PC 02-23-04 City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
February 23, 2004, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 26, 2004, Study Session
January 26, 2004
February 9, 2004
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
1. MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20; City of Cupertino; Citywide
Request removal from calendar
2. M-2003-08; Todd Lee/Marketplace; 19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2004
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on
issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business)
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related
to parking regulations
Tentative City Council date: March 15, 2004
Request removal from calendar
Planning Commission Agenda of February 23, 2004
Page -2
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny EA-2003-20
2. Approve or deny MCA-2001-03
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
M-2003-08
Todd Lee/Marketplace
19770 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Use permit modification (16-U-76) to permit new food services and
restaurants adjacent to the gated portion of the rear corridor through
a use permit process
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2004
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny M-2003-08
Application No.(s): MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance)
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2004
Tentative City Council date: not scheduled
ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny EA-2003-19
2. Approve or deny MCA-2003-02
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
3. Planning Commission work program for 2004, including discussion of proposed
amendments to parking ordinance
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Planning Commission Agenda of February 23, 2004
Page -3
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT to joint study session with the City Council and General Plan Task Force,
March 1, 2004; 5:00 p.m., City Council chambers
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to
speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will
make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require
special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in
advance of the meeting.
G:Planning/ Agendas&Hearings / 2-23-O4agenda
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JANUARY 26, 2004 MONDAY
CITY HA~L COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission study session of January 26, 2004 was called to order at 5:30
p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Angela Chen, and the following proceedings were had to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissione
Angela Chen
Taghi Saadati
Marty Miller
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Staffpresent:
Community Development Director
City Planner
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Aarti Shrivastava
Peter Gilli
Study Session to Discuss the R-1 Process
Chairperson Chen called the study session to order at 5:30 p.m. She welcomed Lisa Giefer, the
new Planning Commissioner to the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Chen commended Ms. Aarti Shrivastava for her excellent work with the Planning
Commission and thanked her for professionalism in helping with all the issues. Ms. Wordell and
Mr. Piasecld also commended Ms. Shrivastava for her excellent work and wished her success. Ms.
Shrivastava is leaving Cupertino for a position with the City of Mountain View.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Said the Planning Commission requested the study session to discuss how to approach the
discussion of the R1 Ordinance fi-om the standpoint of interest in who is being notified, but
also how to approach this f~fn:ly complex task. It is suggested in the staff report there is the
approach to identify the major issue and work through them that way.
Chair Chen:
· The major discussion item brought up in the staffreport is the second story area review process
and that needs to be handled before the minor technical changes.
Planning Commission Study Session 2 January 26, 2004
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner:
· The idea was that it was possible that through your discussion of the second story area you
might check what you want to do in the review process.
Chair Chen:
· You are recommending that we discuss the second story area in the review process as the
major issues and after that all the minor technical changes should be made according to
decisions the Director made on these two issues.
Mr. Gilli:
· In some way yes, but in some ways it will be that the minor technical changes perhaps do not
need the amount of discussion that the other issues need, and it could be held off till the end.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Also, we think the major issues we have identified; these are the drivers of the ordinance
depending on what you do with the second story area and how you treat that; you may or may
not need a particular review process; you may or may not need some of the minor technical
changes, but you may choose to equip the ordinance with some of those technical changes
instead of guidelines; those two areas will drive how you structure the rest of the ordinance,
that is why we are suggesting you take the biggest use first and work back in. We ttfmk a lot of
the minor technical, because they are not drivers, whether they won't really affect things
dramatically; whatever process you decide to come up with.
· Suggested scheduling three to four meetings, perhaps a fifth if needed, that it will be a function
of the level of interest, and the direction that the Planning Commission wants to take and how
much interest it engenders; we have certainly for the heating notified a large number of people;
you probably will have a large amount of interest in the topics so you may have to gage how
many meetings as you get into the first one. You can open up the discussion around the major
issues and then let that be the driver for the mst of the ordinance structure.
Chair Chert:
· Discuss one topic at a time; and to open it up based on the major issues we have set up the
meetings collecting public input, or we can discuss all the major issues at one meeting and
carry it on.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Whatever way it works; because there are relatively few major issues, you may just want to
break it into major/minor issues.
Com. Miller:
· Suggested the following approach: we have already got a fair amount of input and I think we
are expecting more tonight and more subsequent to tonight.
· First step is not to discuss anything tonight, just take the input fi.om the residents; there is no
way we can digest all the input tonight to have an effective discussion which encompasses
everything that we hear.
· Suggestion is tonight just to listen to what people have to say, what is good and bad about the
ordinance and then after that point, staff can take all that input and compile it, categorize it,
and lay it out or put it into smaller pieces, and Peter Gilli suggested some categories that might
work well here.
· In his letter to the residents, Mr. Gilli said two story developments, setbacks, heights, design
review, etc. those categories may work fmc. Then set hearings where we talk about each of the
Planning Comm/ssion Study Session 3 January 26, 2004
categories having had a chance to look at the input beforehand and take additional input from
residents who show up for the particular areas they are interested in.
· Go through that process of doing, if it is a large category, take one that night, and if there are
smaller ones, put a couple together and make our recommendations on each one of those and
have staffput it together as a whole document and come back another time for a f'mal review.
· Anticipate it would take around 3 months or longer depending on how much input is received.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· First we need to listen to public and then have some neighborhood/community meetings
· Standardize some form of questions so everyone can speak; preparing a fact sheet; standard
format to get input; bring back to Planning Commission for discussion.
Com. Wong:
· Agreed that they needed community input and tonight's meeting should be just to listen for
input, there may be other concerns we may have missed.
· Suggested categorizing the letters in a matrix; capture everything in an organized manner.
· Important to listen to the community first.
Com. Giefer:
· Said once they get public input, they may want to expand on it, and add additional categories.
Com. Wong:
· Agreed with Mr. Piasecki that we should start with a public hearing before we go to
neighborhood meetings; if there is something special we can address that; let's start at the
Planning Commission public hearings first.
Chair Chen summarized Planning Commissioners' comments:
· Want to collect input tonight.
· Do we need more meetings in the future to collect public input.
· Should give staff clear direction as to where they are going from tonight.
· Want staff to organize input in a way to understand, table format, and expand on it perhaps,
think through and ask questions.
· Have Planning Comrmssion discussion session.
· How many sessions of the input is needed, wait until end of tonight's meeting to decide.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested that since there is so much interest and so many potential areas people may want to
talk about, initially set up a maximum time to speak; a couple of hours maximum.
· Discussed the format for the Planning Commission meeting, relating to public input and
duration of meeting.
· Explain to the public that there will be other opportunities to provide input.
· Need to have organization explained and the format to be used for meeting and receiving input.
· Would be helpful to clarify the item that input is needed on; two story development, setback,
heights, and design review, neighbor notification, and privacy.
· If there are side issues brought up, it needs to be discussed with the Planning Commission
because the purpose of the meetings is to resolve the major issues first.
· Have to set a limit on how and when we can clean up the R1 so people have a clear direction to
use when they want to remodel or build new houses; from then on we can continue to modify
R1 to make it fit and meet everybody's needs.
Planning Commission Study Session 4 January 26, 2004
Com. Miller:
It is important we are looking for input on those issues, but I don't think we want to limit
people because there may be other issues we aren't aware of that are equally important.
· Encourage people to say whatever is appropriate; try to get them to be as specific in details as
possible.
· Don't want to limit them or have them not talk about something that is important to them.
· Part of what we should be focusing on is the function of the input we get; we think these things
are important, but residents may think that there are different aspects of these that are
important.
· The ordinance has been around for 5 years and there is a fair amount of data; we should look at
the data and see where it is working and where it is not working and then decide on what to
focus on and what to change. That approach says come up and say.whatever you want and
then staff will compile it and from that compilation we will decide which we should really
focus on.
· Asked staff to provide the Planning Commission with copies of ordinances from some of the
neighboring cities/towns, such as Palo Alto and Sunnyvale.
Vice Chair Saadati:
· Thought some of these issues that have been highlighted are the ones we heard from the
public, there may be some others but they may be minor.
· The major one is the second story.
· Need to proportion our time based on the importance of these.
Chair Chen:
· The majority of the input focuses on two groups of people; one group of people who had
experience doing their remodel or development work and the other group is the receiving end
who see the neighbors doing the work; and their concern is construction, ordinance, not really
related to the planning ordinance, or residential ordinance; or they have concerns about privacy
and notification process.
· As a Planning Commission the focus should be on everybody and that is covered by these
major issues. If we keep dwelling on the other issues, we may never bring these issues to
closure and I would like to bring these issues to closure.
· Not excluding any of the input from any other groups of people, but would like to focus our
energy with the limited time we have and everybody else has in the city on these major issues,
so we take care of the two major groups of people. In the meantime, we need to keep in mind
that we should have a vision for the future of Cupertino.
· Said she always questioned what is compatibility; should we have the older homes leading the
design of newer homes; or should we have the senior homes where we call monster homes
leading the design of the older homes, in the mixed areas especially, how should we define
compatibility. We don't know, but it is the Planning Commission's job to create a vision for
everybody in Cupertino and make sure we protect everybody's benefit in the city.
Com. Wong:
· Said former Mayor Chang said that we should try to avoid using the word monster homes
because the 1999 ordinance did address that the intent of the ordinance was to get away from
massive and bulk houses; that we are trying to refine the ordinance and make it more user
friendly process and to make minor technical changes to improve it.
· Discuss the limit on speakers; suggest time limit on meeting be 10 p.m.
Planning Commission Study Session 5 January 26, 2004
Craig Heron, 20725 Sunrise Drive:
· * You had mentioned how you were gohag to get out information to the public in the area and
how you were going to transmit this information so that everyone got an equal chance to
submit their ideas. One of the things the school agenda did was set up different groups, one
person heading a group from this area, one for another area, and instead of everyone showing
up at the meeting and voicing two hours of opinion, there was a group of people show up at
one place and voice their opinion; and one person showed up and gave a general voice for that
group or that area. This is an idea that would eliminate some time and give people in a certain
area a chance to focus on their particular problems.
Com. Giefer:
· Said it worked well with the school board redistricting issue.
· Expressed concern that as a new Planning Commissioner, she was not as well informed as the
other commissioners, and would not be able to speak as fluently about the issue.
Mr. Heron:
· Suggested that the Planning Commission reiterate to the public in a meeting that they have not
made up their minds before the meeting; as some people go to the meeting feeling that the
decision has already been made before the meeting.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the point was well taken; and noted that the commissioners can't even talk about an issue,
and would be a Brown Act violation for three of them to discuss a topic. They have no ability
to reach consensus on anything, and don't know where they stand on any of the issues before
the meetings.
Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendhal Lane:
Said her neighborhood was satisfied with the current ordinance; but if changes are made, they
might need to make changes within the Eichler part of it, and are going to need to keep
involved.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested following the process if she feels that something is going in the direction that could
impact the Fairgrove neighborhood.
· Suggesting a neighborhood meeting would be appropriate; because the Fairgrove
neighborhood has special design standards that are intended to retain the Eichler look and feel.
Adlournment:
Chairperson Chen declared a recess to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
Angela Chen, Chairperson
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. JANUARY 26, 2004 MONDAY
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Angela Chert, and
the following proceedings were had to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Angela Chen
Taghi Saadati
Marry Miller
Gilbert Wong
Lisa G-ie fer
Staffpresent:
Community Development Director
City Planner
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Assistant City Attorney
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
Election of Chairperson:
Com. Wong nominated Com. Saadati to serve as
Chairperson; second by Com. Miller.
(Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Saadati abstain.)
Chairperson Saadati chaired the remainder of the meeting. He welcomed the new Planning
Commissioner Lisa Giefer.
Election of Vice Chairperson:
Com. Miller nominated Com. Wong to serve as Vice
Chairperson; second by Com. Cheu. (Vote: 4-0-1,
Com. Wong abstain)
Housing Commission:
Vice Chair Wong nominated Com. Giefer to serve as
Housing Commission representative; second by Com.
Miller. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain).
Design Review Committee
Representative and Alternate:
Com. Chen nominated Com. Miller to serve as
alternate of the DRC; second by Com. Giefer. Vice
Chair Wong serves as the representative and will serve
as the Chair of the DRC. (vote: 4-0-1, Com. Miller
abstain).
Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 26, 2004
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the January 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting:
· Motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Wong to approve the January
12, 2004 minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
None
The agenda was moved to Item 2, since it was a continued item and because of the anticipated
length of discussion for Item 1.
OLD BUSINESS:
2. M-2002-06
YMCA
One year review of modification of a use permit to locate a
children's playground at front of the property and extend the
Hours of operation. Location: 20803 Alves Drive.
Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staffreport as follows:
· Application is continued from December 8, 2003; Planning Commission directed the applicant
to meet with neighbors to work out concerns.
· Four meetings have been held with staff, YMCA and neighbors to address concems.
· Staff feels all issues have been addressed.
· Mr. Chao summarized key issues:
Noise impacts from pool equipment on YMCA site; currently the pool building is
operating within the city's noise ordinance standards.
YMCA has installed sound wall on top of pool building to mitigate some noise impacts;
has agreed to install additional noise abatement devices to further reduce noise generated
by pool equipment.
Light glare from pool building. Blinds have been installed to block any possible glare
from indoor pool lights; exterior wall light has also been removed and adjusted lights to
minimize glare.
Noise impacts from outdoor activities at rear of pool building; YMCA has agreed to
reduce scheduled outdoor activity hours to 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday; 10
a.m. to 1 p.m. or 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. Attempt will be made to not scheduled
outdoor activities on Sunday.
YMCA is not going to schedule any activities in rear lawn area behind the pool building at
the neighbors' request.
YMCA will attempt to inform neighbors of any special events or activities outside of those
hours.
YMCA will install shrubs along rear property line to further provide a physical barrier
from the YMCA's activities to the neighbors to the rear area.
} YMCA has installed security cameras to monitor outdoor activities. It will allow the
YMCA to manage and confirm complaints or problems and enable them to address them
appropriately in the future.
~' Loud music late at night: The YMCA has communicated with its janitorial staffto curtail
the music at night.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 26, 2004
Existing traffic volume on Alves Drive: It has been determined that the YMCA's
application to construct the children's playground and modify its hours of operation will
not generate additional traffic trips; the existing traffic concerns on Alves Drive should be
a separate issue from their application being considered this evening.
YMCA volunteers conducted a traffic survey over a period of four momings, and the
report confirms that the traffic level on Alves Drive is comparable to those on other
residential streets in the city.
The neighbors would like Alves Drive to be completely closed off to prevent vehicles from
accessing Alves Drive from Stelling Road. The closure of a street should only be
considered if it is determined that the closure is part of the city's General Plan or if it will
alleviate major traffic impacts in the city. Based on previous traffic reports on that street
and YMCA's traffic survey, the traffic volume on Alves Drive in comparison to other
residential streets is not excessive to warrant closure. The Public Works staffwill continue
to work and meet with the neighbors living on Alves Drive to explore options to further
improve the traffic circulation in that area.
Staffrecommends approval of the application in accordance with the model resolution.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, noted that the sign directing traffic to use
Alves off Stelling, has been removed at the suggestion of a neighbor.
Mr. Chao:
· Noted that the original hours of operation were 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., and the approved hours were
6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekends.
Mr. Paul Hansen, 2141 Prospect Rd., representing YMCA:
· Have fully adopted the Planning Commission recommendations to take a proactive approach
with the neighborhood and be in the spirit of resolving issues to the neighbors' satisfaction.
· Felt that although some of the changes were costly, without neighborhood support of what has
been done, they would not be successful.
· Reviewed the NW YMCA Progress Report, including the measures taken to address
neighbors' concerns relative to traffic, noise, impact of outdoor activities, impact of lighting on
premises, and notification to neighbors of activities.
· Reviewed the good neighbor policy adopted and timeline of next steps planned.
· Noted that the janitorial schedule had not changed, from 10:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. Monday
through Friday, and 8:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. on weekends, with the main focus the janitors on
the pool area as quickly as possible and as short duration as possible to address concerns.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Expressed concern about possibly making the hours earlier; however, Mr. Hansen said the
YMCA was a big facility.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Noted it would be appropriate regarding maintenance activities, if the Planning Commission
included wording in Condition 3 that maintenance activities are permitted outside of the above
operating hours, so that people don't debate that later on.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input.
Don Huntley, 20685 Alves Drive:
· Supports the application.
· Are family members of the YMCA.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 26, 2004
· Expressed gratitude for all benefits of the YMCA; particularly the playground and nursery that
his preschool child uses.
Nicholas Skordilis, 10225 Beardon Dr/ve:
· Owner of the building next to the YMCA, 8 unit apartment building
· Bought the property in 1989 because of the quiet, peaceful configuration of the property;
remained that way for 13 years until YMCA expanded the indoor swim pool.
· Since then the tenants have suffered from the constant noise of the HVAC system; having
difficulty sleeping, needed earplugs; during the daytime have difficulty watching TV; affects
nerves.
· YMCA has taken steps to alleviate noise, including relocation of two fans as Mr. Hudson
presented, and building a wall, but more is needed.
· After last public hearing, noticed a change in attitude of YMCA; had meetings with neighbors,
addressed problems and they seem willing to work with us, want to thank both the YMCA and
the city planning for contributing to the meetings.
· Expressed concern about the I-IVAC system, which although they presented a graph that the
noise of the I-IVAC system is the same as the ambient, said he had a report that the HVAC
system is 5 db above the ambient. The I-IVAC is about 55 and the ambient is about 50.
· Said the YMCA presented him with a consultant report stating that it would have a 10 db
reduction on the output of the HVAC system with a building of a silencer. However, in the
report it states that the 10 db will be on the output only and the same report states that 50% of
the noise generated is from the input and the other 50% is from the output, which means that if
we only address the output, then the input which is according to the report, as high as the
output, then the noise will be dominated from the input noise levels. Although doubtful the
overall will be 10 db, what I would like to see is f'lrst the built of the output silencer to see if
the noise levels can be reduced down to the ambient noise, and if not, then I would like a
commitment from the YMCA that they would be willing to look at input silencer in case the
output silencer does not reduce the noise levels to the ambient noise.
· Said that if YMCA builds the output silencer, he is willing to look at the input silencer, in case
the output silencer does not work alone; and was willing to support the project and any
reasonable future projects they may have.
Larry Dean, 22159 Ray Lane, current Board Chair of Board of Managers, NW YMCA:
· Representing the 18 member board who are community volunteer members to reiterate the
YMCA's support of the efforts put forth in the last month.
· Said he recognized that due to a lot of the growth in the last years, they could have done a
better job in communicating with the neighbors and their staff has reacted to that quickly
although belatedly.
· Said the Planning Commission and staff had the full support of the Board of Managers and
YMCA staff to continue the open communications and try to continue to resolve issues that
may come up.
· Appreciated everyone's help and cooperation and the neighbors who have come forth to put
their issues on the table.
Megan Early, 1520 Ashcrot~ Way, Sunnyvale:
· Said she and her brother learned to swim at the Westchester YMCA in Los Angeles.
· During 6 year membership to the NW YMCA they completed advanced swim and have been
certified in youth strength training.
· Have been attending YMCA camps for 5 years.
· Supports the YMCA.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 26, 2004
Alex Early, 1520 Ashcroft Way, Sunnyvale:
· Has been a member of the YMCA since she was 6 months old.
· During the summer the daycare at the YMCA watches over the kids; the kids want to go
outside because it is warm and sunny but there is no safe place to play; so it would be great if
the playground was built because they would have a safe place to play.
Jim Limberatos, 20724 Garden Gate Drive:
· Supports project.
· Have resided there since 1951 and waited 43 years for the YMCA to put in a pool about 3
years ago; swim there 4-5 days per week.
· Many people there with physical therapy needs and the YMCA meets their needs.
· Wife uses pool and exercise facilities.
· Both commend the YMCA staff for being considerate, capable and dedicated.
· The children's programs are phenomenal.
· Happy with the YMCA; it is an asset to the community.
Cheryl Vargas, 20803 Alves Drive, representing the YMCA:
· Echoed the thanks and appreciation to the neighbors for coming out and having open dialog
with the YMCA end working through issues and concerns since meeting in December.
· It is the commitment on behalf of the YMCA, not only at Northwest branch but the YMCA of
Santa Clara Valley to continue the efforts and working together to make the relationship with
our immediate neighbors amenable.
· With regard to the HVAC system and continuing to work with the neighbor to reduce the
decibel readings, will continue to keep those things in consideration as they move forward to
the next step, the new baffle system in, and if necessary, go to the next step.
· Thanked young participants who came out today and spoke on behalf of the youth the YMCA
serves in Cupertino, Sunnyvale and surrounding cities.
Chair Saadati closed the public hearing.
Com. Miller:
· The YMCA has gone the extra mile to work with the neighbors.
· Recommend approval, that they move forward with their playground since it is clear there
aren't any issues that need to be worked on further.
Com. Chen:
· Wanted to confirm that the YMCA was committed to quarterly meetings to keep
communication going with the neighbors.
· Thanked the YMCA for providing great benefits to the community.
· Glad to see the community working together to resolve issues.
· Thanked all the speakers who provided information to help make a decision.
· Supports the project.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Supports the application.
· It is important that the YMCA had the opportunity to talk with their neighbors.
· Tonight discussing the playground and the hours of operation.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 26, 2004
· If the neighbors have a concern, the model resolution states that if there was a concern, the
neighbors shall have a Planning Commission hearing, hence the safeguards built into the
model resolution are good.
· Appreciate the YMCA Board of Directors as well as the YMCA staff for being proactive and
acting with the neighbors; they are willing to commit some money into noise reduction vs.
mitigation abatement.
· Pleased they are moving forward.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that when she visited the site she noticed that the shrubbery was deciduous and
recommended that future landscaping be evergreen shrubs so that the neighbors enjoy more
benefit and noise reduction through the plant materials selected by the YMCA.
· The YMCA has done an excellent job in reviewing tapes from the proceeding hearings and has
also spent a considerable mount of money rectifying the mistakes or the issues outstanding;
based on their efforts and testimony heard tonight, she supports the project.
Chair Saadati:
· Supports the project.
· YMCA has done a lot of work since the last Planning Commission meeting and applaud the
effort in meeting with the neighbors and continuing to be a good neighbor and communicate
with them.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chert, second by Com. Miller, to approve M-2002-06 as
amended, adding the wording in Condition 3 that maintenance activities are
permitted outside the above operating hours; add wording condition No. 5,
also additional evergreen shrubbery shall be planted along the existing wood
fence. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Saadati moved the agenda back to Item 1.
MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19
City of Cupertino
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28
and related chapters affecting single-family
residential development in the R1 zoning district.
Location: Citywide
Tentative City Council date: Feb. 17, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· Reported that the study session was held earlier to discuss the process for this item; concluded
that the item would likely go on for about three months and all Commissioners agreed that they
needed to hear everyone on the subject and also to find out how many people are here to speak
on this item.
Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows:
· In 1999 In response to public complaints about new construction, the R1 ordinance was
amended by the City Council; these regulations included second story limits and a design
review process.
· The staffreport contains a detailed history.
· Late last year the City Council authorized the Planning Commission to review the ordinance;
the questions that are before the Commission include: is the ordinance accomplishing its
Plamng Commission Minutes 7 January 26, 2004
purpose; and are there ways to improve it and improve it for all members of the public, not just
one side; those wanting more protection.
· The Council approved the scope of work which is attached to the staff report. The scope
includes issues that have been raised in the past few years, major issues including how much
you can have on the second story and the design review process, and also a number of
technical changes.
· As the Chair referred to in study session, the Planning Commission chose to receive input and
put off the discussion of issues until after all input is received. Also as agreed, the staff will
put together all the public input into a tabular form for review.
· While the Planning Commission is receiving all the testimony, they are asked to identify the
issues and tlfmk of the large scale issues above the one issue, because later in the process, want
to identify the principles that you want this R1 ordinance amendment to represent.
· Said that Exhibit A in the staff report is split into the major issues and what is perceived as
minor issues. There are options included, it is going to up to the Planning Commission after
hearing from the public to say what is going to be decided; there are some minor issues where
there is a staff recommendation on the language and those are items staff does not perceive to
be a controversial item.
· Recommendation is to take public input, and after the initial input is received, there will be an
organized version of the input and decision made on what steps to take after that.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Added for the benefit of the public that may not come to many of these meetings, the Planning
Commission following its deliberations will develop a recommendation; which will be
forwarded to the City Council and there will be another opportunity before the City Council to
provide input on the recommendation. There will be many opportunities both at the Planning
Commission and later on at the City Council.
Chair Saadati opened the public hearing.
Dennis Houlsby, 10255 Mira Vista:
· Said that he submitted a letter in the packet.
· Said he agreed with the main purpose of the ordinance, to limit the impact of monster houses
on existing neighborhoods, and their intrusion in the privacy of their neighbors.
· Suggested five points that could improve the ordinance:
The requirement that the second story addition not exceed the 35% FAR. The 35%
requirement may be reasonable for a large houses, but not for small ones.
An existing 1600 square foot house would be restricted to a 560 square foot second story;
however, a 3500 square foot would be allowed 1225 square feet. The owner would be
forced to expand the first story in order to construct a reasonably sized second story if he
had a smaller house.
>' The RI ordinance should allow larger second stories on smaller houses by increasing the
FAR and the existing house decreases in size fi.om the maximum allowed in the lot; thus
the second story addition for a maximum sized house would remain at 35% which would
increase the 50% on a sliding scale as the house decreased in size from its maximum
allowable down to 2,000 square feet. That would be fairer for those with smaller houses;
who want a reasonable or modest second story addition.
>' R1 requires that decks and balconies be included as living areas. This requirement
severely impacts the size of the second story based on the FAR of 35%; for example, the
covered patio is not considered a living space but a covered deck on top of that patio is
considered living space. By duly restricting the second story, the R1 ordinance should not
Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 26, 2004
include decks and balconies as living space when applying the 35% rule. Again for a
smaller house this is a large impact.
R1 requires that the visible second story wall height not exceed 6 feet, or 50% of the
perimeter. When applied to existing houses built over 10 years ago, the pitch of the first
story roof must be exaggerated in order to meet this 6 foot visible height requirement.
When you do that, it becomes out of proportion and in my case the city required the
homeowner to ask for an exemption based on the fact that the city wanted exemption to
their own ordinance. This is the case where the city already knows that R1 is inappropriate
when applied to older homes, yet requires the homeowner to bear the expense of the
exemption. The city should be able to write exemptions into the ordinance or waive the
fee for design review.
R1 contains privacy requirements for second story decks and views of the neighboring
yards. This requirement makes sense in most instances; however, monster homes built
before R1 had no privacy requirements and peered down into their neighbor's yards and
living areas. Usually it was the existing residents who had to plant trees and install
window coverings to prevent intrusion from the monster house. However, when that
neighbor wanted to put a second story or deck on his house, it now became his
responsibility under R1 to plant more trees and frost his windows so the offencrmg could
be further protected. The R1 ordinance should require monster homes built before R1 to
share the expense and pain of protecting privacy when new second additions are built
under R1.
The requirements of R1 are often required design reviews for interpretation of the
exception. The time and expense for review and interpretation of R1 is borne by the
homeowner, not the city. When an ordinance is totally written subject to interpretation, it
should not be the homeowner that bears the expense. The city however seems aloof to the
expense required for design review, such as architectural engineering city and blueprint
fees as well as delays in construction. The city should be more responsive to its citizens
and not encumber them with such unreasonable fees and construction delays.
Robert Levy, 10803 Wilkinson Ave.:
· Said the second story was likely the cheapest way to add square footage to a build'mg, you
reduce the mount of roof that has to be built on the building, you reduce the amount of
foundation that has to go in; at the same time I can remember when the behemoth went up at
the end of our block and that is the way we referred to them and we still do.
· Our house ceilings have this sort of shape, they go up with the roof slant and go straight across
in the upstairs room because the city requires that our houses sort of squat down and not be
oblrusive; but the behemoths the people were paying lots of money for them and most of it was
going for the land they were built on and the net result was that the builders felt that they ought
to have a big house to go on their expensive lot, and I think that is where the problem with the
second stories came in. When you start making it look like a big house things fall apart.
Mark Bums, 345 So. San Antonio Rd., Los Altos, representing Silicon Valley Association of
Realtors:
· Said they support simplification of the R1 ordinance; also believe there was a
miscommunication from the time it became ordinance because the way it is written is that the
top floor can only be 35% of the bottom floor which aetoally produces a ratio closer to 26% in
the top and 74% on the bottom. This limits designers in what they can do with houses; when
literally ¼ can be on top and % has to be on the bottom, resulting in unattractive houses. It
limits homeowners in what they can do; we want to support a simplified proeass that we can
get these designs through quicker, save homeowners money; there is always a need and a
reason in the neighborhood where someone needs to expand their home and we want to
Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 26, 2004
support an economical and easy process for homeowners to do that rather than make things
more complicated and harder to conform to.
Support changing the ratios back to what former Commissioner Orrin Mahoney said in the first
place, 35/65, not 35% of the bottom floor which produces a much worse ratio than what was
ever intended.
Scott Hughes, 7752 Huntridge Lane:
· Concerned there seems to be a rush to relax some of the present restrictions, specifically some
put into place in 1999.
· Some of this is based on somewhat limited and quite polarized input. There doesn't seem to be
a lot of people in the middle.
· Also concerned there is little focus on fro'rog some of the existing issues with the looseness of
today's restrictions, specifically in areas of size, privacy and neighborhood impact.
· Concerned why there is a push to maximize home size. What does this say about what we
value in our community?
· Regarding some of the existing input, it is obvious there has been much time, effort and
thought invested in most of the work. On the surface some of the proposals seem fairly minor
and harmless; however, before we can properly improve the ordinance and guidelines we need
to ensure there is accurate, complete feedback on how they are actually working today.
Otherwise it risks reducing the quality of life for many to satisfy the complaints of what could
be a vocal minority.
· Questioned how much feedback has been received from the six to seven adjacent neighbors for
all the home extensions, and how does the feedback compare pre 1999 vs. post 1999.
· Said he felt not enough feedback has been received, and one reason may be that many people
are reluctant to speak out publicly about their neighbors.
· Said he was willing to volunteer time to get some of this vital information; one possibility
being a door to door survey of people who have been affected. Survey needs to focus not on
all the small details, but more importantly on how adjacent neighbor expansion has impacted
their site lines, their privacy and their quality of life. Need to start at a higher level rather than
quibbling over the details first.
· Said he felt this type of broad direct feedback would provide a better assessment and
complement the work that has already been done and better know where the restrictions are too
tight or where they are too loose rather than trying to make everything easier.
· Said he wanted to share his own experience relative to exisfmg issues. Resides in a 1200
square foot single story home on a 6,000 square foot lot. Last year the neighbor diagonally
behind him expanded his home with little or no impact to his neighborhood; this year the
neighbor chrectly behind is installing a one story addition, well with'm regulations which will
severely and negatively impact his site lines, privacy and quality of life. The combination of
insufficient setback and a totally unnecessary height is a major issue and is not one or the
other; it is a combination of the two working together. The atypically large amount of rear
facing doors and windows with glass which are above the fence line is a significant privacy
issue in both directions.
· Said words alone could not describe the full impact; he extended an invitation to the
commissioners or staff to come to his back yard to compare the two projects and come back
and state their preference of the two projects, and why.
· He said if they felt this one that is within regulations is reasonable, he would like to hear some
of these case studies.
· Can't fix what has happened in the past but based on the loss and how much more severely
others have been severely impacted, he asked to ensure that these issues are addressed before
anything is relaxed.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 26, 2004
· Need to see how things are working now and make sure all the existing issues are addressed
first and then go forward with some of the relaxations, some of which may be minor.
· Said he discussed expansion options with some of his neighbors; said he would not pursue a
style of expansion that would negatively impact his neighbors; not because he did not need the
space, but because he didn't consider it the right th'mg to do, and he felt it is something to
consider as a community.
· Said he felt the 1999 changes were long overdue and probably a first step in the right direction;
one which was needed to renfmd us all that our choices in expanding our homes affect more
than just ourselves; we have a responsibility to consider the impact to the neighbors and the
community.
· Need more improvements in the present system before creating any more heartache and
conflict by looserfmg the present regulations further.
Malka Nagel, Camino Vista:
· Have been involved in the process for over a year and been also a participant of the process
and well versed in it.
· Stoxy poles are very expensive; in my case many thousands of dollars, took many months to
put up and stayed up since it was not known how long it takes for the committee to go through
and approve the house; it becomes a major eyesore for the neighborhood to have poles stay up
for months at a time; in my case they had to be strategically placed because of renters in the
house and couldn't risk a liability with poles falling
· In regards to design review, the process is painful, in my ease it added 3 to 4 months to the
process and as the gentleman said added substantial cost to the process and gave too much
power to the staff. In my case I had to come back and alter my plans on issues that had nothing
to do with the ordinance at all, it was some arbitrary election to say change this and that; no
thought on the impacts of the outside of the house, or how it impacted the inside of the house.
· Regarding design guidelines, they conflict with the ordinance and the way the city operates
now, they are more important than the ordinance itself.
· The ord'manee should be clear, it should be easy to follow and the design guidelines should be
guidelines and not the driver of the project.
· Privacy goes two ways; it is not just the new impacting the old, but also the old impacting the
Dave Russell, 22790 Mereedes Road:
· In the review process on Exhibit A, the matrix of R1 regulations; the review process topic for
triggering for R/IS hillside regulations, the problem stated in the document is that current
regulations may not protect the hillside in the fashion that the general plan describes. I agree
with that assessment and the option stated in the document, that the Planning Commission
should discuss the issue and determine if the change is warranted, I think a change is
warranted, and you should continue to discuss that. I would volunteer my time for that
· The document called RI regulations also talks about RHS and R1 review for development on
30% slopes. The intent is to trigger for greater review of development on R1 hillside lots.
· Said they should look at what the criteria are for triggering examination of developments and
proposed developments on hillsides, especially those of 30% or greater. Have seen a number of
homes approved on 30% or greater sloped properties in very close proximity to the major
ridgelines. The homes that have been approved and subsequently built, one in particular that
has just been completed, is not consistent with the overall plan, the residential hillsides zone
plan. The construction of it does not fit into the heavily wooded area; does not fit in with other
homes; it is a very large, tall home, worse upon worse it feels that the paint job on the house
Planning Commission Minutes I 1 January 26, 2004
was done specifically to make it stand out and not fit in. I would like some more teeth brought
into these things and we should retrigger this.
Specifically in the document titled residential hillside zones, chapter 19.40.060, building
coverage setbacks and height restrictions, the major point I want to get across, is I propose a
new reduction formula which is called the slope adjustment criteria, so that a 30% or greater
slope requires a 40% reduction in square footage; that reduction is 30% now, I would like to
see the reduction greater than 30% and that criteria and formula be looked at for new trigger
points in terms of this overall approval plan for homes on hillsides. The Hillside Protection
Act does not feel much like a protection act these days. I really encourage you to take a look at
the Hillside Protection Act and how the homes are built in there.
Yvorme Hampton, no address g/ven:
In favor of the project.
· Said she and her husband in the past remodeled their home and we went round and round with
the city; felt it was sad because they believed in guidelines.
· That is what they should be; sometimes I wonder when there are people in the City are looking
at plans, do they actually drive out to the neighborhood and look at what is there or do they
look at just the guidelines. The arguments go back and forth; and we came in with the
neighbors not long ago trying to tell the city we are in agreement with the neighbors plans and
why are they required to go round and round at considerable expense and time delays in their
desire to change the house. The neighbors were in agreement with what they were doing and
thought it was all right.
· Suggested that people looking at the plans for approval or denial, to look at the sites
themselves; drive around the neighborhood and see if the plans would be appropriate; it might
help facilitate the guidelines for the neighbors and for the people building the houses. The
guidelines are there to help people, not hinder them.
· Recently once again, the go around with guidelines, a person came to our home, frantic
because they want to remodel, no second story, just change the home; they were thrown in
with the requirement to put sidewalks in front of their house and maybe a lightpole; at their
expense in order to do their remodeling. We have been in our neighborhood since 1974 and it
has never had sidewalks; now they are requiring to put sidewalks in the lone house on the
block.
· Questioned what was being done to the residents? Guidelines are supposed to help, not torture
people. Take a drive, go look at the neighborhoods at where the houses are being planned; it
might be helpful for everyone to take a flavor of the neighborhood and help facilitate the real
helpful application of these guidelines for the people of the neighborhood.
Cary Chien, 10583 Felton Way:
· Welcomed new commissioner.
· Echoed the sentiment people felt, one of privacy, one of overbearing homes; back in 1999 we
did a good job of addressing those; specifically in R1 ordinance you will find the privacy
mitigation plan to address privacy; you will also find building envelopes which address the
height issues people are concerned about.
· Having been an applicant, there are three issues I would like the Planning Commission to
address. First one is the second story ratio; it is too limiting and hinders people's ability to put
enough space on the second story to accommodate their family.
· Design review guidelines is a gray area; need a stronger ordinance instead of a stronger
guideline
· Relative to story poles, there are better ways to notice the neighbors, give them a clear picture
of what the neighbors are proposing to do; rather than put up poles that cost too much and give
little information.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 January 26, 2004
· Discussion w/Il take a long time, encouraged the Planning Commission to take their time with
it; and make a good recommendation to the City Council before reaching a conclusion.
Yiton Yah, 20846 Garden Gate Dr.:
· Said first issue is logic; if you allow people to view the second floor for only 10%, the privacy
of the neighborhood will be influenced by allowing that; and once you allow for 10% since
that is going to happen, what is the difference for allowing 100%; there is no difference, but I
can see that 100% is much more advantageous; once you built stairs to the second floor you
have bigger areas that is more economical.
· Secondly, if a person is going to build a house, you allow them for 45% of the capacity
compared to land; if that 40% is fixed, I could see 100% for the second floor because
environmentally you can save a lot of land for grass, trees and fi.om the trees if you grow a lot
of trees, you can improve the privacy for your neighborhood. I go for 100% of the second
floor building.
M.W. Lui, 10430 Stem Avenue:
· Have a 5,000 square foot lot; 3 children.
· Wife wants a master bedroom on second story and 2 children on second story also; want large
hackyard.
· The existing R1 ordinance does not allow for that; cannot build a master bedroom on the top
with two wash basins and walk in closet and also an 11 x 11 bedroom for each child. The
ordinance needs to be modified to allow that to happen.
Garrick Lee, 18871 Arata Way:
· The city required a light pole on his property; no clear instructions on how to do it.
· Had to pay a $5,000 fee to the city.
· Other cities don't require the homeowner to do that.
Chair Saadati:
· Said it was a different subject matter; recommended speaker follow up with staff for the
ordinance requirement and further clarification.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested that the public hearing remain open anticipating that as the Planning Commissioners
deliberates, the public may later on wish to provide additional input.
Henry Lo, 20944 Fargo Drive:
· Is a developer in the Rancho area; built about 15 homes; has seen the transition fi.om no
regulations to extremely tight regulations on the ratio, main concern is the ratio on the first
floor vs. the second floor.
· Said it rendered his services of providing new homes or remodeled homes difficult to do, as
almost everyone is gone away except himself in Cupertino as a business person.
· Recommended that the ratio be changed to be more reasonable so that if the parents are staying
upstairs in the master bedroom they should have at least two rooms for the other children on
the second floor also.
· Each time doing a second floor is difficult; even with a 10,000 square foot lot it is difficult to
have a good design or a reasonable design. Agree with the height restriction and all the offsets
that have been imposed in the recent past, but the second floor ratio is the most difficult part
that is causing problems for many people.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 January 26, 2004
Said that a more workable ratio would be similar to the Silicon Valley Real Estate Association,
such as a 65%/35%. Said he was not certain what the ratio would be to get at least three
bedrooms for a 10,000 square foot lot. He said it was difficult to design something with the
current regulations.
Jennifer Griffin, 10315 Calvert Drive:
· R1 regulations have evolved over a process of time from the years in the county and then
coming into annexation two to three years ago.
· They are going to require a great deal of evolution and they have evolved into the current set
we have now.
· Want people to realize too that Cupertino is not alone in having a changing or very tight set of
building codes. Other cities, Los Gatos, Pacific Groves, Los Altos, all require story poles and
many reviews of property; would not expect less of Cupertino because the homes in Cupertino
are of an equal value to these cities.
· Said that there were a set of story poles on Johnson in Rancho Rinconada; received a letter
from the city stating there would be a design review for the property; she went down and
looked at the plans in the office and they seemed to fit her specs which were height, privacy.
· Said she felt it is a good approach for Cupertino to have story poles, design review, input from
owners of big houses, little houses, two story and one story.
· Said she and her husband live in a small house; one side is blocked by a large house
prohibiting them from gert'rog satellite TV.
· Said that everyone should have input into the R1 regulations fitting everyone's needs; it is
good to review them.
· Said she wanted a tight set of building codes.
Les Bumell, Hollyoak Drive:
· Lynwood Acres just went through a whole process, this also is a reasonable spec as pan of the
Eichlers, we keep talking about second story windows; there was quite a flap going on and
they came up with anything that is 5 ft or above does not require louvers, these are from homes
where you are looking side by side 5 feet from the fence you can look down.
· My recommendation has been, any windows that are below this require louvers or require
frosted glass, because when you talk about trees, with homes built five years ago, the U'ees are
protecting nothing, some are falling apart, they are not healthy.
· Relative to story poles, think they are excellent; they give a warning to the neighbors; they
cost, but a small fraction of what a new building or modification is.
· Said he felt the 1999 results have resulted in good architectured homes compared to what it
was before.
Mr. Gilli:
· Reviewed the first slide shown and said that at a cursory glance it looks as if the percentages
aren't what the ordinance calls for; what you have up there is a total space, is 3375, then you
took 35% of that and said that is on the second story. That isn't what is in the roles, that is
what is referred to as the 35/65, but what is in the rules is 35% of the first floor, total area on
the first floor.
Kwong Tak Chui, 21885 Woodbury Drive:
· He and his wife attend open houses to get ideas on remodeling and see what is going on in the
new houses. Discovered in most cases that the two story house, you can put a master bedroom
there and a tiny little room on the side which serves no purpose; the rest of the family members
would be in basement; first story may also have one room. This lifestyle doesn't fit his family.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 January 26, 2004
· Presently live on a R1 10,000 square foot lot but have no interest to build to the maximum
size, which is 35% or 45% with exceptions; we have no interest to build to 4500 square feet of
home which is too big, interested in high 2000 or 3000 square feet house, but in that square
footage there is no way we can put the master bedroom upstairs and have the children stay
with them; to follow the current RI rules, the kids have to live on the first floor or tucked away
in the basement.
· Urged the Planning Commission to look at open houses and get a feel of what is going on
because of the current rules.
Susan Louis, 21885 Woodbury Drive:
· Reiterated her husband's comments that they attended open houses to get ideas on remodeling;
family is growing and they don't want to put the kids in the basement but want to have a
reasonable upstairs and don't want to have to build the upstairs to an enormous size to have
reasonable footage upstairs.
· Would like the Planning Commission to review the ratio of the first floor to the second floor,
what is more reasonable.
· Many moved to Cupertino because of the school system which translates to growing families;
how do we deal with that problem and since we cannot put enough bedrooms upstairs and keep
the family together, and especially families with younger children, it is a very difficult
situation.
· Have quite a few mature trees in the yard, and would like to keep them, but in order to ach/eve
the footage to put the bedrooms I need, I could do a very big one story house and cut down
some of the trees and compromise the privacy of my neighbors because I cut down the trees.
IfI built a one story home then I have to cut down some of the big trees which I don't like.
· If the city allows for a more reasonable size upstairs, the overall the size of house could be
slightly smaller for the first floor because you would acquire the desired footage upstairs, and
then would actually be further away from the neighbor's property line and it would provide
more privacy to them.
· With the more recent newer homes development, the phenomena of having a master bedroom
upstairs and maybe a nursery size not big enough to put a single bed, upstairs has an adverse
affect on the property values of Cupertino.
Frank Vernon, 10228 Mira Vista:
· Cannot visualize what the difference is between the current ordinance; have lived here for 30
years and have seen a lot of changes; and the change and what the house would look like.
· Would not want to go back to the 100%; we used to be able to see the mountains around us
across the street, now see nothing but a wall ora house.
· One of the reasons we moved to the neighborhood we could see the mountains and the h/Ils; if
it keeps going we won't see the hills anymore which is sad.
· Comment on the sidewalks; one of our neighbors was required to put a sidewalk in and it
doesn't fit in the neighborhood, nor do street lights; would like to see the requirement for street
lights and sidewalks be stricken.
Thanh Nguyen, 10687 Randy Lane:
· Part of Lynwood Acres, which recently was rezoned.
· Our area has had a ratio increase to 20%; which he feels is not adequate.
· Illustrated photos taken throughout the city, built pre 1990 and after 1999 and some of the
houses in the west San Jose area, which he said were houses that Cupertino residents were
deprived of not being able to build.
Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 26, 2004
People who live in the San Jose area and go to Cupertino schools, use the library, use every
city service, but have more flexibility in terms of building their houses.
Said people build the size of house they want to build because they have a need for it', within
reasonable measure the ratio that we impose on the house at the current rate of 35% is not
appropriate for the needs of their family.
Frederick Ty, 10824 Bubb Road:
· Supports application.
· Has a 12,000 square foot lot with a plan to rebuild home, and have instructed the architect to
postpone the submission of the plan pending the outcome of the hearings.
· Said he has a 12,000 square foot lot and yet is having a difficult time putting a modem master
bedroom and two decent bedrooms upstairs. Did not intend to build a monster home but
because of the FAR in the first and second floor, is almost forced to do so in order to get the
upstairs bedrooms.
· Ask for reconsideration of the second floor area ratios, the setbacks.
Steven McGarry, 1106 Steeple Chase Lane:
· Said he was in the center of much construction, two behind his house; single story but have
filled up their lot entirely and brought their homes to his back fence where they are within the
codes of 5 feet but their overhangs are about 4 feet.
· His home has a pool in the backyard and they use it all the time; the neighbors have no yard
now and are impacting the privacy of his as well.
· Have a single story home and have two children and mnn'mg out of space and would like to
consider to go up to a second story, but wouldn't know how to do it because of the restrictions
in place now.
· The cost of putting in a foundation to today's standards are far more to exceed the value of
actual square footage gained above. The home was built in 1961 and is not cost effective to
actually add on 700 square feet.
· Said he did not understand why you cannot conform the use regulations for all to live with, and
do a design properly that would be aesthetically decent to look at as well, since you allow the
large single story homes to be within the height restrictions; they went up to 4 and 6 pitch roof
which they actually could put a loft up there if they want but they have an open beam ceiling.
· Said he would like a second story and be able to stay in the school district for his children.
Com. Miller:
· Asked Mr. McGan'y, in his estimation, what formula or approach would work better that
would allow him to build what he needed.
· How much space is currently on the first floor?
Mr. McGarry:
· Said he had a Hunter design home; the ratio used was more of 60/40; not much more, but it is
more than one master bedroom or one small unusable space with a stairwell leading up.
· Currently have 1190 square feet on the first floor.
· There is an illegal patio room built by previous owners, and he would like to remove it and put
in a new kitchen and expand square footage on the first floor to gain a larger ratio on the
second floor.
· Said he would like to have 1200 square feet on the second floor.
Chair Saaclati:
· Asked Planning Commissioners to comment on second story.
Planning Commission Minutes 16 January 26, 2004
Com. Chen:
· Happy to see so many people participate; shows concern about the ordinance and appreciate
you input.
· With so much new input don't know what the decision is going to be; would like to digest the
input.
· Said she concurred most with the input from the Oct. 6, 2002 City Council meeting, what
initiated this whole review, is have the R1 accomplish the purpose of the R1, it is a question
that we should all ask ourselves and I believe Mr. Hughes suggested that we go back to the
record to see how many houses have been built since 1999 by using this new ordinance how
does that impact the neighbors as well as the home owners.
· Said the main message heard tonight can be summarized as "how can we address people's
private needs for larger space in the meantime without creating any negative impact to the
neighbors." Secondly, how can we refine and revise the R1 to make it suitable for the whole
city which does impact 10,000 homes in Cupertino, including yours and mine.
· Would like to see the survey and specific questions asked, going back to the purpose of the
original RI revision in 1999 and the application of the RI: How does that impact your home,
whether you are a homeowner or you are on the receiving end of the neighbors building up
next to you; Need staff recommendation on how long the survey would take; What kind of
questions to ask; We should all come back and have the input and the survey results organized
for further discussion.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Would like to hear from the public and get input; do we need to review it; do we need to
modify it; how can we improve the process?
· Said Mr. Crilli did a good job reaching out to the community through the media addressing
letters to past applicants.
· Want further outreach to the public to make sure all concerns are heard; how can we address
them and how can we improve them so that we can have a better process.
Com. Giefcr:
· Said it was interesting when the speakers were asked what was an acceptable ratio between
first and second floor, there were not a lot of finite answers; conceptually everyone knows
what it is they want and one of the things that would be helpful in terms of framing the concept
and understanding what precedents we might be setting; what we are looking at, separating
what one could do from what one should do in the future, is reviewing some of the existing
remodel jobs and try to understand what those milos are. Seven Springs is a good example of
large second floors; if we look at some examples of what these look like today, and really
visualize the impact we might be making in the future, it would be helpful for me as additional
input, looking at the existing home inventory.
· I think too, I appreciated several people who brought up hillside protection; doing what makes
sense; I heard a lot of people saying they really wanted to do what made sense and what was
right for the neighborhood.
Com. Miller:
· The RI ordinance developed in 1999 came as an outgrowth of concern over monster homes;
the ordinance controls that problem well; it doesn't allow that type of home in the
neighborhood.
· However, the ordinance was a best attempt to address a number of issues with that just being
one of them; it was a best efforts attempt to address the issues as they saw it; as time
progresses and we are coming into the fifth year since that was written, it is appropriate that we
Planning Commission Minutes 17 January 26, 2004
look at the data as suggested and look at how well it is working and make adjustments, and
that is the process we are about here.
Said he was encouraged that 20 people spoke, but the fact that there is more people here means
it is of interest to you and we need the feedback; we want to find out how well it is working
and fix the areas and would like to have more discussion among the Planning Commission to
see how we proceed to elicit the input; and want to encourage you if not tonight, send a letter
stating what you would like to see and what additional information you would like to provide.
Mark Roest, 10136 Camino Vista Drive:
· Interested in the idea of RI being little flexible in terms of business use of the home and the
reason for that is the state of the economy and the large number of people who end up
unemployed.
· Rather than having a blanket prohibition, having a thoughtful process perhaps a charette about
what is possible for encouraging people to do work at home; similar to the mixed use
developments that smart growth is encouraging; it would be a good step forward.
Com. Miller:
· Asked Mr. Roest to expand on what he is looking for that that is not available today.
Mr. Roest:
· Said he understood that one could not mn a business in their home in an R1 area. To have uses
that are compatible with the quiet and peace and cleanliness of a neighborhood would make
sense and only when someone is doing something that essentially creates nuisance should it be
required to go offsite, because it is very hard to survive in this economy and to have to go out
and get commercial space in addition to the space in the home.
· Said on his street, there are several homes that are straight up boxes with much more than 35%
floor area on the upper story. If people are going to 3,000 to 4,000 square foot homes, why
shouldn't the land be used effectively, rather than forcing two locations to operate a home and
business. The large firms are laying off and people are going to be in a position to find some
form of income.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said there was a home occupation ordinance on the website allowing operation of a home
business; called a home occupation, as long as you meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Fu-Huei Lin, 10636 Memman Road:
· Said when he purchased his house it was at high market, and because the seller had many
offers, he didn't have time to study a lot of factors.
Richard Denesha, 10394 Glenview Avenue:
· Have a problem with lot, 50 x 100, but has a I0 foot easement in the back because of power
lines.
· Could only put in a lap pool if a swim pool was desired; and if the desire was to build up,
would be similar to putting a cupola on top of the house.
· Suggested making a prototype of the house; find out what you need for the master bedroom,
bathroom and bedrooms; tonight nobody suggested anything like that, just said they wanted
more space.
· Find out what the setbacks are going to be; find out what kind of windows to the side and
back; there are the resources to do it.
Planning Commission Minutes 18 January 26, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· Said usually for a house, there is a set of plans, showing elevation of all four sides, plan view,
second roof plan. Asked Mr. Denesha if that was not sufficient in his opinion.
Mr. Denesha:
· Not in this case; the second floor ratio is too small to do anything; resulting in unattractive
houses. On Blaney there are three houses in a row; one is a monster home; another they tried
to add a second floor; and the third should be out in the mountains with a slanted roof on it
with skylights; doesn't fit into the area. The smaller one with the small second floor; if that
had been expanded out 5 feet on each side of the existing second floor room, it would still be
small but it would look a lot better and would give a lot more square footage inside.
· Said the requirement for sidewalks where there were none before was unreasonable.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Regarding sidewalks and light poles, said the City Council has already passed an ordinance
that you can petition the neighborhood. Asked staff to comment.
Mr. Piaseeki:
· There is a process where the neighborhood can petition the city, saying we don't want the
improvement, and get a percentage of their neighbors to concur with that, submit the petition
and talk with Glenn Goepfert in Public Works and he can explain the rules for reviewing that.
· If you do not have that exception by the Council in place, you are required and it is standard
practice to require major additions and new homes to provide curb, gutter, sidewalks and
sometimes street lights. The neighbors can sign a neighbor-wide petition, as it is not sometlfmg
exempted for one lot only. The staff looks at it to determ'me if there is a safe route to school, is
it a busy street, do we have to have walks only for public safety.
There is an evaluation process undertaken to bring the issue forward for City Council
consideration. There are some neighbors that do not have certain improvements. It is
understandable why some people seek that.
Hal Morrison, 10425 Morett/Drive:
· Concerned about the house behind his home; many people have expressed sentiment that they
want more space; but I live in a one story house in Ranch Rincunada, and I would prefer that
the neighbor directly behind would build a one story house as well for privacy issues in the
back yard.
· The house belYmd is a two story and will impact on privacy of his house, peering into his
backyard and his house, with a balcony; the plans have been approved.
· The restrictions that are in place in Cupertino do help existing homeowners in maintaining
certain value in their own house, and that value is privacy.
· Relative to notification process, he said there were notifications, some hearings, the architect's
plan was approved with some modifications.
Mr. Gilli:
· Noted the balcony was not part of the approved plan.
Chair Saadati:
· Relative to bringing the application back in two weeks, said he felt that two weeks is not
sufficient time to allow staff to be able to gather enough information.
Planning Commission Minutes 19 January 26, 2004
· At the study session it was mentioned to get some inforrnation from neighboring cities for
evaluation also; also would be good to get some information for some of the houses akeady
built to get an idea of what they are looking for; most of the people are asking for flexibility.
· Also need to look at the neighborhood that is pleasant, people enjoy walking on the street; not
sure if chang/ng the ratio will help to accomplish that.
· Main issue remains to get more input end orgenize the information and bring it back.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she recalled from the General Plan Task Force that there was some primary research done
by the city regarding house footprints, second stories. It was vague, something mentioned
early on end thought they may have some of that data already.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that he did not th'mk the data was available.
· Could generate examples of people who have gone through the process; staff has some of
those slides and we can get copies or at least outline building plens and show you what they
look like. We cen go back pre-ordinance and show you some of those build'rog plans with the
larger floor area ratios and that might help you get a sense and the public on a sense of what
are our acceptable numbers.
· Will provide neighboring city zones, examples of as-builts in the community, Seven Springs
Ranch; summary of the input we received tonight.
· Welcomed Commissioners to provide notes from meeting or send e-mails so that they receive
all the input.
· Said there was mention of a survey; staff would review it if the PlamYmg Commission decides
to go in that direction; it would be simple.
Chair Saadati:
· Added permeable surface; there are regulations relating to water seeping back into the ground.
There is so much build'rog going on and the regulations have changed end how are we going to
address that in the future because it has been en issue.
· People want to put pavers in front of their house, they are not permitted because the water must
seep back in the ground so the water table won't be impacted in the future.
· All the items discussed here in relation to second story ratio to first story, if the whole footprint
of the house is made smaller, what impact would it have on the environment.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff can bring back a summary of those rules and the applicability, or lack thereof, to existing
homes that are being remodeled. A Public Works staff member will explain that as the
program is fairly complex.
· The purpose tonight was to talk about what the issues are; if a survey is desired, the topics
would have to be fairly specific.
Com. Chen:
· Requested that staff provide for the next meeting a list of properties that was redeveloped or
built since the 1999 ordinence was in place and the neighbors who are impacted by this
particular property.
· Should ask how this project impacts residents in certain areas, end those cert~m areas should
be categorized into the four large purposes stated in the previous ordinence.
· Said it was her recommendation for the next meeting and perhaps allow three weeks for people
to respond to the survey.
Planning Commission Minutes 20 January 26, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said staff would bring something back to the Planffmg Commission and they can decide if they
want to modify it, and then meet in three weeks.
· The Planning Commission can decide what goes out to the block captains and the 2,000
notices.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Referred to the speaker who suggested a prototype, and asked staff if they could ascertain what
percentage would be needed to put a master bedroom plus two bedrooms upstairs.
Mr. G-illi:
· Said they did not have the information on what is the average size of a master bedroom; there
are some people saying they need to have 1200 square feet upstairs, there are some people who
have entire houses less than that. Staff needs direction on what size it should be.
Lisa Warren, 10279 Judy Avenue:
· Since consideration is being given to a survey, think it is important you not forget the need to
include homes that were remodeled or built within the last five years under county standards as
well, since there are areas in the city five years ago were county and those are the neighbors
and homeowners impacted a lot, trying to fight exactly what the discussion is about. If you
ignore those homes that were built and those neighbors living with those homes, you are
missing a big chunk of information because there is that overlap.
· In answer to the question from the speaker who said he wanted about 1600 square feet
downstairs and 1200 square feet upstffirs on that 6500 square foot lot, it is 43%, 57%.
Dave Russell, 22790 Mercedes Road:
· Appreciate the comment about the survey and trying to apply some appropriate methodology
to the survey; there are people who experienced developments and/or remodels in the zoning
regulations prior to 1999; there are other people that experienced that in the 2003 regulations;
there are other people like myself who have experienced home constructions and remodels that
were approved and started in the 1999 regulations, and then another set that were approved and
started in the subsequent regulations, the current ones.
· Need to have those people participate in the survey as well. I think we can actually see a
dramatic difference in the two types of housing styles that were approved on those, so I would
like to participate in that survey.
· There has been a lot of discussion about second stories and what percentage of first floor can
be built onto the second floor, either as a new construction or as a remodel.
· Said there was confusion about how to do the math around that and what size second story you
could actually get and what the 35% means as a second story. Asked that it be clarified and
have a matrix showing what the numbers mean.
· He questioned how participatory this process would be; it has been a valuable exercise tonight,
said he would like to see the survey happen and any regulations that happen that could
potentially dramatically impact the quality of life in Cupertino, should be participatory as
well.
Female speaker who spoke earlier:
· In your survey, I would like to make sure you include the homeowners that either remodeled or
rebuilt during the last five years, and make sure you ask the question that if they did not have
the 35% restriction on the second floor, how would they build their house, because I feel that
Planning Commission Minutes 21 January 26, 2004
most owners won't build that close to the property line if the ordinance were different and I
want to make sure those groups were included in your survey.
Believe that there should be limitations to the percentage that you can build on your property;
based on the overall footage, instead of setting the limitation between first and second floor.
· For a 3,000 square foot home, chosing to have 1500 square feet downstairs and 1500 square
feet upstairs would overall not appear as massive as having 2500 square feet on the first floor
and 500 square feet on the second floor.
· Suggested considering that when setting the percentages in the guidelines.
Com. Miller:
· Said he felt the survey was a good idea; the challenge of a survey is to be as complete and
inclusive as possible as we have heard comments on things that need to be added to the survey.
· The question remains of how much the city can expend in terms of resources in doing this.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Typically in surveys of this type you can go to a professional group who knows how to
structure these, and you are dealing with amateurs and we will do the best we can. We have to
keep it simple and to the point.
Unidentified male speaker:
· What you said about the one story, because a lot of people gave up on two stories because of
the impossible rules. Out of ten builders I knew before 1990 when the law was passed, one
more is left and I can only build one story houses, because anything that is below 5,000 square
feet is not worth trying to get a small head but a big body there
· If you are saying if you have a 5000 sq ft house, when you design the house, you will have a
small head on top with one bedroom and then a big body on the first floor, so everybody has
given up and gone to one story house.
· You have to have a 10,000 square foot house to get a reasonable second story. Anything
below that will look unattractive and have a small head with a big body.
Unidentified male speaker:
· Said he objected to the last gentleman speaker; has a home that is 2100 sq ft and has three
bedrooms upstairs, good size master bedroom, 2 baths and doesn't look like a box, it looks like
a very good home. My suggestion for the Planning Commission is to drive down Rainbow
Drive between Stelling and DeAnza Boulevard and look at the monster home that is there; that
group of people went into orbit and got it stopped; that will tell you why the ordinance was
generated; then the other people live in Rancho Rineonada and look at what happened to those
homes when they had the specifications that San Jose had which some people here would like
to re4mplement; just look at it, you don't have to build mo&Is.
Ms. Hampton, (spoke previously):
· Said there was never any si&walks since the neighborhood was started in 1955. There was a
comment about children being safe; said she raised children in the neighborhood with no
sidewalks, no incidents, no problems with safety, which questions the reasonableness of the
guidelines.
· What is the actual real history of the neighborhood and do we have to make homeowners every
single time a person wants to put a remodel in the neighborhood, petition the neighborhood
again to find out if it is ok not to put a sidewalk in front of their house.
· it wastes time, wastes their time building their home and it repeats the same thing that was
settled in the neighborhood years ago, that it did not need sidewalks.
Planning Commission Minutes. 22 January 26, 2004
Said she lived on the comer of Mann Drive, on Oakview Lane, for 30 years and cannot
understand why the sidewalk issue keeps returning. People have to repeatedly do petitions;
there is no safety problem with the children in the neighborhood and the sidewalks.
Om Kalagia, 10164 Adfiana:
· Agree with speaker about sidewalks, or any other role that you want to implement, you should
know first that the neighbors or the community around that want that particular thing,
otherwise it is just implementing on people what they don't want and that is not what we
desire when we purchase the property.
· If the whole surrounding area agrees to a certain law and regulation, you should respect that
and abide by that.
· Different people have different views on what is desirable and what is not desirable; should
have reasonable regulations like Palo Alto.
· People can't remodel because they feel too restricted.
· Have reasonable regulations which makes people's life easier, not more difficult.
Unidentified male speaker, (spoke previously):
· Questioned if the ordinance could entertain something if he were to gain additional square
footage on the second story and was willing to give up some more side setback as far as the
front and back setback so that the privacy of his neighbors is more protected.
Art Daveh, 22356 Hartman Drive:
· Real estate developer and builder.
· Said his dream was to build the city so that other people could have the benefit of the great
city; unfortunately last three or four years the City of Cupertino's roles and regulations
regarding the second story have become tougher; the timeframe for approval of a single home
exceedingly too long for approval.
· It has been four years since he has built anything in the Cupertino.
· A lot of his friends that moved into the city with the same dream to build a beautiful city that
can meet all neighbor's standards, bring in revenue for our schools, and other forms of
revenue, felt betrayed by the Planning Commission in terms of giving the considerations.
· They have all moved to neighboring San Jose and have been building over there; adding to
their school taxes and their schools are improving.
· Due consideration has to be given to this matter that eventually they can return back what
made the City of Cupertino great, having sensible developmental plans, growth in revenue,
growth in housing, affordable and better housing for all.
Carola Elliott, 10128 Lebanon Drive:
· Remodeled her home by adding on 25% because by doing did not have to put in curb and
· There are no curbs and gutters on the whole street; the residents don't want them.
· Said she tried to add on more this time because she has a 10,000 square foot lot; does not want
to add on a second story.
· Suggested that if one is allowed to add 45% for the first story, why not make the size of the
second story also a percentage of the lot size, and not just of the first story.
Com. Chen:
· Asked Mr. Devah to elaborate on his comments about too many roles and regulations, and it
takes too long to review, and he felt betrayed by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 23 January 26, 2004
Mr. Devah:
· Said there were too many rules and regulations, just built two houses in San Jose; bought the
land in October and was building the house in December.
· Said he paid $19,000 for city fees and school tax was about the same as Cupertino, but other
city fees were $19,000. Also receive $5,000 back from the $19,000 fee.
· Same size house in the City of Cupertino, those fees were almost $62,000.
· Said his recommendation to the Planning Commission would be to have fees more in line with
the surrounding cities. Builders pass costs down to the homeowners; the houses are no longer
affordable in the City of Cupertino.
· Said that Cupertino is 400% and sometimes $600% more expensive, and when discrepancies
are that great, cannot build in Cupertino as it is not feasible.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application
MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 for two weeks to review the survey questions.
(Vote: 5-0-0).
OLD BUSINESS: Covered earlier in meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF Tm~, PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held.
Housing Commission: No meeting held.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
· Com. Miller reported that the Teen Center was open.
· Some discussion of the 44 of July event.
· Discussion of budget cuts.
· Housing Chairman reported a nexus study to begin; reviewing bids for study on low income
housing.
· Library needs funding to continue additional service levels.
· Mayor stressed the importance of voting for Measure B.
· Bicycle Commission reported on progress of bridge over Mary Avenue.
· New Senior Commission formed; have not had first meeting yet.
Schedule for Mayors Breakfast:
· 7 a.m. on February 174 at Hobees; Chair Saadati is scheduled to attend; Com. Miller will be
alternate if Chair Saadati is unable to attend.
REPORT OF TItE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Piasecki:
· State of the City address February 114 at Quinlan Community Center.
· City Council has set two days for joint study sessions with the Planning Commission to hear
the General Plan Task Force advise the City Council and Planning Commission on what their
recommendations are; set for March 1, 5 to 6 p.m., and March 2 from 3 to 6 p.m. The City
Council has a date to talk about the General Plan.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. FEBRUARY 9, 2004 MONDAY
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and
the following proceedings were had to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Staff present:
Community Development Director
City Planner
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Assistant City Attorney
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
· Chairperson Saadati noted receipt of an e-mail relative to the R1 ordinance.
POSTPONEMENTSfREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
M-2003-08
Todd Lee/
Marketplace
Use permit modification (16-U-76) to
permit new food services and restaurants
adjacent to the gated portion of the rear
corridor through a use permit process.
Property located at 19770 Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Planning Commission decision
decision final unless appealed. Continued from
Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2004.
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting
of February 23, 2004.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen to postpone Application
M-2003-08 to the February 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 9, 2004
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
The agenda was moved to Item 3.
PUBLIC HEARENG:
I. TR-2003-09
Joe Byrne
Tree removal permit for removal of more
than 25% of a Coast Live Oak specimen
Tree. Property located at 22762 Alcade
Road. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows:
* Application is for a retroactive permit for tree removal of more than 25% of a Coast Live Oak
specimen tree without a tree removal permit.
· Arborist report recommends pruning of the tree twice by a certified arborist to balance the
canopy, and sprayed with insecticide to prevent decay of the trunk.
The applicant didnotspeak.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input; no one was present who wished to speak on the
application.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Chen to approve Application
TR-2003-09 (Vote: 5-0-0)
The agenda was moved back to Item 2.
MCA-2003-02,
EA-2003-19
City of Cupertino
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28
and related chapters affecting single-family
residential development in the R1 zoning
District. Property location citywide.
Tentative City Council date: unscheduled.
Continued from Planning Commission
meeting of January 26, 2004.
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Noted receipt of the e-mail relating to the survey questions.
· Reviewed the four surveys to be used as outlined on page 1 of the staff report.
· Recommendation is to review the surveys, modify them if necessary.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Brought up a concern that when they talked about it at the last meeting, the study session, them
was consensus that they wanted to listen to thc public and hear all concerns; and felt they had a
good process starting.
· Said he at first thought the survey was a good idea but because of the budget crisis, and having
it done in-house, he felt that public hearings covering the six different issues would be more
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 9, 2004
appropriate. Mr. Gilli sent mail out to builders and residents, and they have already received
e-mails and letters back, and he said he was not convinced that the survey would help more.
Said he had concerns regarding some of these questions, and want feedback from his
colleagues.
Com. Miller:
· Have similar concerns; and said it appears there was some confusion as to exactly how the
questions should be tailored.
· I think that what we are about here is actually getting into details of the ordinance and looking
at specific areas that need improvements or changes and we need information that is more
detailed than the general nature of the questions that are currently in here.
· Said he felt if the survey was worth doing, it should be done right, by a consultant; and if the
funds are not available, it shouldn't be done.
· Said they should also have a reasonable process in place as a substitute.
Com. Chen:
· ~'he Planning Commission made a decision to do the survey because they felt the survey
covered a much broader base of customers and could get more input from the residents on how
they feel about R1, not just the specifics in R1.
· Said it was the joint decision that they wanted to hear what people have to say about R1 in
general and how it meets the purpose, that was originally set up and the purpose is subject to
review and revisions also potentially. That is why staff was given direction to develop the
survey.
· Agreed with Com. Miller that staff doesn't do surveys for a living so there is some potential
area for confusion and further discussion.
· Want to explore the possibility of doing the surveys.
Com. Giefer:
· Agreed with Com. Chen that this would allow the opportunity to get more information from
portions of the public who have been affected by the R1 ordinance. Anything that can be
done to reach out to all of the people who have been affected by this, provides better data.
· Said it was valuable to get information from the public; however, there was no statistical data
to fall back on, and the survey would provide hard data to move forward upon and share with
others.
· Agreed that the survey presented needs more work.
Chair Saadati:
· Also think that the survey will possibly get more people involved and be able to get more
input, not everyone is going to come to the meetings to give information.
· The survey needs to be simplified and having three different formats, it may be a little bit more
confusing when the results come in.
· Said it was discussed at study session, and he envisioned a one page survey that encourages
people to fill it out; too many sheets may not be as successful.
· Agreed that the survey would provide help. Said he was involved before when specialists were
not available. They looked at other surveys, reformatted it, electronically forwarded it to
people and they downloaded it, and completed it. It would be a worthwhile effort, and to
reduce the cost as much as possible, electronically is possible, put it on the website and in the
newspaper.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 9, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Main concern is second story, should it be bigger, should it remain the same; heard about
design guideline reviews, should we have them; concerns about story poles, sidewalks, and
light poles.
· Don't want to open a Pandora's box, and review the entire ordinance again; just review the six
items in Mr. Gilli's letter.
· The survey should be narrowed down to one page of questions vs. a more complicated system.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested that after hearing from the public, if the Planning Commission wants to explore a
single page, one survey format, what would that look like given the questions that we have
here; how would you structure them if you wanted to do that and you can decide whether it
works for you or not.
Com. Miller:
· If we are going to go to one page, if we had more of an open format, instead of a closed
format, that is the only way I can see that we can allow people to truly express what they feel;
if you restrict them to yes or no, or one of three choices, you are not really eliciting how they
really feel about the subject.
· The point of the survey is to get input from people who had not had a chance to speak yet. We
don't know what that input is, so it is hard to structure questions.
· A decision has to be made on what kind of information to get back, which has not been done
thoroughly at this point.
Com. Giefer:
· Listening to discussion, priorities have been noted, and some of the priorities and the recurring
themes that are coming up for all of us and it seems to me that some of the things if we can
agree on what our priorities are on what information we want to get, the questions fall out of
those priorities, and at that point it would be fairly simple to devise a non biased survey that
would apply to the people that were pre-1999, post 1999 permits, homeowners and neighbors,
and I don't know if we also want to ask for input from builders or not. We had several in the
audience last time.
· Just jotting down a few things the ones that are coming up are story poles, yes or no; design
review process; the 45% ratio between home and lot size; and privacy. As we talk and hear
from the public, we can continue to just prioritize a list of what it is coming up as our highest
priorities. Then I think we can devise and write a questionnaire that will provide us the data to
help us make better decisions.
Com. Chen:
· Said she supported Com. Giefer; setting up priorities so as not to go out of the range as Vice
Chair Wong said that was del'reed in the beginning.
Com. Miller:
· Agreed to move forward.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Clarified that what he was referring to as 35% to the second floor to first floor area ratio; the
City Council said that we could not go beyond 45%.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 9, 2004
Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road:
· We are not experts on surveys.
· If looking for statistics, you cannot allow comments at random, you will not get statistics out
of comments; you must give a series of questions.
· The generality of the questions are almost look at all that happened in 1999; and there should
be much more specific questions if what you want to do is say let's look at small changes to
what is now in R1 as opposed to completely re-evaluate what happened in 1999.
· Along that line, believe 45% was before 1999; it goes back to the change in about 1989, we
were building our house at that time. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you try doing that other
than perhaps say, that does someone want to argue for larger on very small lots. If you open
up more than 45% on all lots there will be so much opinion that you will never know what is
coming up.
Leslie Bumelli, resident:
· Said his opinion would likely be different as he was involved in past efforts and knew a lot of
the history of the 1-1/2 years.
· You don't want to have it broad, but want to have enough questions that cover it; many of
these items and your 35% and privacy were fairly critical.
· Most surveys have a place for comment; otherwise people feel like the commissioners
determine that this is all they are going to get and in the public meeting it will be very
expansive.
Yiton Yah, 20846 Garden Gate Drive:
· Said that there were a lot of negative questions, without being neutralized by positive
questions.
· We should try to construct a code that tries to be optimized fairly.
Thanh Nguyen, 10657 Randy Lane:
· Participated in one of the surveys done for Lynwood Acres; there were unfair and biased
questions and after the survey was done, the result was up to interpretation.
· Unless it is chosen to do the survey for the whole city, or a segment of the population here, it
should be done tight because you will get the wrong result and depending on who participates,
in the survey.
· The survey was an unpleasant experience.
· Put a comment field in the survey with an option to write comments in.
Chair Saadati closed the public hearing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said there were no funds to hire an outside survey company.
· Staff envisioned that the questions would be simple and relatively generic so that you would
get something out of it as commissioners; it may not be perfect; it may not be something you
can map on a sign curve, but it was meant to help you arrive at a decision. The simpler and
more genetic you keep it, the better.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Agreed that it must be simple and genetic if moving forward.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 9, 2004
· Regarding staff involvement, he said he did not want to put staff in the middle, similar to the
situation in the General Plan review where a consultant was not hired.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The surveys will not supplant the public hearing process.
· If it helps you do your jobs, then maybe you would want to structure what the questions would
be like and then decide whether that is good, bad or indifferent or whether the surveys we have
come up with are workable; if they are not, change them, and if at the end you don't like them,
toss them. We can handle sending them out, receiving them back, and collating any of the
quantifiable information and any of the comments will go to you purely as comments; we have
done that before with community congresses and can do it again.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked that staff start collating the emails and letters received already, and also to give the
information to the whole commission regarding the R1 process in neighboring cities such as
Campbell, San Jose, and Los Gatos.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said he understood that the purpose of the meeting was to present survey options and that has
been presented. The other information will be presented at later meetings.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said that if they are to move forward, he concurred with Com. Giefer that as a commission
they should decide which topics are most important.
· Said most comments said to look into the second to first floor area ratio, design review
guidelines, privacy mitigation; noticing; story poles; and sidewalks curbs and street lights.
Chair Saadati:
· Is there any way to consolidate the surveys into one. Comment on pros and cons.
Mr. Gilli:
· If the commission wants to use one survey, use Exhibit A or something similar. If you want to
go beyond that and get more specific information about builders, then you would use Exhibits
B and C; for information about neighbors or builders, you would use Exhibit D. They are
separate surveys; you could use one of them, all of them, or none of them.
Comments about the surveys:
· Relative to structure of questions, Com. Miller said that he did not favor tree/false questions
because nothing is black and white; typically a survey is to elicit a level or interest or like or
dislike about something; surveys typically had 5 or 7 choices; gives a better feel for the level
of response you are receiving; true/false gives a false reading.
· Vice Chair Wong said he agreed that flexibility was needed in the questions; tree/false
questions; everything is not black and white.
· Com. Chen said a decision should be made which survey to work on; suggested using Exhibit
A and provide specific comments.
· Chair Saadati said based on what was heard, go with Exhibit A include all five or six items
discussed.
· Com. Miller noted in staff's original list there was also setbacks and heights and design
review.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 9, 2004
Mr. Piasecki summarized the options:
· Do you like the idea of one survey; would you rather have the speedometer scale, strongly
agree, strongly disagree, format because we started with that and found it to be cumbersome,
but some of the questions we can re-introduce that, we could just briefly go and say yes, that
question is good, go through the exhibits, this one doesn't work; the me/false and get general
agreement on that; could have a couple of people with marketing background sit down with
two of the commissioners and work through sample questions. We could come back in a
couple of weeks to see if we have something that works. Certainly one survey format is better
from our standpoint; it probably won't give you the high level of detail about nuances of the
orcFmance, or perceptions that people who went through it, but if that works for you, it works
for us.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Suggested sending everything back to staff for their review on what was said tonight, including
public comments; possibly have a study session to look over the questions and see if that is the
direction the Planning Comm/ssion wants to go, instead of going back and forth.
· There is general consensus that these aren't the questions we want in Exhibit A and felt the key
points in Mr. Gilli's letter were more suitable.
Chair Saadati:
· Suggested listing the item, to get people's reaction from 1 to 10, and marking as far as where
they feel they stand on those items; which will move away from the true/false approach that is
included in some of this.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If the Cupertino Scene is the mechanism to get the survey out, you would have to wait until
April to get the results back.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was go move forward with a single survey.
Com. Miller:
· Said he liked Com. Giefer's suggestion about sending out surveys without waiting for the
Cupertino Scene. He said the people whose opinions he valued the most are those who have
built and the neighbors of those who have built; they have direct experience and they can
address specific issues. Other people may have comments but they are not in my view as
relevant in looking at how a specific ordinance has been doing over time, if they haven't had
direct experience with it.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There will be separate mailings that go directly to people's homes, developers or neighbors
and when the Scene article goes out it will go out separately to everybody and then you will
have the feedback. You will have to wait a little longer for the Scene feedback then you will
for the more targeted feedback from the builders and neighbors.
· Cautioned that they would need to work through the process and come up with something;
something like a story pole question, is probably going to be difficult for a generic Cupertino
Scene type survey; a lot of people are not going to know what a story pole is.
· Said the City Council has a separate set of policies on sidewalks, curbs and streetlights and
wasn't one of the things they authorized the Planff~ng Commission to study. He cautioned
about going in that direction as they already have a policy that allows neighbors to petition for
different standards.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 9, 2004
· Clarified that the Planning Commission is directing staff to sit down with Coms. Chefer and
Miller to work on a single survey format that would be generic that can be sent out to all the
groups and try to get as much information as possible.
· Staff will work with them on the final questions and return to the Planning Commission in two
weeks.
Com. Chen:
· Said Mr. Gilli was correct; they have a main purpose and have these rules to support these
purposes; now they are commenting on the rules. We try to prioritize the rules that we would
like to comment on; that is what the survey is about, so we either go into the specifics such as
the setbacks, or we go into the generic, the purpose; it is the rules to support the purpose and it
doesn't matter how it is written.
· The message needs to be clear in the beginning paragraph that we are designing this for this
purpose. The general policy is to encourage remodels, a new design, which is really important
for a city, we need to bring the city up to date. When people are interested in providing private
money, investing their money in their homes, we should encourage that. That message should
be important; should be highlighted in the beginning paragraph as well. Then we start asking
questions, and if it is only one survey we need to qualify this person; are you a builder, are you
a person who has done remodeling, and then we start going into detail questions that provide
us with information we want to know to make decisions on those rules.
She said this was how she envisioned the survey and said it was important to give more
specifics to everybody as to what we believe are the fight questions to meet all the purpose.
The priorities for the survey were sommarized:
· Second story to first story ratios
· Privacy
· Design review process
· Story poles
· Sidewalk and curb
· Massing
· Architectural Appeal
· Setbacks
· Noticing
Chair Saadati:
· In some neighboring cities they do focus on architecture more than mass and bulk because the
outcome should be pleasing to the eye; that is worthwhile in putting in a survey
Com. Miller:
· Said beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and it's opening up a can of worms if you start
talking about architectural appeal.
Mr. Chili:
· Said that Larry Cannon reviewed most architectural designs; however, he is not looking at
architectural quality, but more of other ways to reduce the mass and bulk of the house; so he is
not really looking at architectural appeal as much.
Planning Comm/ssion Minutes 9 February 9, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that cities that do the architectural review you are referring to focus a lot on the basics of
architectural review like symmetry, balance, alignment. They don't necessarily dictate that it
shall be a particular architectural style but there are some fundamentals of architecture, that
some of your average building designers and some of your poorer architects and certainly
people who design their own homes really don't have a concept of.
Chair Saadati:
· In the past staff has recommended material changes and roofing materials, to be compatible
with the neighborhoods.
Mr. Gilli:
· There have been occasions where we have made recommendations about exterior wall
materials; I don't believe we frequently talk about roof materials, but we have talked about
issues like alignment, symmetry, as Mr. Piasecki mentioned.
Chair Saadati:
· Need to prioritize the items for the survey, discuss these items, to see which will stay and
which will go away.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Massing is already written in the 1999 ordinance that we want to avoid mass and bulk.
Remove things from the list before it gets too large.
· Arehitecttwal appeal, I agree with the chair and Com. Miller that it's in the eye of the beholder
and it goes back to the six items Mr. Gilli included in his letter, we should concentrate on the
survey.
Chair Saadati Summarized:
· Second story to first story ratio
· Privacy
· Design review process
· Height
· Setbacks
· Noticing
Com. Giefer:
Recommend that we do get feedback on story poles, because I believe that is part of noticing
that there is something happening; either we include it as noticing or we ask something
specifically about story poles explaining what they are. Com. Miller said he agreed.
Com. Miller and Com. Giefer will meet to further define the survey and bring it back in two weeks.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
· No meeting held; next meeting Wed. February 11th.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 9, 2004
Housing Commission:
· No meeting held; next meeting Thursday, February 12t~.
Mayor's Monthly Breakfast:
· Next meeting is scheduled for November 17th, 2004. Chair Saadafi will attend the breakfast.
REPORT OF Tl:l~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
March 1, 5 p.m., and March 2 at 3 p.m. are Joint Study sessions to hear the report out fi'om the
General Plan Task Force and then questions, comments fi'om the public and council and
perhaps direction fi'om the City Council on how they want to fi'amc the public review
document that is going to be going out for the General Plan. They may need a third meeting if
they decide to provide direction that requires some additional work on staff's part.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Requested the list of Mayor's breakfast meetings; and the new positions of each of the
commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeting at 6:45 p.m. on February 23, 2004.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Steve Piasecki, Director of Commnnity Development
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: MCA-2003-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: City-wide
Agenda Date: February 23, 2004
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related
Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the R1 Zoning District
(Review survey questions for the purpose of collecting public input for the Planning
Commission's review of the R1 Ordinance).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the forthcoming survey and
modify the form and content to satisfy the Commission objectives.
BACKGROUND ~.
On January 26, 2004, the Planning Commission dixected staff to formulate sample
survey questions that were based on the purpose statement of the R1 Ordinance. At.
the February 9, 2004 meeting, the Commission chose to pursue more specific questions.
DISCUSSION '~
Survey
Commissioners Miller and Giefer volunteered to work on formulating survey t~
questions. These are not available at this time, but will be distributed to the .
Commissioners prior to the Monday meeting.
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmentally__
Attachments:
Staff Report from February 9, 2004 meeting
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application; MCA-2003-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: City-wide
Agenda Date: February 9, 2004
Application Summary: Review survey questions for the purpose of collecting public
input for the Planning Commission's review of the RI Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the four attached draft
surveys and modify the forms and content to satisfy the Commission objectives.
BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2004, the Planning Commission directed staff to formulate sample
survey questions that were based on the purpose statement of the R1 Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Survey
Based on the Planning Commission direction, staff recommends the following strategy:
1. Publish general questions on a postcard format in the Cupertino Scene. (Exhibit
A).
2. Send surveys to about 340 properties that received building permits (without
public hearings) for additions or new homes after January 2001. These
questions will ask more specific questions about their experience. (Exhibit B).
3. Send surveys to about 60 properties that received approval at a public hearing
for additions or new homes. (Exhibit C).
4. Send surveys to about 1,600 neighbors of the properties surveyed in #2 and #3.
(Exhibit D).
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Attachments:
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner/~
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~r~~
Exhibit A: Sample Survey for the Cupertino Scene
Exhibit B: Sample Survey for Recent Builders
Exhibit C: Sample Survey for Recent Builders (with Public Hearings)
Exhibit D: Sample Survey for Neighbors of Recent Builders
EXHIBIT A
Sample Survey for the Cupertino Scene
In the late 1990's, Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story
homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the R1 zoning
ordinance to limit the size of two-story development. The purpose of the new rules was
to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to
reinforce the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods. The Planning
Commission is reviewing the R1 regulations and wants your opinion about how the
rules are working.
Right before the new rules took effect, about fifty building permits were received for
new homes. These homes did not have to meet the new rules. Most of these were built
between 1999 and 2001. New construction built after January 2002 had to meet the new
rules.
* Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-way.
Therefore, R1 regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights.
1. Generally, new single-family residential additions and/or new homes built within
the past two years that I have seen are: (circle one)
A. Compatible with surrounding homes
B. Not compatible with surrounding homes
C. No opinion
2. Based on the single-family residential construction I have seen in the past two years,
if my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned about: (circle all
that apply)
A. Privacy intrusion from second-stories
B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes
C. Building too close to the fence
D. Tall building heights
E. Visual mass of second-stories
F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their
homes
G. No opinion
All additions and new homes require building permits and must conform to the RI
regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood
notification.
3. What is your opinion on the level of public review of new single-family
development?
A. Too much public review
B. More public review is necessary
C. No change is necessary
D. No opinion
4. What is your overall opinion of the City's RI regulations? A. Too restrictive
B. Make it more restrictive
C. No change is necessary
D. No opinion
As part of public review, City's such as Los Altos, Saratoga and Los Gatos focus on the
architectural design of additions and new homes to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
Cupertino's review process focuses on mass and bulk compatibility, not architectural
compatibility.
5. Cupertino's public review process should focus on? A. Mass and bulk compatibility only (no change)
B. Architectural compatibility only
C. Architectural and mass and bulk compatibility
D. No opinion
Overall Comments:
Please enter your address below:
Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one
survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific
addresses will not be published with the survey results.
EXHIBIT B
SampIe Survey for Recent Builders
In the late 1990's, Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story
homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the R1 zoning
ordinance to limit the size of two-story development. The purpose of the new rules was
to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to
reinforce the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods.
According to City records, this property received a building permit for an addition or a
new house between 2001 and 2004. The Planning Commission is reviewing the R1
regulations and wants your opinion about how the rules are working from your
perspective.
* Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-way.
Therefore, R1 regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights.
My project was: (circle one) A. A single-story addition
B. A second-story addition
C. A new single-story house
D. A new two-story house
2. The size of my new house is (include the garage area): (circle one) A. 0 - 1,000 sq. ft.
B. 1,000 - 2,000 sq. ft.
C. 2,000 - 3,000 sq. ft.
D. 3,000 - 4,000 sq. ft.
E. 4,000 - 5,000 sq. ft.
F. 5,000 sq. ft or more
Before applying for a building permit, I talked to my neighbors about my project.
(circle one)
A. True
B. False
C. Decline to answer
My architectural plans were prepared by: (circle one) A. Myself
B. Contractor
C. Home designer
D. Licensed Architect
E. Other (please specify profession)
F. Decline to answer
The City's regulations are effective in encouraging additions and new homes that
are compatible with the neighborhood. (circle one)
A. True
B. False
C. No opinion
6. If my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned about: (circle all
that apply)
A. Privacy intrusion from second-stories
B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes
C. Building too close to the fence
D. Tall building heights
E. Visual mass of second-stories
F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their
homes
G. No opinion
All additions and new homes require building permits and must conform to the RI
regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood
notification. Your project did not require additional review.
o
What is your overall opinion of the City's single-family residential regulations?
(circle one)
A. Too restrictive
B. Make it more restrictive
C. No change is necessary
D. No opinion
o
I would have built a second-story if the regulations were not as restrictive. (circle
one)
A. True
B. False
C. Decline to answer
The City limits floor area to 45% of the net lot size but basements are not counted as
floor area. Basements can provide additional living area without impacting neighbors.
9. What are your thoughts about basements: (circle all that apply) A. I like them
B. I would have considered a basement if I knew it was allowed
C. It was too expensive for me to consider
D. I do not like the idea of basements in houses
E. Other (please specify)
Overall Comments:
Please enter your address below:
Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one
survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific
addresses will not be published with the survey results.
EXHIBIT C
Sample Survey for Recent Builders (with Public Hearings)
In the late 1990% Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story
homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the RI zoning
ordinance to limit the size of two-story development. The purpose of the new rules was
to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to
reinforce the Iow-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods.
According to City records, this property received a special permit or exception from the
City through a public hearing process. The Planning Commission is reviewing the R1
regulations and wants your opinion about how the rules are working from your
perspective.
* Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-way.
Therefore, R1 regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights.
1. My project was: (circle one) A. A single-story addition
B. A second-story addition
C. A new single-story house
D. A new two-story house
2. The size of my new house is (include the garage area): (circle one) A. 0 - 1,000 sq. ft.
B. 1,000 - 2,000 sq. ft.
C. 2,000 - 3,000 sq. ft.
D. 3,000 - 4,000 sq. ft.
E. 4,000 - 5,000 sq. ft.
F. 5,000 sq. ft or more
Before applying for permits, I talked to my neighbors about my project. (circle one) A. True
B. False
C. Decline to answer
o
My architectural plans were prepared by: (circle one) A. Myself
B. Contractor
C. Home designer
D. Licensed Architect
E. Other (please specify profession)
F. Decline to answer
If my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned about: (circle all
that apply)
A. Privacy intrusion from second-stories
B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes
C. Building too close to the fence
D. Tall building heights
E. Visual mass of second-stories
F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their
homes
G. No opinion
The City's regulations are effective in encouraging additions and new homes that
are compatible with the neighborhood. (circle one)
A. True
B. False
C. No opinion
7. What is your overall opinion of the City's RI regulations? (circle one) A. Too restrictive
B. Make it more restrictive
C. No change is necessary ·
D. No opinion
The City l'nnits floor area to 45% of the net lot size but basements are not counted as
floor area. Basements can provide additional living area without impacting neighbors.
8. What are your thoughts about basements: (circle all that apply) A. I like them
B. I would have considered a basement if I knew it was allowed
C. It was too expensive for me to consider
D. I do not like the idea of basements in houses
E. Other (please specify)
All additions and new homes require building permits and must conform to the RI
regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood
notification. Your project did require additional review.
The process for getting Planning approval for my project was: (circle all that apply) A. Too long of a process
B. Significantly changed my design
C. Acceptable
D. Other (please specify)
In February of 2003, the Planning Commission recommended a process change that
design review applications would be decided by City staff. Neighborhood input would
still be involved, but a formal hearing would be avoided, which would reduce the fee
for the permit. Appeals would be heard by the Design Review Committee.
10. I think this change would be: (circle all that apply) A. Good: this would have sped up the process
B. Bad: I wanted to go to the public hearing
C. Bad: This would give too much authority to City staff
D. Decline to answer
E. Other (please specify)
Overall Comments:
Please enter your address below:
Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one
survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific
addresses will not be published with the survey results.
EXHIBIT D
Sample Srtrvey for Neighbors of Recent Builders
In the late 1990's, Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story
homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the R1 zoning
ordinance to limit the size of two-story development. The purpose of the new rules was
to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to
reirfforce the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods.
According to City records, your property is adjacent to a site that received a building
permit for an addition or new home between 2001 and 2004. The Planning Commission
is reviewing the R1 regulations and wants your opinion about how the rules are
working from your perspective.
* Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-way.
Therefore, R1 regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights.
1. My neighbor's project was: (circle one) A. A single-story addition
B. A second-story addition
C. A new single-story house
D. A new two-story house
E. Don't know
o
In your opinion, what factors affect whether a neighbor's project is "compatible"
with the neighborhood?
A. Size of living area
B. Wall heights
C. Number of stories
D. Roof design (hip, gable, flat)
E. Window sizes
F. Setback from property line
G. Building materials
H. Color
I. Garage
J. Landscaping
K. Porches/Entry features
L. Other(s) (please specify)
3. Based on your definition of compatible, my neighbor's project is: (circle one) A. Compatible with the neighborhood
B. Not compatible with the neighborhood
4. The size of your neighbor's addition or new house is: (circle one) A. Too big for the neighborhood
B. Consistent with the neighborhood
C. Too small for the neighborhood
D. No opinion
Before applying for permits, did your neighbor talk to you about their project?
(circle one)
A. Yes
B. No
C. Don't know
If another one of my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned
about: (circle all that apply)
A. Privacy intrusion from second-stories
B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes
C. Building too close to the fence
D. Tall building heights
E. Visual mass of second-stories
F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their
homes
G. No opinion
7. The City's regulations are effective in encouraging additions and new homes that
are compatible with the neighborhood. (circle one)
A. True
B. False
C. No opinion
8. Do you believe that your neighbor's project has changed your quality of life? (circle
one)
A. Yes, it is beF~er now
B. No, it is worse now
C. No change
If you answered (B) in question 8, please answer the following, otherwise skip to
question 10
9. What aspects of your neighbor's project negatively affected your quality of life?
(circle all that apply)
A. Too close to the fence
B. Too tall
C. Too big
D. Windows looking into my yard
E. Color
F. Materials
G. Lack of landscaping
10. What is your overall opinion of the City's R1 regulations? (circle one) A. Too restrictive
B. Make it more restrictive
C. No change is necessary
D. No opinion
The City limits floor area to 45% of the net lot size but basements are not counted as
floor area. Basements can provide additional living area without impacting neighbors.
11. What are your thoughts about basements: (circle all that apply) A. I like them
B. I do not like the idea of basements in houses
C. Other (please specify)
All additions and new homes require building permits and must conform to the RI
regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood
notification. Your neighbor's project did not require additional review.
12. What is your opinion on the level of public review of new single-family
development? (circle one)
A. Too much public review
B. Not enough public review
C. Acceptable
D. Other (please specify)
In February of 2003, the Planning Commission recommended a process change that
design review applications would be decided by City staff. All two-story projects
would be reviewed. Neighborhood input would still be involved, but a formal hearing
would be avoided, which would reduce the fee for the permit. Appeals would be heard
by the Design Review Committee.
13. I think this change would be: (circle all that apply) A. Good: this would speed up the process for my neighbors while still allowing
me to review and comment on the plans
B. Bad: I wanted to go to a public hearing
C. Bad: This would give too much authority to City staff
D. Decline to answer
E. Other (please specify)
Overall Comments:
Please enter your address below:
Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one
survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific
addresses will not be published with the survey results.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Agenda Date: February 23, 2004
Application Summary:
Planning Commission work program for 2004, including discussion of proposed
amendments to the parking ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Review the 2004 Work Program and make any changes if needed. This
work program will be forwarded to the City Council for its approval.
2. Provide direction on the parking ordinance amendments.
BACKGROUND:
Until the last two years, the Planning Commission and City Council approved an
annual planning work program. The approval was suspended for the last two
years due to the workload of the General Plan. The General Plan may be
approved this summer, so it is appropriate to consider this year's work program.
Consideration of revisions to the parking ordinances was approved several years
ago through the work program process; work on this project did not begin until
this year. Instead of holding a public hearing on the proposed changes as
originally scheduled, staff recommends that the changes first should be
discussed by the Planning Commission, as described below.
DISCUSSION:
2004 Work Program
The proposed Work Program is enclosed. It is based, for the most part, on
adopted City Council goals. Additional projects are those initiated by staff and
private developers.
To summarize the main projects:
City Council Goals
· General Plan: Streetscape plan for Crossroads, policies to promote economic
development including transportation implications, adoption of General Plan
· Process Vallco use permit
· Complete Monta Vista annexation
Planning Projects
· R1 Ordinance Review
· Parking Ordinance Review
· Monta Vista Neighborhood Planning Project
2
· Fence Ordirmnce Review
· Wireless Master Plan ordinance
Private Projects
· Oaks
· Adobe Inn
· Possible mixed use on "Barry Swenson" property
· Vallco (as mentioned in Council Goals section)
The Planning Commission may recommend additional projects for the work
program. If projects compete for staff resources, they can be prioritized; projects
not completed during the year can be continued to the next year's work program.
Two constraints to availability of planning staff resources are the loss of one
planner and the advent of numerous implementation programs resulting from
adoption of the General Plan.
The Planning Commission may want to talk about projects at this meeting and
continue the discussion to the next meeting, to allow for additional time to
consider projects.
Parking Ordinance
The Planning Commission approved a work program for 2001 directing staff to
evaluate the compact parking stalls requirements (Chapter 19.100). The
Commission's concern was that compact stalls do not accommodate the
increasing number of large vehicles. Preliminary staff recommendations on this
and other parking requirements follow.
Compact stalls
The parking ordinance allows parking lots to either provide a combination of
compact (8' x 15')/standard stalls (9'x 18') or 100% uni-size stalls (8.5' x 18').
Staff is recommending that uni-size stalls (8.5' x 18') be provided in all parking
lots instead of a compact/standard combination. Drivers often ignore the
designation of compact spaces, and staff is informed by a traffic consultant that
many cities are using uni-size stalls for that reason. Staff also determined that
the area needed is the same for either an all uni-size parking lot or a
compact/standard combirmtion.
Bicycle parking ratio
Currently, the required bicycle-parking ratio for apartments and condominiums
is 40% of the units (Table 19.100.040-A). This is relatively high compared with
other cities that generally require bicycle parking at 25% of the units. Staff will
evaluate the bicycle parking demand of apartments and condominiums and
consider the possibility reducing the required ratio to 25%.
3
Shared parking requirements for mixed-use projects
Staff proposes to add residential use to the mixed-use parking table (Table
19.100.040-C). Currently, all mixed-use projects with a residential component
(large or snmll) require a parking study prepared by an outside consultant. The
revised mixed-use parking table will eliminate the need for a parking study for
minor projects.
Parking lot landscaping and permeability
Beginning on October 15, 2003, the City of Cupertino and 14 other public
agencies in Santa Clara County were required by the San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control Board to place additional conditions of approval relating
to storm water quality control on development projects. These projects consist
generally of those creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious
surface, including roof areas and pavement. Beginning in April 15, 2005, the
threshold will be reduced to projects of 10,000 square feet or more.
There are several strategies that can enhance the storm water quality of parking
lots, such as reducing surface area, increasing landscaping area and
incorporating plants and infiltration swales into the parking lot designs. Staff
proposes that these strategies be incorporated into the parking lot ordinance.
Additional Land Use Categories in the Parking Ratio Table
The current parking ratio table (Table 19.100.040-A) is general in nature and does
not include some specific land uses that are common in the City of Cupertino,
such as day care and martial arts. Staff proposes to update the parking ratio
table by introducing new land use categories.
Parking lot lighting requirements
Staff proposes to add parking lot lighting standards to the parking ordinance.
This involves transferring existing parking lot standards from the commercial
ordinance, with some possible changes.
Clarify and clean up various sections
Staff proposes clarifying and cleaning up various sections of the parking
ordinance.
Exhibits:
2004 Planning Commission Work Program
Parking Ordinance
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner C :~r ~Z~ ~-~"-/c,~'t'~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community ~evelopme~.v~~
G:plannmg/pc/pc2004 work program
2004 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM
CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2004 HOW IMPLEMENTED WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
Pursue "Downtown" Opportunities - · Authorize through the adoption of the · Summer 2004
Develop a Streetscape plan for the proposed General Plan policies. Bring
Crossroads back the detailed plan back after adoption
of the General Plan.
· Street Safety - Walkable Community - · Incorporate in development projects · Ongoing
Ensure that "walkable city" concept is
present in all city
development/redevelopment projects
CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2004 HOW IMPLEMENTED WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
· Economic Development - · Include policies in amended General · Add this to the
· Encourage healthy environment for Plan that encourage active commercial draft as a new
retail growth uses such as bookstores, coffee shops and policy - Summer
restaurants. 2004
· Consider development of new projects · Ongoing
that include retail space, either free-
standing or mixed use
· Identify Big Box sites
· VALLCO Fashion Park Redevelopment · Process use permits proposed by · Spring 2004
property owners, related to potential
cinema and long-range master plan. May
entail amendment or removal of
revelopment agreement.
· Actively seek desired tenants for Vallco · Ongoing
and other commercial centers, such as a
bookstore and other uses described above
· Add revenue enhancement policy · Include an economic assessment of · Ongoing
component of review for new potential revenue generations possibilities
development for major projects
· Consider thresholds of retail to retain in
shopping centers
· Evaluate transit/transportation · Analyze transportation implications in · Summer 2004
implications of economic development the General Plan, and in the and ongoing
strategy environmental review of major
development projects.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2004 HOW IMPLEMENTED WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
· General Plan Update · Authorize and release public hearing · Spring/Summer
draft and environmental impact report, 2004
hold public hearings, adopt plan
· Affordable Housing - · BMR program · Ongoing
· Provide housing opportunities for
Cupertino workers
· Teacher Housing assistance programs · Contract with Neighborhood Housing · Contract
Services of Silicon Valley to implement the complete. Teacher
teacher outreach program assistance
provided Spring (2
loans) and Fall
2004 (2 lo )
· Annexation - · Initiate and complete annexation · February 2004
· Monta Vista procedure · Ongoing
· Creston · Annex individual contiguous parcels
when redevelopment occurs
PLANNING PROJECTS
· R1 Ordinance Review · Review and amend R-1 ordinance to · Winter/Spring
make process and non-process changes 2004
· Parking Ordinance Review · Review and amend parking ordinance · Winter 2004
· Nexus Study · Complete a nexus study to determine the · Summer 2004
appropriate housing mitigation for new
development
· Fee Study · Conduct a fee study to determine · March 2004
appropriate development fees, and amend
fee schedule as needed
· Traffic Consultant Contract · Contract with a traffic consultant to · Spring 2004
prepare traffic studies on development
projects
· Monta Vista Neighborhood Planning · Work with Monta Vista neighborhood to · Summer/Fall
Project prepare a neighborhood plan 2004
· Regnart Creek Trail · Prepare CEQA documents ·
· Fence Ordinance Review · Make corner vision triangle consistent · Summer 2004
with public works standard detail
· Wireless Master Plan · Update zoning ordinance to be · Summer 2004
consistent with new wireless master plan
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
· Civic Park · ASA for residential component of the · Spring 2004
master plan (R-1 building); ASA for
previously approved
condominiums/retail (R-2 building)
· Oaks · Process use permit for modifications at · Pending
the Oaks Shopping Center
· Adobe Inn · Use Permit for mixed use · Spring 2004
retail/residential
· BJ's · Amend use permit re: valet parking · Spring 2004
· "Barry Swenson" site (narrow lot with · Use permit for possible mixed use, · Spring 2004
vacant house next to affordable housing commercial/residential
project on east Stevens Creek Blvd.) ¢:phnmg/m~c/2004 Pk~n~g Commission Work ~rogram
CHAl'l'g.;ll 19.100: pARkING REGULATIONS
Section
19.100.010
19.100.020
19.100.030
19.100.040
19.100.050
Application of regulations.
Regulations for parking and keeping
vchicles in various zones.
Regulations for off-sheet parking.
Exceptions.
19.100.010 ~.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the parking
of vehicles which are unsightly, oversized, or which are
detrimental to property values or the peace and enjoyment
of neighboring property owners or residents and establish
reg~da~ions pert~;,i,$ to the design and number of off-street
parking apace~ for land u~ activities located in various
zoning disuic~. (Ord. 1737, (pan), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh.
A (pan), 1992)
L0.1O0.020 Application of Re~n~atiom.
A. No vehicle may be parked, stored or kept on any
parcel of land within the City of Cupertino otherwise than
in conformance with the provisions of this eh?ret.
B. Buildings, slxnctures and land uses are required
to provide off-m-em parking in conformance with this
chapter. The s~andards and regulations contained in this
chapter regulate off-street parking for conventional zoning
districts and are intenck~d also as guidelines for development
projects located in planned development (P) zones and at
congregate residences and residential care facilities. (Ord.
1737, (pan), 1996; Ord. 1698, § 3 (pan), 1995; Ord. 1601,
Er&. A (part), 1992)
19.100.030 Reguletious for P~rking ond Keeping
Velficlez in Various Zones.
A.' Vehicles Permit~d in Residential Zones.
1. Front or Street Side Setback Area. Vchicles are
pcrmit~ to be placed, kept or parked in a front or street
side yard setback area (as defiaed ia Chapter 19.08.030 of
this title) or within twelve feet of a public fight-of-way in a
rear yard area in ~11 residential zones subject to the
following restrictions:
a. A maximum of four vehicles are permit~d on a
lot in residential zone requiring a lot size of ten thousand
square feet or less, a maximum of six vehicles are pennitmt
in all other residential zones, unless a greater n,mher is
approved by the City in conjunction with a develop~nt
plan. For purposes of counting vehicles, a caner mounted
on a pickup truck is considered one vehicle and other
similarly vet~y stacked gompolsellts which belong
together ,hall be counted as a single vehicle. Horizontal
grollpings shall be coonted as two vehicles;
b. Any open vehicle coptalnln§ trash or debris is
prohibited;
c. No portion of any vehicle may overhang any
public fight-of-way;
d. All vehicles must be parked on an impervious
surface consisting of concrete, asphalt or other like
materials. Such lnme. rvions surface may not exceed
percent of the front yard setback area, unless a greater area
is approved by the City in conjunction with a development
plan. The impervious surface must be contiguous and, at a
mlnlmxlm, ellgompas$ the 0utiine of the re, title;
e. All vehicles must be currently registered, where
regisu'ation is required for legal operation and in good
operating condition;
f. Except on lots with circular driveways which
conform to the provisions of this code, all vehicles parked
in the front or sixeet side yard setback area must be parked
perpendicular to the street. On lots with cL,~'uisr driveways
which conform to the provisions of this code, all vehicles
parked in the front or slreet side yard setback area are
limited to less than twenty feet in leng~, unless parked
perpendicular to the street. Owners of vehicles made
nonconformln$ by the adoption of tins section shall comply
with this provision within two years of its enactment.
2. Area Outside of Front or Street Side Setback Areas.
Vehicles are permitted to be placed, kept, or parked in any
yard area, excluding those yard areas regulated by Section .
I 1.29.040 Al, provided a three-foot mlnimllm clearance is
maintained tO ally structllre.
3. Parking Wiflfin Structures. Vehicles are permitted
to be placed, kept or parked in any legal structure, provided
that no more 6aan one required enclosed parking spaco is
115
117 p~rld,~ Regulafinnm
c. The applicant has submitted a detailed parking
study which demonstrates that the propesed use is
compatible with the proposed parking supply.
d. The proposed shared parking plan may be
approved in conjunction with a conditional us~ permit
application in a planned development zone or via an
exception for a project which is not located in a planned
development zone.
O. Tandem, Valet and Other Special Parking
Arrangements. Tandem, valet, and other special forms of
parking may be approved in conjunction with a conditional
use permit in a planned development zone or via an
exception for a project not in a planned development zone.
H. ~V{{nimnm Stall Dimension in Parking Structure.
The mini~mn]l ~{~ dimerlsion for { starldagd spftc~ located
in a parking garage or other enclosed parking structure and
intended for nonresidential uses is ulie feet by eighteen feet.
The minim,,m d{me~]sions for a s{mHarly situated compact
space are eight feet by fifteen feet six inches.
I. Handicapped Parking. The handicapped parking
requirement embodied li Section 1129 B of the California
Building Code, as amended, is hereby incorporated lite this
chapter by rderence.
{. Other re~ulations ~h~{I be as oulllied li Title 11
of the Municipal Code.
K. Residential Lots Fronting on Public or Private
Streets. If no on-street parking is available, four
functionally independent off-street spac~ in addition to
required covered spaces are required.
L. Farm ]Equipment. For tractors Or farm
equipment which are regularly parked on-site with{n two
hundred feet of a public street or road, such parking places
shall he screened from sight of the street.
M. Large-pnmHy Day Care Home. A m/n/mum of
one parldug space per nonresident employee is required.
This parking requirement shall be in addition to the
m{nin~ml reqH~reTr~nts of the zon{ng d/strict. The parking
space may be on-sireet, in front of the provider's residence.
A m/ri|mom of one parking space shall b~ available for child
drop-off. The space shall provide direct access to the unit,
not crossing a street.
If the provider is relying on on-street parking and the
roadway prohibits en-street parking, a semi-circular
driveway may he provided, subject to other provisions of
the Municipal Code.
N. Landscape P..~quiremeuts. All new centers and
centers with a twenty-five percent or greater increase in
floor area or a twenty-five percent or greater chan§¢ in
floor area resultli~ from use permit or architectural and site
approval within twelve mouths shall be required to meet the
foHowing m{nimU~l landscape requirements; however, the
p]nnning Co'remission and/or City CouJ1c{{ m~ly r~commend '
additional landscaping.
1. Each unenclosed parking facility ~hall provide a
minimum of interior landscaping li accordance with the
following table:
Size of Parkln~
Facility (Sq. Ft.)
~n~m~m Required Inler~or
Landscaping (% of Total
Parking Facility Are~)
Under 14,999 5%
15,000 - 29,999 7.5%
30,000 plus 10%
2. Parking lot trees shall be planted or exist at a
ratio of one tree for every five to ten parking stalls. Only
fifty percent of the trees located along the perimeter of the
parking area may count towards the required number of
trees.
3. When considering the number of trees per
parking stall, the factors such as size of tree and canopy size
shall be considered. A parking facility incorporating large
trees with high canopies may provide one nee for every ten
spaces whereas a parking facility with small ~ees would
provide one ~ for every five spaces.
4. All trees shall be protected by curbing or bollards
as appropriate.
5. All landscape shall be continuously mainUdned.
O. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be
provided in multi-f~mily residential developments and in
commercial disffigts. Ill commercial districts, bicycle
parking shall be conveniently located and adjacent to en-alte
bicycle circulation pedestrian routes. The bicycle parking
facilities shall be one of the following three classification
types:
1. Class I Facilities. These facilities are intended
for long-term parking and are intended to protect the entire
bicycle or its individ~ components and accessories from
theft. The facility also protects the cycle from inclement
weather, including wind driven rain. The three design
alternatives for Class I facilities are as follows:
a. Bicycle Locker. A fully enclosed space
accessible only by the owner or operator of the bicycle.
Bicycle lockers must he fitted with key locking mechanisms.
b. Restricted Access. Class IH bicycle parking
facilities located within a locked room or locked enclosure
accessible only to the oWners and operators of the bicycle.
The maximum capacity of each restricted room shall be ten
bicycles. In multiple f~mily residential developments, a
common locked garage area with Class H parking facilities
shall be deemed restricted access provided the garage is
accessible only to the residents of the units for whom the
garage is provided.
c. Enclosed Cages. A folly enclosed chain link
enclos~e for individual bicycles, where contents are visible
from the outside, which can be locked by a u.~er provided
119
?~rki~ R~tio~
Table 19.100,040-A
Gyms, Aud/mrim~, BA~Q 1/50 sq. fi. floor
~ ~ ~ ~ +
l/~loy~
C~
Mo~o~ C~ l/~t + l/~y~ +~ of ~ ~ H
~~ ~ 1/3~+ +5~ of~
Ni~I~ l/~loy~ + t/36
sq. ~ of ~ fl~
~~ CG 1/4~+ +5% of~
S~ B~ l/e~oy~ + 106
sq, ~ of ~ fl~r
~ - F~ ~ 1~ ~ + +5% of
F~ 1/~o~
(5)
(5) ~
(~
3t comp~t
or 100
un/siz~
:33 compact
or 100
unisize
or I00
33 compact
or 100
tmisize
M:~m,t-.~,luring MI. 1/450 sq. fi. +5~I, of auto Cia.ss I (5) 50 (4)
parkin~ compac~ or
OtYr. e/PrototTpe MLTOA 1/285 sq. it. +5~ of auto Class I (5) 50 (4)
Manufacturing parking comt~t or
O1t~
Corporal/ CG/OP 1/285 sq. I~. +5 $ of auto ~ I (~ 33 comp~c~
unisize
Genre'al Multi- CG 1/285 sq. (~ +5 ~ of aura Class I (5) 33 compact
T~ant l~rkln~ or 100
Megical and l~mal CG 1/175 sq. t~. (5) 33 corapact
or 100
Office unisize
(5) CO
(5)
(~
(~
(5)
(5) CO
(5)
(5)
(5)
Notes:
I. Enclosed garage. An internal area encompassing two parking spaces measuring t~n feet by twenty feet each and shall
provide unobstructed i.e., by wails, appliances, etc. between six inches from finished floor up to six feet from finished floor.
121 Park/ng Regulafion~ 19.1~0.~0
Star Aisle) Aisle) Way Als~) Way
(A) (n) 6) (O (D)
30 8.0 10.0 18.0 15.5 43.9 36.5
35 8.0 10.0 18.0 15.5 43.9 38.2
40 §.0 10.0 1§.0 15.5 45.6 39.7
65 8.0 15.5 20.5 15.5 52.8 48.0
NOTES TO TABLE:
* - For h~aeli,-ap -~=~le spa~z, ple~.s~ gila' ~ § IllgA.4 of 1994 Uniform ~ C0d~.
* - For fu~-~gr/nformafioa, plea.~ r~f~r to the Public Worl~
Table 19.100.040-C
CALCULATING SHARED PARKING FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS
Instructions:
1. Determine the minimum amoHnt of parkLag required for each land use as though it were a separate use;
2. Multiply each nmount by the corresponding percentage for each of the five time periods;
3. Calculate the colnmn total for each time period;
4. The go].mn tOtnl with the highest value is the parking ~ace requirement.
(Ord. 1737, (pa~t), 1996; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.100.050 Exceptions.
After a public hearLag, the plnnning Commission
may grant a parking exception for a project not located La
a planned development zunLag disUict upon rank-lng the
following finilLags:
A. There are exffaordinury conditions not
gunernll~, applicable to similar uses which justify the
exception (i.e., unusually high percentage of the lot area
is landscaped);
B. The exception departs from the requirements of
this chapter to the winimum degree necessary 1o allow the
project to proceed;
C. The exception will not. adversely affect
neighboring proporties by causing unreasonable numbers
of vehicles to park; on the neighboring properties or upon
public stxeets. The decision of the planning Cowmigsion
to grant or deny such an exception may be appealed Io the
City Council pursuant to the procedures described in
Chapter 19.136.
(part), 1996)
(Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1737,
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, February 23, 2004
The City Council met on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and discussed the following items of
interest to the Planning Commission:
1. Consider request to reconsider Oaks Shopping Center Proiect: The City Council continued this
item to the March 1, 2004 City Council meeting. (see attached report)
2. Monta Vista Annexation: The City Council verified the number of protests were insufficient to
require an election and adopted a resolution approving the reorganization of the Monta Vista area
into the City of Cupertino. (see attached report)
3. Civic Center and Library Project: The City Council approved the following:
a. allocation of up to $350,000 in end of project contingency funds for upgrades and add-
backs to the project scope of the Library/Civic Center Project
b. allocation of $589,248 for the Book Stack Shelving Contract and for Amendment No. 4
to the SMWM Design Agreement
c. awarding of Civic Center & Library Project- Book Stack Shelving Contract to the Ross
McDonald Company, Inc. in the amount of $439,248
d. authorization for the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 4 to the
Design Agreement with SMWM Architects for Library FF&E design services in the
amount of $150,000 (see attached resolution)
MISCELLANEOUS
Reminder: The Commissioners' Reception 2004 is scheduled for Wednesday, February 25, at
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chamber and lobby. Please mark your calendars for this special
event.
Prometheus has advised staffthat they intend to sell the residential units in the taller of the two
towers at Verona in the City Center.
Enclosures
Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles
CIT~ OF
CUPERTINO
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda No.
Agenda Date February_ 17, 2004
Application No.: Z-2003-03, TM-2003-03, U-2003-05, EXC-2003-04, EA-2003-11
Applicant: Ken Busch / Regis Homes
Property Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Consider request to reconsider Application Nos. Z-2003-03, TM-2003-03, U-2003-05,
EXC-2003-04, EA-2003-11.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council may take one of the following actions:
1. Continue the item until all members of the City Council are present, as
requested by the applicant;
2. Reject the reconsideration petition;
a. The City Council may direct the applicant to submit new development
applications based on one of the conceptual plans;
3. Refer one of the conceptual plans to the Planning Commission for a report
and recommendation to the City Council;
4. Re-open the public hearing and then re-vote on the original application;
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Regis Homes, proposed demolition of vacant commercial area and
the construction of 49 towrthouse units at the Oaks Shopping Center. On December
15, 2003, the City Council denied the proposed project at the Oaks Shopping Center
on a 2-2-1 vote. Regis Homes petitioned for reconsideration on December 23, 2003
(attached).
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, February 4, 2004. Staff
did not attend this meeting.
DISCUSSION
Option 1: Continuance
The applicant requests a continuance until such time that all City Councilmembers
are present (attached).
Printed on Recycled Paper
Regis Homes Reconsideration 2
Option 2: Legislative Act
In a letter addressed to the City Council dated February 10, 2004 (attached), the City
Attorney outlined the legal basis for this reconsideration and advised that the
rezoning component is a legislative action that is not subject to reconsideration.
Thus, the Council can choose to reject the petition for reconsideration.
Option 2a: Re-file Development Applications
The applicant submitted two new conceptual plans summarized as follows:
Table 1: Comparison of Conceptual Alternative Plans
Denled Plans Exhibit A Exhibit B
Residential Units 49 29 35
Commercial Area (sq. ft.) about 53000 about 59,000 about 56,000
Plan Elements Retain Mary Avenue Retain Mary Avenue
Narrow Mary Avenue width width
Remove vacant theater Remove vacant theater Remove vacant theater
and resta~ant and restaurant and restaurant
Remove Tsunami Keep Tsunami Suski Keep Tsunami Sushi
Sushi tenant space tenant space tenant space
Add 3,000 sq. ft. to the
west of Tsunami Sushi
* The Oaks Shopping Center currently has about 71,000 sq.j~, of commercial area
If the City Council believes that one of the conceptual plans has merits then the
Council should reject the reconsideration and direct the applicant to re-apply for
development applications and pay the appropriate review fees.
Option 3: Refer conceptual plans to the Planning Commission
The City Council could choose to refer the applicant's concepts to the Planning
Commission for review. These new plans will require levels of review consistent
with a brand new development application:
· The environmental review documents must be modified to reflect the
changed plan and a new traffic study may be necessary since the additional
commercial area is expected to have more traffic impacts than the former
project.
Detailed plans must be reviewed by the City's Planning, Building,
Engineering, Traffic and Environmental Resources division, in addition to the
County Fire Department, County Sheriff, Cupertino Sanitary District,
Cupertino Unified School District and FremOnt Union High School District
prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Regis Homes Reconsideration 3
Due to the level of review required, staff believes it is mora appropriate to have the
applicant re-apply and pay new review fees (Option 2a).
Option 4: Re-open Public Hearing
As outlined in the City Attorney's letter, the Council is not obligated to reconsider
the application since the past action was a legislative act. The Council could choose
to re-open the public hearing specifically to allow the applicant to respond to issues
related to past attempts to lease the vacant space in the center. Then the Council
should re-vote on the previous plan concept.
Enclosures:
Reconsideration Letter dated December 23, 2003
Continuance Request dated February 9, 2004
City Attorney Letter dated February 10, 2004
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
Submitt
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
~'avid W.'7~Knapp
City Manager
REGIS HoMEs
December 23, 2003
Ms. Klm Smith
City Clerk
City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
DEC 2 9 2003
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
Via Fax (408) 777-3366
RE: Request for Reconsideration of Applications Nos. Z-2003-03, TM-2003-03, U-
2003-05, EXC-2003-04, EA-2003-11, Ken Busch/Regis Homes, 21255 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, APN 326-27-035 (Oaks Shopping Center/The Oaks)
Dear Ms. Smith
We request a reconsideration of the decision made by the City Council on The Oaks
agenda item based on Mmficipal code section 2.08.096 for the following reasons.
We met with the city council and planning commission in' a study session to discuss the
proposed improvements at The Oaks and the vacation of Mary Ave in May and were
encouraged to continue the planning process including the vacation of Mary Ave. We
continued to be encouraged by and had numerous me~tings with city staff regarding the
improvements and the vacation of Mary Ave. The planning commission also
recommended approval of the improvements and vacation of Mary Ave. During the city
council meeting the public meeting was closed and the city council discussed the benefits
and their concerns of the proposal and never gave the applicant the opportunity to address
council concerns, of which we had no prior indication. The city council should have
given the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the city council.
At the city council meeting there was sigrdficant discussion and questions regarding the
attempts to lease the vacant space on the western portion of the shopping center and the
overall retail environment in Cupertino. During the city council discussion it appeared
we should have provided additional detail of the leasing efforts and the overall retail
Regis Homes of Northern California, Inc.
901 Mariners Island BoulevaM, Suite 700, San Marco, California 94404
T: 650-378-2800 F: 650-570-2233
environment in Cupertino. We were not aware this information would be required, and
feel it would h~¥e an impact on the decision made by the city council.
The city council decision is not consistent with the planning commission
recommendation, the city staff report and the information presented at the public meeting.
Lastly, Mayor Sandra James stated that although there was no conflict of interest she
would not vote on The Oaks agenda item, but would chair the meeting. Since Mayor
James does not have a financial interest in The Oaks agenda item she should have taken
part in the vote of this item. However, once she stated she would not vote on this item
she had an obligation to not chair the meeting and leave the council chambers. Tiffs
impacted the city council from conducting a fair hearing on this item.
In summary, we feel the City of Cupertino criteria for reconsideration are met and we ask
the city council to reconsider the above referenced item. If there are any questions please
contact me at (650) 377-5805.
Sincerely,
Ken Busch
Cc: Chuck Kilian (408) 777-3401
Steve Piasecki (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CU?EI INO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO.
AGENDA DATE: February 17t 2004
SUMMARY:
Reorganization proceedings for territory designated as Monta Vista 02-07 consisting of:
1. The annexation to the City of Cupertino of approximately 43.41 acres of
developed and undeveloped, unincorporated property generally bounded by
Stevens Creek Boulevard, Union Pacific Railroad tracks, McClellan Road and
Blackberry Farm, commonly known as Monta Vista.
2. The detachment of the same territory that is within the Santa Clara County
Lighting Service Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration for the reorganization project, Monta
Vista 02-07;
2. Order the change of reorganization per the model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
On February 2, 2004, the City Council considered the reorganization titled Monta Vista
02-07. The public hearing was opened and one unincorporated property owner spoke
in favor of annexation and another property owner spoke against City development
practices and other activities in the neighborhood. One resident submitted a signed
annexation protest form. The mayor asked if there were any other protests to be
submitted during the public hearing; none were submitted. The mayor asked if anyone
who submitted a protest wanted to retract it; none were retracted. The mayor closed
the public hearing, which closed the protest period.
The City Clerk could not immediately determine the value of the submitted written
protests. The protest valuation was close to the 25% registered voter level, which
would have required a public vote on the reorganization. Since the last registered voter
Printed on Recycled Paper
M0nta Vista 02-07 Reorganization February 17, 2004
Page2
list was obtained in mid-December 2003, the Clerk said she needed to obtain an
updated registered voter list to determine if additional protestors qualified as registered
voter protestors during the last month and a half.
DISCUSSION:
Protest Count In the February 2, 2004 staff report to City Council, the preliminary
protest cotmts were calculated by Planning staff. The City Clerk determines the final
protest count and protest valuation.
The list of registered voters residing in the affected territory was obtained by the Clerk
from the County Registrar of Voters and is current as of the morning of February 3,
2004. Additional voters appeared on the list, bringing the total to 314 registered voters.
The City Clerk reports that 108 valid protests to the reorganization proceedings were
received, and the value of those protests submitted prior to the close of the public
hearing constituted 23.2% of the 314 registered voters residing in the affected
territory-a minimum of 25% is required for an election.
The Clerk also reports that 30.5% of the 298 property owners who own 20% of the
$37,987,763 total assessed land valuation submitted protests-- a minimum of 25% of the
landowners who own at least 25% of the assessed land valuation is required for an
election.
In conclusion, protestors to the reorganization did not reach the necessary_ protest
thresholds for registered voters or property_ owners to require an election on the issue.
Therefore, approximately 77% of the Monta Vista registered voters and about 70% of
the property owners did not oppose annexation to Cupertino.
City. Taxes and Fees Upon annexation, unincorporated areas receive city services and
are subject to city taxes and fees. The city taxes and fees that would be extended to this
area include:
1. The Utility Users' Tax, which is currently 2.4% of the natural gas,
electricity and local and long distance telephone charges. Homeowners
age 65 or over may apply for utility tax exemption;
The Storm Drainage Service Fee, which is currently $12.00 per single-
family or duplex residential parcel per year, $144.00 per acre of apartment,
commercial, or industrial land, and $36.00 per acre of vacant land; and
3. The Business License Fee, which is currently $100.00 per year for most
home businesses.
Monta Vista 02-07 Reorganization February 17, 2004
Page 3
At the same time, County service fees will be removed. The County lighting service.
area fee of about $8.00 on Monta Vista property owner tax bills will be removed by the
County.
Appealing Decision to LAFCO
Pursuant to Section 56757(d) & (f) of the California State Government Code, this
reorganization proceeding is subject to appeal to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), because it involves territory for which the general plan land use
designation has changed from the time that the city urban service area was last adopted
by LAFCO. The statutory basis for an appeal is unclear to staff.
The appeal petition must be signed by at least 50 registered voters in the county, and be
submitted directly to the LAFCO Executive Officer within 15 days of the adoption by
the City Council of the resolution approving the annexation. There is an appeal fee
charged to the appellants and payable to LAFCO.
Finalization qf the Reorganization
Once the City Council orders by resolution the change of reorganization, the paperwork
and filing fees are submitted to the LAFCO Executive Officer. The work is reviewed for
completeness and the LAFCO Executive Officer will record a certificate of completion
after the expiration of the appeal period. The recordation date of the certificate of
completion is the effective date of the reorganization (annexation).
If the City's decision is appealed to LAFCO, thE completion of the reorganization will
be delayed until after the LAFCO appeal hearing.
Prepared by Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Sub ed by:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Enclosures:
City Council Ordering Resolution, Map and Legal Description
ERC Recommendation, Initial Study & Negative Declaration
G: planning/pdrepor t/cc/montavista2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-267
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND ORDERING THE CHANGE OF
REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "MONTA VISTA 02-07,"
CONSISTING OF 1) ANNEXATION OF ABOUT 43.41 ACRES OF TERRITORY
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, UNION PAC1FIC
RAILROAD TRACKS, MCCLELLAN ROAD AND BLACKBERRY FARM, AND
2) THE DETACHMENT OF THE SAME TERRITORY WITHIN THE SANTA
CLARA COUNTY LIGHTING SERVICE AREA
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-
238, initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Monta Vista 02-07";
and detaching the same territory that is within the Santa Clara County Lighting Service
Area.
WHEREAS, Section 56757 of the California Government Code states that the
Local Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an
annexation to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within
the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the
legislative body, and therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the
conducting authority for said reorganization; and
WHEREAS, said territory is inhabited and all owners of land included in the
proposal have not consented to this reorganization; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 57025 and 56157 of the Califomia
Government Code, the City of Cupertino has provided mailed notice of the heating on the
reorganization to all property owners of record and registered voters within 300 feet of
the exterior boundary of the affected territory, affected agencies and other interested
parties and notification of their eligibility to protest this City-initiated proceeding with
instructions on how to prepare a valid, written protest; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino opened and conducted a public hearing on the
reorganization in accordance with Section 57050 of the California Government Code, to
accept protests and withdrawals of protests, objections or evidence which is made,
presented, or filed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, subsequently closed the public heating on
February 2, 2004, and intends to determine the value of the written protests in order to
take the appropriate action on the reorganization.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino as follows:
Resolution bio. 04-267 Page 2
That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 56757 of the California
Government Code for the reorganization of ten/tory designated "Monta Vista 02-
07", more particularly described in Exhibits "A & B";
That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino:
a. That said territory is inhabited and comprises approximately 43.41 acres.
That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory
within the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy
of annexing when providing City services.
The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the
reorganization of said ten/tory has no significant impact on the
environment, and approves the granting of a Negative Declaration.
The City Council has prezoned the subject ten/tory that constitutes the
entirety of the subject reorganization to pre-R1-8, pre-R1-7.5, Pre-P(Res
4.4-12), Pre-P(Res 4.4-7.7) or Pre-P(ML) on June 4, 1984; or prezoned the
territory to pre-P(CN, ML, Res 4-12) on September 15, 1980.
That the ten/tory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed
reorganization to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the
Commission's road annexation policies. The City has reimbursed the
County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this
determination.
That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it
would be difficult to provide municipal services.
That the proposed annexation does not split lines of assessment or
ownership as determined by the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office.
i. That the proPosed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan.
That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits under
provisions of the Government Code.
k. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the
Commission for inclusion of the temtory in the City's urban service area.
Resolution No. 04-267 Page 3
That 108 valid protests to the reorganization proceedings were received by
the Clerk of the City of Cupertino, and the value of those protests
submitted prior to the close of the public hearing constituted 23.2% of the
314 registered voters residing in the affected territory; and 30.5% of the
298 property owners who own 20% of the $37,987,763 total assessed land
valuation and that the last equalized County assessment roll and Registrar
of Voters list of registered voters within the unincorporated Monta Vista
area were used to make these determinations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
A) City of Cupertino taxes and fees will be extended to this territory, which
includes:
1) The Utility Users' Tax of 2.4% of the natural gas, electricity, local and
long distance telephone charges;
2) The Storm Drainage Service Fee on an annual basis is $12.00 per
single-family or duplex residential parcel; $144.00 per acre of
apartment, commercial, or industrial land, and $36.00 per acre of
vacant land;
3) The Cupertino Business License Fee applicable to businesses in the
City and currently $100.00 per year for most home-based businesses.
B) The Santa Clara County Lighting Service Area Assessment of about $8.00
per year ~hall be removed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this 17th day of February 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTA1N:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
RESOLUTION NO. 04- 6g
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT
NO. 4 TO THE DESIGN AGREEMENT WITH SMVv2vl ARCHITECTS FOR LIBRARY FF&E
DESIGN SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS TO APPROVE UP TO $25,000 OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION OF $150,000
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2001, the City entered into an Agreement with Simon Martin-
Vegue Winkelstein Moris (SMWM) for professional design services for the Cupertino Library in
the amount of $2,304,000; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1, for expanded professional design services, was executed on
March 5, 2002, in the amount of $200,000; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2, for Contract Administration services during the
construction of Phase 2 expanded professional design services, was executed on June 16, 2003, in
the amount of $615,000; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3, approved on December 15, 2003, authorized up to an
additional $350,000 to provide additional design services, development of plans and specifications,
and specific details of extra work and also authorized $100,000 for additional services as required
and approved by the Director of Public Works through the completion of the Civic Center and
Library Project; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 4 will author/ze SMWM to identify specific types of
furniture, materials, fabrics, features, and develop bid packages for fabrication, delivery and
installation of these materials, in accordance with the needs of the Library staff and authorize the
Director of Public Works to approve up to $25,000 of additional services for a total authorization of
$150,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute said Amendment No. 4 on behalf of
the City of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
this 17th day of February, 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City ~ouncil
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
The height and densibj-
dispute within the-oit~:,':
is forcing Cupertino to
decide what it'wantS to
he when it grows up ·
By I-CHUN ~
upertino residents should appre-
ciate Regis Homes even if they
Cdon't like the developer's pro-
posal to turn the Oaks Shopping
Center into a mixed-us~ area. The
uproar generated by the Oak~ project
~lally prompted the c~ty to take a more
active role in econormc development.
Cupertino's 10-year-old economtc
development team has simply let the
market d~temxine retail tree, But with
ali the flap about too much height and
. density, the toam.--comp~Ssed of the
city council members, members of the
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, City
Manager 'David Knapp;and tho city's
community development and planhing
war between those who want to keep
the status qu° and those who warn
lion. At a later city council meeung,
wearing white T-shirts witl~ red letter~
spelling SAVI~ OUR CITY, many
neighbors-of the Oaks and longUXne
residents swgmped the council charts-
bets ~o protest the project.
~ grolip says more hou~hig will
impact the already overcrowded
schools and traffic an~i most imp0~ant
of all, the quality of life~ They beUeve
mixed'me is not the best solution to
revitalizing the Oak~
Emerging from the fight is a grass-
root~ gr6up, the Concerned Citizens of
Cupertina~ EncOuraged by residents'
fierce objection fo the Oaks project, thc
CCC recently unveiled three initiatives
to reduce the height and density and
increase the setback of future develop-
ments th Cupcrlino. The group hopes to
garner enough ~ignatures to put the ini-
tiatives on the blov~mber ballot.
ThO death of tho Oakns project illus-
tratez the struggle and indecision even
witlfin the city's lead~rthip. Two council
members, Lowcnthal and Dolly
Sa~doval, vo~od for the project to show
their :support_ for the center's retail
busine, s~e~. Two other council members.
Klis Wang and Pahick Kwok, voted
agaln~t it, saying that the Oaks juzt
aeed~ a~bettor mana§emem suate~
Mayor Sandy fum~ abstained.
-- The same cofiflict ha~ also surfaced hi
the proces~ ofupdatlng the city'~ General
Antenna hidden in church
spire faces criticism
CITIZENS' GROUP WANTS
NEw CELL PHONE TOWER
TAKEN 15OWN
By Grace Rauh
Tom Trembois is one of a
number of Los Altos resi-
.l. dents upset with the city of
Mountain View for allowing the
installation of a new antenna
towel
In a phone interview last week
-- when Trembois' cell phone.
lost reception twice -- hi
explained his oppositi6n. Th~ The cont~ver~ial antenna is
tower, which was recenllyplaced located close to the Mountain
inside the church steeple of the View-Los Altos border.
Seventh-Day Adventist Church
on Springer Road in Mountain
View, was installed by Cingular
Wireless and is meant to improve
local phone reception for Cin-
gular customers.
And as for Tremb0is?
"We would like to have this
removed;' he said.
Trembois, who lives near the
new tower in Los Altos,' is a
member of the newly-formed
Citizens fgr Antenno Free Neigh-
See TOWER, page 11
l'rojects may
crowding in
high sChoOls
A 400-student spurt hits
district with no new funds
By ALLISON ROST
parents from all over the world
want to get their children into
Cupertino schools, and accord-
lng to the superintendent of the
Fremont Union High School District,
it appears too many are successful.
At the Feb. 2 Cupertino City
Council meeting, Superintendent
Steve Rowley illustrated how the
council's decisions on city develop-
ment would impact local high schools
"We're seeing very, very dramatic
growth in the district." he said, refer-
ring to a 400-student spurt coming
through in a time when the district
isn't bringing in new revenue.
"Demographically, this is the largest
class we've seen in some time."
Fremont Union High School
District is a basic aid district. And
these districts have lost significam
funding this school year. The state
cut the $120 per student that basic
aid schools historically receive. Now
these districts ordy receive money
through property taxes paid by resi-
dential and commercial properties
within the district, and even that
amount has been reduced this year.
Currently, the district receives
$6,120 in property tax income for
each pupil and $7,984 in total income
for each pupil the difference com-
prised by state lottery trends and
local sources such as interest and
rent revenue. Rowley said these fig-
utes make Fremont Union the poor-
est among neighboririg basic aid dis-
tricts.
For Fremont Union, this means
that any potential development in
Cupertino--residential or commer-
cial-can bring in more property
taxes. But if the development
includes housing units, the cost of
new students from those units could
possibly offset any financial benefit.
Rowley used the example of a cur-
rent housing development from
which $5,035 in property taxes goes
to the school district. But that same
developm6nt also suppl!es Fremont
l~nfign, high~ ,schools with 55 students,
Crowded: Some schools have open space,
Continued from page 1
The district is neutral on growth
issues in Cupertino, but Rowley said
that the proposed Oaks development
could bring in $54,000 in property taxes.
The district's student generation model
indicates that if the mixed-use plan
went forward, five students would enter
local high schools, which could lessen
the potential economic benefits.
"Commercial growth is really a good
thing, and student residential growth is
not such a good thing for us," he said.
Rowley also addressed overcrowding
in the schools. Figures show that
Fremont High School is over capacity
by 29 students and Monta Vista is over
by one student. Cupertino, Lynbrook
and Homestead high schools are all
operating below capacity right now, but
projections made using proven formu-
las show available room dropping over
the next few years.
Rowley said district projections from
seven to eight years ago have been
accurate within a few students for each
school
The state considers 27 students per reg-
alar classroom and 11 students per spe-
cial-education classroom as capacity. Al1
Fremont Union schools had been closed
to intradistrict transfers due to modem-
ization projects, but at the board meeting
on Feb. 3,Homestead and Lynbrook were
reopened for intradistrict transfers
because they are the only schools with
substantial room. Next year, Cupertino
High School is projected to have a stu-
dent body number right at capacity.
After hearing Rowley's presentation,
city council members questioned the
flexibility of borders within the district.!
"Read my lips, no new boundari~:s,!
Rowley said jokingly. He added that the
board would have to have a "dramatic
and compelling" reason to change
boundaries as they are now, especially
since Fremont Union doesn't provide
transportation for its students.
The district is currently working with-
in the daily schedule and the available
space at each high school. "These are
strict [capacity] guidelines that we're
following;' Rowley said. "These push us
to greater efficiency if we're pressed.
We're not going to use cafeterias."
Options include eliminating study halls
and using odd times during the school
day for core classes, which could prove
inconvenient for students.
But schools like Homestead, which
was recently refurbished, have a simpler
task of dealing with solutions than do
the overcrowded schools because they
have space for 518 additional students.
"Homestead has an easier time with
seven periods than Monta Vista [does],"
Rowley said.
The presentation was intended to
educate the city council on potential
impacts of development decisions, and
while several members said they were
already aware of concerns, the raw num-
bers painted a more complete picture.
"We're not going to approve a very
large residential development, because
we're cogrdzant of t~ese things," said
Mayor Sandy James.
VOLUME 57, NUMBER 3 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ]~EB RUARY 11,2004
Nlonta Vista annexation debated by council
By ALLISON ROST
Some residents of Monta
Vista have embraced the demo-
cratic process and let the
Cupertino City Council know
that they're against the prospect
of amaexation. But they'll have
to wail a little longer to find out
while the city checks to see if
they have enough voices to halt
ers in Moats Vista against
those of Santa Clara County.
This is the next step in an
annexation strategy the
Cupertino City Council adopted
in 1998 for three tmincorporated
Garden Gate and Monta Vista.
The other two areas have already
been incorporated into the city.
Now Cupertino wants to annex
43.41 acres of land in the area
yard, the Union Pacific Railroad
tracks, McClellan Road and
Blackberry Farm.
Debate: COunty encouraging annexation
Continued from page 5 ,
Much of the land consists of individ-
ual parcels in the Merits Vista neigh-
berhood, where one resident can pay
Cupertino taxes while the resldent's
next-door neighbor do~s not. A map of
the area to be annexed looks like a shcc
of Swiss cheese, with its smaRering of
an area already within the city limits.
tion. They don't want to be in the resi-
dential business," said Mayor Sandy
Jame~ "But we don't want to bring peo-
ple into Cupertino ff they don't want it."
The city council's plan involved
accepting wtiRen and verbal protests
from Moats Vista residents through a
public hearing at the Feb. 2 meeting.
Most against the annexation let the
council know through written protest.
By the close of the public hearing, the
council had received 74 protests.
Few Monta Vlsta citizens protested in
person, but those who did were impas-
sioned. "The infestation of the city of
Cupertino has degraded our quality of
life," said Rhoda Fry, who came aimed
with slides showing oddities such as a
power pole placed in the middle of the
street. The roadways are already part of
Cupertino.
Fry also decried the monster homes
being built in her neighborhood. "Much
of what's being built is ugly at best," she
said. "We need some planning around
Speaking for annexation, another res-
ident and Mayor James cormmented
that the change would standardize reg-
niations in Monta Vista instead of the
piecemeal approach now in place due
to differing jurisdiclions~the city of
Cupertino and Santa Clara County.
Annexation would also subject the new
city residents to aity taxes such as a udl-
ity users' tax while relieving residents of
certain county service fees.
At the close of the public hearing,
Smith reviewed the policy for handling
protests, which is guided by state law. If
less than 25 percent of residents protest
annexation, the city can proceed: If the
percentage falls between 25 and 50
cent, the city would hold an election on
the annexation question.
There are two measures to determine
value. Twenty-five percent of the land
hovers around $9 million, but the sum
of the land value owned by those sub-
imtting protests is sg re[ilion.
The number of registered voters is a
bit more complicated. Going from a list
pulled from the county on Dec. 18, 25
percent of the registered voters in
Moats Vista is 78. The city received 74
protest~ Smith requested a continuance
to get an updated list of registered vet-
anyone who's recently registered.
The proposed continuance was
passed unanimously by the city council.
So for now, Monta Vista residents will
become a united block of Cupertino or
remain a hunk of Swiss cheese.
tuC"d'4 d°
Hotel recovery bypasses valley
away from high-tooh's Mecca.
While the rest of the Bay Area
begins to dig out of a nationwide
more empw rooms and lower
prices through 2004 and into 2005
because of the lack of business
travel, says Tom Callahan an
alyst for pKF Consulting, a hotel
consultation sermce.
"Things are getting better in
San Francisco. but it is a long way
fi'om good." Ma: Calinhan says.
"The closer you ge~ To San Jose,
the worse it gets. We thfink the
area is bouncing on the bottom."
Hotel occupancy in the greater
San Jose area is down 8 pereenE
from one year ago even as San
Francisco increased by 11.9 per-
cen[, Mr. Callahan says. Sun
Francisco's hotels ara expected
to be 70 percent full in 2004 while
San Jose's are expected to be in
the 56-te-58 percent range. To
compare, th 2000 both areas were
m excess of 8O percent full on a
regular basis.
At the same time, San Jose ho-
reis continue to cut prices in whal
Mr. Callahan says is a mostly fu-
tile attempt ro gain market share.
"We still see (the San Jose area)
rams dropping 3-re-5 percent by
the end of 2004/' Mm. Callahan
says. "(Cutting rates/never real-
13 works. But the domino effect is
there. Your competitor is doing
it, so you do it."
Silicon Valiey's lack of a
tourist industry and an ailing
convention business has hit ho-
See ROOMS, Page 45
FEBRUARY12 2004
The:News
THEBUSqESSJOURNAL 45
ROOMS: Silicon Valley hotels are ce ntinuing to
FROM PAGE1
tats on the Peninsula and in San Jose
particularly hard. says, Danny Hood.
president of World Travel BPL which
handles business travel for several Bay
Area compames, - including Levi
Strauss Electronic Arts, Siemens
Shared Services and PeopleSoff
"We are seeing how the dot-corn bub-
ble burstir~g has really affected the trav-
el industry in Silicon Valley," Mz Hood
says. "If the rest of the world is in a re-
ceaslon, (Silicon Valley) is in a depres-
Meanwhile. as some of Silicon Val-
ley's largest companies, including
Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corp., and Visa
international, ~e increasing their trav-
el budgets modesty in 2004, many of the
vaJlefs smaller companies continue to
stay off the road, says A1 ~flbert, direc-
tor of business developmenE for World
Travel.
"Many of these compa~nies have
banned al/non-essentied travel," he says.
Those that are traveling are finding
cheaper ways to fly,
~ Tencor Corp. of San Jose, which
expects to spend about ~ million an-
nually on business travel, up from $25
million in 2003, has ail but banned trav-
eling in business class and is requiring
mom employees to travel coach. It is also
booking lese-expensive hotels for its em-
ployees, company travel manager
JoEllen Geur~ says.
Solectron Carp of Mitpitas expects [o
spend about $8 million on travel hi 2004.
a slight increase from 2003 but about
half what they were spending as recent-
ly as 2000 says travel manager
Stephanie Valdez.
"Our people are grumbling a little bit
because they can't talk to a person di-
rectly like before," Ms. Valdez says.
D[parunents are stretching their
travel budgets by booking hotels and
airlines seven to 21 days in advance just
cut price in an attempt
like mos[ leisure ~avelers. Ms. Valdez
says.
"Before, ii wasn't anyihir~ we reaJJy
thought about," she says. "Today, there
are a lot more reports, more audits, for
travel expenses."
Many Silicon Valley companies like
Lockheed Martin and Intel Corp..are
conducting "reverse auctions" on hotel
contract~, with lowest bids getting the
The company will estimate it has a
certain amount of rooms it will need for
a g~ven area and then asks for low bids
among s~verel hotels.
The federal government dropped its
per<item rate for Silicon Valley on Oct.
I by 30 percent to $106 a night to re-
[leet the lower casts. Only nine areas na-
tionwide saw the federal per<lism rare
drop while 2~ were elevated and the rest
remathed the san~
The federal rate drop hurts because
many privets businesses use it as a
to gain market share
guideline when negouatmg puces.
Once in place the federa/ rate isn't
easy ro get increased, says Doyle O'Nefl,
general manager of Homewood Suites,
a San Jose extended stay hotel that
caters to federal employees
"It's going to take five or six years ~o
get back to where we were," he says.
Meanwhile, hotels are increasingly
stressing day uses m an attempt to m-
crease revenues.
Crov, me Plaza in Milpitas has created
the new position of meeting director m
order to gain better use of its coafex-
ence space, says Justin Gammon. dire&
[or of sales at Crowne Plaza.
"It allows us to develop a better rela-
tionship with corporate plarmers." M=
Gammon says. "We get better use of our
facilities and.., they get to know us bet-
ter when they used te book rooms."
ANDREW E HAMM cevem hotels for the Busir~ Jet,al.
he News
~ THE BUSINESS JOURNAL
FEBRUARY13 2004
Mervyn's says it's here to stay, despite investor criticism
BY ROBERT MULLINS
rnqumns@b~ournals.sani
Sliding sales and a retail market that
is pa~sing it by spell trouble for the Bay
Area-based Mervyn's California depart-
ment store chain, though the retailer re-
mains confidenL
Mervyn's, based in Hayward. rejects
the premise of a Feb. 4 Wall Street Jour-
nal report that Mervyn's parent Target
Corp., of Minneapolis, may seil off or
liquidate its 266 Mervyn's stores. The re-
port cited investor criticism that
Mervyn's poor performance is a drag on
Target's stock.
"We are encouraged by the upcoming
year and we're here to stay," says
spokeswoman Michelle Murphy.
But Mervyn's, along with other de-
partment stores, has lost retail market
share to discounters like Target and
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonvtlle,
Ark.. ar the same time it is losing cus-
tomers to specialty stores that offer a
more attractive shopping experience.
The Journal's "Heard on the Street"
column anticipated an announcement
soon from Target about the fate of
Mervyn's, along with that of its Chica-
go-based Marshall Field's department
store chain, which is also underper-
forming.
Mervyn's. founded 54 years ago, has
126 stores in California. 30 of them in
the Bay Area. Target acquired the chain
in 1978.
Ms. Murphy could not comment on re-
ports from real estate sources that
Mervyn's has put store remodeling and
new store openings on hold for a year
and that a planned Target store is goIng
to replace a planned Mervyn's store at
the intersection of Story and King
roads on San Jose's east side. The devel-
oper of that site referred questions to
the retailers. Target did jot respond to
several calls for comment.
Mervyn's outlets are just 60,000 to
80.000 square feet in s~ze. versus a typi-
cal 100,000-square-foot Target-store.
A Mervyn's along Hamilton Ave., in
Campbell, for instance, is near a new
Target store at Westgate Mall and only a
mile or two west of the big retail draws
of Wesffield Shoppingtown Valley Fair
and Santana Row. Inside, the Mervyn's
store carries mostiy soft goods like
clothing and bed sheets, plus small ap-
pliances. It carries none of the popular
consumer electronics products such as
digital cameras or MP3 players. Shop-
pers can't buy anything on Mervyn's
Web site but gift cards. The only prod-
ucts advertised on the site are ones on
sale at Target or Marshall Field's.
In each of the last 12 months, while
Target .Corp. reported sales gems,
Mervyn's same-store sales were down
from the same month of the previous
year (see chart, this page).
"Mervyn's problem is that it really is-
n't the best at anything," says Dawn
Stoner, a retail analyst at Pacific
Growth Equities, a San Francisco in-
vestment ffrm. ?There's nothing partic-
ularly amque about the concept and
consumers have so many alternatives."
Sales slump
·
Mervyn's same-store sales each month have declined compared to the same month a year earlier.
40%
Feb'03 Mar'03 Aor'Q3
May'03 Jes'03 Jul'(]3 Aug'03 SeD'03 Oct'03 ~Jov'0~ ]ec'03 Jan'04
Ms. Stoner does not follow Target and
does own shares in the company.
Mervyn's also faces competition from
other department store chains as well
as from Target.
Kohl's Corp., of Menomonee Falls,
Wis.. plans to open 12 Bay Area stores
this yeac including four at Silicon Val-
ley sites it acquired from retailer Kmart
Corp., of Troy, Mich.
Konl's or another retailer might make
better use of Mervyn's stores than can
Mervyn's, says John Machado, a senior
vice president at commercial real estate
broker Colliers International's San Jose
office.
Kohl's is entering Silicon Valley by
quiring Kmart stores while Target
opened new outlets in vacant Mont-
gomery Ward stores when that chain
went out of business in 2008. So the
Mervyn's locations, ir they come on the
market, may have real value to another
chain. Mc Machado says.
"Oh, definitely. There are a lot of large
retailers that want to get into this mar-
ket." he says. "The issue is finding
enough locations."
While the office space vacancy rate is
high in Silicon Valley because of the
tach downturn, the retail vacancy rare
is only 3 percent Mm Machado says. So
the only way for a retailer to expand in
this market is to move into space vacat-
ed by another retailer.
ROBERT MULLINS covers retail forthe Besiflesa Journal.
Reach hire at'(408) 299-1829,