ~o ~t issu~ by ~e Ci~, mg~g ~m noise level, l~tion of noi~ soumes, or B. Nor m~ly dwel~g ~or noise, S~- dum~on of ~, for ex,pie, ~y ~ mom tion 10.~.054, ~e sum of ~ss noi~ level ~d ~ng ~ ~s s~on, to ~t ~ ~du- dum~on in minu~ of a ~ef ~y~ ~ci~t shMl ~s, ~ orh~y ~fivi~s which would o~e~e not ex~ ~n in ~y ~ho~ ~d~, m~ ~ ~ ~sm~ ~d ~e ~it condifion~ when the mc~ng l~on. - conflict wi~ ~is s~fion, ~ o~g. (~. 10~ C. S~fion lO.48.050A~snotapplymS~on ~ I ~), 1980) I0.48.055 ~o~r V~cle Tdllng). (~. 1~ ~ 1 (p~), 1980) 10.~.0~3 G~ ~on ~d 10.48.0~1 H~e m~~ a~ ~ ~g~ ~on ~d ~mo~fion ~- Da~ ~e of mom~ quipm~t f~ ho~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~ to ~ ~e no~e li~ of ~d y~ ~~ ~ ~ e~d ~m S~on 10.48.~ d~g ~ ho~; prodded, ~e ~ of ~on 10.~.~; pmvid~ ~ ~- ~ ~e q~p~t u~ ~ ~i~ no~ so,lc eff~ ~ ~ ~ ~e u~ to ~i~ ~ mu~ ~ ~a~nt devils ~sl~ed ~d ~ ~ ~s~ to n~y ~m by, for ex,pie, ~n~fion, ~d ~e ~ m~ts one of ~e fo~ow- ins~on of a~p~ ~ ~ no~ ~, ~g ~o ~n~g ~uipm~t only ~e mlni~ ~ n~s- 1. No in~vidu~ ~ce pr~uces a no~ ~vel s~, ~d l~ng ~uip~ ~ u m g~e~e ~- mom ~ 87 ~A ~ a ~ of ~enty-five f~t ..~. mum no~ levels on ~jo~g ~. (~. ~ me~); or 1022 ~ 1 ~), 1980) 2. ~e no~ level on ~y ~y pm~ d~ not e~ 80 ~ 10.~0~20uMoor pubic e~ B. It is a ~ol~on of ~s ~r m en~e A. ~ ev~ o~ m ~e ~n~ public on ~y ~g, ~t co~cfio~ or ~~d no~sid~ti~ pmp~, ~ch ~ p~. ~s, u~i~ work ~ ~v~ h~d ~ ~et of a f~m, con~ ~d s~c~ ~ ~d pm~o~ ~i~fi~ ~on S~ys, S~ys ~d holi~ys, even~, iuvolv~g gen~on ~ no~ levis ~ ~d d~g ~ ~h~ime ~ ex~ u pmvi~ · ~ would no~y ~, by use of ~e h~s~ in ~on 10.~.0~. voice, publ~ ~s ~s~, m~ic~ ~s~, C. ~g, co~cfion, or demoli~ ~- el~nic ~p~fi~on systat, ~ s~ m~d- ~g d~g ni~me ~s ~all not be ~Io~ pr~ucing ~fivi~, ~ ~ow~ u~ ob~g ~ uple~ ~ey ~t ~ nigh~ ~d~ of S~on app~fi~ ~t fi~m ~e ci~, ~d subj~ m ~ 10.48.~. following ~ ~Ho~: D. ~e ~ ~ he~p~ ~ a ~ of a con~ 1. ~e e~nt ~1 not ~u~ no~ leve~ ~on ~or ~mo~fion ~vi~ sh~l ~ ~c~ above 70 ~A on ~y ~i~n~ pm~ f~ a ~n ~e h~ of ~t t~ ~m. ~d six period longer ~ ~ bourn dung ~. p.m. Monday ~mu~ S~y o~y. 2. ~e event ~l not pmdu~ noi~ le~ ~or to ~g a heli~p~r, ~ or ~o~ ~ dBA on ~y ~i~nfi~ pm~ d~ng no~ ~ll ~ ~ven m ~e ~ hx~t of Pl~g · e ~od ~m eight p.m. ~ elev~ p.m., ~ ~ve ~d ~velop~u ~e notice shall ~ ~n ~ 5~ ~A for ~y o~er nigh&~ ~fiod. ~en~-fo~ ho~ ~ ~v~ of ~d ~e. ~ c~es (~ ~) 270 -" 10.48.053 of emergency, the twenty-four hour period may be 10.48.057 Noise from off-road reereatiunni waived. (OrcL 1278 (part), 1984: Ord. I0~2 § 1 vehicles. (pan), 1980) It is a violation of this chapter to own or operate: A. Any off-wed recreational vehicle, including 10.48.054 Interior noise in multiple-family all-terrain vehicles, din bike, dune buggies and dw~,lltn~s, other similar devices, ss defined in Division 16.$ of Noise produced in any nmltiple-farnlly dwelling the Califomin Vehicle Code, which has a faulty, unit shall not produce a nois~ level exceeding 45 defective, deterionued, modified, replaced, or no dBA five feet from any wall in any adjoining unit exhaust'and/or muffler system, and which produces during the period between seven a.m. and ten p.m., an excessive and dism~oing noise level, as specified or exceeding 40 dBA during hours fro~'~ten p.m. to in California Vehicle Code Section 38365; seven a.m, the following day. (Ord. 1022 § I (pan), B. Any off-road recreational vehicle producing 1980) a noise level: I. Exceeding 98 dBA within twenty inches of 1028.0~$ Motor vehicle ialt,,g_ any component at an intem~i*_te engine speed of Motor vehicles, including automobiles, tracks, two thousand to four thousand revolutions per rain- motorcycles,, motor scooters cud trailers or other ute in a stationary position; or equipment towed by a motor vehicle, shall not be 2. Exceeding 80 dBA under any condition of allowed to remain in one location with the engine acceleration, speed, grade, and load at a distance of or auxiliary motors running for more than three fifty feet. At iieater or lesser measurement distanco minutes in any hour, in an area other than on a es, the maximum noise level changes by 4 dB for public right-of-way, unless: each doubling or halving of distance. The sound A.. The regular noise limits of Section 10.48.040 level meter shall be set for FAST response for this -.._... are met while the engine and/orauxiliary motors are measurement. (Ord. 1022 § I (part), 1980) running; or B. The vehicle is in use for provision of police, 10.48.060 Noise disturbances. fire, medical, or other emergency services. (Ord. No person shall unreasonably make, continue, or 1022 § 1 (pan), 1980) cause to be made or continued, any noise distur- bance as defined in Section 10.48.010. (Ord. 10'22 10.48.056 Noise from re~is~red motor § 1 (pan), 1980) A. It is a violation of this chapter to own or 10.48.061 A,,tm~l, and birds. openue a motor vehicle, including automobiles, It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to tracks, motorcycles and other similar devices of a keep, maintain or permit upon any lot or parcel of type subject to/-egistration, as defined in Callfomia land within the City under his control any animali Vehicle Code, which has a faulty, defective, deterio- including any fowl, which by any sound or cry shall rated, modified, replaced, or no e~hs,:st and/or habitually dismfo the peace and comfort .of any muffler system, and which produces an excessive person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment and disturbing noise level, ss defined in California of life or property. (Ord. 1022 § I (pan), 1980) Vehicle Code Sections 27150 and 27151. B. The Stationary Vehicle Test Procedure, as 10.48.062 Nighttime deliveries and pickups. adopted by the California Highway Patrol may be It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to utilized as prima facie evidence of violation of this make or allow vehicular'deliveries or pickups to or section. (Ord. 1022 § I (pan), 1980) from commercial establishments (defined ss any store, factory, manufacturing, or industrial plant 271 I0.48.062 used for the sale, manufacturing, fabrication, assem- bly or storage of goods, wares and merchandise) by the use of privat~ roads, alleys or other ways located on either side or the back of any building housing the comrn~rcial establishment where such private mad, alley or other way lies between the building and any adj~_c~nt parcel of laud zoned for residential purposes, between tim hours of eight p.m. and eight a.m. weekdays (Monday through Friday mornings) and eight p.m. and nine a.m. or~ weekends (Saturday and Sunday mornings). (Ord. 1149, 1981: ~'d. 1066, 1981: Ord. 1022 § 1 (pa~), 1980) 272 Exhibit' B Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 27, 2000 Oilli l~vi;w~d Lh~ -~u~l~;~L;d ~,hms~ fium M~. Ku,,~m. ~ filet ~(~,ff was not co,,,fo, tal;le with ; the lightwells to be larger than the minimum unless they went through an approval process; and railings was not objectionable, although staffwould prefer the 3-I/2 foot height. Com. concern about the placement of lightwells on the side of the house against a five foot setback, to get by the side of the house if there is aflve foot setback and if the room in the was on the side with the five foot setback, with the inclusion of a lightwell. He clarified that it putting it on the side of the house with thefive foot setback. He said that if a large portion of the ent was to be used as floor area, the option for an exterior stairwell in the rear of the house was but not the front or visible from the street; comer parts could be part of the exception. He said that he teeking guidance for the Design Review Committee as one application had already been continued. Chair Harris said that she a stairwell egress if the finished area of the house totaled 40% and included the sum total of tho living area and the finished area of the basement, not including the garage on the ground that approval of the property without a stairwell posed a safety hazard in the event of a fire. For plus basement, Chair Harris suggested the requirement if the finished area was 30% Mr. Gilli said that if an applicant wanted to have g unit, they could have an enclosed stairway that leads up to a door, and not expose any more of the exterior and does not have as much of the grading. Com. Corr questioned if there was a fire regulation governing the of an outside exit for a full size basement. Mr. Oilli responded that the other outside exit was and the windows, which is the minimum building code requirement based on meeting the fire safety Com. Corr recommended following the fire regulations for more control. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 16-EA-00 SECOND: Com. Kwok ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 10-SP-00 SECOND: Com. Kwok '~ ABSENT: Com. Doyle \ VOTE: l%.Jscd 4-0-0 5. Application Nos.: 04-SP-00, 14-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertno Location: Citywide Consideration of modificetions to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding construction noise. Continued from meeting of ~ugust 14, 2000 Tentative City Council Date: October 2, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 27, 2000 Staffpr~sentation: Mr. Colin .lung, Senior Planner, reported that the regulation of constructlon noise was a long-standing issue, which evoked concerns and complaints from residents. He reviewed the development activities regulated by noise levels and hours, constructions deliveries/pickups from residential sites, and the use of helicopters at some building sites, as outlined in the attached staff report. He also reviewed the penalties for the infractions related to the noise violations. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. A discussion ensued regarding the areas of concern to address in preparation cfa noise ordinance. The areas of concern listed on Page 5-3 of the staff report are to be included in the proposed noise ordinance amendment. Chair Harris suggested that a thorough review of the ordinance be accomplished, and where changes had occurred, revise the ordinance, and incorporate results of valid studies. She requested that the Environmental Review Committee control document be included as part of the packet when it is returned for further action. Restrictions for construction hours and operation of power tools, as well as controls on other noise levels are to be included in the proposed ordinance amendment; intermittent beeping signals from trucks; and penalties relative to infractions will also be addressed. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to continue Applications 04-SP-00 and 14-gA-00 to the November 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Kwok ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF T1TE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committe~- Com. Corr reported that at the September 13th meeting, a proposed home on Upland Way was continued to work on redesign. There was also a discussion on the noise ordinance amendment at the meeting. Housing Committee - No report Mayor's Breakfast - Com. Kwok reported that there was discussion on the red light enforcement, with 14 cameras at different locations, effective January 2001. The City denied a proposal from a private entity to absorb 100% of the cost of the cameras in return for a percentage of the fine collection. Other discussion items included the Four Seasons Corner, the proposed skateboard park location, and affordable housing. Other - Com. Stevens reported on the recent Byron Sher Housing and Smart Growth Summit, and said that recommended solutions discussed included moving from Silicon Valley to the Central Valley, and consideration of including residential as part of redevelopment of commercial property. Chair Harris discussed the Manuf~'ctur~rs' Association workshop on September 28. Chair Harris reported that she filed an appeal on the Design Review Committee decision for the Pinn Brothers Adobe Inn Hotel. She stated concern about issues brought up by the Design ReviewCommittee CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application No.: 2001/2002 Goals Agenda Date: January 8, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Confmn the attached goals/projects. DISCUSSION:' The pJanning Commission discussed and approved the Planning goals and projects for 2001/2002. The Commission requested that they be confu'med at this meeting. Upon the · Commission's eonfmnation of the goals, staff will forward them to the City Council fbr their consideration. Enclosure: 2001/2001 Goals/Projects Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~_ 2001/2002 Goals/Projects I. Antenna Master Plan 2. Development Intensity Manual 3. Garden Gate annexation 4. Compact car parking ordinance 5. C~neral Plan review: Flooding: need to look at meeting 10 year flood standard;.creek preservation - what does more development do to creeks? Parks: look at pocket parks; look at needs in north part of Cupertino, e.g., Garden Gate if annexed Infrastructure (traffic): Look at LOS for all turning movements Creek protection: what does more development do to creek preservation 6. Residential: Small lot single family development (Iow pfiority) R1 and R3: motor courts/zoning, oversize buildings, development issues, FAR fbr R3 Infill housing densities (Remove: Review R1-FAR, Hillside Exception) 7. Zone Heart of the City Specific Plan 8. Proliferation of signs, multi-language 9. Monta Vista Annexation: approach distinct islands to gauge support for annexation (low priority due to heavy work load) 10. Mixed use ordinance, including parking standards 11. Live-work guidelines (in conjunction with Summerhill/Imperial Avenue project) Planning projects 12. Shopping carts 13. Drop-offboxes (e.g., Fed Ex) in the right-of-way 14. Qnarry monitoring 15. Tree protection clarification (related to residential developments, both single family and planned, where tree removal is requested due to poor choice of trees or location of structures) 16. Permitted animals 17.' Definition of second units (need to define "kitchen" due to difficulty in determining if accessory structures are really living units) 18. Definition of remodel (needed due to difficulty in determining if a house demolition is a remodel or new residence) 19. Code enforcement brochure needs updating Private Projects 20. Vallco Use Permit 21. Compaq Master Plan and Use Permit 22. Town Center (Civic Park) Master Plan and Use Pemfit 23. Summerhill/Imperial Avenue Residential (58 units) 24. Santa Barbara Grill mixed use g:planning/misc/goals2001 fmal Study:Wider road WOuld "~ --' =-" ~"' ~ ~'~= worsen traffic~" MEN~ PARK RE~ ON ~ND HILL PROPEL ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~m.E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~dening ~is s~on ¢ Sand Hill Road w~ld mu~ in grater del~ on ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ugh~m ~ ~ing ~m ~ a Menlo ~k m~ ~ =~~ ......S~ND HILL. Wider ~-~-~'= road would worsen -_-.~~~- - tr~ffic.,s~ says · n~K" H~n ~& "8~ it "*~¢' ~ ...~. ~ ~t ~ E's ~." . ~ ':~ ' ~ ~ ~e ~d~e of ~e ~ ~ ~ ~pl~ ~ h~ sl~ ~d ~ $10,~ ~d $~,~ ~ ~ ' :" Wo~ who H~ ~.~n ~*-d Somethinnino ¢~c ~ ~ of~ ~ ~e~d~d~ .~ ~en ~ ~ ~d ~ ~du~ ~ A~n~-- · ~ ~ ~ ~al~ ~m~,~O00~ f~'s p~ ~ ~d Ca~- ~e ~ ~ . 8~d~~dase~- o~on: A ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~d ~ hom~- ~ ~ W~ ~ ~¢me ~Wo~ ~d~d~e~ ~d "~e ~ of Me~o ~k ~ ~ ~d md ~ ~er ~ ~. fle,"Wolf~&"~o~b~m ~,~e~a~ ~s~ ~na~' IF YOU'RE INTERESTED ~ ~d ~ ~d ~ me~s~is~lablemt~¢ .. ~ 1~ ~ld ~.~e M~lo~Web~. ~ ~e ~ l~t ~ ~ ~t -- ~n~ · --~~of~ ~M~wa~ ~ ~0 a ~. ~'s a~i,~ (~)~