The URL can be used to link to this page

Director's Report CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 .DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUPERTINO Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission.Agenda Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 The City Council met on July 17,2007, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: 1. Appeal of Application R-2006-62: The Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Residential Design Review for a new- two-story residence at 7453 Stanford Place. The plan was approved but with the following modifications: a. Lower the entry feature by 6 inches b. Move the entry back at least 2 feet . c. Provide minimum 2 feet by the width of the upstairs bathroom along the second floor wall plane of the right elevation d. Lower tl;le bay window, as suggested by staff e. Plans to be approved by the Design Review Committee and neighbors will be notified of the DRC meeting (see attached staff report) 2. Appeal of Application EXC-2007-02: The Council denied the appeal thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of a Hillside .Exception to construct a 689 square foot, second-story addition to an existing residence at 11640 Regnart Canyon Road. (see attached staff report) 3. Appeal of DIR-2006-07: .The Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the installation of a wireless communication facility at the Stevens Creek Office Center, adding the following conditions: a. Plant three 36-inch box flowering pears in empty tree wells b. Maximum lO-year term of approval c. Antennas and mounting hardware to be screened where visible from the street d. Full perimeter roof screen Modifications subject to staff and DRC approval (see attached staff report) DIR - 1 Report of the Community Development Director Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Page 2 4. Lawrence Guy Application, 10855 N. Stelling Rd.: Council gave the first reading of Ordinance No. 07-2007 rezoning the l.l-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Stelling Road and 1-280 frOln BQ (Quasi-Public) to P-Res (Planned Residential . Zoning). Council approved the tentative map, use permit and architectural site review the subdivision of the parcel into sites for the construction of 12 attached and 8 detached single-family residential units with one common area. (see . attached staff report) 5. Attendance Requirements for City Boards and Commissions: Council adopted ~~solution No. 07-129,.which lists recruitment procedures, interview and appointment policies and attendance requirements. (see attached resolution) Enciosures: Staff Reports Newspaper articles G: \Planning \SteveP\Director' s Report \2007\pdOB-14-07.doc DIR - 2 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 . . (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408)777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development DepartmeJ;lt .Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: Tuly 17, 2007 . Application: R-2006-62 Applicant: Ray Chen Property I:o~ation: 7453 Stanford Place 'Application Summary: . Co~id'er an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Residential Design Review for a new, two-story 2,693 s,quare foot residence. "The appellants are Richard Whittington, Lixin (Caine) Yu, and Larry Line. . RECOMMENDATIONS: ' The City Council has the followin~ options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision; or 2. Uphold the appeal; or . 3. Uphold the appeal and direct additional modifications to the plans. Environmental A.ssessment: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND The applicant (Ray Chen) is proposing to construct a 2,693 square foot, two-story , residence on a 5,994 square foot lot locateq.' along the norf4 side of Stanford Place. The immediate neighborllood is predominately ranch style single story homes. The project site is surrounded by similar Rl-6 zoning districts with the exception of the properties immediate to the north along Tiptoe Lane that are zoned Rl-6i - single story only. There are some two story homes around the adjacent streets and in the broader neighborhood. The home is consistent with the Rl Ordinance in terms of size, height and setbacks. Generally, two-stQry homes are approved by the Community Development Director. However, this project was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a final consideration due to the number of conce:J;'ns raised by the neighborhood regarding the design compatibility. On April 24, 2007, the Planning Commission ap'proved the proposed project with a 3-2 vote (Commissioners chien, Kaneda and Miller voting yes). The P.lanning Commission's decision is being challenged by three neighbors (Richard Whittington, Cain Yu and Larry Line). DIR - 3 R-2006-62 Page 2 7453 Stanford Place '. July 17, 2007 APELLANTS' JUSTIFICATION The appellants' basis for the appeal is summarized as follows (staff's response in bold): 1. The proposed home is not compatible with the surrQ~ding neighborhood and is inconsistent with the intent of the Rl Ordinance. - One of the principle purposes of the Rl Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level- of compatibility in scale" of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is basically achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific development parameters (i.e., lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, second floor to first flooJ; ratio, setbacks, building envelope). Typically the City has allow:ed homes to be maxim.ize~ within the app~oved framework of the Rl Ordinance provided-that the design and the style of the home are generally consistent with the neighborhood. New homes are expected to reduce their visual mass and scale to the maximum extent possible without undermining the property owner's functional needs. The City has not in the past required homes in a R1 zoning district to match the average size or be re-duced to a single story-home in order to match the g~neral pattern of the neighborhood.. The applicant has made numerous changes to the structure at the request of staff and the Planning Commission to further soften the visual mass and scale of the structure. The proposed project is within the prescriptions of the Rl Ordinance in all aspects and the Planning Commission found the home to be reasonably consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 2~ . The proposed home has unarticulated exposed second story.walls that are inconsistent with the Rl Ordinance. " . The Rl Ordinance does not require all walls to be articulated. It is often difficult on a smaller lot to design a home where all walls are articulated due to structural and fu~ctional considerations. The project does a reasonable job overall in terms of providing suffi~ient b,uilding wall articulation and minimizing visual mass. 3. The Planning Commissioned approved the project without adequate consideration of issues such a~ neighborhood compatibility and the general pattern of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission held two separate public hearings on this project. :The Commission provided extra time for the applicant to communicate with the neighbors and for the neighborhood to receive sufficient time to review the proposal. The Commission considered all of the facts presented on the project and made 'a knowledgeable decision. - - 4. Two of the five Planning Commissioners rejected the project because the plans were grossly inconsistent with the neighborhood patterns in terms of mass ~d bulk. Meeting records indica~e that the two Commissioners were overall supportive of the project but voted against the project because both Commissioners were concerned with the scale of tIle proposed entry feature. Both Commissionem _ 4 R-2006-62 Page 3 7453 Stanford Place Juiy 17, 2007 clarified at the public 'hearing that they would support the project should the . entry feature be reduced in scale. 5. The porch and/ or entry feature is out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. The applicant has already pushed the entry feature further back from the front of the street, reduced its height .and' chariged the design slightly to address some 'of the neighbors' concerns. The entry feature could potentially be lowered six inches by simplifying the adj acent bay window roof~ This option was discussed by the Planning Commission but did not receive majority support. 6. I~ccurate informati<?n was presented to the Planning ~ommission. . . Staff believes that the appellants are referring. to the height of the front entry canopy and the proposed front yard setback. The project will be constructed ~s shown on the plans, so it will be built correctly. Prior to Pl?uring the foundation, the applicant is required to submit a building pad certification prepared by a professional civil engineer ve~1fying that the location of the building foundations and general building setbacks are accurate. . Both the proposed entrY f~ature height and the front yard setback are within the maximum and minimum allowed by the R1 Ordinance. The applicant has the flexibi~ity to further lower the entry feature andf~r provide more front yard setback as long as they are within the prescribe4 limits of the Rl Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION . As mention~d previously, the Commission considered the project on two separate occasions '(April 10, 2007 and April 24, 2007 public hearings). The Commission approved the pr~ject and required that the applicant/ owner work with the rear neighbors to plant larger privacy'protection trees. In addition, the Commis~ion added a condition requiring the recordation of a covenant, which required future City approval of any alternations to . the second story windows along the rear and side elevations. . Prepareq. by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Enclosure.: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6456 Exhibit A: Appellant's Justifications . Exhibit B: Planning Commission Staff Report (w / attachments) dated April 10, 2007 and April 24, 2007. Exhibit C: Planning Commission Minutes, April 10 and April 24, 2007 Plan set (please refer to the plan set attached to the April 24, 2007 Commission. repoit) Submitted py: Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development F: \ PDREPORT\ CC\ 2006\ R-2006-62cc.d~c David W. Knapp City Manager DIR - 5 10300 Torre .Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CU~ERTINO' CommuDity Development Department ~ SUMM~RY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE July 17.. 2007 SUBJECT: . , Consider an appeal of the PlaIU1.ll1g' Commissiori's denial of a hillside exceptiol1. application ~o construct' a 689 square foot sec.oIld-story addition to an existhl.g residell~e for a total floor area ratio of 6,980 square f~et, wIndl. exceeds tlle 6,500 square feet allowed, aIld ~ exceptioll. to build on a proi.n:inellt ridgeline. , RECOl\1MENDATION: The City COUlll::il may take one of the following actions: , . 1. Uphold tlle appeal of EXC-2007-02 a1ld dellY the Planning Comn1ission's decision; or , 2. Uphold the appeal of EXC~2007-02 aIld modify the Plaru:ting Commissiol"l.'s decision; or 3. Deny tIle appeal of EXC-2007-02 'and uphold the Pla1~lg 'Commission's , decisioll. ' BACKGROUND: Orl. April 24/ 2007/ tlle Plaru:lll.g COmmiSSiOll denied a hillside exceptio11 application on a 4-1 vote (~ong voted-no) for ~ second-story additiol1. to 8.11 existing residence. ' The exceptioll. was necessary for two reaSOl1.S: 1. To allow the development to be constructed on a prominent ridgeline, arid ,'2. To exceed the total allowable,floor area ratio permitted in the RHS-120 zone. A'previous hillside exception (16-EX~-98) was granted by the Plannlllg Commission on . JallUary 11, 1999 on the subject property to allow a two-story additiOll. to tile residence OIl. a promUlent ridgeline. This addition was constructed al).d is p~rt of tIle existing residence. The project site is located 011 the east side of Regnart ~CU1YOll. Drive, 1lortll. of . Regrlart Road and is surrounded by shlgle~family residelltial properties to the 11ortll. and west 011 upward sloping portions of tlle lilllside, and to. tIle east and soutIl. OIl. the dOWIl.ward sloping'portions of tile lilllside. TIle project site also accommodates a PG&E u~ty tower aJ.l.d a S~l. Jose Water Company water tank all th~ west side of the pr~perty, that are visible from Regrlart CallYOll Drive. . DIR - 6 EXC-:-2007-02 Appeal 11640 Regnart Canyon Drive P.age 2 July 17, 2007, DISCUSSION: Applicant's Appeal . On May II, 2007, the appliccult submitted an appeal (See Exhibit B) requeStlllg'that tile City. Council overturn the Planning Commissipn/s decision and approve the hillSide . exception to allow the second-story addition. The' appliccult states tluit the additio11 is needed to acco~odate tlle unique liVll1.g Situati011. of the family residing all the property and to acconunodate tIle growing family nee'ds of the residellts. In previous letters to the Planning CommiSSiOl"l (See letters in Exhibit D), the applicant explained that the property. oWll~r's llephew and his family reside with and help 'care for the . owner. TIle applicant stated 'that tlle family is currently living.in a portioll of tIle residence that accommodated the needs of. the l1ephew prior to marriage an,d family, and tl1.erefore, currently does not, provide enough space to accommodate him and his o. grovving family.. . .' "Plannhlg Commissioll COmmel1"ts " . The Commissio1l emphasized the importa.IlCe of abiding by the 'Residential Hillside orclinance requirement Iimiti1lg developmellt to a maximum. ,floor area ratio of 6,500 square feet, ~d that giving exceptiol15 to tpis ordina.I1Ce would erode the" lill1side requirements. The Commissioll also felt that it was a question of equity and fairness because other requests lll. the City have beell denied to exceed the floor area ratio requiremel1.t of tile zoning ordinance. Additionally, the Commission felt that tlle property owner 11as tlle option of ren1.odeling the interior of the .e~ting residence to accommodate their 11eeds. An issue Was. also raised about landscape screel~lg requirements for tIle existing residence. A conceptual landscape plan (See Ex11ibit E) was approved ~ conj~lGtion, with the previously approved hillside exception grcu1.ted ill 1999, ~ldica~lg that landscaping shoWd have beell ~ta.Ued ill C9njUllctiOll. with the' constrUCtiOll of tl1.is previous addition.. Staff, explained that the City could still enforce tIle landscaping requiremell.t, regardless of tIle denial or approval of this appeal. The applicant states . t1lat the property 0W11er is wiJ?ng to p~ant 8.l1Y additiollal trees for screel1.ing as the C0U11~il deems l~ecessary. TIle Commissioner who supported tIle hillside exceptioll request stated that tile lleed' for m~ti-gellerational families residing together should be taken into consideration ~1q. is a sufficiellt reason to juStify the exception~ Public Commellts The' PlamUng Commission heard from two members of the public. Olle of the comments came, from a neighbor resi4ing on Regnart CCUi.YOIl Drive who stated that he supports tIle applicatioll and felt that tile Commission-should approve the 11illside exceptiol1 wit11. 811 additional condition to plant additional trees' around the property to provide proper. scr~el1.i11g of tlle site from the valley floor. The lleig~1.bor also stated tl~at .he felt the DIR - 7 EXC-2007-02 Appeal ~16~O Regnart Canyon:Drive . Page 3 July 17; 2007 existing house cdlor does not blend ill witl1. the sur~oundh1.g neigllborhood and some thOUgllt should be given to repaint tlle house. Another member of the public -objected to tIle hillside exception and felt that approvlllg it \~ould set a new precedent in the City t~ excee~ the hillside require~ents. . Staff Comments Staff originally recommended denial of the application. There is no ne'~ evidellce that would support this exception request. Staff also believes that all of the fuldhlgS for a IUllside 'exception CaIIDOt be met in accordance vvith the Residential Hillside Ordhl.ance (See Exlubit F). Staff does 110t believe th~t the proposed addition involves the least nlodificatioll of, or deviation frOID, the development regulations l1.eCessary to accomplish reasonable use of th.e prop~rty (Fhl.ding No. ~ in Section 19.40.140 of tIle Residential Hillside Ordiru1l1~e). Staff also believes tl1.at the project is 110t l1ecessary to avoid greater negative envirol1ffiell.tal impacts 811d the size of the structure is the minin1.um. necessary to' allow for ,reasonable use of tlle property (Ful.dhlg No. 8b). . Enclosures: EXhibit A: Resolution No. 6457 denyi1lg EXC-2007-02 Exlubit B: Appeal submitte~ by Jeromer' Jodoin, ~ppliCa.J.lt, on May 11, 2007 Exhibit C: Minutes of tlle Pl~mi11g Commission meetlllg of April 24, 2007 Exhibit D: Planning Commission staff report of April 24, 2007 wi attaclunents . Exl:ubit E:. Previously approved conceptual landscape plan Exhibit F: Residelltial Hills~de Ordhlance (CI"iapter 19.40) PlaIl Set , , Prepared by: AId Honda S11elllil.g, Selnnr Plaml.er Approved by: . ~ Stev Piasecki Directl;)r of Community Development G:planning/pdreport/ appeals jEXC.. 2007-02 Appeal David W. KIlapp City Manager DIR - 8 CITY OF 10300 Torre Avenue ~pertino, ,CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community. Development Department CUPERTINO SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE July 17~ 2007 Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: DIR-2006-07 William Stephens/DaynaL. Aguirre (for T-Mobile) Stevens Cre~k Office Center Associates . 20833 Stevens Creek Boulevard . , SUBJECT:. Consider an appeal of the Plimrring Coinmission' s' decision to deny Application No. DIR-2006-07, a Director' s ~or Mod~cation to inStall a wireless telecommunication facil~ty at an existing offic~ cel1ter (Stevens Creek Office Center) RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take either of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal of DIR-2006-07 and approve '(or modify) the applicant's . ,request for a Director's Minor Modification to allow a wireless t~lecommunication facility. Seerecorrrrp.ended conditions of approval in the draft.Plannirig Commission resolution 9f approval found in exhibit .B-1; 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the application for a ~eless teleconununication facility. BACKGROUND: File No. DIR-2006-07 is a Director's Minor Modification to allow a wireless teleco1111ilunications facility on the roof of an existing office building located at 20833 Stevens Creek Blvd. It "Vas referred to the Planning Commission because it was the Director's intent to deny the application, which the municipal code does not allow him to do. He must refer minor modifications he intends to ,deny to the Planning Commission ~or a public hearing. . On June 12,2007, on a 4-0-1 vote (Giefer absent), the Planrting Co~ssion denied the . application (Exhibits A-1, B-1 and D1). The decision was subsequently appealed by the applicant (Exhibit C-l) who could not attend the public hearing because of "scheduling conflicts." DIR - 9 DIR.-2006-07 Appeal. Page 2 July 17, 2007 DISCUSSION: Con1.111.ission Commen.ts: , , , The Planning Commissioners had no questions for staff nor did they offer any comments before taking a.vote on the project. " Pub lie C0711.1ne11.ts: No member of the public spoke against or in support of the projec,t. Staff.did not. receive any public comments prior to the hearing. S taft C0711.711.en ts The antenna heights complY,with the wireless communications facilities ordiIi.ance, and the proposed antennas could be fully screened from public view with a con;tbination of existing lcmdscaping and rooftop equipment screens, but does 110t comply with CMC . section 19.108.070 which states: "The primary objective is to blend th~ design of the aerial ~to the surrounding environm~nt, or site the aerial in such a manner to ;minimize the visual intrusiveness of the structure. .." . , From staff's viewpoint, the screens are not architectUrally integrated with the design of the building as required and are thus nOt compatible with their surrouridings (see . photos). Staff recommends a full perimeter roof.screen, which would integrate better with the appearance of the, building and have. the added benefit of better screening existing ~ooft6p equipment, rather than the "pop_up" chimney design approach. The applicant's engineering analysis argues that the ftill perimeter .ro<?f screen is not structurally feasible because of wind loads and obstnictions posed by existing rooftop' . equipment that limit how the screens can be braced. The roof screen can be made of. a light weight ma~erial ~th louvers to allow air flow. Enclosures: Exhibit A-1: Planning C<;lmmission Resolution No. 6460 Exhibit B-1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 12, 2007 Exhibit C-l: Appeal Letter '. Exhibit D-1: Planning Commission June 12, 2007 meeting minutes . Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director of Comrriunity Development G:planning/pdreport/ app~als/DIR-2006-07 appeal p,avid w~ Knapp City Manager DIR -10 City of Cupertino '10300 Torre Avenue Cupe~tino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Clj.P.E RTi NO' Community Development Deparbnent Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: Tuly 17, 2007 Application: Z-2006-05, TM-2007-02, U-2006-13, ASA-2006-22' Applicant: Larry Guy . Property Owner: Douglas Russum Property Location: 10855 N. Stelling Road Application Summ~: Re-zoning of a 1.1-acre parcel from BQ (Quasi-Public) to P-Res (Planned Residential)~ Tentative Map to subdivide a l.l-acre parcel into 20 parcels and one common parcel. Use Permit to coristruct 20 residential units (10 detached and 10 attached) on a 1.1-acre site (northwest corn~~ of N. Stelling an~ 1-280). , Archite~tural and Site approval to construct 10 small lot singl~-family residential homes and 10 attached town homes., RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends that t~e City Council approve the following' applications: ," '. "1. Z-2006-05, rezoning of the proposed site from BQ to P-Res; . ,2. TM~2007-02, subdivide a l.l-acre project parcel into 20 parcels and one common parcel;, .' _' , . 3. . p-2006-13, to construct 10 detached and 10 attached residential homes on the project site; 4. ASA-2006-22, to construct 10 detached and lO attached residential homes on the project ,site. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Desigilation: Site Area: . Density: High Density Residential (20-35 d. u. / acre) BQ (Quasi-Public) 48,044 square feet (1.1-acre) 16'.1 dwell~g unit per acre '. Enviromilental AssessmeJ;1.t: Categorically Exempt DIR - 11 Z-2006-05, ~-2007-02 lJ-2006-13,~J\-2006-22 Page 2 LasPalmas July 17, 2007 BACKGROUND The applicant, Larry Guy, is requesting approval to construct 20 residential homes (10 small lot single-family and 10 attached town hqmes) on all existing parcel located at 10855 N. Stelling Road at the northwest ~orner of N.'Stelling Road and 1-280. The project site is approximately 1.1 acres (net) and consists of one single family home, aIle large detached building and several accessory structures. The project pr~poses the following project d~tails: 20 (10 detached. and 10 attached) 16.1 35 to 38 Covered: 40 Open: 14 Street: 2 Total: 56 Since the proposed zoning is Planned Residential and the project site is not located in any specific plan areas, there are no' specific maximun1. height. and minimum setback requirements. . . . . .".. .. .... ".' O!. ;". .... ..,.. .,".' ; _.~:'C..~~.~~i,"';...2~ .:.....:;;.~~~~.-.~~d~ '~J,.t:,,~..~~J~~~~~.~;~~~:;i:..~:~;:~.~~[i~t;~~~j~:~f~'z.~~~" eij~~A~~:~j~'~i~,tt~tEt Project Aerial DIR - 12 Z-2006-05,T~-2007-02 U-2006-13, ASA-2006-22 Page 3 Las Palmas July 17,2007 Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff r~port dated June 26, 2007 for a detailed proj~ct description and the background of the related issues su~ized in the following report. Tune 26, 2007 Planning Co~mission Meeting The Planning Commission reviewed the project and their discussion points are summarized as follows: Zoning , . The Commission recommends that the Council appr~ve the requested zone change (Z-2006-05) from' BQ (Quasi Public) to P -Res (planned Residential). One Commissioner expressed the . desire of preserving the existing BQ zoning designation to facilitate future quasi public uses therefore did not support the proposed rezoning. It should be noted that the current BQ zoning designation is il1.consistent with the General Plan's high density residential designation for t~s property. State law requires that zoning be consistent with the General Plan designation. The proposed rezoning (P-Res) will be consistent with the General Plan. Archltectu'te and Site . The Co~ssion recommends approval of the proposed architecture ~d sit~ design (ASA-2006-22). Several Com.rnissioners were concerned with the lack of building .separation (approx. six feet) between six of the detached units along the' southerly property line and recommen4ed that the' applicant join the two detached units along N. Stelling Ro~d to help screen views to the four detached units behind. The applicant is agreeable to the change. . The Commission recoinmends that the final color and building materials (including but not limited to pedestrian/building/ parking lot lightings; ,patio railings, trellis materials, outdoor furniture,. siding materials, common gateway features or any other similar exterior decorative features) be of high quality and shall be reviewed and approved by' the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, the f~llowing enhancements shall be provided to the project: . Additional screen trees sllould be located along the southerly boundary of the project to the maximum extent possible to mitigate any potential visual and noise impacts from 1-280.. . Pedestrian ~onnection/ access should be provided along the northerly property line b~tween the project site and the adjacent church property. . The applicant shall work with staff to lower the front entry porches and entry stair of unit type 1 so that the entry feature and the front porches are at a pedestrian level. . The common entry points to the court yard areas shall be decorated-with trellises and lighting features or with similar architectural elements. In addition, DIR - 13 Z-2006-05, T~-2007-02 U-2006-13, ASA-2006-22 Page 4 Las Palmas July 17, 2007 the common plaza area shall be decorated with pedestrian scale lighting and benches. . Bio-swales. should be introduced wherever possible along the south~rly property boundary. . . The curb alignment along the project frontage should' be adjusted to allow for a new detached sidewalk with additional street trees planted in front of the ' project. . . Vines should be planted on and through the sound wall to discourage graffiti. Parking and Landscape Treatl1tent along N. Stelling Road The Commission supports having double rows of street trees and the two proposed parking stalls along N. Stelling. This is accomplished by realigning the existing curb. to extend out the available park strip area without encroaching into the existing southbound bike and vehicle travel lanes. One Commissioner opposed. ~y parkffig ,along N. Stelling Road. 'Historic Significance . The Commission considered the facts presented on the existing home. Even though the existing house is mentioned in the City's informal historic structure report, the .Commission found that the house does not have .any significant historic value .both in terrris of, architecture and structural condition m;t.d- is recommending its removal. The Commission retommend~ the following:' . , The applicant shall incorporate elements from the ex'isting home into a trellis or gazebo structure at the common plaza area. . . The applicant is required to work with a professional building salvage company to salvage and reuse as much of the existing home as possible. Green Building Measures The Commission recommends the following green building measures to the ,project: . . The project shall use tankless water heaters throughout the project. "Tankless water heaters are 20 to 30% more efficient than traditional water heaters. . 'The projec~ shall use gas furnaces that have minhnum efficiency ratings of 80% or equivalent. . . The applicant shaJI design the roofs of all residential units to be able to structurally facilitate future solar panel systems to account for the weight and , wind loading factors. Final roof plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Buil~ing Official. . Non-formald~hyde building insul~tions shall be used throughout the project. . Lighter shades of roofing colors shall be used throughout the project in order to help reflect sun1ig~t and to achieve cooler roof temperatures. 1-280 Pedestrian Walkway DIR - 14 Z-2006-0S, T~-2007-02 U-2006-13, ASA-2006-22 Page 5 Las Palmas July 17, 2007 Public Comments One memb~r of the public expressed concerns ab~ut the project and opposed the removal of the existing historic home. One resident supported the concept of pl~nting the N. Stelling Road with double rows of trees. ENCLOSURES Planning Corrunission Resolutiol1.S Nos. 6476, 6475, 6473, 6474 Ordinance 07-2007 and Exhibit A: Zoning Plat Map ,Exhibit B: Planning Corrunission Staff Report Dated June 16, 2007 (with attachments) Plan Set (please see the plan set attached to the Planning Commission staff report) Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David' W. Knapp City M~ager F:\PDREPORT\ CC\2006\ u-2006-13; asa-,2006-22; ~-2007-O2; z-2006-05cc.doc DIR - 15 RESOLUTION NO. 07-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 02-064 AND ESTABLISIDNG RULES GOVERNING RECRUITMENT, ATTENDANCE, APPOINTMENTS, AND VACANCIES ON CITY ADVISORY BODIES WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to establish uniform terms and conditions of office for advisory commissions; and WHEREAS, there are within the City of Cupertino many citizens with talent, expertise and experience who wish to serve the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to provide these citizens tile' opportunity to contribute to their community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino rescinds Resolution No.02-064 and establishes the following rules governing recruitment, appointlnent and re'appointment to City of Cupertino Advisory bodies. A. RECRUITMENT 1. Two months before regular terms expire, or immediately following receipt of a resignation, the City Clerk distributes the vacancy notice as follows: . The Cupertino Scene . The Cupertino Courier . The World Journal · The Cupertino City Channel' · City Hall bulletin board. . . The City Clerk's Office · The Cupertino Library . The CupertiJ;1o Chamber of Commerce · Cupertino City Web site · Other organizations as appropriate With respect to the opening~ . ,All persons with applications oil file for that particular commission 2. Two months before "regular terms expire, the 'City Clerk's Office also mails the vacancy notice to the following individuals: · Students and graduates of Cupertino Emergency Response Training . Students or graduates of Leadership Cupertino . Neighborhood Block Leaders \ · Individuals who have signed up for notification at the Cupertino Town Hall meetings. DIR - 16 Resolution No. 07-129 Page 2 3. All vacancy notices and posting shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Maddy Act, California Government Code 54970. Specifically, vacancy notices shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days. 4. Applications will be retained for a maximum .of one year after Council review. After that time, applicants shall submit a new application if they wish.to remain on the list for considera~ion. 5. Those persons with'applications on file within one year of Council review are advised of the vacancy by the City Clerk and may activate that application. Upon receipt of the vacancy notice, the applicant must contact the City. Clerk's Office and ask that the application be reactivated. 6. An applicant may file for a maximum of two commissions at anyone application period. 7. A member of an advisory body, having completed two consecutive terms, must wait one year before being eligible to apply for the same commission or committee. 8. Application forms will be available 'in the City Clerk's Office ~d will be mailed upon request with information about the opening(s). Application forms will also be avairable on the City's Web .site. 9. No application shall be accepted after the deadline. 10. When the [mal deadline has passed, the City Clerk's Office will mail applicants the date, time and location of the interviews along with s~ple questions to consider. . 11. rhe City Clerk's Office will copy the applicants' written material.for Council members. The written material will also be available for public review in the . City Clerk's Office. 12. An applicant who is unable to attend the interview may submit a five-minute video presentation in advance of the interview meeting. The tape will be reviewed at the meeting. The video' will be made .by City staff at the applicant's request upon the approval of the City Clerk. The City will fund these costs. B. INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS 1. 'Vhen Council meets to conduct interviews, it is a public meeting subject to the Brown Act and therefore open to the public. The candidates will be asked by the City Clerk (either in person or by written instructions left in the waiting area) to remain seated ill the waiting area until they are called in for t4e DIR - 17 Resolution No. 07-129 Page 3 interview. Candidates will also be ~sked to return to the waiting area until the announcement of the. vote, or to go home and contact the City Clerk's Office the next day regarding the results. However, all applicants and members of the public have the option of remaining in t~e room for any or all of the meeting. 2. The order in which interviews are scheduled to take place will be determined by a drawing of names. The City Clerk will do this in advance. 3. Interviews ar~ informal and usually.last, 5-8 minutes. Council members are looking for: · Familiarity with the subject · . Decision-making ability · Commitment to the position for which they have applied 4. Appointments will be made following a vote in public. Ballots will be distributed, and Council members will vote and sign the ballots.' The City Clerk will announce the votes. : 5. All appointees will be provided with a Certificate of Appointment. c. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE 1. If a vacancy pccurs for an unexpired term and interviews for appointment to that advisory body have been conducted within the previous ninety days, the unexpired term may be filled from those applications following the required posting {)fthe vacancy. 2. The notice of unscheduled vacancy shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before appointment. . The notice of unscheduled vacancy must be posted in the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall bulletin board, at the Cupertino Library, and in'other places designated by the City Clerk. 3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the following conditions. · A member misses more than three consecutive meetings ., A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body's meetings in a calendar year . 4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body' s staff liaison to notify the City Clerk of a member's attendance record to allow sufficient time to' send a warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25% of the meetings, and to send 'a termination notice if the member has missed DIR - 18 Resolution No. 07-129 Page 4 more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a calendar year. . 5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to the. City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confmning future availability. D. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Term limit restrictions listed in this resolution do not apply to temporary appointments for unexpired terms. 2. All provisions of this resolution shall apply unless otherwise decided by the . City Council on a case-by-case basis. . 3. In the event that any provision of this resolution conflicts with the provisions of any other ordinance or resolution governing a particular advisory body, t~e provisions governing that advisory body shall prevail. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July 2007, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council A YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: .Wang~ Kwok, Mahoney, Sandoval None Lowenthal None ATTEST: APPROVED: , Ci DIR - 19 Speculative commercial building heats up - Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal: Page 1 of3 Silicon Valley J San Jose Business Journal - July 16, 2007 http://sanjose.biziou rnals .com/sanjose/stories/2007/07/16/story2 .hlm I Buiiiiiijiiirnal From Beginners to Bigshots: Going and Growing with the SBA Sponsored by BUSINESS PULSE SURVEY: How do you expect your business to do in the second half of 20071 Speculative commercial building heats up Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - July 13, 2007 by Sharon Simonson ' East Palo Alto to get offices The development company that scored big last year when it sold property in Santa Clara to Yahoo Inc. plans a large speculative office development in East Palo Alto next to a newer, hugely successful Ikea and across U.S. 101 from the town's showcase office and hotel redevelopment. San Francisco's TMG Partners is among the next wave of companies, behind San Francisco's Jay Paul, who are planning speculative workplace projects in the region. Others include Deke Hunter and Ed Storm on the former Palm Inc. site in North San Jose and Tishman Speyer on the 40 acres they recently acquired from BEA Systems Inc. That property is also in North San Jose. MacFarlane Partners, a San Francisco real estate investment management company, is to be TMG's partner on the East Palo Alto project. The two have teamed up before. Palo Alto developer Owen Byrd, who, along with two partners, is selling the entitled East Palo Alto site to TMG and MacFarlane, also will continue to participate. MacFarlane, which invests on behalf of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, specializes in urban, infill projects, according to its website. Its goals are twofold: returns in excess of 20 percent and providing new amenities for historically underserved communities. The project, which is to have 25,000 square feet of ground floor retail with 183,200 square feet of offices above, is the latest in a string of existing and proposed redevelopment works reshaping East Palo Alto, historically one of the poorest communities in the South Bay. Dubbed University Palms, the two-building complex will occupy a prominent 4.s-acre site that is among the first vistas that greet drivers as soon as they exit u.S. 101 into East Palo Alto. It is envisioned in part as a counterpoint to University Circle, the stunning three-tower office and Four Seasons Hotel development that looms over U.S. 101 on the Palo Alto side of East Palo Alto. The University Circle architect, Palo Alto's Hoover Associates, is also designing the new venture. . His partnership is selling not because it has lost faith in East Palo Alto, Byrd says, but because TMG and MacFarlane approached them "with an unsolicited proposal that we could not afford to ignore. I am pretty happy about it." Besides Byrd, the partnership includes the Rockefeller Group Development Corp. and Palo Alto architect Tony Carrasco. . The sale is expected to close in early ~ugust with development to begin sometime thereafter. A sales price was not disclosed, but the final project is expected to have a total value of $80 million or so and should produce approximately $800,000 a yea'r in new property taxes for the East Palo Alto redevelopment agency. The original plan for the site was approved in 2003 with the help of East Palo Alto resident and consultant Patrick Brock of Brock & Co., Byrd says. The new development will largely adopt that plan with some revisions, according to East Palo Alto acting Planning Manager Brad Tarr. Those revisions still must be approved by East Palo Alto staff and possibly its planning commission and http://sanjose!bizjoumals. com! sanj osel stories/2 007/07/161 story2 .html ?t=printab Ie DIR - 20 7/16/2007 Speculative commercial building heats up - Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal: city council. Brock is also expected to playa role in the execution of the project's newer .incarnation, Byrd says. He and Brock continue as development partners along with San Jose's DKB Homes on an eight..: . acre housing and commercial condo project elsewhere in East Palo Alto. "I believe deeply in this community," Byrd says. "It ts a community on the move, and every year, it becomes a better place to live and work and do business. My interests are not just motivated by (East Palo Alto's) location, location, location at the center of Silicon Valley and close to 101. It's the city's internal progress." No one from MacFarlane returned a request for comment for this story. TMG representatives, citing the deal's pending close, declined to speak extensively of their plans. . Two projects for San Jose It may not be Silicon Valley 1999, but with the tech economy improved, it's darn well starting to feel like it -- at least some developers are feeling the energy. Buoyed by the optimism, and presumably, some hard-core financial and economic analysis, two of the South Bay's most prominent commercial real estate developers say they intend to put up more than a million square feet of Class A offices in next-generation buildings ranging from seven to 10 stories on San Jose's North First Street. Both have retained high-profile architects, and both exp~ct to deliver their buildings near the end of 2009. Most significantly, neither claims to have a tenant in sight. Deke Hunter and partner Ed Storm plan to break ground on 420,000 square feet in two buildings early next year as part of a 39-acre, mixed-use project that includes nearly 250,000 square feet of shops, restaurants, a gym and a 160-room hotel. Target is the retail anchor, according to city plans. It's all supposed to happen on the former Palm Inc. headquarters site adjacent to Highway 237 at North First's northern terminus. "We are developing the new San Jose," Hunter says. "This is going to be unlike anything that's on North First Street now. We're going to weave a corp.orate campus in with high-end retail and sit- down restaurants. It will have a lot of walk ability and a heavy emphasis on open space. n He hopes to draw shoppers and exercisers not only from the office dwellers but also the surrounding community. Meanwhile, Tishman Speyer, the typically tight-lipped New York-based office landlord and developer whose holdings include Rockefeller Center, says it intends to start shoveling dirt next May. The company plans 600,000 square feet of offices, also in two buildings, in the first 'phase of what it is calling The Campus@North First, says Senior Director Rob Paratte. Tishman acquired the site earlier this year from BEA Systems Inc. for a reported $110 million. Tishman could put up as much as 2.8 million square feet of offices on the property with some minor supporting retail. The company's optimism stems not only from the economic strength it sees in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, Paratte says, but the merits of the site itself. He cites its proximity to Mineta San Jose International Airport, its visibility from u.s. 101, its "great neighbors" including eBay Inc., and San Jose's intentions for the entire North First Street region. Those plans include the conversion of largely obsolete research and development building into as many as 32,000 high-density homes and apartments and 1.7 million square feet of retail. They also include 26 million square feet of new midrise, Class A offices clustered along the spine of North First Street and the existing light-rail line. Potential tenants are saying the right things, too. "In some cases, technology companies have resisted taking more space because of what happened in the previous cycle. At the same time, business for a lot of these firms is going very well," Paratte says, even as options for expansion are shrinking. tlLarge tenants need to plan ahead if they want http://sanjose.bizjoumals.com! sanj osel stories/2007 107 1161 story2 .html ?t=printable Page 2 of3 DIR - 21 7/16/2007 Speculative commercial building heats up - Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal: to stay in Silicon Valley and at strategic locations near airports or housing or whatever they need." Neither Hunter-Storm nor Tishman is first out of the South Bay speculative-development box. Thathonor goes to San Francisco's Jay Paul Co., which already has steel skeletons rising in Sunnyvale. At least two other, much-smaller speculative building projects also are underway nearby. Some would argue all three have better locations than either Tishman's or Hunter-Stonn's. Moreover, new numbers from two of the region's largest commercial real estate brokers show a somewhat worrisome weakness in the office-leasing market. According to NAI BT Commercial, net absorption -- the difference between what companies say they intend to occupy and what they return to landlords because they no longer need it -- was negative in the second quarter. That pushed the region's office vacancy rate up slightly from 10 percent at the end of the first quarter to 10.4 percent at mid-year. It's the first increase in the valley's vacancy rate since D:1id-2003, the brokerage reports. Asking rents for full-service office space, however, are still rising, hitting $2.58 a square foot a month in the year's first half. That's up 22 cents from where they were at the end of last year, BT says. Whether that trend is sustainable depends on new leasing going forward and whether tenants are willing to pony up the extra money for the best space or can content themselves with the lnillions of square feet of Class Band C space that remains available at lower prices. Landlords generally need about $3.50 a square foot a month in rents to justify the expense of new construction ip today's market. For his part, Paratte says he is unfazed, saying ever so delicately that for certain tenants, image and quality will trump price: "We always think owning and building the best quality is an important component to being successful." SHARON SIMONSON covers real estate for the Business Journal. Reach her at (408) 299-1853. I Contact the Editor I! Need Assistance? II More Latest News -+ I I Subscribe or renew online L...--......-.____. '. All contents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. http://sanjose.bizjournals. com! sanj osel stories/2 007/07 1161 story2 .html ?t=printab le Page 3 of3 DIR - 22 7/16/2007 1>atient investors turn ill-4med Cypress Hotel into a triumph - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal: Page 1 of 2 , Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - July 9, 2007 bttR-;Ll$.ill"ljose. bizjournals.co mLsanj Q.$..e/sto ries/20 07/07/0 9 /storyl~.htmJ. SILICON VALLEY I SAN JOSE IlsinessJournal 6Jf.............................\% .. Fr-O.m Beginners to Bigshots: Going and Growing with the SBA Sponsored by .101 BUSINESS PULSE SURVEY: HJ:)Y.\LdQ.yQ\l-<<'-xpect.Y~ulr.by$iness to do in the secondbaJlQt20,C!I1 Patient investors turn ill-timed Cypress Hotel into a triumph Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal. July 6, 2007 by Brad Berton . The recent sale of Cupertino's 224-room Cypress Hotel, launched just a few months before the Sept. 11 attacks, appears to illustrate just how well Silicon Valley's hospitality and real estate sectors have recovered. Cypress's new institutionally backed owner group wouldn't disclose what it paid for the four-star property located along South De Anza Boulevard just south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. But public real estate records and industry experts suggest its value has nearly doubled since the timing-challenged development group refinanced its construction loan hardly two years ago. The property appears to have traded for well over $50 million, more than twice the amount of the original construction loan the Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group-affiliated development team took out in 1991. The Cypress opened in July 2002 amid the travel sector's tailspin -- not to mention the effects of the 'bursting dot-com bubble. Doug Cody' At an apparent price of more than $50 million, the . sale of the Cypress Hotel is seen as an indication of recovery in the valley's hospitality sector. View Larger . As the local economy continued to struggle, it would be nearly another three years before the Kimpton group paid off the construction loan from Bank of Nova Scotia, refinancing with a permanent mortgage from Wachovia Bank. And at $24.5 million, that new loan amount barely matched the construction loan '-- an indication the property's income stream at the time likely factored to a value below $30 million. But when active real estate fund manager Rockpoint Group and San Rafael-based high-end hotel operatorSCS Advisors teamed to buy the' Cypress from the Kimpton group, they borrowed $47.2 million. Real estate "capital intermediary" While Rockpoint representatives declined to disclose the purchase price, the mortgage amount suggests a trade at between $52 million and $57 inillion, based on a borrower equity contribution of 10 to 20 percent of the lender's appraisal. A $55 million price-tag would factor to about '$245,000 per rOOID. That's necessarily an "aggressive" price amid an ongoing flood of capital chasing hospitality properties, says hotel investment specialist Don Wise at Johnson Capital in Napa. On a per-door basis,'it's pretty close to what the famed Hyatt Regency Embarcadero in San Francisco recently fetched, he added. All contents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reselVed. DIR - 23 http://www.bizjournals.com/san j osel stories/2007/07/09/story7 .html ?t=printable 7/10/2007 Patient investors turn ill-t~med Cypress Hotel into a triumph - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal: Page 2 of '2 . On the other hand, it would probably cost upwards of $300,000 per room to develop a comparable hotel in a solid Silicon Valley location today, Wise says. Hospitality consultant Tom Callahan at PKF Consulting in San Francisco views the deal as essentially an investment in the valley's recovery, as the new oWners expect higher room rates ahead to improve the property's income stream. And all indicators suggest continued strengthening in demand for rooms and hence higher daily rates, Callahan adds. "Everything's coming back very strongly, although we're still not back to the rates we were seeing in 2000." Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels, which brokered the sale for the Kimpton group, reports that average revenue per availab~e room in the Bay Area increas,ed a strong 18 percent last year -- with valley properties setting the pace. Market data from Smith Travel Research likewise indicates solid improvements over the past couple years in key indicators of the Santa CI~ra County hospitality marketplace's health, including revenue per room, average daily rate and occupancy rate. The valley-wide average rate was a tad under $100 in 2005, rising to more than $108 last year and further to $118 this year through May. The corresponding revenue figures are about $62.50 for 2005, just under $74 last year and more than $83 so far this year. Occupancies have risen from bel<;>w 63 percent in 2005 to more than 70 percent this year. When San Francisco-based Kimpton held its grand opening five years ago, room rates at the Cypress ranged between $129 and $269 a night. With Kimpton continuing to manage the property, the Cypress is now quoting weekday rates of $259 lor a standard 300-square-foot room, $309 for the executive model and $359 for a one-bedroom grand suite. The hotel's location --close to growth-mode Valley stalwarts such as Apple Inc. and Symantec Corp. -- helps. In a busiiless where there are few guarantees, the Cypress buyers are taking on 'some risk, especially considering the aggressive bid it took to win the deal. In Bay Area, buyers have been willing to pay historically high prices, based on current income, Callahan explains. Traditionally investors have sought first-year returns in the.10 percent vicinity, but it's been rare for recent Bay Area deals to exceed 5 percent, he says. Several major regional and nation-spanning hotel portfolios have traded hands in recent months, much of the. property landing with private equity managers. Rockpoint has also bullishly invested in numerous valley properties it feels are positioned to improve financially as vacant space gets absorbed. ' . Rockpoint has also teamed on hotel ventures elsewhere witl1 sese Rockpoint and another partner te~med to buy San Francisco's 1,010-room Pare 55 hotel last year for an e~timated $170 million. Brad Berton is afreelance writer specializing in real estate. He is based in Portland, Ore. ~act ~he Editor ! ~~:.~ta~ce:l f Mer; Latest ~-=-ws ~ Subscribe or re"-e~~nline http://www.bizjournals.comlsanjose/stories/2007/07/09/story7 .html ?t=printable DIR - 24 7/10/2007 ~Apple soars to all-time high on iPhone report - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal: Page 1 of 1 , Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal · July 3, 2007 http://san;ose.bizjournal$..~comlsanjose/stories/2007/071021d~UY_2.4!html luiiLiiiijiiiI:nal .II FrC!m Beginners to Bigshots: Going and Growing..wJttttb~SB~ .,-~ Sponsored by '. . fit. .. ~ BUSINESS PULSE SURVEY: Ho~dQ-you expect your business_to dp in the second half of 2001.1 Apple soars to all-time high on iPhone report Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - July 3, 2007 Shares of Apple Inc. hit an all-time high Tuesday after a research firm predicted high profit margins on its new iPhone. The Cupertino-based company's (NASDAQ:AAPL) closed at $127.17, up about 5 percent. The stock has risen nearly 50 percent since the iPhone was announced in early J anuary~ Technology-research firm iSuppli said that after taking apart an 8-gigabyte iPhone, it estimated hardware in the device costs Apple about $266. At $599 each for that device, iSuppli pegged Apple's gross margins at more than 5S percent per unit sold. ' Apple gets between 40 percent and 50 percent profit on versions of the iPod, iSuppli said. Apple hopes to sell about 10 million iPhones within a year. [~;cttt;Edlt;J ~d Assistance? II More Latest News -+ 1 Sub_~C1"lbg..orr~n~w online All contents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. DIR - 25 http://www.bizjoumaIs.com!sanj ose/stories/2007/07/021 daily24 .html ?t=printable . 7/10/2007 Rush for iPhone leaves ~any cold - Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal: Page lof2 . Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal- July 9,2007 http:"sanjose~bJ~Q~1"na.ls.cQml$anjose/stories12j)OJ/j)7109/editoriaI2.html $ILIC:ON VALLEY / SAN JO$E BusillssJournal 61..,....:............:....::.............:....-..:.<.;...... .. From Beginners to Bigshots: G9io-9-Qnd Growing with the SB.A Sponsored by _I EJ I BUSINESS' PULSE SURVEY: How do you expectyQY.r__b.yJ~i~ss to do in tbf.t$_~c_Qo~Lhalf of 2007? Pulse poll Rush for iPhone leaves many cold Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - July 6, 2007 Most who responded to the most recently completed Business Pulse Poll apparently didn't rush out to buy Apple Inc. 's new iPhones. Only 7 percent of those who took the online poll between June 26 and July 3 said they planned to buy one right away. About one in four said they planned to buy one at some point. More than haIfwere doubtful, for various reasons. "I believe phones will become the information portal to the Web," wrote one reader. "Iftt does half of what they say it will do I will use it to replace my computer for Web searches, directions, e-mail, etc. Five hundred dollars for a computer you can fit in your pocket is cheap. Sony charges $2,000 for a much larger PDA." Some said their main concern ~as with the iPhone's exclusive telecom provider, AT&T. "Never on AT&T service," wrote one of these readers. "I have been there and never again. I would buy today if this was offered by V erizon. " Others are taking a.wait-and-see approach.' ."The first generation of anything always lacks," said a show-me reader. "I'll play with it, sure, but before I'd seriously consider it, my Treo would have to break or the iPhone would have to do things more seamlessly than I've heard it can do now." "Too new, too expensive, too many bugs," wrote another. "Maybe in a year when the price comes down to reality and the bugs are worked out. " Then there were those who don't plan to buy an iPhone, ever: "It's iPhone this week; next week it will be something else. My Verizon phone, service (and monthly bill) do the job very well." l Contact the Editor I L Need ASSiS~' ~~_~ate~t N:ws ~ I Subscribe or renew online DIR - 26 http://www.bizjournals.com!sanjose/stories/2007/07/~9/editoria12.htm1?t=printable 7/10/2007