The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 11-01-04 November 1,2004 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 3. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for October 15 and 22, Resolution Nos. 04-428 and 04-429. 4. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for October 22, Resolution No. 04-430. 5. Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for September 2004. 6. Adopt a resolution approving an Improvement Agreement for Stevens Creek Office Center Associates, a limited partnership, 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard (formerly The Good Earth Restaurant), APN 326-32-051, Resolution No. 04-431. 7. Adopt a resolution approving a Maintenance Agreement for Stevens Creek Office Center Associates, a limited partnership, 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard (formerly The Good Earth Restaurant), APN 326-32-051, Resolution No. 04-432. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Consider amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance), Application No.(s) MCA-2003-02, EA-2002-19, City of Cupertino, Citywide: a) Grant a negative declaration b) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1949: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential Zones (RI) ofthe Cupertino Municipal Code." PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Council action regarding the three initiative petitions: a) Presentation of the final reports on impacts of the three proposed initiatives b) Receive the Certificate of Sufficiency (This item was continued ITom October 4), and adopt the petitions as law or adopt a resolution setting an election date. November 1,1004 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page ~ NEW BUSINESS 10. Adopt a resolution approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for street lights on Willowbrook Way pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925, Resolution No. 04- 433. (This item was continued ITom October 18). 11. Adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Los Altos Garbage Company, dated December 4, 1995, to provide weekly, single stream recycling and yard waste collection for Cupertino residents, Resolution No. 04-434. 12. Adopt a resolution approving an application for grant funding to rehabilitate swim and tennis facilities at the Cupertino Sports Center, Resolution No. 04-435. 13. Mayoral succession and date of Council reorganization: a) Discuss the mayoral succession b) Schedule date to elect new mayor and vice-mayor, and to hold a reception for the outgoing mayor ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a Council goals update and evaluation of the City Manager ITom 3-6 p.m. on Wednesday, November 3 at Blackberry Farm, 21975 San Fernando Avenue. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. 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. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-428 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 15, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: D~'CUu~~ ¡rector 0 mlstratIve ervlces PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~day of November, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 3~1 6Y- 10/14/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "10/11/2004" and "10/15/2004" FUND - no - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ______________VENDOR_____ ----~--- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 608085 V 05/14/04 262 FIRST PLACE INC 1104300 NAME PLATES 17134 0.00 -22 .24 1020 610325 V 09/03/04 262 FIRST PLACE INC 1103300 DONAHUE GIFT o. 00 -352.07 1020 610325 V 09/03/04 262 FIRST PLACE INC 1103501 CREST PERENIAL PLAQUE o. 00 -667.90 1020 610325 V 09/03/04 262 FIRST PLACE INC 1104300 NAME PLATE SIGN o. 00 -22 .24 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 -1042 .21 1020 610493 V 09/10/04 M200S POKALA, RAO 110 UNUSED NOTICING DPST o. 00 -200. 00 1020 611111 10/15/04 1695 3M 2708405 SUPPLIES o. 00 178 .61 1020 611112 10/15/04 2328 A/C SERVICE & DESIGN CO. 1108505 TIME/MATERIALS o. 00 590 .34 1020 611113 10/15/04 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 5708510 8/20-9/20 o. 00 456 .28 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHAS ING PO 1108507 8/20-9/20 o. 00 270.09 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108508 8/20-9/20 o. 00 40.78 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108501 8/20-9/20 o. 00 923.61 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108509 8/20-9/20 O. 00 43.59 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108505 B/20-9/20 o. 00 172.76 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108504 B/20-9/20 o. 00 1499.40 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108506 8/20-9/20 O. 00 90.09 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108503 8/20-9/20 0.00 531.46 1020 611113 10/15/04 9 ABAG POWER PURCHAS ING PO 5606620 8/20-9/20 0.00 541.94 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 4570 .00 1020 611114 10/15/04 13 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 182.83 1020 611115 10/15/04 3210 AETNA 6414570 PREMIUM OCT2004 O. 00 3333.68 1020 611116 10/15/04 28 AIRGAS NCN 6308840 TIG GLOVE A27219 0.00 24. B3 1020 611116 10/15/04 28 AIRGAS NCN 6308840 BUBBLE SHIELD A27219 0.00 85.77 1020 611116 10/15/04 28 AIRGAS NCN 1108314 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 42.93 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 153.53 1020 611117 10/15/04 2276 ALHAMBRA 1104510 BOTTLED DRINKING WTR 0.00 123 .15 1020 611117 10/15/04 2276 ALHAMBRA 1104510 BOTTLED DRINKING WTR 0.00 253 .50 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 376.65 1020 611118 10/15/04 2319 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERV 1108201 CROSSING SERV OCT2004 o. 00 7727 .73 1020 611119 10/15/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1108501 10/02-11/01 o. 00 40. 13 1020 611119 10/15/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1104400 10/02-n/01 o. 00 18 .63 1020 611119 10/15/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1106265 10/02-11/01 O. 00 69. 00 1020 611119 10/15/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1108602 10/02-11/01 O. 00 44 .69 1020 611119 10/15/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1104400 10/02-11/01 0 .00 66 .44 TOTAL CHECK .00 238. 89 1020 611120 10/15/04 1032 AW DIRECT INC 6308840 SUPPLIES A26601 o. 00 159 .08 1020 611121 10/15/04 2432 C. H. BULL CO 1104400 WILSON ALPHA HARD HAT o. 00 712. 43 1020 611121 10/15/04 2432 C H. BULL CD 1104400 WILSON ALPHA HARD HAT 0 .00 178 .11 RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14:39;36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-Á 10/14/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans date between "~O/ll/2004" and "10/15/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 611121 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 611122 611123 611124 611125 611126 611126 611127 611128 611128 611129 611129 611130 611131 611131 611132 611133 611134 611134 611135 611136 611137 611138 611138 611139 ISSUE DT --.---------- 10/15/04 2432 10/15/04 ME2005 10/15/04 M200S 10/15/04 173 10/15/04 2857 10/15/04 H3 10/15/04 183 10/15/04 191 10/15/04 192 10/15/04 192 10/15/04 194 10/15/04 194 10/15/04 3215 10/15/04 10/15/04 1492 1492 --VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT C.H. BULL CO 1104400 10/15/04 676 10/15/04 2795 10/15/04 1242 10/15/04 1242 10/15/04 996 10/15/04 239 10/15/04 M2005 10/15/04 10/15/04 249 249 CARIAGA, ABE 1108201 10/15/04 2558 CHANG, JESSY 1100000 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 CONCUR INC 2159620 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 CUPERTINO CHAMBER OF COM 1103300 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1104510 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108505 1108505 D. ROSS EQUIPMENT REPAIR 6308840 DENCO SALES COMPANY DENCO SALES COMPANY 2708405 2708405 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1104510 DEVCON ASSOCIATES XVI 4239222 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104310 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1106100 DU-ALL SAFETY 1108201 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1108501 ELLAK, LEE 1100000 ESBRO CHEMICAL ESBRO CHEMI CAL 5606620 5606620 FEET FIRST ENTERTAINMENT 1106343 RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14:39;36 -----DESCRIPTION~----- WILSON ALPHA HARD HAT SPRAY RNWL CARIAGQ B.LICENSE REFD 26055 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR GEOLOGIC RVW R27337 GEOLOGIC RVW R99293 R.KITSON M FESTIVAL PHUSICAL R NASIRI HEP B J.MORENO FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC TIME/MATERIALS CARTRIDGES A26613 CARTRIDGES A26613 FINGERPRINTS AUG2004 TEMP LBRY RENT NOV04 LETTERHEAD ENV (5KO B.CARDS/M.MILLER SAFETY CONSULT SEPT04 SUPPLIES PRO-RATED REFUND FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC OJ COOP DANCE 10/22 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 2 AMOUNT -17.21 873.33 60.00 100.00 293.68 3427.00 325.00 990.00 1315.00 35.00 70.00 16.00 86.00 81.20 292.77 373.97 805.63 85.37 435.60 520.97 256.00 16180.00 1156.31 59.54 1215.85 1475.00 29.54 50.00 396.14 271.14 667.28 400.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-3 10/14/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans date between "10/11/2004" and "10/15/2004" CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 611140 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 611141 611142 611142 611142 611142 611143 611144 611145 611146 611147 611148 611148 611148 611149 611150 611151 1020 611152 1020 611152 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 611153 611154 611155 611155 611155 611156 611157 611157 611158 ISSUE DT ______________VENDOR_____________ FUND/DEPT FEHR & PEERS ASSOC INC no 10/15/04 261 10/15/04 2361 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 262 262 262 262 FIRST BANKCARD 5506549 10/15/04 818 10/15/04 268 10/15/04 3185 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 2046 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 298 298 298 FIRST PLACE INC FIRST PLACE INC FIRST PLACE INC FIRST PLACE INC 1103300 1103501 1104300 1104300 10/15/04 1158 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 M2005 10/15/04 M2005 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 ME2005 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 33' 33. 334 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, LP 4239222 FOSTER BRaS SECURITY SYS 1108501 CURTIS FUNDERBURK 4239222 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 1898 10/15/04 1898 10/15/04 M GIRSHFELD, ZOYA 580 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC 1104000 GRAINGER INC GRAINGER INC GRAINGER INC 1108315 5708510 5606620 GUNGOR PROD/NARRATOR TRA 1103500 GUPTA, ANJANA 580 GUTIERREZ, EMILY 580 HAMEDANI, JAHAN HAMEDANI, JAHAN 1100000 no HO, CHIN LAN 580 HOFFMAN, MABEL 1100000 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108101 1108101 1108101 HONG, JUNGIM 580 AUTOMATIC RAIN CO. AUTOMATIC RAIN CO. 1108314 1108314 HSING, JOANNE 580 RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14:39;36 -----DESCRIPTION------ TRAFFIC CONSULT SEP04 SEPT2004 STATEMENT DONAHUE GIFT CREST PERENIAL NAME PLATE NAME PLATE PLAQUE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS FOR SUPPLIES SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Withdr RNWL 11-04/10-05 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26620 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC PARTS/SUPPLIES ANNUAL LICENSE REFD: 298327 & 298328 REFD; 298335 & 298336 RELEASE ENCROACH PRMT RELEASE ENCROACH PRMT Refund: Check - FALL E REPLACE CK77807 LOST PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES Refund: Check - FALL E FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC Refund: Check - REFUND SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 3 AMOUNT 640.89 1304.00 352.07 667.90 22.24 22.24 1064.45 692.80 38.03 650.00 33.00 520~00 211.87 47.42 61. 01 320.30 499.00 75.00 94.00 217.00 500.00 717.00 143.00 1406.50 ~8. 24 22.10 8.24 22.10 144.00 15.58 222.82 238.40 100.00 J-£/ 10/14/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/11/2004" and "10/15/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 611159 611159 611159 611159 611159 611160 611160 611161 611161 611162 611163 611164 611165 611166 611167 611168 611168 611169 611170 611171 611172 611173 611173 611174 611175 611176 611177 ISSUE DT -------~------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 2528 2528 2528 2528 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD INDOOR BILLBOARD INDOOR BILLBOARD INDOOR BILLBOARD INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108302 1108312 1108303 1108315 110B314 10/15/04 995 10/15/04 995 10/15/04 19B1 10/15/04 19B1 10/15/04 353 10/15/04 2127 10/15/04 30B5 10/15/04 952 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 1216 10/15/04 369 10/15/04 369 10/15/04 1630 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 3067 10/15/04 1927 10/15/04 385 10/15/04 385 10/15/04 M 10/15/04 2300 10/15/04 1217 10/15/04 3155 INSERV COMPANY INSERV COMPANY 1108501 1108504 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 2708405 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 2708404 IRON MOUNTAIN 1104300 J&M TERMITE CONTROL, INC 4209227 J.J.R. CONSTRUCTION INC 2708403 JAM SERVICES INC 1108602 JOSHI, SHILPA 580 KALEIDOSCOPE 5806349 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 1108407 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 1108504 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INC 5806449 KIM, MISUN 580 KMVT 15 1101031 GARY KORNAHRENS 1104530 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1108005 1108005 LAU, TERRI 580 BARBARA LAUX 5506549 THE LEARNING GAME 5706450 LEE WAYNE CORPORATION 4239222 RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14:39:36 -----DESCRIPTION------ FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC WATER TRTMNT OCT2004 WATER TRTMNT OCT2004 SUPPLIES A26600 GLASS BEADS FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FUMIGATION PER SECTION PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT GELCORE PEDHEAD PS7-PN Refund: Check FALL: SCIENCE KITS PAINT SUPPLY 20362 PAINT SUPPLIES SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR REFD: 298253 & 298254 PUBLIC ACCESS AUG2004 CONF 10/05-10/08 SUPPLIES A26603 SUPPLIES A26603 Refund: Check - FALL E SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLIES 25417 JADE PAPERWEIGHTS SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 .00 .00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 4 AMOUNT 118.24 118.24 118.24 118.24 118.24 591. 20 211.63 211.63 423.26 147.22 1039.20 1186.42 776.98 5278.00 39737.25 3409.88 180.00 2140.43 27.24 70.58 97.82 8148.00 219.00 3081. 66 159.82 371.34 38.45 409.79 169.00 600.00 20.00 4896.24 J-) 10/14/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans date bet weep "10/11/2004" and "10/15/2004" CASH ACCT CHECK NO FUND - 110 ~ GENERAL FUND ISSUE DT ____~_________VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 511178 611179 611179 611179 611179 611180 611181 611182 611183 611184 611185 611186 611187 611188 611189 611190 611191 611191 611192 611193 611193 611193 611193 611193 611193 611193 611193 611194 611194 611194 611194 10/15/04 M200S 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 2999 2999 2999 2999 LEE, LINDA LESCO LESCO LESCO LESCO LIGHTHOUSE LOOMIS, MIKE LOS ALTOS GARBAGE MAZE AND ASSOCIATES 110 1108315 1108312 1108314 1108303 6308840 1108407 5208003 1104100 MADHUWANTI MIRASHI METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATI 6308840 5506549 NATIONAL PEN NAT'L NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH 1102100 1104400 NOROVZI, REZA DEBBIE O'NEILL RONALD OLDS OPERATING ENGINEERS PUB OPERATING ENGINEERS PUB ORCHARD SUPPLY ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14;39;36 10/15/04 2357 10/15/04 ME2005 10/15/04 2514 10/15/04 1968 10/15/04 1868 10/15/04 3041 10/15/04 2604 10/15/04 M2005 10/15/04 M2005 10/15/04 499 10/15/04 1190 10/15/04 500 10/15/04 500 10/15/04 503 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 10/15/04 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 10/15/04 981 10/15/04 981 10/15/04 981 10/15/04 981 110 5606620 1103500 110 1104510 5606640 1108830 1108830 1108506 1108503 1108830 4209227 1108830 1108504 1108314 1108312 1108005 6308840 -----DESCRIPTION------ REFD TEMP SIGN OPST FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES A25515 SPRAY RNWL M.LOOMIS TV COLLECT JLY-SEPT04 AUDIT SERVICES INSTALLATION/PARTS SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLIES SUPPLIES DEV MAINT FEE REFD SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR CABLE PROJECT H & W P W. EMPLOYEES H & W P.W. RETIREES FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC ON-TIME DISC STMT9/26 PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES 20400 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20353 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20279 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20277 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 100.00 755.58 755.59 755.59 755.59 3022.35 182.21 60.00 1410.00 23469.00 199.06 180.00 1050.00 277 .22 501.38 150.00 1150.00 4436.00 3812.50 8248.50 6.63 -5.39 109.09 140.00 40.28 61.67 96 .47 17 .60 23.85 483.57 35.69 21.61 36.07 35.73 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING J-~ 10/14/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "~O/11/2004" and "10/:15/2004" FUND 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ______________VENDOR_____________ FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611194 10/15/04 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY KARDWARE 1108303 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15451 0.00 23 .24 1020 611194 10/15/04 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 2708405 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26607 0.00 193. 90 1020 611194 10/15/04 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 1108408 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20129 0.00 21. 63 1020 611194 10/15/04 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 1108314 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24254 o. 00 39.92 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 407.79 1020 611195 10/15/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 5606620 8/26-9/24 o. 00 114 .57 1020 611195 10/15/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 5606620 8/26-9/24 0 .00 .71 1020 611195 10/15/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108508 9/04-10/05 0.00 76 .36 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 197.64 1020 611196 10/15/04 M2005 PALO ALTO CHAMBER ORCHES 4239222 MUSICAL PERF. 10/29 o. 00 440 .00 1020 611197 10/15/04 520 PAPERDIRECT INC 5706450 OFFICE SUPLY A25697 o. 00 90 .91 1020 611198 10/15/04 690 PENINSULA FORD 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 43 .00 1020 611199 10/15/04 1748 STEVE PIASECKI 1104001 CONF 9/28-9/30 o. 00 471. 38 1020 611200 10/15104 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 SERVICE 9/29-10/12 o. 00 1995. 00 1020 611201 10/15/04 2529 PREMIER WORLD TOURS 5506549 S.ANTONIO 11/30-12/5 O. 00 2525 .10 1020 611201 10/15/04 2529 PREMIER WORLD TOURS 5506549 BAL S.ANTONIO TRIP O. 00 32135.30 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 34660.40 1020 611202 10/15/04 3220 RACE STREET FOODS 5606620 SUPPLIES O. 00 559. 11 1020 611203 10/15/04 590 RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC 5208003 COMPOST TRUCK SEPT04 0.00 700. 00 1020 611204 10/15/04 3236 GREG RIMANICH 1104400 MRC EXPENSES 0.00 2667.85 1020 611205 10/15/04 602 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 S.JOSE OPERA TRIP 0.00 636.05 1020 611205 10/15/04 602 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 S.FRANCISCO MOVIE TR 0 .00 683.89 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 1319.94 1020 611206 10/15/04 M RUDEN, JEANNE 580 Refund: Check - FALL E .00 25 . 00 1020 611207 10/15/04 3198 MARK RUSSO 4239222 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 2500. 00 1020 611208 10/15/04 3198 MARK RUSSO 4239222 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 1850 .00 1020 611209 10/15/04 2011 S.O.S. SURVIVAL PRODUCTS 1104400 SUPPLIES A25838 0.00 391. 13 1020 611210 10/15/04 633 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SECURITY 9/25,26 0.00 1067 .60 1020 611211 10/15/04 2875 RICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE C 1104310 J0131303354 NOV2004 .00 114. 66 1020 611212 10/15/04 2692 SBC 1108504 8/27-9/26 O. 00 77 .62 1020 611212 10/15/04 2692 SBC 1108501 8/29-9/28 .00 65. 00 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 142. 62 RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14:39:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-/ 10/14/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "10/11/2004" and "10/15/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 5606640 8/29-9/28 0 .00 175.40 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 5606620 8/29-9/28 0 .00 152.67 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 110820l 8/29-9/28 .00 253 .44 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 1108501 8/29-9/28 O. 00 116. 96 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 1108503 8/29-9/28 0 .00 55 .44 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 1108507 8/29-9/28 O. 00 55 .44 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 1108508 8/29-9/28 O. 00 6l. 29 1020 611213 10/15/04 2692 SBe 1108509 8/29-9/28 0.00 55 .44 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 936 .08 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/MC! 1108501 #2719771 9/01-10/06 .00 89 .44 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/MCI 1101500 #27197709 9/01-10/06 0.00 89 .43 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/MCI 1108501 #27197709 9/01-10/06 O. 00 89 .43 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/Mcr 1108504 #27197709 9/01~10/06 O. 00 89 .43 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108505 #27197709 9/01-10/06 .00 89 .43 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/MCI 5708510 #27197709 9/01-10/06 0 .00 89 .44 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SEC/MCI 5606620 #27197709 9/01-10/06 0 .00 89 .44 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/MCI 1108504 #2522405 9/01-10/15 0 .00 16 . 00 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108504 #2719421 9/01-10/06 0.00 490 .47 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/Mcr 5708510 #2719421 9/01-10/06 0.00 245.24 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/MCI 1108501 #2719421 9/01~10/06 0.00 245 .24 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SEC/MCI 1101500 #2719421 9/01-10/06 0.00 245 .24 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/MCI 1108505 #2719421 9/01-10/06 0.00 .245 .24 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SSC/Mcr 1108503 #2719421 9/01-10/06 0.00 245 .24 1020 611214 10/15/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108503 #27197709 9/01-10/06 0 .00 89 .44 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 2448.15 1020 611215 10/15/04 M SHWE, ALMA 580 Refund: Check - FALL: 0 .00 126.00 1020 611216 10/15/04 651 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 5606620 SUPPLIES A26018 0.00 321.50 1020 611216 10/15/04 651 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 69. 23 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 390 .73 1020 611217 10/15/04 652 SIERRA SPRINGS WATER CO. 1101500 BOTTLED DRINKING WTR 0 .00 20 .60 1020 611218 10/15/04 2810 SMART & FINAL 1106344 SUPPLIES A26453 0.00 30 .21 1020 611219 10/15/04 3171 STAPLES EUSINESS ADVANTA 1106265 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 -305.69 1020 611219 10/15/04 3171 STAPLES SUSINESS ADVANTA 1106265 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 305.69 1020 611219 10/15/04 3171 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1104310 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe 0.00 497.30 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 497 .30 1020 611220 10/15/04 2369 STEVEN GROVER & ASSOCIAT 1108101 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES O. 00 180. 00 1020 611221 10/15/04 1406 SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 77 .12 1020 611222 10/15/04 M2005 SWAN POOLS 110 ENCROACH BOND RELEASE 0.00 1000 .00 1020 611223 10/15/04 M TING, SHIRLEY 580 Refund: Check - FALL E 0.00 27 .00 1020 611224 10/15/04 M TYAGI, PRASHANT 580 Refund: Check - REFUND 0.00 100. 00 RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14:39:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ]-f 10/14/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/11/2004" and "10/15/2004" FUND - 110 GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ------------~-VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT SALES TAX -----DESCRIPTION------ 1020 61122S 10/1S/04 M WANG, LU 580 Refund; Check - FALL E 0.00 1020 611226 10/1S/04 779 WEST-LITE SUPPLY CO INC 1l08S04 LIGHTING SUPPLIES O. 00 1020 611227 10/15/04 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 270840S FY 2004-200S OPEN PURC .00 1020 611227 10/1S/04 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 270840S FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 1020 611228 10/1S/04 M200S WONG, JONATHAN 1106647 EAGLE SCOUT EXPENSES O. 00 1020 611229 10/15/04 1608 ZACK ELECTRONICS INC 1103500 CONNECTORS AND FIREWIR 0.00 1020 611229 10/15/04 1608 ZACK ELECTRONICS INC 1103S00 CONNECTORS AND FIREWIR 0.00 1020 611229 10/15/04 1608 ZACK ELECTRONICS INC 1103500 CONNECTORS AND FIREWIR 0.00 1020 611229 10/15/04 1608 ZACK ELECTRONICS INC 1103500 CONNECTORS AND FIREWIR 0.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0 .00 TOTAL FUND 0 .00 TOTAL REPORT 0.00 RUN DATE 10/14/04 TIME 14;39:36 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 8 AMOUNT 180.00 199.40 6929.97 320.42 7250.39 300.00 275.63 34.71 118.17 1090.48 1518.99 230054.28 230054.28 230054.28 J-l DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-429 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAY ABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 22, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: ~1d ti!/ ah.t!?lëd Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~ day of November , 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ]-16 CJ~' 'L 10/21/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans - date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" FUND - UO - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------- FUND/DEPT - - - uDESCRIPTIONu- - -- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 610425 V 09/10/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 SSGARNSMNT 0.00 -103.84 1020 610425 V 09/10/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 CSGARNSMNT 0.00 -306 .50 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 -410.34 1020 610712 V 09/24/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 CSGARNSMNT 0 .00 -306.50 1020 610712 V 09/24/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 SSGARNSMNT 0 .00 -103 .84 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 -410 .34 1020 611013 V 10/08/04 M200S HO. ANTHONY 110 UNUSED MAILING DPST O. 00 -126 .38 1020 611230 10/22/04 4 AT & T 1108501 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 47.26 1020 611230 10/22/04 4 AT & T 1108501 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 22.61 1020 611-230 10/22/04 4 A T & T H08501 OCT2004 STATEMENT .00 22 .61 1020 611230 10/22/04 , A T & T H08S01 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 22. 61 1020 611230 10/22/04 4 A T & T 1108501 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 22. 61 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 U7.70 1020 611231 10/22/04 M2005 ACN ENERGY HOODOO ACN ENERGY REFUND 0 .00 78 .74 1020 611232 10/22/04 2835 AC SERVICE & DESIGN, CO. 4209227 REMOVE CLEAN AND REINT 0.00 14377 .52 1020 6H232 10/22/04 2835 AC SERVICE & DESIGN, CO. 4209227 REMOVE CLEAN AND REINT O. 00 940. 00 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 15317 .52 1020 611233 10/22/04 2330 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPP 1108314 GRIME GOBBLER 0 .00 172 .42 1020 611233 10/22/04 2330 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPP H08303 GRIME GOBBLER 0.00 172 .43 1020 611233 10/22/04 2330 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPP 1108312 GRIME GOBBLER 0 .00 172.43 1020 611233 10/22/04 2330 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPP H08315 GRIME GOBBLER 0.00 172 .43 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 689.71 1020 611234 10/22/04 43 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI 1107405 MBRSHP DUES V.GIL 0 .00 353 .00 1020 611235 10/22/04 44 AMERICAN RED CROSS 1104400 ADMIN FEES 0 .00 240 .00 1020 611236 10/22/04 2945 NATASHA AUSTIN 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 217 .50 1020 611237 10/22/04 1032 AW DIRECT INC 6308840 SUPPLIES 0 .00 318 .22 1020 611238 10/22/04 3212 BRIGHTER THAN AIR 5606620 BALLOONS O. 00 866. 00 1020 611239 10/22/04 M Beavers, Nancy 550 Refund; Check - Jeremi 0.00 151. 00 1020 611240 10/22/04 M2005 CALIF DEBT & INVESTMENT 1104100 CA DEBT/INV SMNR 11/4 O. 00 75.00 1020 611241 10/22/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 CSGARNSMNT O. 00 306.50 1020 611241 10/22/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 SSGAANSMNT 0 .00 103.84 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 410. 34 1020 611242 10/22/04 149 CASH 1101000 P.CASH 10/6-10/18 0.00 10.00 1020 611242 10/22/04 149 CASH 1104510 P.CASH 10/6-10/18 0 .00 32.89 1020 611242 10/22/04 149 CASH 1103300 P.CASH 10/6-10/18 0 .00 30.38 1020 611242 10/22/04 149 CASH 1104000 P.CASH 10/6-10/18 0 .00 38.56 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09;23;23 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-1( 10/21/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact .trans date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" FUND - no - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ______________VENDOR__________~__ FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611242 10/22/04 149 CASH 1104400 P.CASH 10"/6-10/18 o. 00 45.26 1020 611242 10/22/04 149 CASH 2708405 P.CASH 10/6-10/18 o. 00 50.00 1020 611242 10/22/04 149 CASH 1108503 P.CASH 10/6-10/18 0.00 34.20 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 241.29 1020 611243 10/22/04 3089 CEITRONICS, INC. 4239222 AUDIOVISUAL PROJECT 0 .00 77845.81 1020 611244 10/22/04 1057 CERIDI~ BENEFITS SERVIC no "FLEX DEP/240125 0.00 151.92 1020 611244 10/22/04 1057 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC no *FLEX HLTH/240125 0.00 77l. 03 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 922 .95 1020 611245 10/22/04 1156 CHA 110 CHA 0 .00 n7 .00 1020 611246 10/22/04 2626 CHANG, CHEN-YA 1103300 SEPT2004 CLIP SERVICE 0 .00 200. 00 1020 611247 10/22/04 M CHEN, CAROLINE 580 Refund: Check - FALL E o. 00 132. 00 1020 611248 10/22/04 166 KIMBERLY MARIE CLARK 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 244 .00 1020 611249 10/22/04 1612 BARRIE D COATE no ARBORIST REVIEW 0 .00 2720 .73 1020 611250 10/22/04 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 *COLONIAL/E7013899 0 .00 283 .08 1020 611250 10/22/04 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT no COLONIAL/E7013899 O. 00 363 .17 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 646 .25 1020 611251 10/22/04 187 MARY J CRAWFORD 5806349 JKR NC 0' KAIGAN DOJO 0.00 636. 07 1020 611252 10/22/04 ME2005 CUMINE,HEATHER 1100000 REPLACE CK73669 LOST 0.00 296 .11 1020 611253 10/22/04 1058 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERV 2607404 ROTATNG SHELTER 1ST 0 .00 6250. 00 1020 611253 10/22/04 1058 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERV 2607404 COMP ASSISTANCE 1ST o. 00 4785.75 1020 611253 10/22/04 1058 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERV 1107405 AFFORDABLE HOUSE 1ST 0 .00 16250 .00 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 27285 .75 1020 611254 10/22/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP B D. MAHAN o. 00 16 . 00 1020 611254 10/22/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP B M DRAKE o. 00 16 .00 1020 611254 10/22/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP B J BISELY 0 .00 16 .00 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 48 . 00 1020 611255 10/22/04 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5606640 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe 0 .00 248 .75 1020 611255 10/22/04 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INe 1108506 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 46. 33 1020 611255 10/22/04 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108506 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 69 .83 1020 611255 10/22/04 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INe 5606620 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 37 .40 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 402 .31 1020 611256 10/22/04 3177 NINA DARUWALLA 1104400 9/30-10/20 0 .00 525. 00 1020 611257 10/22/04 676 DEPARTMENT OF .ruSTICE 1104510 FINGERPRINTS SEPT2004 o. 00 320.00 1020 611258 10/22/04 M DERI, ASHA 580 Refund: Check - FALL; 0 .00 179.00 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:23 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING '3 -I -"-- 10/21/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT -~------------VENDOR---~--------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION---~~- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611259 10/22/04 2795 DEVCON ASSOCIATES XVI 4239222 RESOREATION WORK LBRY 0.00 34811.00 1020 611260 10/22/04 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104510 EMPLYMNT APPLICATIONS 0.00 498.97 1020 611261 10/22/04 3083 DYNAMI C GRAPHICS, INC. 1103600 LIQUID LBRY OCT2004 o. 00 79.00 1020 611262 10/22/04 M Dohert.y, Dorot.hy 550 Refund: Check - Figaro 0 .00 87. 00 1020 611263 10/22/04 3079 ECONOMIC & SOCIAL OPPORT 2607404 7/1-9/30 1ST QTR. 0 .00 12861. 61 1020 611264 10/22/04 240 ELIZABETH ANN ELLIS 1101070 TRANSCRIBE 7/26-9/27 O. 00 2375 .00 1020 611265 10/22/04 242 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 SIT/932-0014-5 O. 00 16858 .50 1020 611266 10/22/04 243 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 501/776 5260-0 0 .00 1134. 00 1020 611267 10/22/04 250 EUPHRAT MUSEUM OF ART 5806349 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 2202. 67 1020 611267 10/22/04 250 EUPHRAT MUSEUM OF ART 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 4385. 00 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 6587. 67 1020 611268 10/22/04 277 JOHN FUNG 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 97. 00 1020 611269 10/22/04 M Frost., Helen 550 Refund: Check - Figaro 0.00 87. 00 1020 611270 10/22/04 281 GARDENLAND 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 81 .45 1020 611270 10/22/04 281 GARDENLAND 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 73 .49 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 154 .94 1020 611271 10/22/04 3187 **GOLDFARB & LIPMAN 1104330 NO-GROWTH ANALYSIS 0 .00 211. 62 1020 611272 10/22/04 296 KAREN GOTTLEIB 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 1820. 00 1020 611273 10/22/04 298 GRAINGER INC 2708403 HIP BOOTS A26619 o. 00 58.70 1020 611274 10/22/04 M GREENE, ANN 580 Refund: Check - FALL E O. 00 156. 00 1020 611275 10/22/04 2531 GURSHARN SIDHU 4209216 ELECTRICAL WORK O. 00 10644 .55 1020 611275 10/22/04 2531 GURSHARN SIDHU 1108503 ELECTRICAL WORK O. 00 7500. 00 1020 611275 10/22/04 2531 GURSHARN SIDHU 1108503 ELECTRICAL WORK 0 .00 505 .45 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 18650.00 1020 611276 10/22/04 M2005 HALLOWAY, GARY 5506549 TOUR GUIDE FEE 10/24 0 .00 250 .00 1020 611277 10/22/04 2522 LYNN HELLER 5506549 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 570. 00 1020 611278 10/22/04 2064 HOWARD G HOFF JR. 1104400 CERT DRILL 0.00 50.00 1020 611279 10/22/04 2027 MARSHA HOVEY 1104400 MRC EXPENSES 0.00 59. 14 1020 611279 10/22/04 2027 MARSHA HOVEY 1104400 CERT EXPENSES 0 .00 71 .57 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 130. 71 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:23 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-{ 3 10/21/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" FUND - 110 GENERAL FUND CASH AeCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT - -- - --- -------VENDOR- ----- - - - - - -- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611280 10/22/04 M200S HURT. WI LLAIM 1100000 R#26322 STREET LIGHT o. 00 75. 00 1020 611280 10/22/04 M2005 HURT, WILLAIM 110 FINAL BOND RELEASE o. 00 5000 .00 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 5075.00 1020 611281 10/22/04 343 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 *ICMA 0.00 7044.64 1020 611282 10/22/04 354 J CRAWFORD & ASSOCIATES 5806349 SPORTS, FUN & GAMES 0 .00 606.00 1020 611283 10/22/04 2818 JAECO 1108507 BANDAGES o. 00 28 .77 1020 611284 10/22/04 3238 KADEE INDUSTRIES, INC. 4239222 STEEL MAT/GRATING ee 0 .00 1260. 00 1020 611285 10/22/04 M KIM, HYE KYUNG 580 Refund: Check - FALL; O. 00 146. 00 1020 611286 10/22/04 371 LISA KING 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 214.50 1020 611287 10/22/04 372 KINKO'S INe 2708403 SUPPLIES A26627 O. 00 65.22 1020 611287 10/22/04 372 KINKO' S INe 2708403 SHIP SUPPLIES 20135 0 .00 13 .48 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 78.70 1020 611288 10/22/04 3092 KATHY KLEIN 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR O. 00 284 .47 1020 611289 10/22/04 377 PETER KOEHLER 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 234 .00 1020 611290 10/22/04 M LAM. KARINA 580 Refund: Check - FALL E O. 00 245.00 1020 611291 10/22/04 3155 LEE WAYNE CORPORATION 1103300 EOC BANNER 0 .00 204 .59 1020 611292 10/22/04 ME2005 LINDLEY, AARON 1100000 REPLACE CK 74508 LOST O. 00 440. 14 1020 611293 10/22/04 3126 LIVE OAK ADULT DAY SERVI 2607404 7/1-9/30 DAY SERV 1ST 0 .00 2550.00 1020 611294 10/22/04 M2005 MARTIN, LESLIE 1104400 MEALS 10/5-7 TRAINING 0.00 38 .89 1020 611295 10/22/04 986 MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY 1101500 CA DEERINGS ACS 9/04 0 .00 58 .93 1020 611296 10/22/04 3125 MIDPENINSULA CITIZENS 2607404 7/1-9/30 1ST QTR .00 2550 .00 1020 611297 10/22/04 2567 MISDU 110 J TRYBUS 385960533 0 .00 221 .50 1020 611298 10/22/04 447 MISSION LINEN SUPPLY 1108201 FINAL PAYMENT #164070 o. 00 1056 .24 i020 611299 10/22/04 2666 MUSIC FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 376 .00 1020 611300 10/22/04 M NADIMPALLI, LALITHA 580 Refund: Check FALL; O. 00 75. 00 1020 611301 10/22/04 302 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPEN 110 *NAT'L DEF 0.00 17015.36 1020 611302 10/22/04 M200S NATIONAL STEINBECK CENTE 5506549 ADMIN FEE 25 @ 8.00 0.00 200.00 1020 611303 10/22/04 487 NORTHAIRE SUPPLY CO 1108506 SUPPLIES 0.00 17.05 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:23 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-/Y 10/21/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA, transact . trans_date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --~-----------VENDOR--------~~--- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611304 10/22/04 1767 NATASHA NOWACK 6104800 MAPGUIDE TRAINING 0.00 75.00 1020 611305 10/22/04 2206 O.K. FIRE EQUIPMENT COMP 1104400 FIRE EXT RECHARGE 0 .00 220. 10 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 OFFICE SUPPLIES O. 00 85. 05 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 119. 81 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 232. 51 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 44 .12 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 18 .76 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 OFFICE SUPPLIES O. 00 50. 02 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 7B .65 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 5.96 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 57.82 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 141 .37 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 55. 03 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 REF 256972201-001 0 .00 -44 .62 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 54 .36 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 OFFICE SUPPLIES O. 00 64 .44 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 106 .50 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 7B .28 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 150. 68 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 130 .24 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101000 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -96. 33 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -48. 17 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103300 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -80 .27 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 9 .29 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104100 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -64 .22 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104310 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -144 .49 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -112. 3B 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108601 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -64 .22 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108101 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -112. 3B 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -60 .27 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -48. 17 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -32. 11 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -32 .11 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104400 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -48.17 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 ~80.27 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104000 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -80.27 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 11.70 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 77.93 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 .00 63. 03 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 OFFICE SUPPLIES .00 4 .43 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806349 OVERCHARGE CREDIT 0 .00 -48. 17 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 OFFICE SUPPLIES O. 00 3l. 96 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5706450 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -256. 81 1020 611307 10/22/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 OVERCHARGE CREDIT O. 00 -176. 60 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 21 .91 1020 611308 10/22/04 M2005 OLD MONTEREY PRES. SOCIE 5506549 31 TICKETS DEC. 12 O. 00 465 .00 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:23 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ]-/) 10/21/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER ~ DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. tranS_date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" FUND - 110 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 611309 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 611310 611310 611310 611310 611310 611310 611310 611311 611312 611312 611312 611312 611312 611313 611314 611315 611316 611317 611318 611319 611320 611321 611322 611323 611324 611325 611326 611327 611327 611327 GENERAL FUND ISSUE DT --~---------~-VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 110 10/22/04 501 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 833 833 833 833 833 833 833 OPERATING ENGINEERS #3 PER S PER S PER S PER S PER S PER S PER S 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 10/22/04 1039 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 515 515 515 515 515 PACIFIC COAST FLAG 1108501 10/22/04 520 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 526 10/22/04 533 10/22/04 3240 10/22/04 M2005 10/22/04 559 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 3064 10/22/04 2441 10/22/04 3236 10/22/04 602 10/22/04 258 10/22/04 M2005 10/22/04 1919 10/22/04 1919 10/22/04 1919 PACIFIC PACIFIC PACIFIC PACIFIC PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 PAPERDIRECT INC 1108601 PENDYALA, SHOBANA 580 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG 110 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES 5806349 POMPE I 'S GROTTO 5506549 PROJECT SENTINEL 1107405 Petersen, Elizabeth (Bet 550 RACHEL QUILTER 5806449 RENEE RAMSEY 5806249 GREG RIMANICH 1104400 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 110 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1104400 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS 5500000 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS 5500000 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS 5500000 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:24 ---~-DESCRIPTION---~-- UNION DUES PERS EMPLY *PERS BYBK PERS 1959 *PERS BYBK PERS SPEC PERS EM/OE PERS OE3 FLAG SUPPLIES INSTALLATION MONITOR FEE NOV2004 MONITOR FEE OCT2004 MONITOR FEE DEC2004 MONITOR FEE SEPT2004 BICYCLE BRCHRE A25049 Refund: Check - FALL E IMPROVE PLANS CC&L PERS LTC/2405 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR DINNER 10/29 29 @ $24 RENT MED. 7/1-9/30/04 Refund: Check - Figaro SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR MRC EXPENSES PIER 45 10/8 BUS V ORTEGA 563312780 VOLUNTEER APPREC DNR TICKETS/PASSES AUG04 TICKETS/PASSES OCT04 TICKETS/PASSES SEPT04 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 PAGE 6 AMOUNT 685.35 18893.47 123.70 110.67 471.53 150.93 3135.19 3135.19 26020.68 55.44 300.00 95.00 95.00 95.00 47.40 632.40 64.93 156.00 104.24 104.42 563.34 696.00 6250.00 87.00 133.80 899.00 798.67 811.48 .00 588.00 222.72 192 .50 227.50 227.50 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3 -f~ 10/21/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND FUND 110 - GENERAL FUND TOTAL CHECK CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 H20 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 611328 611329 611330 611331 611332 611333 611334 611334 611334 611334 611335 611336 611337 611338 611339 611340 611340 611340 611340 611341 611342 1020 611343 1020 611343 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 611344 611344 611344 611344 611344 611344 611344 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 10/22/04 1150 10/22/04 1150 10/22/04 1150 10/22/04 1648 10/22/04 2875 10/22/04 2397 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 2692 2692 2692 2692 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 5506549 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 5506549 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 5506549 SAVIN CORPORATION (SUPPL 1104310 RICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE C 1108201 SAVIN CREDIT CORPORATION 1104310 SBe SBe SBe SBe 5708510 1108501 1108501 1108501 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 1449 10/22/04 3226 10/22/04 2051 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 2415 2415 2415 2415 SEEBACH, TONY 580 10/22/04 2810 10/22/04 200 10/22/04 ME2005 10/22/04 ME2005 10/22/04 1011 10/22/04 1011 10/22/04 1011 10/22/04 1011 10/22/04 1011 10/22/04 1011 10/22/04 1011 SENIOR ADULTS LEGAL ASSI 2607404 TAMARA SHEINKMAN 5806449 SIADAT ENTERPRISES, INC. 6308840 SIM, GABSIG 580 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SMART & FINAL 5806349 LESLIE SOKOL DBA DANCEKI 5806449 SPITSEN, PAUL SPITSEN, PAUL 5506549 5506549 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 270 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 520 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 570 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 580 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 630 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:24 -----DESCRIPTIQN------ COPY PLAN PROGRAM QTRL COPY PLAN PROGRAM QTRL COpy PLAN PROGRAM QTRL OCT-JANOS P6021200058 J8332201915 NOV2004 H2400800225 NOV2004 9/08-10/07 9/08-10/07 9/08-10/07 9/08-10/07 Refund: Check - FALL E 7/1-9/30/04 1ST QTR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SEPT 2004 CAR WASHES Refund: Check - FALL E PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT SUPPLIES A26454 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR GRATUITIES 10/24 TRIP GRATUITIES 10/29 TRIP SALES/U.TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES/U.TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES/U.TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES/U.TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES/U.TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES/U.TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES/U.TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 7 AMOUNT 647.50 1353.38 1295.73 2150.13 936.00 130.94 :).37.83 55.21 55.21 55.21 55.21 220.84 156.00 2930.64 356.40 110.50 143.00 51209.98 7177.00 110.00 2450.00 60946.98 89.72 4149.75 36.00 45.00 81. 00 657.78 152.09 2521.70 435.20 3.91 3.84 -6459.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-/7 10(21/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FUND FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 ,1020 1020 611344 611344 611345 611346 611347 611348 611349 611350 611351 611352 611353 611354 611355 611356 611357 611358 611359 611360 611361 611362 611363 611364 611365 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 10/22/04 10/22/04 1011 1011 STATE BOARD OF STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT EQUALIZAT 5700000 560 10/22/04 677 10/22(04 1361 10/22/04 529 10(22(04 1590 10/22(04 2045 10(22/04 3243 10/22/04 701 10/22(04 1013 10/22/04 1013 10/22/04 1013 10/22/04 M2005 10/22/04 3044 10/22/04 1763 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 M2005 10/22(04 1993 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 1154 10/22(04 2584 10/22/04 310 10/22/04 310 10/22/04 310 10/22/04 310 10/22/04 310 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 THE STUART RENTAL COMPAN 4239222 SUNGARD PENTAMATION, INC 6104800 SUPPORT NETWORK FOR BATT 2607404 SVCN 5208003 TALLY COURT REPORTERS, I 5606600 TARGET STORES 5706450 TAX COLLECTOR 1108001 TAX COLLECTOR 1101200 TAX COLLECTOR 1108001 TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES 110 TENJI INCORPORATED, A CA 4239222 THEATERFUN INC 5806349 TING, SHIRLEY 580 TOUR CORPORATION 5506549 TREASURER OF ALAMEDA COU 110 TSAI, SUSANNA 580 Thibert, Mona 550 Thomas, Janet 550 UNITED WAY OF SANTA CLAR 110 UNIVERSAL DIALOG, INC. 1103300 VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS 6104800 1101200 1104530 1107501 1107503 RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:24 -----DESCRIPTION-- SALES/V. TAX JUL-SEP04 SALES/U TAX JUL-SEP04 *PERS DEF BOOTH RNTL G.OPENING DATALINE CHRGS SEPT04 7/1-9/30104 1ST QTR GARAGE SALE 9/29 BLUE PHEASANT TRNSCPT SUPPLIES A26323 323-34-00600 2004(05 #357-08-03700 2004(05 949-28-32600 2004/05 DEVELOPERS MAINT REFD LIBRARY AQUARIUM PRJ SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - FALL E VAMPIRE TOUR 10/29 A LOPEZ JR 566398126 Refund: Check - Return Refund: Check San An Refund: Check - San An UNITED WAY TRANSLATE 9/01 17 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 8 AMOUNT 237.77 12704.71 10258.00 4083.86 1028.00 5.78 1475.00 429.00 302.70 38.79 308.74 6499.29 375.86 2047. aa 6617.70 1436.50 143.00 450.00 253.84 300.00 195.00 195.00 99.00 559.71 49.16 49.16 63.75 215.96 263.58 )-Ií 10/21/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/18/2004" and "10/22/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 CHECK 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 611366 611367 611368 611369 611369 611370 611370 611371 611372 611373 611374 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 611375 TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR-~~------~--- FUND/DEPT 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 10/22/04 742 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 745 10/22/04 745 10/22/04 3245 10/22/04 3245 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 3244 10/22/04 M 10/22/04 1608 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS COSETTE VIAUD VIDYASAGAR, AARATHI VMI INC VMI INC WASHINGTON MUTUAL WASHINGTON MUTUAL WEI, LILLIAN WEI, LILLIAN WONDER VALLEY YU, XUAN ZACK ELECTRONICS INC RUN DATE 10/21/04 TIME 09:23:24 1108102 1108201 1108501 1108503 1108504 1108505 1108602 5208003 5606620 5806649 1108005 5806349 sao 4239222 4239222 110 110 580 580 5506549 580 1103500 -----DESCRIPTION------ #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456·999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 #408456999 SEPT2004 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Çheck - FALL - CABLE EXTENDERS CABLE EXTENDERS CARIAGA 9/10 610425 CARIAGA 9/24 610712 Refund; Check FALL E Refund: Check - FALL E DPST 4/3-5 TRIP Refund: Check - FALL E SUPPLIES 16491 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 9 AMOUNT 177.06 587.25 754.53 94.32 379.93 90.32 269.94 45.17 46.24 46.51 63.76 3196.64 1286.67 25.00 1242.71 532.59 1775.30 410.34 410.34 820.68 100.00 60.50 150.00 156.00 67.18 428451.88 428451.88 428451.88 3-/9 RESOLUTION NUMBER 04-430 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON October 22, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $ 415,930.96 Less Employee Deductions $(120,368.52) NET PAYROLL $ 295.562.44 Payroll check numbers issued 77871 through 78082 Void check number(s) CERTIFIED: ~ ~ Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of November ,2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 4-{ City Hall 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408)777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO UEPARIMENl m AUMIN1SlRAllVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. :: Meeting Date: November 1,2004 SUBJECT Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report - September 2004. BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget reports for the period ended September 30, 2004. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $37.6 million at September 30, 2004, with a maturity value of $37_7 million. The slightly lower market value of the individual securities (compared with cost or maturity values), indicates that rates have risen slightly since the time of purchase. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities plus interest earnings up through the maturity date. The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) yielded 1.771% in September compared to August's 1.672%, and 1.635% a year ago. This is the fourth month of consecutive increases in LAIF yields. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.46% in September. Short-term agency yields remained relatively stable in September. The economy seems to have improved slightly, but rising oil prices have dampened the economic growth which had already been slower than anticipated. Overall, the City's current investment portfolio decreased approximately $300,000 in September, as planned expenditures exceeded incoming revenues. A final $1.8 million draw on the City's bond proceeds account was made to reimburse the General Fund for Library/Civic Center Project expenditures. Investments which were laddered to maturity dates that would allow for projected cash flows required for the library and other capital projects have mostly matured, leaving only callable instruments in the City's holding of agency notes. Pn'nted on Recycled Paper )~I The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law, and are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months. Revenue/Expenditure Trends Most General Fund revenues are still well below budget projections, due to the timing of major tax payments from the County and other tax revenues submitted in the month subsequent to collection. Revenues in general show an increase over the prior year; much of the increase is due to the curtailment of MVLF fees from the state last year. Current year state take-aways will not be realized until the effects of the "triple flip" take hold in sales tax and property tax revenues, soon after the first quarter. Departmental expenditures are on track with prior year spending, and generally below budget. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for September 2004. Submitted by: Approved for submission: ClvA- {Jµ~-j¡~, Carol T_ Augustine Finance Director ~- David W. Knapp City Manager $"'- .:2. YIELD COST VALlIE nuVALut ~____+_____n -------- 6k 3.12% 1.800,000 1,800,000 ' 1,831,500 31,500 '6k 3.00% 997.721 1,000.000 1.015,000 11,219 6k 3.00% 998,317 1.000.0 r;Ôß;ooo' I .6 City of Cupertino September 2004 E A 06/28/02 09115/04 11n9m3----~~7 FHLMC© TDm7lIT---0Jrn)07 FHLMC© -I- 1 ______________________ L_ ---.----------- -----.---- CURRENT P RTFOLl -CASH o 31 04 upertmo NatIOnal Bank 08/31/04 GBrC Cain 1,709,501 6.000 1,715,501 CA n -irArF-- I r IX ~('::-------i=- 08/J11041LAIF -.smtê Pool -- -ICERTIFICA TES OF DEPOSlr I , 6f _ r I 1:77%1 ----U,b27,38I TIYn~ 0 17?8~Amef1canTrustFe SavmgsBan -- 037f7/o.f---------¡yj7fi'l69IPeopres"'S'weBaiil.-- 031904 031908 'Panters IrstCor e GA 03124/04 03/24/08 ! Badger State Bank 03/.24/04 . 031.24/09;WãShíta Sfutë:Bank 0372-410~ ". mI2'f/Og-~WílÏ1ÏöfSfuieBa.l1k ---ID7L470'f 09/24/07 . Signature Bank Nat'1 Assn 03/26704- -- ()J716/0-g--·Prí'¡-atébiiik -&Triisf- -0):;26/Ö4'--- ú911616g --SöUiliëo-äSit-õmmuiifiyJ3anl< ----04lIT7~ - 04/07/08 : Core Tãylor Bank©,step 3.00% ---9'9,000 .l4ö%·- 99,000 3.05% 98,000 3.00% 99,000 3:-13%---------w,00 3:0W,l¡;" ----99:00() 2.70% 99,000 3.20%· - 99,000 3.20%" 98,otj(} - - 2.25%: 97,000 1 , i ----r CD --- - --------.-- --,.-- 1,7 ,501 ~ 6.000 . 1,715,501 12;-¡Z7,381------ -----¡¡9:(}(j(,-~-- ""'.000 : 98.000 , 99.000 99,000 ' -- ----yg;ooo'-- 99,000 i "9-000' 9Ù>o<d . , 97,000 ' 986,000 1?0....,501t-. ------{) 6,000 I -------¡¡ --1',-715,501 1 -U 99.000 99;000 98.000 """ODO 99,000 9. 9".000 . ° -'!g;D 7, 00 986,000 - D- O o ~ 0 o o o ° o ° , M NEY MARKET FUND ---------------- Og/31/04:CupertinoNatl-Sweepaccount :6j -a'-&2%- ------~,~ 118: 118 ~i-'":= ~~__M~-¡_"m .= -:::;=~;;+_~ 07/09/93 04/15/07 FHLMC(PY--- ffiK--------ó.'l)-jO¡;"-- -ß3;59g 152,191· 146:5~ 7,093) I ¡ 06128;02· 11/0'1104 ·FNMA - -16\(- 3.34%1 651,689 650,000 -652,391 ¡ -lID' 03/08/04 12/26/06 FHLMC© 6k 1.30%~--- -- - - 79K6,g gÖO,OOö· - 'rSì;93r--\T0,7 I 01/11103 ,- 07/21/06 ;FHLB~- ~ ~!6K 2.10%[n ~ --,oo;mYO 500.000. 494.350 -- (5.65!) 0[711r04--U8r06/08~;FHLB©--- ~.. - 16k, --I50'7o[- 997,830; 1,000.000 l 998.309 ~ 479 08/07/03 - - 08/07/06 !FHLB©,stijl---------- OK ----2.33% 500,000· 500,000 1 - - --49ì,~---(¡g9"1J 08111703 -- - 08/11106 'FHLB© 6k ¡ 1.50',..1~..~ --~400.000 ' 2.400.000 I 2,.ff:f,92r (16.07 0270371)4' - 101287081FHLMC© - - ----- ----+6.---;-- 410% ---504:651¡7 -- 500,000 ~500;7JT;-----¡:f,911i) fTl1770r -- II 17 ° FHLB¡¡¡--- - -- - -- tl6k - -~I ---- 4 25% ---918.T5r- 1;000.000 r.OITO;J5l'-2;f'JY ~---O272371)4~ U1125708 I'RLIf© - - 6k 3 13% ~ 1,000,000 1,0 .000 983.4J8T (16.561) I TI705lOJ~ I 507 FNMA 6 - -- 263% 1.000.000' 1'.000;000 996,S13 T---- (3,487) -~---ï- 03716704:- 03/16/09 FNMA© 6k --- 401%, 1,600.000 1.600.000 1,598,671--m--(T,38) ~_L_ 03/23704 r - 1ITT30709 FNMA© - - -fk ß!J%f 500,000 ___...so .~~_~ 497.089 ~ ~ (2,912) ._ _ 04/23/04 I 01 2308 FHLB© ;6lC 3.15% 1,4g6,3'5-:r-~-- 1,5oo,000! 1,477,679 (8,875) --T ~ -0014/041 I 0307 FNMA© '6Ii 2.50%: 988.516 'l,ooo,oooi----97T,1'J1~ (17,384) fI/H70Tr---¡¿ßO FNMA©, step -t~-- 3.00%-'- 1,000,000 i 1,OOO~00(j+ T, 00,643-1--------··--643 -__03/30/04 _~03/30/09 FHLB©.step~_____n_~__ I 2.00% 000;0001 ----600000~ ~59T779 ----{T,21 12= 06/22/07 FNMA© 6k ,- 3.30%' r.ooO;ooor - 1,000:000 998:2'80 I (1:120) - -------- 12 0/03 I --T~Jjö7tJ~~~~~~!ëp_-___~~________:6k --2''-Î''%~-- 1,000'OO?1____I_~O~~~0 _________ i'i96,391 ' -(3,oTI9) 'S'-3 City of Cupertino September 2004 ------rJESCRlPIIUN 'REF C nVA VAL ·PR:O.. I I/LUSS· . . . 04/29/04, 06 -'04130/0 o 0824 _ 4730/04 , 10/29108 FHLB©. step 12 I 08J FN¡;jÄ©.step 04 00 ¡FHLB©, sie-p----- 8 1 7b1 t-rHLB©,step 06 FHLB © o 07 FlfLMC© 6k 6 6 6 6 ,6 t 3.00% - 4.00% 3.13% .00% 2.15 0 "3-:30% , 0 4 .517 1,000,000-- -1,200,000 I 1.2 0,0 499; 7 - 22.376.217- æR. 299.255 ------¡'T-5) 500. 0 - -sonsor 5,262 1,000.000 - ~¡¡,746 I -----¡:¡,254) 1;200.000 ! 1,1 7,15 ( . 50 1,200, 00' 1,199,1 500,000 I . 49. I 22.402,1921 - 22,272,571 . I . 7 (103,646 MO us ì I , o --- ..+---- us GOVERNM E URlTIES- I , ota ~änãged PortfolIo , Âve,age'YIeld t· --- 2,46% ~.."'... ''''"'-T:'''r ----""~1=--i=- !'M,j;~,"2="'~'^IT~."mj ~c-I-=c _!-:- ~ ...- ~. _ -~07r277011 ()9i30/04 ~cupertmo Natl~Kesterrrust) t_þ52%_- 41,811~ ---.J~C --'{8l6 '--.- 0 _=Ë=rust &Agency PortColio 1--'_ ~- 1015j=-- - L:~:a:~::~:aPORTF0L10t 1- 0~3%¡--~t= 5~1- 54,== 0 10/15/021 LAIF Bond Account ----+--- 1.71%r-- 0 O! ------ ~7Dr - ¡We s rargo Money Mkt -_-__~~_.?4%r~~~820; ---rJ20ì 1,82- +:~·t+----~ T~ 1- .... - =t~: - .-----=---=------.:--=--:--=H-=---~ ~ --~~-.-----=-t- ---=-=- -------~ -3-- ---- -- - ~-- --- --= J--=-- , --1.- -- ----.- T---.....:r---'--=-- '-=--=-= t -==1. ----- C»<f 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% Investments by Type Managed Portfolio US Treasury NOles 0% Agency Notes 59% CD's J% 0% I Rate of Return Comparison I . . ~ ...... .~ , . 8/03 9/03 10/03 11/03 12/03 1 f04 2f04 3/04 4/04 5f04 6/04 7 f04 8/04 9/04 ç-) COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY --------------...---- City of Cupertino September30,~0~4__ ----- -----------..-------------- . __S:¡tegIlI"L___ Treasury Issues US Agencies (eg FHLMC) - --..- ---- -----..-------------------- Medium Tenn Corporate Bonds/Notes LAIF --..-..---..------ Money Market Funds Maximum Maturities " Per Issuer Max Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper Negotiable Certificates of Deposit Repurchase Agreements Reverse Repurchase agreements Standard ---------------- :Nolimit --lN~¡¡mit .... _.... l300/0_with~ rating '$40 million --.---! . . 20% 25% up to 15 years Remainder up to 5 years ! 10% (exc~pt LAIF) 180 days & 40% ------- ---- 270 days & 25% 30% ,365 days I Prohibited-- ". --...--- , , ------L--___ ; Complies Complies ,Complies IComplie; -¡--- . ,Complies _n_ I ... , Complies Complies ,Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Comment ------ ------ ----- c;>~ Revenue Cornparison 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 . YTO 9/30/03 EJ YTD 9/30/04 1,000,000 I Sales Tax 2 Property Tax 3 TOT 4 Utility Tax 5 Franchise Fees "" 6 Other 500,000 , 7 Licenses & Permits 8 Money & Property 9 lntergovenunental 10 Charges for Services 11 Fines & Forfeitures 0 12 Other Revenue 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 Expenditure Comparison 2,500,000 2,000,000 o 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 2 3 4 6 . YTO 9/30103 EJ YTO 9/30104 1 Administrative 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Administrative Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Development 7 Public Works c:; -f City of Cupertino 5ummary of Budget Transfers· General Furia WJ072004 Descriotion 2664/65 ADOPTED BUDGET 2663/64 CARRYOVER: Encumbrances Department carryovers -. REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: ---- EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: ¡{ecluce Eco Pass & Conj. Mgmnt _~emove benefits wi PT position Carry~ver law_ enforcement grant~ Carry over law enforcement grants ~~ over law enf?~~~Itle_nt grants ---------- 2604/65 ADJUSTED BUDGET --- ----- -- ----~------ Acct# Budget Adiusiment Expendilure Budgel Revenue Budgel ~~285,60.Q.1 m 3} ,890.,0.0.0. I - ''',m " r' '''-''" 258,445 ___ __ _~,445 - -------¡---- ---¡- --- I , ~ ".'"",:,,/ ~ --:,J- !~-~,",m HIo.-440.0.-5713 _ -1,550.;--.. '.-. _..-1,5.50. +=_~:-~:~:~~:~~::u ---- ~~:~~~ _~-~;;:i~~ ,- ".""',,,,, l .m ,"",,;.! ~,.,,::: -----.....!- various various 5"'~1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-431 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER, STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER ASSOCIATES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 20807 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, APN 326-32-051 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developer, Stevens Creek Office Center Associates, a limited partnership, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard, and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developers having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this I" day of November 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members ofthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino &-1 Resolution No. 04-431 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Stevens Creek Office Center Associates LOCATION: 20807 Stevens Creek Boulevard APN 326-32-051 A. Faithful Performance Bond: $ 42,124,50 FORTY-TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR AND 50/1 00 DOLLARS B, Labor and Material Bond: $ 42,124,50 FORTY-TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR AND 50/100 DOLLARS C, Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 2,527.47 TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN AND 47/100 DOLLARS D, Development Maintenance Deposit ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS $ 1,000,00 E. Storm Drainage Fee: EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR AND 37/100 DOLLARS $ 894.3 7 F, One Year Power Cost: N/A G, Street Trees: By Developer H. Map Checking Fee: N/A I. Park Fee: N/A ], Water Main Reimbursement: N/A K. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item #21 of agreement ~-~ ORAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-432 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 20807 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, APN 326-32-051 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed Maintenance Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Stevens Creek Office Center Associates, a California Limited Partnership, to allocate the costs of maintenance, repair and replacement between the developer and City of certain improvements, including landscaping, situated on real property owned by the City along Stevens Creek Boulevard in ITont of the project; and WHEREAS, said Maintenance Agreement establishes certain criteria and procedures for the accomplishment of said maintenance, repair, and replacement ofthe above-listed areas, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1" day of November, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members ofthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 1~1 ¡ß,I,', .,j\\\ , ::::::J 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDANO.L DATE November 1. 2004 SUMMARY: Consider amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1, Approve the Negative Declaration, EA-2002-19; 2, Approve the Model Ordinance. BACKGROUND: 1999 Rl Ordinance Amendment .---- --- In response to public concerns about new construction in single-family neighborhoods during the late 1990s, the City Council adopted new regulations in June of 1999, The new regulations can be summarized as follows: 1, Limit second story area to no more than 35% of the first story area or 600 sq, ft., whichever is greater, 2. Require wall offsets every 24 feet on second-story walls. 3. Limit the visibility of second-story wall planes over 6 feet in height to no more than 50% of the perimeter of the second story, 4. Limit single-story heights to a building envelope defined by a 12-foot height, five feet from the property line, and a 25-degree angle from therein. 5. Create a Design Review process and Residential Design Review Committee for all new two-story projects with a total floor area ratio over 35%. 6. Create Design Guidelines that all Design Review projects would have to conform to, 7. Create an Exception process at the Residential Design Review Committee. 8. Emphasize a specific limit for floor area of 45% of the lot size. R1 Amendments (2000, 2001, 2003) Staff introduced a total of three amendments to the R1 Ordinance in 2000, 2001 and 2003 with the support of the Planning Commission, to address minor technical changes consistent with the original intent of the 1999 ordinance Printed on Recycled Paper f~ { MCA-2002-03 Page 2 amendment. The City Council enacted the 2000 and 2001 amendments, but did not enact the 2003 amendment. When staff introduced the 2003 amendment to the Planning Commission, it consisted of a number of minor technical changes. At the direction of the Commission, staff formulated a new review process in response to lessons learned since 1999. The Commission approved these changes on a 4-1 vote. The City Council did not want to approve the new process change without further public outreach, DISCUSSION: Scope of Work On September 8, 2003, the Planning Commission requested that the City Council send the 2003 amendment back to the Commission for further study, On October 6,2003, the City Council agreed, but outlined a Scope of Work for the Commission's review (Exhibit C). The Commission's review began on January 26, 2004, Public Survey The Planning Commission received conflicting opinions from residents since the enactment of the 1999 R1 Ordinance Amendment, Some residents stated that the rules were not strict enough, some residents were happy with the new controls and others felt they were too stringent. As a result, they were not certain about what public sentiment truly was. To get a better sense of public sentiment, the Commission .appointed two of its members to work with staff to formulate a public survey, Questions were created to cover most of the items that were in the Council's Scope of Work. In March of 2003, over two thousand surveys (Exhibit I) were mailed directly to all properties that had filed for a building permit since 2000 and those directly adjacent to those building projects. In addition, the survey was inserted in the April 2004 edition of the Cupertino Scene, which gave every resident in the community an opportunity to respond. Staff received 492 valid responses, mostly from the Scene. A summary of the results is provided in Exhibit J. Individual Commissioners requested summaries of a few respondent subgroups, which are provided in Exhibit K. Exhibits L through S graphically illustrate public responses to various questions. Kell Results For the second-story proportion regulation, half of the respondents favor maintaining or reducing the maximum size while half support an increase (Question 7 - Exhibit L, M). For all other setback, height and privacy issues ó~2. MCA-2002-03 Page 3 (Questions 9 through 13), the majority of the respondents prefer keeping the current regulations. Over half of the respondents believe that the benefit of design review and story poles is worth the cost to the applicant (Questions 14 and 16 - Exhibit 0, Q). Only a small group of the respondents believe there should not be single-family residential design review at all (Question 15 - Exhibit P). Nearly three-fourths of the respondents agree that new construction should have to have building forms, roof pitches, roof heights and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes (Question 19 - Exhibit R), Planning Commission Recommendation: After receiving the survey results, the Commissioners described their individual guiding principles for the Rl Ordinance (Exhibit E). Then, over series of ten meetings, the Commission discussed actual amendments to the ordinance, On October 11, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 to send the Model Ordinance to the City Council for review (Commissioner Giefer abstained). Comm. Giefer indicated that she opposed the extent of the increase in the second- story area but could not vote "no" since she did agree with other aspects of the Model Ordinance, On many issues, the current Corrunission came to the same conclusion as the 2002- 03 Commission, which is reflected in Exhibit B. The remainder of this report will focus on new topics or differences with the 2003 recommendation and specifically how these recommendations relate to the Council's Scope of Work and to the survey responses, Relationshiv to Scope of Work Second Story Area: The City Council authorized a "minor" change to this regulation and stated that any increase should be "mitigated by other mass, bulk and privacy protection measures" (Exhibit C). The Commission recommends increasing the allowed second-story area from 35% of the first story area to 50%. In addition, up to 800 sq, ft. may be permitted in any case, an increase from the current 600 sq. ft. figure, The purpose of this increase is to provide sufficient room on the second-story for three modern-sized bedrooms, which is difficult to achieve with the current rule on lots less than 10,000 sq, ft. in area. D'-3 MCA-2002-03 Page 4 Table 1 Effect of New Second Story Area Regulation Current Regulation Proposed Regulation A B (A x 0,45) C D (C x 0,35) E F (E x 0,50) G Net 2nd Maximum Max 2nd Max 2nd Story Lot Size Floor Area 1st Story Story 1st Story Story Increase 5,000 2,250 1,667 * 583 1,500 ** 750 167 6,000 2,700 2,000 700 1,800 900 200 7,500 3,375 2,500 875 2,250 1,125 250 10,000 4,500 3,333 1,167 3,000 1,500 333 Notes: All Figures in Square feet ... Can be increased to 600 sq. ft. U Can be increased to 800 sq. ft. To mitigate the impacts from larger second-stories, the Commission recommends that the following regulations be adopted in conjunction with the second-story area increase: · Specific language that describes the maximum allowed floor area as an outside limit to be used in conjunction with other regulations and guidelines to ensure compatible mass and scale, Thus, the foundation is set to reject proposals for second-stories using the rnaximum allowance if other regulations or guidelines are not met. · Revised language that" double-counts" high volume area based on floor-to- roof heights instead of floor-to-ceiling heights, based on faults described in the current method. · Discretionary review of all two-story projects regardless of the total floor area ratio, This will be described in further detail later in the report. These regulations will assist in mitigating the impact of larger second-stories. Rl Development in the Hillsides: The Planning Commission did not choose to review this item, preferring to wait until after the General Plan review, Staff will discuss this further in the "Staff Issues" section of this report. Second-Story Side Setbacks and Surcharge: The Council's direction was to "explore simplified alternatives" to the current regulations. The Commission proposes to delete the second-story side setbacks and the surcharge in exchange for a two- story building envelope that all two-story construction must fit into. The net effect of this is similar to the current setl;acks without the surcharge. While the survey does not indicate strong support for the reduction or elimination of any setbacks (Questions 9, 10), it is reasonable to expect that the second-story setbacks would have to be reduced in order to accommodate the added flexibility in the second- story area. r-~y MCA-2002-03 Page 5 Second Stan) Wall Offsets: The Council's direction was to explore a minor change to this regulation so as not to apply it to second-story walls that are already screened by the first-story roof. The Commission proposes to shift this to a guideline that will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Privacy Planting: The Council direction was to explore ways to "expand or improve protection of privacy." The Commission did not recommend any new methods for privacy protection. Staff intends to request larger planting for cases where there is neighbor concerns with the regular privacy trees, Discretionary Review: The City Council provided the Commission with free reign on the issue of what projects need public review as well as what the review should be, The Commission recommended a process that is consistent with the 2003 recommendation (Exhibit H). Specifically, staff will review all two-story projects that do not need exceptions, Neighbors will be notified and will have the opportunity to participate, Exceptions will remain at the Design Review Committee. The proposed process will be better for all parties involved: . Local architects support a staff level review because they know it will be faster, cheaper and more impartial. They would prefer to have staff serve as the arbitrator in the event of a conflict because there is more consistency at the staff level than at the Commission level. · Concerned neighbors should support the proposed process change because they will have more input into what happens in their neighborhood. Also, they will not have to attend a public hearing at a particular time, which may be inconvenient. They will have a certain amount of time to report their comments to staff by mail, e-mail, telephone, fax or in person. . The City will be able to use its resources efficiently by cutting out the cost of unnecessary public meetings and reducing the need for as many staff reports. Recommended Changes not in the Scope of Work First Ston) Setbacks: Changing the first-story side setbacks were not in the Scope of Work for the Commission. The Commission proposes making the side setbacks a cornbination of 15 feet with each side no less than 5 feet. The current first-story side setbacks are 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other. This change would mean one could have side setbacks of 8 feet and 7 feet. Staff is neutral on this Issue. Courtesy Notices for Building Permits The Planning Commission endorsed a policy of providing a postcard notice to adjacent neighbors when a building permit is issued for new construction. This will notify neighbors about upcoming construction in their neighborhood. If the Council agrees, staff will prepare a report to the Council describing the costs and workload impacts associated with this policy, f~:S- MCA-2002-03 Page 6 Public Issues The Commission and staff were surprised with relative lack of public input at the Commission level. The survey included information about the public hearings that the Commission planned on holding throughout 2004. For the specifics of the public testimony, please refer to the attached minutes. Staff Issues In general, staff believes that the Commission's recommendation is consistent with the 2003 recommendation, the Council's Scope of Work, and the public survey, except as follows: Exceedinz a 45% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The 45% limit on FAR is a fundamental component of the Rl Ordinance, and there should be a high threshold for exceeding this limit, which can be accommodated with the variance procedure, In its recommendation in 2003, the Planning Commission supported using the variance process in these cases, Currently, an exception is required to exceed a 45% FAR. Staff recommends language that exceeding a 45% FAR should require a variance. Sensitivity in the Hillsides There are a number of properties in the Rl zone that are clearly in the hillside area of the City, These areas were not rezoned to RHS in the 1990s due to property owner opposition. A section in the Rl Ordinance states that new construction on slopes greater than 30% shall trigger the need to meet both the Rl and RHS regulations. Construction in the hillsides of the City is more sensitive than development on the valley floor. For that reason, staff believes that the trigger point for increased regulation of hillside projects should be adjusted, The City Council agreed and included such direction to the Plarming Commission in the Scope of Work. The Commission chose to not study this topic until after the General Plan is approved. Staff believes that a reasonable adjustment to the current regulation can be made without significant study and without waiting until after the review of the General Plan. Staff recommends language that new construction on properties with an average slope of over 15% should have to meet the Rl and RHS regulations. Removal ofSvecific Language for Vague Language At the final Planning Commission meeting on this amendment, a Commissioner proposed striking out language in the guideline section of the ordinance (Section 19.28,060 C(l)(a)) that states: "new construction should not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms ofbuildingfonns, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights" r~~ MCA-2002-03 Page 7 The Commissioner proposed to replace it with: "new construction should be harmonious in scale and design with the predominant neighborhood pattern." Since the item was raised On the same night as the Commission's approval of the Model Ordinance, staff did not have an opportunity to fully consider the effects of this change. Nevertheless, staff opposed this change at the meeting because it was taking language that was specific and replacing it with vague language, After further analysis, staff opposes this change for the following additional reasons: · The language proposed to be removed nearly matches Question 19 in the survey, and 70% of the respondents agreed that it was important that new construction meet the language in this guideline. · The author of the language "harmonious in scale and design" was former Mayor John Statton, who later described that meant having new construction not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights and entry feature heights, which is exactly the language that the Commission proposes to eliminate, · Removing it has the danger of an ad hoc definition (more or less strict) being formed without the approval or the knowledge of the City Council. o Neighbors who oppose two-story construction will interpret "harmonious in scale and design" to mean much more than the City intends. o Homeowners proposing two-story construction will argue that "harmonious in scale and design" is not defined and therefore should not be enforced, Staff recommends the language described remain in its current state, Story Poles Story poles are used to illustrate the size and height of new second-stories. The Commission proposes to eliminate story poles, citing usefulness, cost and potential danger. The Commission felt that alternative noticing techniques such as a posted rendering in the front yard and mailing reduced plan sets to adjacent neighbors provided sufficient information to neighbors that the story poles were not necessary. Residents may have grown accustomed to the story poles, as evidenced by over half of the survey respondents stating that the benefit of story poles is worth the cost to the applicant (Question 16). Fee Changes The process changes proposed by the Commission would result in new fees, most of which are reduced because the new process eliminates public hearings, thereby reducing the cost to the City. The proposed fees are shown on the next page: t~l MCA-2002-03 Page 8 Table 2 Proposed Fees for New Review Processes Fee $1,915 $1,339 $1,339 Fee $963 $1,339 $1,339 $549 Envelo e "" Note: all applications have a $200 noticing deposit and a $191 environmental review fee · The Minor Residential Pernùt fee matches the current Fence Exception fee, · The Two-Story Pernùt Level I fee matches the Director's Minor Modification fee. · The Two-Story Pernùt Level II and Exception fees match the current R1 Exception fee, Adiusted Ordinances With the enactment of this amendment, minor adjustments will be necessary to the Accessory Structure (Chapter 19.80) and Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.16). Staff requests that the Council authorize staff to bring these changes to a public hearing, CONCLUSION: The philosophy of the 1999 amendment was to specifically prescribe what could be built on the second-story. Applicants knew exactly what they could get and knew what was out of reach. The Planning Cormnission proposes a new philosophy where the regulations have more flexibility, but the burden of proof is placed on the applicant to demonstrate that their design is sufficiently compatibility with the neighborhood to warrants the new maximum potential. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Approved by: ~ gx David W, Knapp City Manager Steve Piasecki Director of Cormnunity Development r~! MCA-2002-03 Page 9 Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6281 Exhibit 1: Model Ordinance Exhibit A: Current Rl Ordinance (Chapter 19.28) Exhibit B: Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendations (2003, 2004) Planning Conlmission Documents and Summaries Exhibit C: Scope of Work Exhibit D: Rl Ordinance Schedule Exhibit E: Rl Principles Exhibit F: Specific Decisions Process Flow Charts Exhibit G: Design Review Process Exhibit H: Current Rl Development Process Survey Documents Exhibit I: Public Survey Form Exhibit J: Survey Summary Exhibit K: Survey Summaries by Type of Respondent Exhibit L: Pie Chart for Question 7 Exhibits M through S: Maps for Question 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 Exhibit T: Minutes from Planning Commission meetings Environmental Review Documents Exhibit U: Initial Study Exhibit V: Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Exhibit W: Negative Declaration r-¡ MCA-2003-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6281 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 19,28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO REGULATIONS AFFECTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit 1 as amended, ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of October 2004 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Isl Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl TaghiSaadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Planning Commission G:IPlanningIPDREPORT\RESIMCA-2003-02 reso.doc r~(ð EXHIBIT 1 Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through, MODEL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (Rl) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19,28 ofthe Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 19.28 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1R-1-) ZONES Sections: 19.28.010 19.28.020 19.28.030 19.28.040 19.28.050 19.28.060 Purposes. Applicability of f'Regulations. Permitted üUses. Couditional üUses. 8ite-4Development f'Regulations (Site). Development rel!ulations (8uildinl!). Lot eoverage, building setbaeks, height restrietions and pri'laey mitigatian measures f-aT nanaeeessary buildings and struetures. 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.08019.28.11711 Permitted yYard eEncroachments. 19.28.090' Minor Residential Permit. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. 19.28.11019.28.11811 Exceptions far prescriptive design regulations. 19.28.0911 Residential design apflraval. 19.28.12019.28.11111 Development f'Regulations-Eichler (Rl-eR--le). 19.28.13019.28.1115 Development f'Regulations-(Rl-aR--ffi). 19.28.1111 Praeedure faT exceptians and residential design aflpravals. 19.28.1211 8alar design. 19.28.14019.28.1311 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.1411 Appendix}l Landseafle Mitigation Measures. 19.28.1511 }.ppendix B Release of Prhacy Protection Measures. 19.28.1611 f.ppendix C Privacy PTatectian Planting Affidavit. 19.28.010 Purposes. Rl R-+single- family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 1 t~ fl A. Enhance the identity ofresidential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an RI R-J-single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title, (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the RI R-J-single-family residence district: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19,82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D. Home occupations when accessory to permit requirements contained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for consumption by occupants of the site; F, Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H, Group care activities with six or fewer people; ~I. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; +J. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; ohK. Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large-family day care home. The Director of Community Development or hislher designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; jÇ,.L. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord, 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 2 t~!L 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RI R-+single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A, Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19,84; 5, Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title, B, Issued by the Planning Commission: I. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19,28,060 G(6)m of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons; 3, Residential care facilities faciJity that fall into the fol1owing categories: that is not required to obtain a license by tae State, Cemit)' agency or department and has six or less residents, not incladiRg the providers, provider family or staff; a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license bv thc State, Countv agencv or depmtment and has six or Jess residents, not including the providers. provider family or staff; b, Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license m1d seven or greater residents. not including the provider tàmily or staff. is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residentiaJ care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or departmcnt and has seven or greater residents. not including the provider family or statI, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the propertv boundary of another residentiaJ care facility; 1.Residential CMO facility that aas the appropriate State, County agency or depMtment ¡¡ceRGe and seven or !,'feator residents, not ine1uding the provider family or staff, is a minimum distanêC of five h~mdred feet from the property bou1ldMY of another residential care facility; 5.Residential care facility that is net required to obtain a ¡¡cense BY tae State, Ceunty ageRc)' or department m'ld Ras se·;en or greater residents, not incbding the proy;der family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet trom the property Boundary of another residential care facility; Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 3 Ó .--- {3 GA. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. (Ord, 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord, 1688, §3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 8He-Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations, 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R I R--I- zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Minimum Lot Area Zoning in Square Symbol Number Feet Rl 5 5,000 Rl R--I- 6 6,000 R 1 R--I- 7.5 7,500 R 1 R--I- 10 10,000 R I R-I- 20 20,000 THe minimum lot size iF! aFI R I zonø is sill taoHsand square feet. 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection AO) of this section, Se£tioR 19.28,0501.1, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled, B. Lot Width, The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the ITont-yard setback line, except in the RI-5 district where the minimum lot width is fifly feet. C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. I, Site plans for all development proposals shall include topographical information at contour intervals not to exceed ten feet. Areas where slopes are thirty percent or greater shall be identified on the site development plan. 2. Buildings proposed on a portion of a lot with slopes of thirty percent or greater shall be developed in accordance with the site development and design standards specified in Sections 19.40.050 through 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter 19.40, or the RIR-I- zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. 3. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § I (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 4 g'-I'-( D. An application [or building permits filed and accepted by the Citv (fees paid and pel111it number issued) on or before Januarv L 2005 IUay proceed with application processing undcr the ordinances in cffect at that time. 19.28.060 Development Regulations fBuilding).Lot Coverage, Building Setbaeks, Height Restrietions and Privaey Mitigation Measures fur N onaeeessory Buildings aDd Structures. A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent oflot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs. patios. porches and other similar tèatures not substantially enclosed by exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The obiective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in coni unction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the proiect is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of an stmctures on a Jot shall bc fortv-five percenU\ny ne'N sÏ11gle story house, or siBgle story additioB to aB o)[istiBg 110use may Bot cause tae floor «rea ratio of all structures on the lot to exceed f-orty five percent. 2,f.ny new !\vo story house, or second story addition to an existing house, may not cause the floor area ratio of all structures on the lot to exceed thirty five percent, HBless discrotionMY design a¡')J1roval is first oMained from tl1e Design Review Committee lmrsuant to Section 19.28,090. In RO eveRt shall such floor Mea ratio exceed forty five percent of the net lot area. 3.The floor area ofa second story shall FlOt mweed thirty five J1erceFlt of the existiRg or prø!3osed firot story or six hundred squMe feet. whicl1eyer is greater. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall be fii1y percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area. or eight hundred SqUaTC feet. whichever is greater. 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen tèet. measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters. have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-stOry house. this area will count as second storv floor area: otherwise. the area will count as tìrst floor area, b. A floor area allowance of seven tv-five square feet shall be provided for two-story proiects to partially offset the stairway area that would otherwise be counted under subsection B(3) of this section, C. Design Guidelines, I. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to issuance of building permits: a. The mass and bulk of the design sftaH-should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New constmetioR sl1all Rot be disproportionate1y larger than or out of scale \Vita tl1e Fleighborhood pattem in tenons ofb~Iildi11g f0I111S, roof pitches, eave aeights, ridge hei;;hts, and entry feature heights; Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 5 ð"~1 )" b. New construction should be harmonious in scale and design with the l1redon1Ìnant nei ghborhood pattern. Ir.c. The design sfialJ-should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; &cd. For projeets with three ear garages oriented to the pHblic right of way, the wall piano o[(ho third space shall be set bad; a minimum oft'ovo foot from the wall plane of the other two spaces, or shall ineorporate a taadem space. There sfialJ-should not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. e. No more than fifty percent of the ITont elevation of a house should consist 0 f garage area. f. Long, un articulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second story. g. The current patteD} of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained, h. When possible, doors, windows and architectura1 elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. I. Porches are encouraged. 1, Living area shou1d be closer to the street, while garages shou1d be set back more. k. All second story roofs should have at least a one-foot roof overhang. 2.lf the Director does not find that the proposal is generally consistent with tRis sectiof!, theR aR application must be made for design approval from tRe DosigR Review Committee pHIsllaBt to SoctioB 19.2S.090. D, Setback-First Story (Nonaecessory Structures). I, Front Yard, The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen- foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard, The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard setback mav be less than five feet. .^.t least one of two side yard setbacks mUGt be f!O less thaf! ten feet. The Dther side yard setbaek must be BO less than five feet. 'NDtwithGtanding tRe abovo, a lot less than sixty' feet in width and less than six thDuSafld square fcet shall ~lave a minimum side yard setback Df five feet Df! each side yard, lR instances where an additiDR is proposed tD an existing bui1ding haviBg bDth side yard setbacks less tRan ten feet, tRe wider setbaek shall be retained and the naHQ'.ver setbaek mHst be at least five feet. In the caso of a CDrncr lot, a minimum sido yard setbaek oftwe1vo foet Dn the street side Dfthe lot is required, a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interiDr lots in the R 1-5 district. the side vard sctbacks are fiye feet on both sides. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 6 ~-I& c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for aJ] slcle var-cIs between the fTont property line and the rear property linc. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. Thc rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reàuction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line, a. With a Minor Resi.dential Pcrrnit subiect to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the fi'ont setback line. 4. Garage. The front facc of a garage in an R I district shan be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a street Droperty line. a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the Dublic right-of-wav, the wall DIane of the third SDace shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane ofthc other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Floor (Nof!accessory Structures). I. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. The minimum side setbacks are teR feet, provided that in the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is t'lfeRty feet ITOR~ any property line, af!d iF! the case of a comer lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property liRe and twenty feet from aRY rear property line of an existing, developed siRgle family d'.velling. 3. In the case of a comer lot, a minimum setback is twelve feet ITom a street side propertv line and twenty feet from any rear property line of a single-family dwelling, 3,Setback Surcharge, ^ setback distance equal to fifteeR feet shall Be added if! whole or in any combination to the front and side yard setBack requirements specified iR saÐsectioR E2 of this section. f. minimum of five feet of the fifteen feet shall be applied to the siàe yard(s ). L^.ecessory Baildings/8tnlCtares. Chapter 19,80 govems setBacks, CO'ierage and other standards for accessory stmctmes. 5.The height of secoRd story wans are regulated as follows: a.Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of secoRd story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a mininmm two foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof ag&inst the seeDRd floor wan. The overlap shall be stmctliral aRd shall be offset a minimum of hJHr feet from the first story exterior wall plane, B.fdl second story 'sail heights greater than sÏJ[ feet, as measured ¡¡-om the second story finished floor, are required to have building wan offsets at least every t'.veRty [oar feet. with a miRimum two [Dot depth and si)[ foot \vidth. The ofrnets shall eomprise the fcdl height of the 'Nail plaRe. c.,\lI secoRd story roofs shall h&ve a minimum of one foot ea'ies. F. Basements. I. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and Planning Commission Recommendation (October I 1,2004) 7 tr-(l ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be UP to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b, The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3, Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4, Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell. 5. The perimeter of the basement and alllightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Height. I. Maximum Building Height. The height of anv principal dwe1ling in an R 1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet. not including fireplace chimneys. antennae or other appurtenances. 2, Building Envelope (One Storv). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height of single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: I. A ten-toot high vertical line measured from natural grade measured at the property line: 2. A twenty-five-de'-'fee roofline angle projected inward at the ten- foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section. a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space mav havc a maximum wall height ofsevcnteen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade. or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Permit. 3, Building Envelope (Two Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: I. A ten-foot high vertical line measllred from natural grade at the propetty line: ? A forty-five degree roof line angle proiected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(3)(a)(1) of this section, 4. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet. and shall have a minimum two-foot high ovcrlap of the adioining first story roof against the second storv wall, The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four tèet 1fom the first story exterior wall plane, a. Thc Director of Community Development mav approve an exccption to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D. 5. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 8 f-Ið" 6, Areas Restricted to One Storv. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen [oct) by aftìxing an "i" designation to the R I zoning district. G,/\dditiona¡ Site Requirements. I ,Height. a.Maxin111m Bailding Height. The height of any priNcipal dwelliNg iH an R I zone shaH not exceed twenty eight fcot, not ineJuding fireplace chimneys, antenHae or other apfHlrtonanees. b.The maximum e¡¡terior wall heigfit and ¡",diEting height on siagle stor)' stmctures and single story sectiORs of two story stmctures HlHst fit into a bai¡diag envelope defincd by: i.A tviebe fOot high 'icliicalline measllfed from natural grade and located five fcet from property liaes; ii."^. t':ienty fi':e degreo rooniae aagle projectcd imvard at the twelve foot high line refcronced in subsection flbi of this section. Notwiths(¡mding the above, a gable eRd of a roof eaelosing an attic space may have a maxin111m wall height eftweaty feet to the peale of the roof as measured ITom aatural grade, 2.Heights excecding twoaty feet shall be subject to the setback regulations in subsection E of this section. 3jcr~~~ ~:stricted to One Story. The City Celomcil may prescriBe that all 13uildiags within a designated area be limited to one story inheigfit (Hot e)[Ceedi:¡~~g:: feet) by affixlHg to the R I zomag distrIct, the deslgnahon "I"; provld~- P~'. -----'__, that the ¡ilRitation may be rolRoyed through use permit appreval, as pro~id~d in Section 19,28,O~OB by the Flanaing Cemmissioa. ~.The rnaximHm entry featlli'e height, as measured from fi¡Üsll grade to the top ofthø wall plate, shall be fOHrteen feet. 5,N~ ~~~; single story side '....alls longer thaR sixteen feet shall face a publie right of way withoHt at least one ofthe follewiHg: (a) at least one offset ,¡.-ith a minimum two fOot depth and siK foot width; the effset shall comprise the fHII heigh~~~~ viall plane; (b) v:indow of at least thirty inches BY thirty inches; (e) entry ~___ leadiflg to a deor; (d) trellis 'Nith laadseape seree¡Üng, 6,EJleeptions for Hillside .-\reas. Notwithstandia;; any prsvisioas of subseetienfl of this soetlOn to the contrary, the Plannmg CommlSslOH may make an e¡(6ept1en fur heights to exceed t',venty ei;;ht fcet under certaifl eireHmstaHces: a.The sHbject property is ia a hillside area and has slopes often pereeat or greater; b.Topographieal featares of the subject property make an ÐJ;ceptioH to tho staadard height rostrietions Neeessary or desirable; e.la no case, shall the maximum height cxeeed thirty fcet for a principal dwelliHg 8r twent)" foet for aH accessory Buildin;; or d'Nelling; d.Ia nø case, shall the maKimHlH height of a stmetul'Ø located en proluiflellt rid;;olines, on or abo'le the four hundred finy foot eontoHr exceed tvienty [-eet in height. - H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second storv decks with views into neighbOling residential side or rear vards shall file for a Minor Residential Pennit subject Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 9 õ~l~ to Section 19.28.090 in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of !he permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address p¡ivacy protection to the grcatest extent whilc still allowing the construction and usc of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other similar unenclosed features, 1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the ¡¡-ont setback fòr' the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifleen feet. 3. The minimum rear-vard setback shall be twenty feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter mav be varied for a stmcturc utilized for passive or active solar purposes provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements of adioining property owners. Any solar stmcture that requires variation ¡Yom the setback or height restrictions of this chapter mav be allowed onlv upon issuance of a Minor Residential Pennit subiect to Section 19.28.090. H.Privaey Protcctiofl Requirements, 1 ,Required Landsea¡3e Plafltiflg. a.Requirement. Ifl order to address pri'lacy proteetiofl and the redactiofl in visible building mass of now two story homes afld additions, tree afld/0r shrub planting is reqaired. b,Plarlting Plafl. ,\ building pefHlit applieation for a new t\'le story house or a seeofld story addition shall be aeeompanied by a plaflting plafl whieh identifies the loeatiofl, species and eaflopy diamotor of existing trees or shruBs süÈJjeet to staffaj'Jproval. Ne's trees or shn:bs shall be reqaired on the applieant's property within a eone o[,'ision defined by a thirt)' degree angle from the side window jambs of all seeoRd story windows (Exhibit I), Nev. trees or sh:-ubs are not required to replaee e-Jcistil1g trces or shrubs if an Internationally Certified /.rborist or LieeHsed Læ~dseaj'Je /crehitect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs are eOIJsisteRt v.-itl3. tl3.e intent of /.ppofldix ,\, Applieæi!s for new two story homes and additions must pl<mt a tree ifl front offle'.Y second stories in tl3.e front yard setbaek area unless therc is a eORflict with tl3.e tree canopies of the plffilie street tree (AppeRdix /., page 2). Tl3.e plaRtiflg is reqaired on the applicaRt's property, unless the options listed ifl sabseetion Pld of this section is applicd. This o]Jtion does not aj'Jply to the froflt yard troe planting reqairemoRt. e.Planting Reqairomeflts. The miflimuR1 size of the proposed trees shall be tv.enty four inel3. box and eight foot minimum p1arlting height. Tl3.e minimum size of tf:e shrubs shaH be fifteen gallon and six foot plaflting height. The plal1ting must be able to aehiove a partial scrocniflg within three years from planting. The speeies and plaflting distaflee Botweefl treos shall be governed by ,\ppendix .^., The trees or shruBs shall be plantod prior to issaanee of a final oceupancy pormit. ,\n affida':it of planting is reqHired in ordcr to obtaiR the final occHpanc)" permit (,^.jJpeHdiK C). Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 10 f ~ vl.-ð d.OptioRs. WRore plalÜing is required, tRe appiieallt may pial}t OR the aff-eeted property owners lot in lieu oftl,eir own lot or tRe affected property ownor may mDdify H:e nHmBers Df shrubs Dr trees, their tyres and lecatiDns BY sHBmitting a waiyer to the CommHRity DevelDpment Department alDng with the bHilding permit (Appendix B). This Dption does nDt apply tD ttle reqaired tree planting in front yards. e.l.pplieability. This requirement shall apply tD secDnd stDry windows and decks with views intD neighBDring residential yards. Skylights, windows with sills mDre thall five f{)et aBove the fi1J.ished secDnd flDDr, windDws with pemlanent, m[teriDr 10m'eIS up tD six f-cet above the finished secDnd flDor, and DBseHred, nDn openable windDws aTe not required to pro';ide privacy prDtectiDn planting. f.Mainteaallce. The required plallts shall ae maintained. Landscape plaating maintenance includes irrigation, fortilizatioa and pmning as necessary tD yield a growth rate expected for a particHIBf" species. WhOTe required planting dies it must Be replaced within thirty days with the size and species as described in ,'\.ppendix ,^. ofthis chapter and an updated planting plall shall Be pro'iided to the Community Development Department. The affected property owner with pri'iacy protection planting on his or her own lot is flot required tD mairnaiR the landscaping. (Ord. I£á£, (part), 2001; Ord. 1£63, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1£34, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1,1998; Ord. 1781, (part), 1998; Ord. lá37, (part), 1993; Ord. lá35, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord, 1601, Exh, .'\. (part), 1992) 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three years of the planting. A. Apµlicabilitv. This requirement shaH apply to new two-storv homes, second-storv decks, two-story additions. or modifications to the existing second-storv decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacv impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights, windows with sills more than live fèet aBove the finished second floor, windows with pennanent. exterior louvers UP to six feet above the finished second floor. and obscured, non-openable windows are not rcquired to provide privacy protection planting. B. Privacv Planting Plan. Proposals lor a new two-storv house or a second story addition shall be accompanicd BY a privacy planting plan which identifies the location. species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs, I, New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-story windows. The area where planting is required is Bounded BY a thiliy-degrec angle on each side window iamb. The trees or shrubs shall bc planted prior to issuancc of a final occupancv permit. a. New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified ArbOlist or Licensed Landscape Architect Planning Commission Recommendation (OctoBer 11,2004) II 1'-;[ verities that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacy plantimu;pecies, sllbiect to approval by the Director of Communitv Devclopment. b. Affected prope¡1y owner(s) may choose to a110w privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Waiver. These privacv mitigation measures mav be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from the affected prope¡1y owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or locations. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-storv homes and two-storv additions must plant a trec in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area, The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Community Development can waive this front-yard tree ifthere is a contlict with existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-of-way. D, Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacv planting trees and shmbs. The list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size oftrees and sluubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. E, Covenant. The property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacv planting, or use of existing vegetation as privacv planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division, This regulation does not apply to situations described in subsection B(1 )(b) of this section. F. Maintenance. The relluired plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessarv to vield a growth rate expected for a particular species, G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible bv the Director of Conm1Lmitv Development. 19.28.070 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards and setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residcntial Permit and conforms to the following: to no loss than three f-eet from the property line if the applicant obtaiRs writteR CORseRt from the adjoiRiRg property OWRer thereby affœted and receives approval ITom the Director sf Coa-1Rmnity DevelopmoRt. Only one such extoRsioR shall be permitted for the life of sHeh btlilding. This sectioR applies to the fimt story only and shall Rot be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any bHildiRg, which is the result of the grantiRg of a variance or exception, either before or after sHch property become part of the City, I. The cxtension or addition mav not f11l1her encroach into anv required setback and the height of thc existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. 2. The maximum length of the extension is Ü!leen feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 12 f~2L 3. The extension of any wall plane ofa first-storv addition is not permitted to be within three feet of anv property line. 4. Only one such extension shaH be pemlitted for the life of such building. 5. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to aHow the further extension of an encroachment by any building. which is the result of the '-'ranting of a variance or exception. either before or after such property become part of the City. RThe e)[teAsiol1 or addition may not furthcr encroach into any required setback; e.g., a single story may se c)[tcflded aloflg at! e)[istiflg fi\'e foot side yard setback Cyefl thoHgfl the side yard docs not equal ten feet. Howeyer, iH flO ease shall aR)' wall plaRc of a first story additioR be placed closer than th,ee feet to any property line. &.B. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, providèd that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. (Ord, 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord, 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits. Projects that require a Minor Residential Pemlit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section, The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their property òr the neighborhood as a whole. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application. a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record ofreal property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adiacent to the subiect property. including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a detemlined action date and shall include a copy of the development plans. eleven inches by seventeen inches in size, B. Decision, After the advertised deadline for public conmlents. the Director of Community Dcve10pment shall approve. conditionally approve. or dcnv the application, The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans. zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or iniurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. and will not be detrimental to the public health. safetv or welfare. 3. The proposed project is hannonious in scale and design with the general nei ghborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adioining properties have been reasonably mitigated. C. Notice of Action. The City CounciL Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail and electronic mail. Any interested pat1y may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136. except that thc Planning Commission will makc the tìnal action on the appea1. D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted bv the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 13 g-.2 '5 Residential Pennit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed bv the conditions of approval. In the event that the building pcrmit expircs for anv reason, the Minor Residcntial Pcrmit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Pennit is filed before the expiration date and substantive iustiÜcation for the extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Minor Residentia] Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. Two-story additions or two-story new homes require a Two-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level] Two-Story Residential Permit, while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35% shall require a Level II Two-Story Residential Pemlit. A. Notice of Application (Level I). Upon receiPt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adiacent to the subiect property, including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a COpy of the deve]opment plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. I. Posted Notice, The applicant shaH install a public notice in the front yard of the subiect site that is clear1y visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide fiml1y attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, ifknow, or the location of the property, if the address is not known. b. A bricf description ofthe proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact infonnation for public inquiries: d. A deadline for the submission of public comments, which shall be at least fOUlieen days after the date thc notice is posted: e. A black and white orihogra¡Jhic rendering of the front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B. Notice of Application (Levcl If). Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent bv first class mail to all owners of record ofreal property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adiacent to the subject property, including properties across a public or priv;lte street. The notice shall invite public comment bv a determined action datc and shall include a copy of the dcvclopment plans, elcven inches by scventeen inches in size. Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 14 ¡-~L'-{ 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice consistent with subsection AO) of this section. excevt that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead of a black and white orthographic rendering. c. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Communi tv Development shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following lindings: I. The project is consistent with the Cupertino Gencral Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2, The granting of the pennit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to thc public health, safety or welfare. 3, The proposed project is hamlOnious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adioining properties have been reasonablv mitigated. D, Notice of Action. The City Council. Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the proiect shall be notified of the action by first class mail and electronic mail. Any interested party mav appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19,136, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. E, Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by thc City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two-Story Permit approvaL said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building pennit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Pcmlit shall become null and void. The Director of Communitv Development may grant a one-vear extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. F. Concurrent Applications, At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Two-Storv Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. 19.28.110 19.28,080 Exceptions far Prescri¡¡th'e Design Regulations. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Sections 19,28.060, 19.28.070 and 19.28.12019,28.100 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Department shall sct a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice bv first class mail to all owners of record ofreal property (as shown in the last t¡LX assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property. Properties that are adiacent to the subject site, including thosc across a public or private strcct, shall reccive a reduced scale COpy of the plan sct with the public notice. B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or denv the application based on the findings in this section. Any interestcd partv can appeal the dccision pursuant to Chapter 19,136. C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building pennit is filcd and accepted bv thc Citv (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Exception approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically Plarming Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 15 t-).) presClibed by tbe conditions of approval. In tbe event that the building permit expires ¡Ör any reason, the Exception shall become null and void. The Director of Communitv DeyeloPl11cnt may grant a one-year cxtension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive iustification tor the extension is provided. D. Findings for Approval 1. Issued by the Director of Community Developmcnt. The Director of Community DeveloDment may grant exceptions frol11 the prescriDtive design regulation described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the following findings: a. The project fulfills the intent of the yisible second-story wall height regulation in that the numbcr of two-story wan pIallcs and the amount of visible second story wall area is reduccd to the maximum extent possible. b. The exception to be granted is one that will require the Ieast modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomDlish the Durpose. c. The Droposed exceDtion will not result in significant visual impact as viewed [TOm abutting properties. 2, Issued bv the Design Review Committee. The Design Reyiew Committee may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19,28.060, except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.120 upon making all of the following findings: a, The literal enforcemcnt of this chapter win result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b. The proposed develoDment will not be ini urious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfarc. c, The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. d, The proposed exception wi1.l not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. .^dssHed by the Director of COffiffitlflity Developmellt. WitH reG3eet to a reEJaest for two story development 'oYhich does not meet the development reEJHiremonts contained ill SectionI9.28.060H (Privacy Protcction Requirements) and SectioB 19.28.100C, the Community Development Director may grant aN exceptioH to allow hvo story develo3ment i[(he subjeet development, based u3on sHbstantial evidence, meets all of the following criteria: I.The literal enforcement of this chaptcr will rcsHlt in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2,The proposed develo3\-Eent ,....ill not be injurious to pro3erty or improvements iFJ. the area nor be detrimcntal to tHe pHblic safety, health and welfare. 3.THe proposed develo3ment is otherwise consistent witH the City's General Plan, any apfJlieabIe speeific pIan, and WitH tHe purposes of this chapter. 1.The adjoiBiBg 3roperties are otherv:ise protected from umeasonable privacy impacts. Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 16 'fj-l.-h B.Issllcd by the DesigR Review Committee (Other Prescripti'ie DesigH ReglllatioHs). The Dosign Review Committee H-1GY grant oxcoptions frem tho prescriptivo dosign regulations described in Section 19.28.060 and Section 19.28.100 exclasi'ie of Section 19.28.060G1 (Hillside Budding Heights) upon making all of the following findings: I.The literal enforcement of tile pro'¡isioflS of this chaptenyill resHlt in restrictions iHeoHsistoHt with the spirit and intent of this ehapter. 2.The grantiFl¡:; ofthe OJlceptioR will not resHlt iFl a eondition that is materially dettimental to the public health, saf-cty and welfare. 3,The exeeptionto be gnffited is one that ",,.ill require the least modification ofthe prescribed design regulation and the mÜÜmum variaRce that will accomplish the purpose, 1.The proposed Ø)[ception will not result in signific8.Ilt visual impact as vie'.ved from abuttiag properties. C.Isslied by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building Hcils<fltS), NotwithstaRding any provision of Section] 9.28,060 G I 10 the contrary, the Planning Commission may grant an eJlceptioR for heights to eJrceed twenty eight feet Hpon malcing all of the following fiHdiFlgs: I.The subject propeliy is in a hillside area and has slopes often perceHt or greater. 2.Topot;raphical features of the sHbject property make aFl exeeption to the staRdard height restriotions necessary or desirable. 3.In FlO ease shall the maximum height exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling or t',venty feet for an accessory ¡)Hi Iding, 1.In no case shall the ma¡Ümum height of a stn:cture located on a prominent ridgeline, OR or above the fOHf hundred fifty feot contour eJweed twenty eight foet. (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § I (pmi), 2000; ard. 1811, § I (part), 2000; ard. 1831, (part), ]999; ard, 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.999 Residential Design f.ppFeval. IR the eyont that a proposed de'ielopment of two stories eJweeds a thirty five percent floor area ratio as prescribed in Section 19,28,060B, or ia the event that the Director of CommaFlity Development fiAds that the proposed two stor; deve]opmeFlt does Flot conform to Section 19.28.060C, the applicant shall apply to tile Design Rcview Committee fur desigR approval to allow fur the de'¡elopment; provided, how eyer, in FlO event shall such application exceed a forty five perceHt floor area ratio, In addition to the pHblic hearing aRd notice requircments described iR Section 19.28.110, at least teFl days prior to the date of the public hearing, the applicant shall install story poles to outliFle the proposed bHildiFlg exterior walls aRd roof as further described by proeedures developed by the Director ofCmnt'F11mity Development. The DesigR Review Committee may gnmt a special permit OR I)" upon makiAg all of the fullowing findings: f..The project will be cOflsisteRt with the Cupertino Comprehensive GCl-leral Plan, aRY applicable specific plans, zoning ordiRances and the parposes of this title. RThe graAting ofthe spccial pem1Ït will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injmioHs to property or improycmeAts in the ';icinity, and ",.ill Flat be detrimcntal to tAe public health, safety or welfare. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 17 t~X7. C.THe proposed additiolL/HoHle is HanRolliotls ill scale a!lE1 desil,'fl WitH the general neighborhood. D ,THe proposed addition/home is generally consistent with design guidelines dC'ieloped by tho Director OfCOR-lffiHAity DeveloplAeAt. E. The proposed additi01t'Ìlome willllot result in sigllificaIlt adverse visllal impacts as viewed from adjoiaillgproporties. (Ord. 18é8, (part), 2001; Ora. 18éO, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1811, ~ I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.12019.28.100 Development Regulations-Eichler (R1-e)(R Ie). RI-eR-l-e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned R 1-eR-l-e. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition. A. Setback-First Story. I. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. I, Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roof line of the house, 2. The maximum roof slope shall be three-to-twclve~ (rise over run). 3. Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines. 5.Secolld story' lmildiag'.'iall offsets described ill Section 19,28,060 E5b are Ilot required for Homes in tHe Rl e zone. 5. Scction 19,28.060 G(4) shan be considered a guideline in the Rl-e dist¡ict. 6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve inches above the existing grade, 7, Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top ofthe floor to the top of the wall plate. C. Privacy Protection Requirements. I. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows. In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Section 19.28.070 19.28,060H, the following is required for all second story windows: a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor; or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000) 19.28.10519.28.130 Development Regulations-(RI-aR--la) RI-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned RI-a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations, The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 18 t- 2f B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C, Second Story Area, A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: I. A second floor may be at least seven hundred square feet 700 sq, ft. in area. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred square fcet 1, I 00 sq. ft. in area. D. Setback - First Story. I. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback - Second Story. I, Front Yard. The minimum ITont yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard, The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 1.The setback smehar¡:;e in Seetion 19.28.060 E(3) dees not a¡3J'1ly in this distriet. F. Second-story Regulations I, Second story decks shall conform to the second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the ITont and rear only. 2, The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane. 3, The front-facing wall planers) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s), The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two-story wall plane on the front elevation. G, Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent ~ofthe ITont yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces, No more than forty percent 4O%-0f the ITont yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights, The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: I. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; 2. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)Qa) of this section, I. Variation from the R 1 and R I-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the RI-a district. ], Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionary review [rom the Design Re'/iew COlHmitteebased on Section 19.28.100. except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in subsection Nt I) of this section.. Diseretionary revie...: proeesses shall be based on Seetion 19,28.090 oftRe Ctlpertino Munieipal Code, cxeept as amended by this ordinance. K. Design Guidelines, The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence, Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 19 8-- L 4. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. I. Second-story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a minimum four-foot depth and ten-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height ofthe wall plane. 3. Section 19,28.060 G(4) E(5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in the RI-a district. 4.SeetioR 19,28.060 E(5)(b) shall Rot apply to the Rl a diGtriet. ~4. Garages, The maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be twenty-five feet, which will accommodate a two-car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear ofthe property, L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. I, Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line. a. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height ofthe existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. b, In no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line, c. This section does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property became part of the City. 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line, 3. Front Porch, Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed ITom the street, a porch should appear proportionally greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionally greater height than its width, Use of this yard encroachment . provision shall require the approval of the Director of Community Development. a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 20 ¡-JO supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or maSSIve. b, Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area, d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e, Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M, Landscaping I. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes, The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms ITom the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences, 2, Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts rrom mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required by Section 19.28,070 19.28.060 H of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of twelve +l-feet at the time of planting. c, Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views ITom second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. Prooedures and ProeesG I.Posted Notice. For allne'l,· eonstnwtion, the apJlieant shall install a pwlie lIatiee in the front yard of the suèjeet site that is dearly visible ITom the publio street. The notioe shall be a werrtherproof sign, at least t'.vo fcet tall and three feet wide firmly attacl,ed to a five foot Jost. The notice shaH remain ill place ill1til an aotioll !J.as been taken 011 the aJplioatioll and t!J.e apJeal Jeriod has Jassed. Tae sign shall oontain the following: a.The exact addresG of the property, ifkF1Ðw, or t!J.e location afthe propCl1y, if the address is not lmown. b."'. brief desoription oftae proposed projeet, the eontent ofvif1Ïoh sHall be at the sole disoretion of the City; c.City contact information for public inquiries; d.",\" 11 "x I T' illustration of the proposed hOHse when viewed from the street. In eases where design review is required, tHe illustratioFl shall Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 21 o~]1 be a perspective rendering and shall include the Jrojected action date. The City shall a¡JJf0ve the illustration or rendCling Jrior to Josting. 2,Adjaccnt single family rcsidcntial properties shall rcccive a redaccd scale copy of the proposcd plan set witA tho mailed notice. :;'LFindings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project is consistent with the City's single-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible, 19.28.11 () Procedure for Exceptions and Residential Design f.pprovals. f.,PHèlie Hearing Notiee. Upon reeeiJt of an a¡Jplication for approval, the Director of Community Development shall set a time and place fur a public hearing before tl1e relevant deeision maker and order the pHblic notiee thereof. f. notiee of the hearing shall be seH! by first class mail to all owners ofreeonl of real JroJerty (as show" in the last ta¡¡ assessment roll) within three hHfHired feet of the subject JroJerty. B.Expiration of an Exception or Residential DesigH AJproval. ;\ decision fDf approval whiel1 has not been Hsed v;ithiR one year following the effeeti'ie date thereof, shall beeome null and void and of no effeet unless a shorter time period shall speeifically be prescribed by the conditions of the exception. An approval shall be deemed to have been "ased" when a comJlete lnÚlding permit application is sHbmitted to the Cl1iefBHiJding Offieial, and continues to Jrogress in a diligent mar.ner. In tl1e e'ient that the lmilding Jermit application cxpires, the Residential DesigH f.Jproval shall beeome null and void. The Director of CommHnity De'lelopment may grant one additional one year extension if an application is filed before the expiration date without further notice and hearing. C,Deeision. f.fter closing the public hearing, the deeision maker shall apJrove, eonditionally approve, or den)' the application. D.!.1l decisions regarding a¡Jprovals contained in tl:is section may be a¡Jpealed by allY intercstcd party pursuant to Chapter] 9,136. fen appeal of the Design Revie..." Committee decision shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal from tl1e decision of the Director of Community DO'ielopmcnt. E.E¡¡piration of an Execption or Residential Dcsign i\jJproval. .'\ deeision for approval which has Rot been Hsed within one year follewing the effccti';e date thereof, sl1all become null and ';oid and of no eff{)et Hnless a shorter tinle period shall speeifically be preseribed by the conditions oftl1e exception. !.n appreval shall be deemed to have been "used" in the Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 22 f~]2... event of the erection ofa stmctme when sHfficient building activity has occHrred and, continaes to occm in a dili¡;ent maHHer. The Director of Community Developmont may ¡;rant one additional one year extension if an application is filed before the expiration date without fHrther notice and hearing. F,ConcHrrent l\pplications. Notwithstandin;:; any provision of this chapter to the contrary, an application fur OJ[ception or residential desigB review may, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, be processed concHITontly with other land use approvals. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (pa¡i), 2000; Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.1211 SøloF Design. The setbacl~ and height restrictions provided in tais caapter may be varied for a strücture Htilized for passive or active solar pHrpeses, in R I zones, provided that no such structme shall infrin¡;e upon solar easements of adjoining property O'.vnem. .\ny soIai' structure ",:hich reEluires variation from the setbacl~ or hcight restriction of this chapter shall be allowed only upon issuaBce of a conditional use permit by the Director of COffiffiHnity Development. (Ord. ] 860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, E][h..l1. (part), 1992) 19.28.14019.28.1311 Interpretation by the Planning Director. _In RIR--J- zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation ofthe chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord, 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) Strike all sections aBd exhibits after Section 19.28.130 Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 23 8"-]'3 EXHIBIT A Section 19,28.010 19.28,020 19.28,030 19.28_040 19,28.050 19,28,060 19,28.070 19.28,080 19.28.090 19.28.100 19.28.105 19.28,110 19.28,120 19.28.130 19,28.140 19.28.150 19,28.160 19.1&,010 CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) ZONES Purposes. Applicability of regulations. Permitted uses, Conditional uses, Site development regulations. Lot coverage. building sethacks, heighl restrictions and privacy mitigation measures for nonaccessory buildings and structures. Permitted yard encroachments. Exceptions for prescriptive design regulatioIJ5 . Residential design approval. Development regulations-Eichler (R-le). Development regulations-(R-la). Procedure for exceptions and residenlial design approvals. Solar design, Inlerpreiation by the Planning Director, Appendix A-Landscape Mitigation Measures. Appendix B-Release of Privacy Proteclion Measures. Appendix C-Privacy Proleclion Planting Affidavil. 19.28.010 Purposes. R-l single-family residence districls are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suiiable for deiached dwellings in order to: A, Enhance the idenlity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy 10 individual residential parcels; C, Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of sirUCtures within residenlial neighborhoods; D, Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) 2004 S-2 Repl. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building. structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-l single-family residence district other than in confo= with the provisions of this chapter and oiher applicable provisions of this title. (Ord_ 1860, § I (part). 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601. Exh, A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in ihe R -1 single- family residence districl: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit conforming 10 the provisioIJ5, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, excepl for those second dwelling units requiring a condilional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidenial to permitted uses and oiherwise conforming wiih ihe provisioIJ5 of Chapier 19.80 of this litle; D, Home occupatioIJ5 when accessory 10 permil requiremenls contained in Chapter 19,92; E. Horticnlture, gardening, and growing of food producls for consumption by occupants of ihe site; F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate Slate, County agency or departmenl with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Sma11-family day care home; H, The keeping of a maximum of four adnll household pels, provided that no more ihan two adu1l dogs or cals may be kept on ihe site; I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; J, Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19,100 and which is at leasl three hundred feet from any other large-family day care home, The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to eDSUIe compliance with the parking and proximity requiremenls; 29 ¡- ] '-( 19.28.030 Cupertino - Zoning 30 K. Congregale residence with ten or less residents, (Ord. 1860. § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part). 1994; Ord. 1601. Em. A (part), 1992) 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditiona1Jy allowed in the R-I single-family residence districl, subjecl to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Communiry Development: 1_ Temporary uses, subjecllo regulations established by Chapler 19.124; 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the crileria for a permitted use, The conditional use permil shall be processed as provided by Section 15,97.46(3) of the Stale of California Health and Safery Code; 3, Buildings or structures which incorporale solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a de1ermination by the Director that such design feature or features will not resull in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4 _ Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuanl to Chapler 19.84; 5, Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuanl to Chapler 19,92 of this title. B, Issued by the Planning Commission: I. Two-story structures in an area designaled for a one-slory limitation pursuanl to Section 19,28,060 E2 of this chapler, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacls, shadowing, or inirusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacls to the surrounding area; 2, Group care activities with grealer than six persons; 3, Residential care faciliry that is not required 10 obtain a license by the State, Counry agency or departmenl and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; 4. Residential care faciliry that has the appropriale Stale, Counry agency or department license and seven or greater residenls. not including the provider family or staff, is a m;ni"mm distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care faciliry; 5. Residential "are faciliry that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has seven or grealer residenls, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the propeny boundary of another residential care faciliry; 6, Congregale residence with eleven or more residents which is a 1)'l1T1hT1nm distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregale residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feel of usable rear yard area per occupant. (Ord, 1860, § I (pan), 2000; Ord, 1834, (pan), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord, 1688. § 3 (pan), 1995; Ord, 1657, (part). 1994; Ord, 1618. (part), 1993; Ord, 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 Site Development Regulations. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations, I, Lol area shall correspond 10 the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-I zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet R-I 6 R-I 7.5 R-I 10 R-I 20 6,000 7,500 10,000 20,000 The minimum lot size in an R -I zone is six thousand square feet. 2, Lots, which contain less area than required by Section 19.28,050AI, but nol less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building siles, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled, B. Lol Width_ The minimum lot width shall be sixry feel measured at the fronl-yard setback line, C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Grealer. I, Sile plans for all development proposals shall include topographical information al conlour inlervals nol to exceed len feel, Areas where slopes are thirty percent or grealer shall be identified on the sile development plan, 2, Buildings proposed on a portion of a lot with slopes of thirty percenl or grealer shall be developed in accordance with the sile development and design standards specified in Sections 19,40,050 through 19.40,140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapler 19,40. or the R-I zoning ordinance, Chapler 19,28. whichever specific regulation is IOOre restrictive, 3. No structure or improvemenls shall occur on slopes of thirty percenl or grealer unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19,40,140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of deveIopmenl, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope ofthinypercent or grealer, (Ord, 1886, (part), 2001: Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1635; § I (part), 1993; Ord. 1601. Exh, A (part), 1992) i -- r~]j 31 Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones 19.28.060 19.28.060 Lot Coverage. Building Setbacks, Height RestrictioDS and Privacy Mitigation Measnres for Nonaccessory Buildings and Structures. A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage sha11 be forty-five percent of the net lot area. B. Floor Area Ratio. I, A1Iy new single-story house, or single-story addition to an existing house may not cause the floor area ratio of all structures on the lot to exceed forty-five percent. 2. A1Iy new two-story house, or second story addition to an existing house, may not cause the floor area ratio of all s\rUctures on the lot to exceed thirty-five percent, unless discretionary design approval is first obtained from the Design Review Committee· pursuant to Section 19,28,090. In no event shall such floor area ratio exceed forty-five percent of the net lot area. 3. The floor area of a second story shall not exceed thirty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story or six hundred square feet, whichever is greater. C. Design Guidelines. 1. A1Iy new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, sha11 be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to issuance of building permits: a. The mass and bulk of the design sha11 be reasooably compatible with the predomimmt neighborhood pattern. New construction sha11 not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights. and entry feature heights; b. The design sha11 use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces, or shall incorporate a tandem space, There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. 2. If the Director does not find that the proposal is generally consistent with this section, then an application must be made for design approval from the Design Review Committee pursuant to Section 19,28.090, D. Setback-First Story (Nonaccessory Structures), I, Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. At least one of two side yard setbacks must be no less than ten feet. The other side yard setback must be no less than five feet. Notwithstanding the above. a lot less than sixty feet in width and less than six thousand square feet shall have a minimum side-yard setback of five feet on each side yard, In instances where an addition is proposed to an existing building having both side yard setbacks less than ten feet, the wider setback sha11 be retained and the narrower setback: must be at least five feet. In the case of a comer lot, a minimum side-yard setback: of twelve feet on the street side of the lot is required. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. The rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. E, Setback-Second Floor (Nonaccessory Structures). I. The min;mnm front and rear setbacks are twenty- five feet. ff~ 7~ 1~),1S.1\61) Cupertino - 'Zoning 31 4'nW1 '. ~ oftMt : b - ....... . 5' b CD ¡-~ûII height ~ '-'¡ II I . . second N IIoor wall . . J . I 2. The minimum side setbacks are len feet, provided \hat in the case of a flag lot, the minimum sethack is twenty feet from any property line. and in the case of a corner lor. a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from any rear property line of an existing, developed single-family dwelling. 3. Sethack Surcharge, A setback distance equal to fifteen feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in subsection E2 of this section. A minimum of five feet of the fifteen feet shall be applied to the side yard(s). 4. AccessoryBuildings/Structures. ChapterI9.80 governs setbacks, coverage and other standards for accessory structures. 5. The height of second story walls are regulated as follows: a. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights grealer than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second floor wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane, , c E ~ ... Secand Floor Plan .... ,~ ~ nil\. 24·..(" ~ b. All second story wall heights grealer than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, are required to have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a minimum two-foot depth and six- foot width, The offsets shall comprise the full heighl of the wall plane, c, All second story roofs shall have a minimum of one-foot eaves. ¡~71 ~~ Singlt-"FamUy Residential (Ro1) Zones 19.18,060 F. Basements. 1, The number, size and volUme of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. Lightwel1s that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping. 4. IWIings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent to the lightwell. 5. The perimeter of the basement and alllightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Additional Site Requirements, 1. Height. a. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R-l zone shall not exceed twenty- eight feet. not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. b. The maxùnum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: i. A twelve-foot high vertical1ine measured from natural grade and located five feet from property lines; ü. A twenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high lin~ referenced in subsection Flbi of this section. Notwithstanding the above, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of twenty feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade. ~ - I ~ T-at ...ø . PIaII =... --.. ........ I ~ I 9 ;! 2. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to the setback regulations in subsection E of this section. 3. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing to the R-l zoning district, the designation "in; provided however, that the limitation may be removed through use permit approval. as provided in Section 19.28.04OB by the Planning Commission. 4. The maximum entry feature height, as measured from finish grade to the top of the wall plate, shall be fourteen feet. 5. No blank single-story side walls longer than sixteen feet shall face a public right-of-way withóut at least one of the following: (a) at least one offset with a minimum two-foot depth and six-foot width; the offset shall comprise the full height of the wall plane; (b) window of at least thirty inches by thirty inches; (c) entry feature leading to a door; (d) trellis with landscape screening. 6, Exceptions for Hillside Areas. Notwithstanding any provisions of subsection Fl of this section to the contrary, the Planning Commission may make an exception for heights to exceed twenty-eight feet under certain circumstances: a. The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes of ten percent or greater; b, Topographical features of the subject property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or desirable; c, In no case, shall the maxùnum height exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling or twenty feet for an accessory building or dwelling: d. In no case, shall the maximum height of a structure located on prominent ridgelines, on or above the four-hundred-fifty-footcontour exceed twenty feet in height. 't~ J f 19.28.060 Cupertino - Zoning 34 H. Privacy Protection Requirements, 1. Required Landscape Planting. a. Requirement. In order to address privacy protection and the reduction in visible building mass of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. b, Planting Plan. A building permit application for a new two-story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing trees or shrubs subject to staff approval. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property within a cone of vision defined by a thirty degree angle from the side window jambs of all second story windows (Exhibit 1). New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs are consistent with the intent of Appendix A, Applicants for new two-story homes and additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area unless there is a conflict with the tree canopies of the public street tree (Appendix A, page 2). The planting is required on the applicant's property, unless the options listed in subsection Fld of this section is applied. This optinn does not apply to the front" yard tree-planting requirement. c. Planting Requirements. The minimum size of the proposed trees shall be twenty-four inch box and eight foot minimum planting height. The minimum size of the shrubs shall be fifteen-gallon and six-foot planting height. The planting must be able to achieve a partial screening within three years from planting, The species and planting distance between trees shall be governed by Appendix A, The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. An affidavit of planting is required in order to obtain the final occupancy permit (Appendix C). d. Options, Where planting is required, the applicant may plant on the affected property owners lot in lieu of their own lot or the affected property owner may modify the numbers of shrubs or trees, their types and locations by submitting a waiver to the Community Development Department along with the building permit (Appendix B). This option does not apply to the required tree planting in front yards. e. Applicability, This requirement shall apply to . second story windows and decks with views into neighboring residential yards. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor. windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, non-openable windows are not required to provide privacy protection planting, f, Mamtenance, The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. Where required planting dies it must be replaced within thirty days with the size and species as descnDed in Appendix A of this chapter and an updated planting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department. The affected property owner with privacy protection planting on his or her own lot is not required to maintain the landscaping. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Oni, 1808 (part), 1999; Ord, 1799 § I, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord, 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Em. A (part), 1992) 19.28.070 Permitted Yard Encroachments. A. Where a building legally constructed according to . existing yard and sethack regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard seiback may be extended along its existing building lines to no less than three feet from the property line if the applicant obtains written consent from the adjoining property owner thereby affected and receives approval from the Director of Community Development. Only one such extension shall be permitted for the life of such building, This section applies to the first story ouly and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. B. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback; e.g" a single slory may be extended along an existing fiv~foot side-yard setback even though the side yard does not equal ten feet. However, in no case shall any wall plane of a fust-story addition be placed closer than three feet 10 any property line. C. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combinatinn thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may exIeI1d closer than three feet to any property line. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808. (part), 1999; Ord, 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) 19.28.080 Exceptions for Prescriptive Design Regulations. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Sections 19,28,060 and 19,28,100 may be granted as provided in this section. J'-JC¡ 35 Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones 1!),2S.\)&() A, Issued by the DireclOr of Community Development. With respect 10 a requesl for two-slory developmenl which does not meet the development requiremeniS contained in Section 19,28.060H (Privacy Pro\ection RequiremeniS) and Section 19_28,IOOC, the Community Developmenl DireclOr may granl an exception 10 allow two-slOry development if the subject development, based upon substantial evidence, meeiS all of the following criteria: I. The lileral enforcement of this chapter will resull in reslrictions inconsistenl with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2. The proposed development will nol be injurious 10 property or improvemeniS in the area nor be deirimental 10 the public safety, health and welfare. 3. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and with the purposes of this chapter. 4, The adjoining properties are otherwise prolected from unreasonable privacy impaciS. B. Issued by the Design Review Committee (Other Prescriptive Design Regulations), The Design Review Committee may granl exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.060 and Section 19,28,100 exclusive of Section 19.28.060G4 (Hillside Building HeighiS) upon making all of the following findings: I. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapler will resull in reslrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter, 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition thai is malerially de1rimental 10 the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The exception 10 be granted is one thai will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulalion and the minimum variance thai will accomplish the purpose. 4. The proposed exception will not resull in significanl visual imPact as viewed from abutting properties. C. Issued by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building HeighiS), Notwithstmding any provision of Section 19,28.060 GI 10 the conirary. the Planning Commission may granl an exception for heighiS 10 exceed twenty-eighl feet upon making all of the following findings: I, The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes of ten percent or greater. 2, Topographical features of the subjecl property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or' desirable, 3, In no case shall the maximunJ. heighl exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling or twenty feet for an accessory building. 2004 S- 2 Repl. 4. In no case shall the maximwn heighl of a structure located on a prominent ridgeline, on or above the four hundred fifty-foot contour exceed twenty-eight feet. (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860. § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1844, § I (part), 2000; Ord, 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.090 Residential Design Approval. In the event that a proposed development of two slories exceeds a thirty-five percent floor area ratio as prescribed in Section 19.28.06OB, or in the event thai the Director of Community Development finds that llie proposed two-slOry development does nol conform 10 Section 19,28_06OC, the applicant shall apply 10 the Design Review Committee for design approval to allow for the development; provided, however, in no evenl shall such application exceed a forty- five percent floor area ratio. In addition to the public hearing and notice requiremeniS described in Section 19.28,110, at leasllen days prior 10 the date of the public hearing, the applicant shall install story poles 10 outline the proposed building exterior walls and roof as further described by procedures developed by the Direclor of Community Development. The Design Review Committee may grant a special permit only upon making all of the following findings: A. The projecl will be consistenl with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan. any applicable specific plans. zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. B, The granting of the special permil will not result in a condition thai is detrimental or injurious 10 property or improvemeniS in the vicinity, and will nol be detrimental'to the public health. safety or welfare. C. The proposed additionlhome is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood, D. The proposed additionlhome is generally _ consistent with design guidelines developed by the Direclor of Community Development. E. The proposed additionlhome will nol result in significanl adverse visual impaciS as viewed from adjoining properties, (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord, 1844, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834. (part), 1999; Ord, 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.100 Development Regulations-Eichler (R-1e). R-Ie single-family residence "Eichler districiS" pro\ect a consistent architectnral form through the establishment of dislrict site development regulations, Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply 10 properties zoned R-Ie. In the evenl of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section. this section shall prevail, Nothing in these regulations is intended 10 preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition, ¡- L/ð 19.28.100 Cupertino - Zoning 36 A, Setback-First Story, I. The minimum fronl yard setback is twenty feel. B, Building Design Requirements, I. Eniry features facing the streel shall be inlegrated with the roof line of the house, 2, The maximum roof slope shaII be 3:12 (rise over run). 3 . Wood or other siding materiallocaled on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall incorporale vertical grooves, up to six inches apart, 4, The building design shall incorporale straight archilecturallines, rather than curved lines, 5, Second story building wall offsets described in Section 19.28.060 E5b are not required for homes in the RI- e zone. 6, The fIrst floor shaII be no more than twelve inches above the existing grade. 7. EXierior walls localed adjacent to side yards shall not exceed nine feet in heighl measured from the lOp of the floor to the lop of the wall plale, C, Privacy Prolection Requiremenls. 1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows. In addition 10 other privacy prolection requiremenls in Section 19.28.060H, the following is required for all second story windows: a, Cover windows with enerior louvers 10 a height of six feel above the second floor; or b. Obscure glass 10 a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of fIve feel minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001: Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000) 19.28.105 Development Regulations-(R-la). RI-a districls are inlended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lols. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapler shaII apply to properties zoned Rl-a, In the event of a conflicl between' other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A, Lot Area Zotting Designations, The minimum lot size is len thousand square feel. B, Lot Width, The minimum 101 width shaII be seventy-fIve feet measured at ibe fronl-yard setback line, C, Second Slory Area, A second floor shaII be no more than forty percent of the first floor, exCepl as follows: I. A second floor may be at least 700 sq. ft. in area, 2, In no case shall a second floor be more than 1,100 sq, ft. in area, D. Setback - First Story, 1, Front Yard, The minimum front yard sethack is thirty feel. 2004 S- 2 Repl. 2, Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feel. 3, Rear Yard, The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feel. E, Setback - Second SlOry. 1, Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feel. 2, Side Yard, The combined side yard selbacks shall be thirty-fIve feet. with a minimum of fIfteen feel. 3, Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feel. 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19,28.060 E(3) does nOl apply in this district, F. Second-slOry Regulations. I. Second slOry decks shall conform 10 the second. story building setbacks, and may be located on tbe front and rear only, 2, The second-story shall not cantilever over a fIrst- story wall plane, 3. The fronl-facing wall plane(s) oftbe second-story must be offsel a minimum of !hree feet from the frrst-story wall plane(s), The inlent of this regulation is to avoid a two- story wall plane on the front elevation, G. Front Yard Paving, No more than 50% of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than 40 % of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface snch as concrete or asphall. H, Heights, The maximum exterior wall heighl and building height on single-slory structures and single-slOry sections of tWo-slory structures must fIt inlO a building envelope defined by: a. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located len feet from property lines; b, A twenty-five degree roof line angle projecled inward at the twelve-fool high line referenced in. snbsection H(2)(a) of this section. I. Variation from the RI and Rl-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapler 19,124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the RI-a districl. J, Design Review, All two-story development shall require discretionary review from the Design Review Committee. Discretionary review processes shaII be based on Section 19.28.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except as amended by this ordinance, K. Design Guidelines, The guidelines in this section shaII be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, In cases where there may be conf1iCl between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence, Nonconformance with the guidelines shaÍ1 be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed projecl. f4l 36A Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones 19.28.105 1. Second-story windows. Windows on !he side elevations should be flxed and obscured to a height of six feet above !he second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above !he second floor, or should have sill heights of flve feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy, 2, All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from !he second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, wi!h a minimum four-foot dep!h and ten-foot wid!h. The offsets should comprise !he full height of !he wall plane. 3. Section 19.28,060 E (5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in !he Rl-a district. 4. Section 19,28,060 E (5)(b) shall not apply to !he R I-a distriCl, 5. Garages, The maximum wid!h of a garage on !he front elevation should be twenty- flve feet, which will accommodate a two-car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through !he USe of a landem garage or a detached accessory structure at !he rear of !he property. L. Pennitted Yard EncroachmenlS. 1. Where a principal building legally construcled according to existing yard and setback regulations al !he time of construction encroaches upon presenl required yards, one encroaching side yard selback may be extended along its existing building line, a, The extension or addition may nol further encroach into any required setback and !he height of !he existing non-conforming wall and !he extended wall may nol be increased. b. In no case shall any wall plane of a firSi-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. c. This section does not apply 10 attached accessory structures such as attached carports, d. This section applies to !he first story.onJy and shall nol be construed 10 allow !he further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is !he result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of !he City, 2, ArchiteCtural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination !hereof, whe!her a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feel 10 any property line, 3, Front Porch, Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed from !he street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in wid!h !han in height, A porch differs from an entry elemenl. which has a proportionately greater height than its wid!h, Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require !he approval of !he Direclor of Community Development. 2004 S-2 Repl. a, POSIS, Vertieal structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed 10 encroach two feet into !he required front setback, Structural supports must be designed such thai !he appearance is not obtrusive or maBsive, b, Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged_ c, Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area. d, Eave Height, The eave heighl for a fronl porch should nol be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-slory elements in the neighborhood. e. Deiailing, Porch elemenlS should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements . f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach flve feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping, I. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or neW homes, The purpose of !he landscaping is 10 beautify the property and 10 achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed, Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice wi!h vines on fences, 2_ Landscaping plans for two-story developmenl shall include specific mitigations for impacts from maBS, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28,060 H of the Cupertino Municipal Code. except that: a, Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent 10 one-quarter of !he spread noted on the City !ist, b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of 12' at the time of planting, c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second-story windows across !he street to neighboring homes are partiallymitigaled, d, The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflicl with existing mature trees. N, Design Review Procedures and Process, 1. Posted Notice, For all new construction, the applicant shall install a public notice in the fronl yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from !he public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign. at lessl two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been 1alcen on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a, The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of !he property, if the address is not known; r'-'--!,¿ 19.28.105 Cupertino - Zoning 36B b. A brief description of the proposed projecl, the content of which shall be a\ the sole discretion of the City; c, City contact information for public inquiries; d, AJJ 11 "x 17" illustration of the proposed house . when viewed from the meet. In cases where design review is required, the illustration shall be a perspective rendering and shall include the projected action date. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting, 2, Adjacent single-family residential properties shall receive a reduced-scale copy of the proposed plan set with the mailed notice, 3, Findings, The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-slory development only upon making all of the findings below: a, The projecl is consistent with .the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b, The granting of this permit will nol result in detrimenial or injurious condilions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare, c. The project is generally compaUlJle with the eSiablished pattern of building fonus, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d, The projecl is consistent with the City's single- family residenlial design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found 10 not resull in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigaled 10 the maximum extenl possible, (Ord, 1927. § I (part), 2003) 19.28.110 Procedure for Exceptions and Residential Design· Approvals. A. Public Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of an application for approval, the Director of Co=unity Development shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the relevant decision-maker and order the public notice thereof. A notice of the hearing shall be senl by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the lasl \ax assessmeni roll) within three hundred feet of the subject property, B. Expiration of an Exception or Residential Design Approval. A decision for approval which has not been used within one year following the effective dale thereof. shall become null and void and of no effect tmIess a shorler time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of the exception, AJJ approval shall be deemed to have been "used" when a complete building permit application is submitted 10 the Chief Building Official, and continues to progress in a diligenl manner, In the evenl that the building permil application expires, the Residenlial Design Approval 2004 S- 2 Repl. shall become null and void. The Director of Co=uniiy Developmenl may grant one additional one-year extension if an applicalion is filed before the expiration date without further notice and hearing, C, Decision, After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application, D, All decisions regarding approvals contained in this section may be appea1ed by any interested party pursuanl to Chapter 19,136, AJJ" appeal of the Design Review Committee decision shall be processed in the same manner as an appea1 from the decision of the Director of Co=unity Development, E_ Expiration of an Exception or Residential Design Approval. A decision for approval which has nol been used within one year following the effeclive date thereof. shall become null and void and of no effect tmIess a shorter time period shall specifically be prescn'bed by the conditions of the exception, AJJ approval shall be deemed to have been "used" in the evenl of the erection of a siruCture when sufficient building activity has occurred and. continues 10 occur in a diligent manner, The Direclor of Co=uniiy Developmenl may grant one additional one-year extension if an applicalion is filed before the expiration date without further notice and hearing. F. Concurrent Applications. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapler 10 the conirary, an application for exceplion or residential design review may, at the discretion of the Director of Co=unity Developmenl, be processed concurrently with other land use approvals, (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord, 1844, § 1 (part). 2000; Ord, 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28. UO Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a siruCture utilized for passive or active solar purposes, in R-I zones, provided thai no such structure shall infringe upon solar l;2Sementsof adjoining property owners, AJJy solar structure which requires varialion from the setback or height restriction of this chapter shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit by the Director of Conmnmiiy Developmenl. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord, 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord, 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In R-l zones, the Director of Co=unity Developmenl shall be empowered to make reasonable inlerpreiations of the regulations and provisions of this 'ðrl...(] 37 Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones cbapter consistent with the legislative inlent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. (Oni. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exb, A (part), 1992) 19.28.140 Appendix A-Landscape Mitigation Measures. PRlV ACY SCREENING MATERIALS I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES A. Cedrus Deodara-Deodara Cedar B. Melaleuca Linarifolia-Flax1eaf Paperbark . C. Pinus Helipensis-Aleppo Pine D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos-Silverdol1ar E. Cinnamomom Campbora-Campbor F. Arbutus Marina G. Magnolia Grandiflora-Southem Magnolia Height 1080' 30' 40-60' 20-60' 50' 40' 80' 19.28.130 Spread 40' @ ground 12-15' 20-25' 10-15' 50' 35' 40' Planting Distanee- Maximum 20' 6' 10' 5' 20' IS' 20' The minimum tree size sba11 be 24' box minimum and a minimum of 8' high planted beight. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting disiance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback, n. NON-DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A. Pittosporum Eugenoides B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium C. Pittosporum Crassifolium D. Pittosporum Undulatum- Victorian Box E. Cupressus Sempervirens-ltalian Cypress F. Podocarpus Gracilior-Fem Pine G. Privet Ligustrum-Glossy Privet H. Laurus Nobi1is-Grecian Laurel 1. Rhus Lancia-African Sumac 40' 40' 25' 15-40' 60' 60' 35-40' 15-40' 25' 20' 20' 15-20' 15-40' 3-6' 20' 20' 20' 20' 5' 5' 8' g' 5' 10' 10' 10' 10' The minimum shrub size sba11 be IS-gallon minimum and a minimum of 6' high planted beight. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting disiance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. Notes: The Community Development Department may use otber species than those listed above subject to approval, Applicant sball be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of otber planting materials. Documentation sball include a letter from an Internationally Certified Arborist or Landscape Architect stating that the materials proposed will meet or exceed beight, spread criteria and growth rate of listed materials and tbat they are suitable for planting on the applicant's property, The goal is to provide a partial screening after three years' growth following planting. The purpose of this list is to give the minimum planting disiance between the required street iree/shrub planting in front yard setbacks and the City street iree, ¡~Lf( 19.28,140 Cupertino - ZollÌng 38 CITY STREET TREE Spread Planling Distance-Minimum A. St. Mary Magnolia* 20' 10' B. Crape Myrtle 20' 10' C. Privot 20' 10' D. California Buckeye 20' 10' E. Birch 20' 10' F. Holly Oak 20' 10' G, Aristocrat Flowering Pear* 30' 15' H, Flowering Plum* 30' 15' 1. Mayten 30' 15' J. Mela1euca 30' 15' K, Eastern Redbud* 30' 15' L. Brisbane Box* 40' 20' M. Liquid Amber 40' 20' N. Carob 40' 20' 0, Geigera 40' 20' P. Rhus Lancia 40' 20' Q, Lirodendron 40' 20' R, Chinese Pis1acio* 50' 25' S. Ginko* 50' 25' T, Chinese Hackberry* 50' 25' . U, Elm 50' 25' V. Sycamore 50' 25' W, Mulberry 50' 25' X, Silk: Tree 50' 25' y, Raywood Ash 50' 25' z. Medesto Ash 50' 25' AA. ShammelAsh 50' 25' BB. Camphor 60' 30' CC, Zelkova 60' 30' * Denotes tree currently on street tree list. Oiher trees previously on list and may currently exist as a street tree. (Ord, 1860, § I (pan), 2000; Ord. 1834, (pan), 1999) 8- ~'-I S- 39 Single-l1amùy Resid.ential (R..l) 'Lones 19,18,150 19.28.150 Appendix B-Release of Privacy Protection Measures. Single-Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19,28 (Single-Family) requires that after September 21, 1998. all new two-story additioDS or homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if !he adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete !he requirement. t~ '--(& 19,28.150 Cupertino· Zoning 40 Date Property Location Address: I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single-Family Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: Address: Phone: Signature: (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) ¡-~'-I7 41 Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones 1~.28.164) 19.28.160 Appendix C-Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit. Purpose. To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according to the planting plan. VaIidation. An Internationally Certified Arborist or Ucensed Landscape Architect shall certify the design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven by seventeen copy of the approved planting plan shall be attached. Submittal of this form sha1l be required prior \0 finaI inspection of the residence. Planting Certification I certify that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at: address and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscapeplanting and irrigation plans drawn by dated (attached), Name Title Professional License # Date (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860. § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) '5~<-( t 19.Z8.160 CllpertiIIO - ZoiW!g 42 Exhibit 1. 30' Angle Privacy Invasion Mitigation required in shadÈK:I areas Rear Yard Window Window Second Roor . · · " t· o I' I I I" · '. I t---Lf'7 EXHIBIT B Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendations for the R1 Ordinance Feb. 2003 Amendment (4-1-0 vote) oct. 2004 Amendment (4-0-1 vote) Explicitly state high volume area regulation (double- countin Lot Coverage - add 5% for unenclosed roof overhangs and orches Specifically state that maximum FAR is not granted by right - it is used in conjunction with other rules and uidelines Second-story can be 50% of first story or 800 sq. ft. Adjust high volume area regulation. Provide allowance for stairwa s. Feb 2003 recommendation not adopted Remove specific language in Section 19.28.060 C(1 )(a) - replace with general "harmonious in scale and desi n" Ian ua e Convert guideline that calls for a third car space to be setback from the other two garage doors to regulation Add minimum ara e setback of 20 feet Change first-story side setbacks for all neighborhoods to a combination of 15 feet instead of 5 and 10 Same as Feb 2003 Amendment Use of rear yard setback exception requires minor staff a rovai side setbacks and surchar e Specific language as to the allowed size of a basement II htwell Allow one larger lightwell for single-story homes s-- ~ S(j Feb. 2003 Amendment (4-1-0 vote) Oct. 2004 Amendment (4-0-1 vote) Start the building envelope at the side setback line Start the 1 st story building envelope at the property line Allow gable end outside the building envelope to not have to be attic space with minor staff approval for hei hts over 17' Create 2 story building envelope to replace second- sto side setbacks and surchar e. Transfer Privacy Planting requirements from Building Development Regulations to its own section and re uire covenant on ro ert Delete privacy tree documentation and include it as a se arate handout Same as Feb 2003 Amendment All two-story projects need staff approval: adjacent noticing with a copy of the plan set, story poles, notice in front ard. DRC hears a eal. Exceptions require DRC approval: 300' notice, public notice in front ard Transfer Second Story Deck requirements from Accessory Structure ordinance to R1 Ordinance. Staff a roves second sto decks Variation from FAR, setbacks re uires a variance Limit the length of an extension to a legal non- conforming building line and the height may not be increased. Same as Feb 2003 Amendment except no story poles and appeal goes to PC Same as Feb 2003 Amendment except adjacent nei hbor ets co of the Ian set Minor staff approval: adjacent noticing with a copy of the Ian set Same as Feb 2003 Amendment Feb 2003 recommendation not ado ted Change solar design exception to a minor staff a roval Same as Feb 2003 Amendment except that a minor staff approval is required Allow staff to give exception for visible second story walls t;~5( '"""(j) en CD -C") V> 0 -::J ~~ - o -< þ ro a¡ II w 01 #. o ..... 'r 3 -, ~g, C") _ -::r V> CD Q,3 ::J a¡ CD V> :;;: _V> ::go- o c , ^ ~a¡ RE5. Cl."O CD ::::1. < < CD a¡ -C") ~'< 3 CD ::J - (j) - c ~ ;::¡: CD 3 a¡ 3 þ ::J -, ::J c.~,< 'nccC") 5.æ. ::r < CD a¡ a¡ Cl. ::J ,9 0- cc '-,<CD 'Qov> o-::r _::ro CD CD c C") ~ - ""3Cl. 0a¡o- ::J V> CD 3 _V> 3 CD -. a¡ 0- ::J V> C 0 c ^ ~ ~ a¡ CD ::J V> Cl. Cl.- CD :;;: §' 9 ::J ~ ~ 0 ~-< -. 0 ~ < <: CD ~ W 01 #. - ~ <15' cc CD ~ V> 'T1 o o ~ þ ~ CD a¡ ;:0 a¡ - õ' o ..... .þ. 01 ';{¿ o . '(j)-(j) 3V>CD::rCD æ:J..-CD....... a¡ CD a¡ " a¡ C") C") ë rïimS:-M3 v>ccõa¡ a¡ c¡s V> ~. -<~CD3 "'-"'00 C o 0 ..... 3 Q) -.("') a.~oQ) Cl.:;;:;:¡'3 ro ::r a 0 cnCD=§ en.,:J....... ::J ~ <Ö 0 ~. CD CT :: co ,... c - ::r"'. = 0 o-tg 9:Q o :J ~ ~,?\ a¡ CD-CD ~.3 a¡ CDa¡..... :;;: V> 0 V> ~ "U a C") CD V> V> C") ::r a¡ § CD ro "U < a¡ ã, ;::¡. ::,;; Q, z o ::J CD - ::r CD o < CD ã! "0 a C") CD V> V> r o - o o < CD ~ ~ CD o ..... .þ. 01 ';{¿ o C") (j) a¡ CD :J _ o-a¡ CD 3 C") a¡ o >< < -. CD 3 Ci! c Cl.3 ~a¡ 0-3 c 0 _. C -:J 9:....... .~ Q, 1n- ::r CD o - - ::r a¡ - ~ :J C") 0 ::r.... a¡ - CD ~~ C") I(¡) 5 ë', !!!. Cl.;u CD I ¡¡¡ (j) ~¡¡o 3 ;:0 CD ~ ::J ~ _CD o ~. :J CD w::,;; ~Õ' ~~ V> ~ CD V> Cl.- CD ::::!. <cc CDCC -CD ~ ~ 3 ô' CD ~ :JCC - ~ -, CD :J a¡ - ;:0 CD ~ ~ ::rro =< ~. ro' Cl.:;;: CD 0 o ..... - V> "U a C") CD V> V> C") ::r a¡ ~ CD C") .þ. 0 ro Þ 0010<Cl. < ;;f!, :J -.""'-- (DO CJ)CDC ~ ~ _. <: V> CD II c.. < ....... a.»CDOq- ~ ;:0 ~3 :; <15' o 0 _.cc "':J-'-CO (")ro:Jëñ.., ffi cb Q ä:"O CJ) ....... -. CD 0 O:J -, ...., C") 'Q ;:¡. '<: CD~ 0 .,.. ::r ,",' 0 o Q) CD .., c V> C") -, cnCD(ñ::J CD - C") o ro ::,;; a¡ a¡ ;::¡.:= cn ::r 0 CD :;;: Cl. ;;: :J 3 c 3 o - V> Ñ' CD V> :;;: (j) ;:::¡.:CD ::r - g ~, -::J a¡ 3 < C ~. 3 a¡ - :J 0 C") - CD V> Ñ' CD ô' ~ Cl. CD < CD 0- "0 3 CD :J - z o :J CD c () < !:t o "C 0 3 0 CD :J ::J Cl. .... ;::;: ;:0 g' g !!!. !:. c II> V> ~ CD o V> ::J V> i [[II Q. ;u;;:;;:zo;u c: (þ-'-'OOCD (f ~55=t3CCc CD :::"~~"U3- () Q)'-+--..,_.Cl:I ....CD CD OCIJ!:!:. _0(") () ()CJ'Jo o ::r ::r CD õ' :J ::J ~. ~. ~ ::J V> C") C") a¡ a¡ !!!. Ci! ~ C") C") cc CD :::r :::r c: $l a¡a¡- -, :J:J~ :J cc cc -, cc CDCDO r-+ (J) ..., ~ ffi cn~.- ..., c:u::::r CD cc 03!!; ~. cc CD ~ 3 ~ :;;: -CD a¡ 5"CD:J~ "0 ,....a.a.c:r a CDO-CDCD C") ::J,<Cl.= CD .... (J) 0- CD en ...... '< < CJ) ~s:~ Õ' CD:T ;; "U CD CD a¡"U :;;: :J - Cl. :J a¡ _.:J CD :J:J < c..o S' CD OCC 0 o 0 "0 303 3 3 ~ u, 3 7' V> -. _, V> o V> ::J õ' :J :J .,., ~. CD V> o-::r CD f'-)V> 0_ 00 Wv> - c Cl. '< 'U CD ~ 3 ;:¡: CD Cl. C V> CD V> "UCi!CroC CDC/)cncnW .., -. CD -. (D 3 Cl.v>Cl.v> ;:::¡.: CD ....... CD ....... en:J:::r:J::r !:!:.CIJ!:!:.Q) Q)r-+OO_ ;~:J~ CD CD CD CD <15' C")~ C") ::ro::ro CT:JCT:J oenoen 3-0.:3-5: OCDOCD oroom Cl.Cl.Cl.Cl. V> a¡ V> a¡ 0"0 "0 :J"O "0 '< a a ::';;"0 "0 ;:::¡:::::!. ~. ::ra¡ a¡ - - CCD CD en Õ' Õ' CD ~ ~ z z o 0 ::J :J CD CD -I '< "'C (þ o .... (") ::r II> ::J CO CD (j) ... II> =I: ;u CD o o 3 3 CD ::J c.. II> ... õ' ::J C") ::r a¡ ::J cc CD V> ro C") o 3 3 CD :J Cl. CD Cl. 0- '< V> - a¡ ~ a¡ :J Cl. - o ~ - ::r CD "U ¡¡; :J :J :J cc » 1] "'C .., o < II) C- O" '< ('") " - Q)trJ :::s>< :::s:I: _.f--< ;j~ CQ"'" C;n o 3 3 -. CJ CJ -. o ;j CJ) n o "C (1) o """ ~ o ., " ;::;: '< ('") o I: ::J £!. r~ s .:L -,0- ,= r(¡¡z 3!\:0)·D;,Ë;';;-3··,'~j·,·' -, '" "". "7!';x:(D . '< ;;';-·';ifk0iiJi' ;'< = :;<>,;·0c¡d::0Xï!" 3"'3 "',:J 40. a m .,c COè\'" ~,~ [;~~~ =1:"'0 co cõ- , "";~ "",(s......'" '" 'm '"'¡¡~, ~ .<. c,;"~ . "m '.,,<: ;>;-a. .:.g.'".i¡CD:'f,';< '""::!! '" . ~ 2,~¡:;' (").'·',-y;,,,,iF ;m Õ'J3 t.n,;,:::rf:<Q) .': ~·':oÄf1!=r <', ' "q>.~:{ ','l' ""'.- ~~~~;-;,;~;;:õ":/:·:CD <¡¡g,<~ CD ''it0 ; ;c:P:;:ff~õ"tt" .g;¿E¡ ~r~} 3 Q) m\'rn« ;CC,;;GiGl0_.;;,~ m "m ~¡¡:J' ü?ffs· .: 0 'coil' _,,00,'_,.,:_';" :1;Y5·J;~:~!P;:!~æ ;>~i"£::;;o<t;~~'(") ?;:1~Çp J:::::~''i0;::;;:o ""'" co :;;;:!:I'3 ~:;~~gj:~.r~;~~ '""'~m'*3":J ;;;)\:~z;: ;:;;;~;:; :::;'~ 'r~ j.". ..... .-+ ,·fJ0i:' -6 a :J ;è:fv> ;h CD Q C1I () 3 () en :J m r+ 0 a :J 0. en ~ ° -< m Q) < m '" II ~ ° 'U ¡¡rea m '" ~o (j) :::I. 0- m 0. '" CD o a :J 0. '" ~ a -< :;: Q) ~r-oen Q) _3' ° C = -. 3 ri "'~O- 0_' :T :J :J Q) Q) " <~co -. CD -. ° ~.:J II o-~~ ¡p0()1 ..... enact m :J m o~~ ° Q) Q) :J:J'O 0. 0. '0 en",= ....... _. CD a 0.0. -< m _. :J '" ;:¡¡ Q) 'U rom::J., 00.0.0 ° < :Jco--. o.0co. m -m ~ID^cn 0'0 C :::!."D ~ m Q) ç;' (J)"" -. m m :J :J ~ ~ 3 Q) '" '" Q) :J 0. 0- C '" ° ..... ~ S' en 0 a ~ Z :T" Z C a Q) ~ a 0. m :J :J 0 :J m :T CD ;=;: m :J m ç;' 3 Q) Õ' a ~ '" en '" en CDOCDO o~o~ o mOm 5,:J5,:J '" Q) '" Q) .......""0...."'0 0'00'0 :::!. Q) :::t. Q) CD .., CD ;;t (IJ ~ en :J ~ ~ 3 3 Q) Q) '" '" '" '" w W :J :J 0. 0. 0- 0- C C '" ;¡¡: o 0 ..... ..... g:!!!.~ mow ::!!-< ~ êj:;: ~ 7'Q):r '" = ii, õCIJ::J ~o :T~ a ~ Q) ow'O .....,,'0 m,< '" ~ o 0 " m '" m m :J 0 m 0 o.:J 0-0. '< C/) CD 0 0 :J en ..." Co '0 0: 0 en " r+ 0 m :J 0 < C/) ~ ~ ¡jj' w õ' m :J ~ C/) :J 0- 0. W 11> ;:¡¡ r+ 0 C" '" m III w II " n ~ II '" '" 0 N CD' ()1 m CD' ~ CD ~ CD' m ~ w'U "'"u :T 5.aa~a 0 C < a < '" 0- -. m :J -. m co.;:¡'o.o. '" - m _, m ^cnCD<ncn Õ' c:cn-c: 3; Õ §. 3; " o m 0 cõ' Cõ' CD en (5" :T :Jo.W:J -~ ~c :J ~ W '" 0 c.", -. '" '0 m :J'O -" '0 W 3 m W ..0 W 0 _. 0 c 0 m wco m W m ~ "':To- ;::¡.:Q) 0 '" 0- CD '<~ " W 0 ~ o CD CD ::J :::!. o.o.:Jm .....W c o-CO m =-: -, ..... o C :J m 0 m _ 3 '" W '" '" C/) ~ c Z Z 0. 0 ° ;=;: :J :J m m m 3 '" '0 W o m ~ o CD 0. c o m 3 W '" '" wC/);:¡¡m;:¡¡ -roroXCD ro........< < ...., cr -. 0 -. ª~~ea~ < " :;: ~. :;: roc;:::+3;:::+ "'m:T :T IC/)~C/) m m -. c x (") ro ...., '000.0 -:Jw:T o o._w ....,1.........., m(J)mco (I) .- 3 ro -. 0 Q) ...., 3 -< "" ~ '0 < '" =:cnro 1 ~ë:(I) ~m ::!! ~ r+ (J) 'i;:¿¡ ãr' "T1 Õ ~o ;u o"~ o m ('þ _, 0 co :J :J ' '" '" _. c: ~C/) ~co (f) 11> o :J III m r+ -< G) r+ ~ C" õ' 0- III ::r 5. w n a 0. :J 0 '" 3 CD '" '" II m :J '" m :J N '" 0-0 W m CD' '0 ~m "£ ()1_~ (j, .....'" 0. m -. m 0. ~ ~m a , w "U c.",» :J CD~'O '" 0 r+ _, -< '0 ('þ co = ::I :J :T m r+ " 0 '" m3..... < c -,m :J m",o. :;: CD w < 3 m m :J :J ~ ::::::¡';Q) ;:::+(0 o.c o -, m 0. rn m :J -. - :J ~m ea '" ..0 ~ C 0 =, ~ m a , "U -I 0 '< 'tJ 0 11> m 0 '" '" ..... 0 0 :T ::r Q) III :J :J <C co m 11> ea "U C/) w r+ < ;:¡. III (j, =: :;: a ~ ..... ~ :T n m 0 0 3 < m 3 ¡;¡ 11> :J '0 Q. 0 II) !:!. 0 0 m :J '" '" ¡~S-3 ;JJ CD "D ID o CD 3 CD ::I - o "" "D .... <' ID o '< "D ID ::I "" ::J (Q CD m::l < ~ ÇE. ÇE,C::r Q,roC" o "D.... 3 .... -. ID (f> < -. ID ::J ~<D _::I o ID ::J ::J 0 CD CD ce' 0 ::r "" o-ID o .... Ci! CD ID (f> o ::I ID 0- CD z o ::J CD 0'1J:2: CD ID ID ;::¡'::I -. ID _ < :J 5'~ 0(Q Q) ::I (f> 0 CD _ (f> '1J-'1J .... ::r.... o ÇE, 0 < .... < C:oC: CD :;¿ CD CD :J ::J (f> CD Q) 0 -. (f> _(Q oc::r :J~O- Q) 0 0 C"~ëiJ CD 0 CD "D < "D CD 0 ;::¡. o c "" :J ""0 ;:::¡: ::!. (t> < (f> ID o '< - o en - c c. "" CD 3 a < ~ z o ::I CD o o :J ~. OãJ;õ.~lI>õ"Tl a"',æVfcn/ .0-' o'~';!Æ0,J~::, 5°'ãJ :c ~ :;¿'3;~ 0 Q) 1:J';š~-': 0 ~:/"2'O' < :J °0'::0: 0 Q;~:o CD JÓ "CD 101; c.v m'·"(þi:;:úJ Q) Q).:-c Q) _, "'C g- ãJ,,::jQ ~. g¡, if:> g" ~l':m:~;:æ'~'~,>,:ã'l@ o '< ..c~o.; c;'3 0 _ _, c,,+,o ,,'-, _-0 5'-'3 c. 3 ~ s: ~~3¡ ~:~3 CD' :;r:,.CD; (f> "50 (1)-. -I (jj"R Cd Q) 5- ....CD t <Al),R't;y,:J,·: Q) ."._ _ ,.<>..0....""'; +¡~~r gO:~'5 ¡go "'C ., <' I\> o '1J '< (f> - "'tJ !::t ID .., CD a. 0 CD -. - .-+ :J CD (Q 0 ......~ o 0 0-::1 o o '" ~ o , (f> - o -< "'C a ::r :5. o-c. o CD rn CD Q) (f> o ::I Q) 0- CD CD < CD o "" "D .... <' ID o '< - o '0 3 0 :J (f> c: CD .... a :;¿ -Q) CD'< o (f> ~- o 0 ::J CD o X """D Q) :J < C. Q) 0 o .... -. 1/1 o CD CD I\> -:J Q) CD ~o (f> s:: _, 1/1 ::I (Q CD , (f> - o -< :;¿ ~ (f> Q) Q. :J (Q » < o c: "D ¡¡¡- :J it ° Q) c. CD (f> "" ID o 5' (Q (f> - ãJ CD - (f> ~ :J o 0 ::r.... Q) - :J CD (Q 0 CD S- (';. Q) Q) "Do "D :J CD (f> Q) c: ãJ CD c.'" -ãJ o 3 0-0 CD :5, :J :J CD(Q o CD (f> ::r (f> Q) Q) (f> -< :J o - š ~3I ID CD CD ~. £R. to" 3 en a: c CD (f> 3 (') CD CD g ~ :J C. CD -'CD -< g¡, c. ::r0:J CD (Q ce' (f> ~ ~m.o o C" ëtr ""Q)CD .....0- ~ 6f 3 c (f> - ;0-;0 CDOCD c.3..c s:: CD s:: () CD ," CD-CD 3 ¡ß 3 Q) 0 ID (f> 0 (f> (f> :J (f> Q) c._ :J .::r o..~~ 0-0 s:: '" o "" ID .... (Q CD CD :J - .... ãï (f> ID "D (f>"D CD CD Ef. ~ ID (f> R-~ (f> 0 . (f> - o .... ãï (f> ~ 5' ° 0 z ::r .... o Q)- :J :J CD CD g. CD :J (';. ID CD GJ :J ID o 0- a CD ID o CD ::r:J _. c. ;:;:;¿ o ;::;: o-::r s. gj, c. -, -, 0 :J 0 Q) :J c. CD ~ ID ~. 3 c 3 CD c :J ..... , 'S::CD»c.r::l (f> :J :J = CD -, CD (f> ""0 0 < 0 < 3 -. ID ....CDCD<CD"" "D ;::¡. - < - ::r"D Q),.., Ceo 0 :TCT-, ;:::~"DQ) CDOO "'. 5' CD 3 .... "D " 0- 3::r.... (f> <-CD CD 0-' <0 :JQ)o9t m¿-ma-cna.CD (") =0 cnCIJ~ CO;::;:'O""""" Q) 0 o 3 :;¿ (f> :J .... 3 ..., t\J :::!:! :J c.. ~. Q) <;:::CD(f> 0- :J(f> ID CD ~. c: c (Q (f> cCiJS!CD ~ COw ro::;;CDo- 0 ch:J Q..-+a.c: """"" õo. ::rCD= 0 0- @CD(f>9: :J -<c = (Q ce' :J CD '" 5" Q) -::) ca cb O-(f> - (f> - 0 , CD' -< CD :J C. ~ :J o 0 ::r.... Q) - :J CD o CD S- (';. ID ãJ~~ãJ9 c9:3s::Q) Q) = 0 " :J ......0 < CD co õ' :J CD 3 CD :JO,CDÕ ""....:J CDCD-ä; s:: g- 3 c.:J 0 -, C. < :J Q) CD (Q:J Q) m- ;::: ~ g¡, (';. CD CD 0.... "D CD z o :J CD z o :J CD CD'~ CD ID - ~. 3 c 3 CD c C. :J (Q I CD ce' ::r - rc.r -. CD 3 < 3 ;::;:(t);:::¡: :T0:T CD 3 CD o CD 0 < :J < CD_CD W 00 - o :;¿ ::r Q) - z o :J CD II ~ 00 3 ID (f> (f> ID :J C. 0- s:: '" o "" :r: ~ cõ' ::r - ;JJ CD I.C s:: ¡¡ =. o :J ::::I - CD ::::I - ~ 'tI CD o .... o :T I\> ::::I I.C CD (J - I\> ~ ;:0 CD o o 3 3 CD :J C. Q) - õ' ::::I r ~ 5-'-( 0 (Ð !!!, cc ~ 0 G') => CfJ en -om ::u m ::u ~ (1) ~ 0 0 a õ' a (1) x () rn I: (1) Q) (') ::T (') rn (') cc cõ' ..., 0: CD Q. "0 ..., CD - CD I: => (þ CD Cl. Cl.~ rn CD ~ III CD 0 c rn :J õ' G> ~ ..., !:!:. ~ Q) rn CD ..., CD ~ CD ii, :J 0 C (þ ~ en rn 0: 1/1 õ' :J en C ::J Õ'ãJ 0 ~ ~ ~ :J 0 ~ 0" ...,~ CD ;:0 :J 0 '< CD 0 rn CD :J cõ' ~ .. ~ rn 'tI ::T < rn => ..., III CD ã5' » CD ;¡ 0 :::;: "0 C 0 CD ~ "0 Q) .... :J a ~ .. (') Q. < õ' ::r ~ :J 0 c e!.. (þ ..., Cl. rn ::u CD ~ rn Õ' 0 ..., c ... ""O:Q. <: CD ~ 0=111 rn ::J ~ ~CD(' o rn (þ -< ~- "O~tT ar-+S- ro' ~ 'tI ~C/'Jm rn~;¡ o 0" 0 < CD .... (1) (Q Q. ..., (1) () Q) :J < ",(1)() O1tùÕ "èfi.=-c õ1 ~ 3 »CD~ ;:o~.. ... (þ < ii, ::E 'tI o (' () 1/1 1/1 - "U ..., o (') CD rn 1/1 (') ::T Q) :J (Q CD o "U ..., Q) "O;:¡. g 0 rn ..." õ'~ -0 '< (') CD CD =C/) 3 1/1 => CD ~< CD ã5' :::;: 3 "0 a < CD =>=>»~)> r-+ r-+ _....,_ CDCDOCO ;:¡. -a :::;: s::¡. :::;: car-+C('[) r-+ :::T ëD >< Q) CD (J) (') ""0 CD o _. "0 ::Jro !::!: (J) (') 0 o ~ :J ...,,0 rn ~..., ::T ~ CD 0 (') 3 o Q) Cl.", (1) (1) 0" Q) rn CD Cl. o :J ~ ::T CD z z o 0 :J => (1) CD Õ' ..., rn o Q) ..., (1) => (1) ..., (Q '< "U a (') (1) rn rn (') ::T Q) :J ..., CD -. :5. 3 CD "0 :::;: a < CD 3 CD :J - , "0 Q) ;:¡. o ..." :JCfJ3'O"U=>CD CD"O "Oa~(Q -. ~ Q) '8 < CD C g: w' ~ a- o.CD-· ~ Q) 0-00,,- u,r-+ ...., N """+I :J r-+ OJ o· :::To';:::::t:':::r ::J g ::!. ~ ~ CD rn Q.cð70£.: :J :<:: ., "< () 2o~OJ Q) - -':J rnCD< (1) 1/1 CD ~ n, rnõ:::;:~ rn~ Õ' 3~ :::;:..." ..., Cl. -, ::T..., mCD~(Q (1)0 õ' < rn & CD 3 ::rCDooO ;:::::t:' CD 0 :J üJ 00' ..., Cl.:::;: 3 0" _, CDc= ;:¡.'" z o => CD "U a (') CD rn rn (') ::T Q) :J "U a (') CD rn 1/1 (') ::T Q) :J ..., CD -, :5. 3 CD "0 :::;: a < CD 3 CD :J ~ , a (') CD rn ~ :::;: CD Q) :5. 'd5 CD :::;: õ 3 "0 a < CD "0 Q) ;:¡. o ..." "0 Q) ;:¡. r-+",,,,,";:''-+' .,,'::'0t~ P+<D+J¡O"éD ;>. .'+q èT~;D:-~':;;0C--':<~- CD ", ·C:··'<CD·'"'''''''' .,.",- :::;"3~N'~ ...;..;.~ CD ',' ;( - "rho::, :J,.. -,-Ot0,;;'),> (')3 <.o,,¡¡: ..., ~'CD w- eD J,,\II:\;_;.:, +r;:;;?±; Q) :J :J "U .: '^"-"CD '"' 2· mY-Qr'\_.-"~~ '-:: Q.:J ,,eo <'-'CD" . '<t.>;,.,;, ·-a:1::r\i\.:{i/ - :J0"8. O:O:¿3\\,:;;ßt ëÐ-~ ''''/:r::\S~ <'Q) Q) 3':·/it ([),,;0=-_~,CD -,- -:~6' :J ·o'-S;¡:J . ':':':;E -0 Cl. .' Q) <.Q) C"i>::J"\,Q) _,__~ c.(1).,.... 0 C/) ,::=:;":,;/>1/)-, CD '5-' .'~ - ~ .. (þ ~ .. -I '< 'tI () o .... (") ::r III ::J CC (þ (f) .. III ::; ::u (þ (' o 3 3 (þ ~ Q. III !:!:. o ~ f - 5'5 EXHIBIT D Planning Commission's Rl Ordinance Schedule PC date Topic 12-Apr Review "R1 Schedule" R1 Design Review projects (1999 - 2004) Feb 2003 PC Recommendation 26-Apr Regulations from other Cities 10-May Complete Survey Results Non-survey public input received so far 13-May Commission's Guiding Principles 24-May High volume ceilings Second Story Area (% of first story) Second Story Area (minimum allowed size) 14-Jun Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge Second Story Wall Offsets Privacy Planting 28-Jun Finalize Second Story Setbacks, Offsets, Privacy Lot coverage, comer garage setbacks, blank walls facing streets, second story decks Minor topics from Feb 2003 PC Recommendation; narrow lots, lightwells, extension of building lines Single-story impacts: second story setbacks for tall walls, building envelope: gable end height, gable end consisting of attic space: mitigations Review process; what is reviewed Tools for review process: guidelines, consultant review, story poles, notification techniques Review process: who does the review Finalize Review Process 12-Jul 26-Jul 9-Aug Review Design Guidelines 23-Aug 13-Sep 27-Sep ll-Oct Palo Alto presentation - daylight plane, design review, guidelines Finalize Daylight Plan discussion Introduce Model Ordinance Approve Recommendation to the City Council f-s-~ EXHIBIT E Planning Commission's Rl Principles Giefer: 1. }5t - 2nd Story Ratio - look for flexibility but maintain some level of restrictiveness 2, Protect neighbor privacy 3, Have neighborhood specific guidelines Miller: 1, Revitalize aging housing stock. Be sensitive to changing needs. 2. Favor housing diversity instead of conformity, 3, Balance owner & neighbor rights, (underlined items are limited by the current ordinance) Chen: 1, Flexibility for Good design. Relax rules. 2, Determine what compatibility is defined as, 3. Environmentally friendly design, 4, Balance owner & neighbor rights. Wong: 1, Stay within the intent of reducing mass & bulk. a. 1" - 2nd story ratio is too restrictive b, Enforce daylight plane 2. Make guidelines user friendly. Consider putting them in the ordinance. 3. Streamline process to help improve affordability. 4, Expand notification. S, Adjust to a changing market. Saadati: 1. Adjust to changing times. Be flexible on the 1" - 2nd story ratio and tie it to setbacks. 2. Build nice homes with diverse designs. 3. Allow neighbor involvement, especially for privacy, 3 yrs is too long to wait for privacy. !~S-l N'Tl 0:;' .~ en Õ .::¿ en ã: tlJ (f tlJ e Q) " ^ :;;: S' o ~ Q) g " '" 3" tlJ "- -0 Q) cc tlJ o - .þ. en " 1;) 1;) o ;:¡. r'Tl o ., "'<11 '" - "'en ~õ "'.::¿ -en ã: tlJ (f tlJ e Q) " ^ GJ Q) ~ Q) cc tlJ en " 1;) 1;) o ;:¡. z Q) ~ ~ o :; or < 0 m ... 3-0 Q) 0 ::J < cc C1> '" ill cc tlJ .þ. '" *- + '" <f. - o ~ (f " o 1;) tlJ o - ~ o ;<- (f " 1;) 1;) o ;:¡. ~c... o"'C 0 Q' ... 0 (II (f 3'- co-Q) ::J - '< _00. = -. (ñ" :f:::Oo tlJ I co GJ(f~ CD ...., õ' ::J tlJ ::J CD 5. -, CD 9.. Q!.:;- ""U8.~ rn ::J '" - o c5" 1;)CC tlJ C1> o.~ ;J2 en " o 1;) tlJ o - ~ o ;<- :;;:en =Q) -Q) !J¡ 0. . Q) ~-=" o () ::J ::r cc tlJ ::J GJ (õ. - tlJ ~ '" GJ ~ ãï tlJ ¡þ' ::J ~ 01;) :; ;¡¡ ¡þ' iiJ 0. ¡¡;. " " '" '" S' cc ~:;W^ro;;U O~()~Ë-~ -gcnQ-cwo ;:¡ -. a."'tJ (') < .......::1 CD -, ^ C1> -...... Q) 0.. <" ~ ("') W en en ('[) 0 (") ~ ~ 0<'<3-0 éD ~ 2 \l) ::I ð..ß)ëDtÒ9- ~ =- wOO CD ~ -.. -. 0 <g.~CD:J-< c:r 0..0 ::::0 en o 0 !::. ..... -, ..., c: ...., 0, 0.. U'J- õ1 CD CD cc tlJ ;¡¡ ;:0 " tlJ o rn 3 ro 3 0. ~ Õ 0.-0 ~() õ· ::J - o 3 N o o '" :;;:() _ ::r -tlJ .~ ~:J ~0. o tlJ ::J - co .~ en Q) Q) 0. ª S' ;¡¡ ;:0 " tlJ o rn 3 ro 3 0. ~ Õ 0.-0 ~() õ' ::J - ~ o 3 N o o '" :;;:0 = ::J'" -tlJ _~ .:J ~0. o tlJ ::J - to .~ en Q) Q) 0. ª en " 1;) 1;) o ;:¡. ~o.s: goo _"0. :::T cr -. roro-< cõ" ¿., :::r ::r 0 cO' Cñ§=r 0-< -wQ.. .......=1:: <J>Q)3 roroCD tlJ Q) Q) .....:E CD ;::::0:0> ::r~ -" 0- o tlJ -;'I Õ Õ , ~ ;:0 ~ C1> o rn 3 ro 3 0. ~ Õ 0.-0 ~o õ" ::J - ~ o 3 N o o '" GJen Cfï ~ ¡þ'o. ..., wê: () ::r tlJ ::J o " -" 8 ~ " ~ "-- ::1 c... <.Os' ~ S' o õ' U, ::J ÕO .::¿ 3 3 tlJ Q) tlJ '" - '" SO Q) tlJ 5. ::ï ~éDg::O'> (§ ~ CD , ~;:J -() o ~ :E C1> C1> Q) c.'" Q) C1> ~ '" tlJ C1> Q) " õg ();)o. aU, aõ ~-< 3 S' 3 " 3 Q)""'O ..., 0 z gò~:J9. <-g£~(I) ~;:::¡~o"'O o' 0'"'0 ~ :J :J CD :::::;; _.0 õ' CD en ..... Q) cc"'C:E= C Q) 0 '< ãJ;:¡~"" !::!: 0 ~ S, O_C"CD ::J :T S. CD tlJ _::J ::r" tlJ tlJ 0. GJen (D' !l) -Q) tlJ 0. .., ª () ::r tlJ ::J ~:::;; o - ::J tlJ cc .~ o~s: o S' r0- o ('")_"""1 '" ~ ~m '" _tlJ ~ o ::J cc r::rQ) "cc -~ 1;) C1> ~ tlJ œ.:; tlJ _. ~ - ::r -(/)"'O:J (j) æc:o~c :;:g-aß):g -IoQroo ::r::1.~ ;:::¡ (ñ' -+. 0 5= Q:) 0::1 CD 0 Q mQ , 0", 9" ~~ ~ o o 3 o 0. =0; n" ~ õ' ::J ::r (') ~. occ ~ ~ " 0 ¡j) '" ~ ~a o 0 ::J 0 c.", U, - õ:; ~ 0 '< " c: ~ ;:0 ~ tlJ o rn 3 ro 3 0. ~ Õ 0.-0 ~() õ' ::J =r o 3 N o o '" :;;:0.f¡?:;;:0.f¡?:;;:0.f¡? o CD m 0 CD m 0 CD ID :JëDc.::J(b'a.:J- ca""rocc-'Q)cc . ......... - ......... :;;: --" :;;:.-' =() =() m::r "CD::T ..., CD ..., CD ..:J -~::J 1;) ;:J i3 () ~ CD ~~ o C1> => '" õ~ ",0 a::J ",0. o u, S.Ô SO'::¿ C1> Q) ~êD fa.w '" õ ~ '< Q) 2. en ëD s: êi) ::r 8 cc S' Q) CD ""'0 C 0 a. ..., CD ill ..., 0.30="" CD;::+_O::::J'" C.cë·:E:J~ ê:Qêcc ox....... ctI :J '"en 5" õ :3 0 ~. g:: æ g ~ (iï ~ co 0- ~Q)'< g: '" :;;:(f =[1) -Q) !J¡ 0. . Q) ~.=" o () ::J ::r cc ro ::J GJ (õ' ¡þ' ~ õS03GJ 2'2L¡;;[ Ë:f:TCD ~ ëlï [1) ;- ::J ro S" c. - S" (') _" æ" Q ..., en < ro ro (') ro ~ ~ g ~ m :f @ ~ =3;:¡:::: (b! êfj" Q) õ 0. 0 CJ1~(') .....0 <0 Q) 0--" c: 0 -" ..., c: IF> tlJ_ :J -" Q) o en :=: -1;) ::J '" ' cc -" ro [1) cg it :J =+;:::¡c. 6" roo. ro Q) x ::J' 1;) ;>"-Iëif æ 2: ::J o.cc ;:[1) ~ U1 ro 0 ~cft. tlJ o - S" " ~ C1> Q) '" .C1> r::r:; " 0 -co :fë: ror::r ro ro g¡ Q) ro 3 o 0 -;¡¡ 11 I» ::J ::J ::J (Q () o 3 3 (ij" (f o ::J CJ 'C CD o ~ o C CD o (f o ::J (f m 53 53 ...... >-ì 'Tj ..., en 0 ;0 en m CD :T ....... ro CD :J 'ê~~8§"8 [ c. -" :3 ::!; c: õ" :T :f :3 êB ro :::J[1)QJrocnCO en < < :J _" (1) roroc.Ë- Õ â) .......[1) ~ (Q:T::!;(Q 3 ro ~ § ~ æ ~ (') en "0 ....... 00 ëif ::0] ~ ;;t I CJ ~ S" cno~ co Q) < - :J ro Õ c.~::J ;:000 ->"?f.:J ~)ð ::J ëD :J c;.) 0 'U ~ o CD 0""'0 ::!! 5. «5' 0 s= ~ 3 Oro:::rõ'roC'D::f o :::!. cr 0 UJ c.. ill ~ :J Q ...... c: CD ro -tp(J3S!:::J ~~~ê:~~a- '" '" .-+:::;...... .] ..... en :::!. '< "'0 ->. co -. :::I "'0 wx~éD~o :J ..... __ CD OJ ""-J '- :J en OJ -0 0) Q..ã)£ '" OJ OJ men- < !!t õ' OJ '" '1) '1) ~ 0) 0 ;::¡. () '" 0 '" ..." '" 0 ~ '" '" < ~. -.'" '" OJ " ;u '" < 0' " (fJ ~ (fJ 0) 0) 0) 0 0) CL OJ CL !!t '" ~ª ~-_. s: '1) ro ro 0) -~ '" .~ CD N GJ 0 (D- ..." ..." -I>- !!i 0 :J' CD OJ :T::J CD ..." ...,,0) Ò ë§ OJ ~ ':;;0 0) ..." ~ CL "'U "'C C1 (J "'U m ëD G) o ~ 0 Õ ..., :J ...... -. .... C/'J, 0 (t) CD 3 $1.-,<:""0 8.:J-+O -·õ·c"'C°õ·::!:~ :J Q) en 0 :J -·0"'0 S.=CDro~c5:J..., ctI-<2'cn<ñ_o~ ~oS-o o-~ OCD;:::+:OQ.~cn ::J (/) CD -+0. 0.-+ 2 en en ~ -<::T ...., Q) m 3 "'C CD ::J :J ëÐ _. 0 en a. ...... :J _ . '< Q) CD - - '" S' Q) '" '" '" OJ o " " :J' (ï" 0 0 cr :r ..., ~'< :E "'C Q.:y _. -:J 5.~co<D o (J CD ~ " '" x en 0 @ CJ Q) ::J"'C C -0 CD - < "'£ <5' ;:::¡.: <D '< :::T (J 0...;:: õgg- ::E (rl !:.. "!.<CL (') :S. :J' = (fJ '" CD ::;¡' en en Q:ð.§ c:-o ã:o () ;::¡. o CD OJ - !!? 3 g. 5" ~ !!'. s= õ" CD _OJ ~o- a s. c5S: '" CD c: 0 -0 0 -0 c: o OJ ;:¡~ ~ ~ ro ~~ ~,~ ð ~ Œ ~ 6 :::j ~ g' ; ::: CD(Q.3 m~CDc < CD....3 .....-J =(0 0 g:::rO::Jon~ro~~s·~or.ng~~ o_<",~._O::!:cnOOCDQ)<~·~·::J I 0 ""0 0........,0 r.n......roro~cc~::J ~.....::J::Jmw::J~ oro_n~moro » UI CtI 0 :::!. » en 0 ::J (þ 0 0 :J::::!. "'C·-c.ëï :J"'C O.-+:J DJ<.C cr~O < <D a "'C:J:T CC-c a. -crocn-([)(¡)x oocrz o~cn ID- Q)>o~~ < ....,.. 0 < ............ :J ~ Q) "'C ::::""0 -. q OJ-''''' ill· 0 7'õ'Ë"'C(>ct):T ~~.~DJ -3~ ~:J°acn"cr~' ...,e 5"0)0 Q);;::~<"'OG)Q):T :T"'C CJ ^ _ .... .... OJ Q) tl) (J ....... ;~~ i~a ~~.~~~~~I ~9?-~ ~Q)en ,~.~. ~2~ª~ en 3· ro - ~ 0 ro n v, ~ro ;:;.: en rn -, ~ ;U ~ ;U '" CD () CD () CD 0 ¡¡) 0 ¡¡) 3 CD 3 CD 3 CL 3 CL '" Õ CD Õ OJ OJ CL'1) CL'1) !!to !!'.o õ- õ- OJ OJ - - ~ ~ 0 0 3 3 '" '" 0 0 0 0 '" '" GJ (fJ ~ GJ (fJ (D' 0) 0 (D' 0) - 0) OJ ~ 0) CD CL CL :' !!t '" !!t s: --. s: --- =0 =0 ro :J' ro:J' :' '" :' CD ? _OJ s: ",' (fJ :¡- '" () c: 0 Q CD-o '" 0) 0 CL c' ..." '" ~ 3" 0 ~ '" '" '"- Õ' ~ ê: ¡OJ" ~ºg'~ºg' o ro Q) 0 CD Q) ::JêÐa.::JêÐa. co -, tI) co -, tI) ~ ....... -....... s: --- s: --. =0 =0 ë[)::r ã)::r -, ro -, CD ~::J ~:J - - -IITJ !!!.3 ~ ~. u>ro Õ'" -<ii :§;(fJ 0) - _0 00':< (fJ CD Õ' 0) () '" '" õ' ~ o;u :;. ro CD QJ () ~ õ(fJ ,-CD '" ð »0) -0 () -0'" ë3 ;U < CD 0) CL c: Q. Ö OJ » o .. õ' OJ ~ ;U (fJ [ CD () '" () .. 0 ¡¡) 0 '" 3 CD -0 iii' CD 3 CL 0 CD Õ - OJ ~ CL '1) !!'. 0 0 ~ õ- '" OJ z o ~ en .. ;!. z o - CD '" (fJ (fJ (fJ (fJ (fJ (fJ (fJ en c: c: c: c: c: c: c: - -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 .. -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 :::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'CJ ;::¡. ;::¡. ;::¡. ;::¡. ;::¡. ;::¡. ;::¡. 0 '" ;:;: õ' OJ - ~ o 3 '" o o '" ~ºg'~ºg'~ºg' ~ o CD tI) 0 ro tI) 0 ro Q) (Ð ::JêÐa.::J;'a.::J;'a. cc ~-, ~cc~..... ~cc...... ~ s: ~. s: --. s: --- =0 =0 =0 ë[)::r ë[)::J'" ë[)::r -, ro -, ro ..... ro ~::J -::J ~::J - - - ð~)1 o 0 :1:0 '" ::> '" < -", ro ;:¡. '" co §I 0" OJ S' '" '" '" " o OJ OJ õ9- OJ ~ <C 0 C-< Ci:;; ~OJ :j' = '" "tJ OJ <C '" '" o - .þ. ~() o ~ OJ '" <C _OJ ~ CD :' GJ (D' - '" ~ en OJ OJ Co ê: ä:s:ø ..a CD ãï COm ~. ~..., 3 ~ ~ CDéñ~ OJ OJ '" Cñø(¡; Õ ro ¡;; S' (J m i: ;¡ 3 :::r s· ~ OJ ~ro 5' '" '" '" " o OJ Co en õ -< '" '" 8' OJ " '" $:() = ::r -'" ~ ~::I ~0 o '" tEeD -~ en OJ OJ Co ª Q) ::r ::I' en ~ Q) :g <D en c: 0 g aom:g-<o ""0 =I: OJ 0 OJ 3 ..., ~ £ ;:¡ CD 3 5) ..... en 8 CJ 0 m:...o..... a. :T_..... ß) c: Q) < CD U> -0 ~ OJ ~ '" co .2. õ' c '" OJ õ.:$4<n ~ ::J ::ï S' S. C1 '" '" Cif ~ ~ 3 9: CD o OJ OJ ~ co ro '" m ~ 0-3 III 5" ¡¡'OJ '" CD" '" '" " o OJ c. , '" õ -< '" Ci '" :;;"''''(Jc.~",c ~:Jiñõ(l)O:J!:!: cncti3~~:;;~~ ..... 0 (D CD CD ~. 6" CD o-o:J::J (C"tJ"'U --<CD~Cñë§~;rCD~ ~9tcro<Q.~õo <s:S--aCÐ-c;þ CDroU'JCDcr-,<:;::¡:: (5 .......-+c:OoO~ "C C/J ro 0 .....-0 I U) CD Q) ;:¡ en ..., (1) (f C" 3..... S' ~;:¡ õ c: CD ~CQ. ~.2-< a '"0 en C1> ::I S' (D -. Q·s'ch::rCDmc.È ~lOÕCDQ)3 Q) ëD -< en 5.. CD (f' 5' ::J .....~ caw(ij ::J 0 CD ~.. CD -< I CJ1 $: () $: () ~ ~ CD '" CD '" -~ -OJ -~ ? ~ GJ ~ GJ 0 (D' 0 (D' OJ CD OJ - <C <C '" .~ -~ en OJ OJ c. ê: en III III Co ª S::EcnØctl:E(J)r.nCD:¡:cn Q)OC:~..cocCD..cOC: ......""'1""0 ere: -'-0 a=c:...,"C C/J ~7ó>-o m <"?'-o m <"?'-o C1>I"'T"OODJ.....ooro,.,..o ...........;::¡;:s:;--....;::¡"'-.....;:¡ cr c: ... CD c: ... CD c: .. ~;s: :J:::s: ::J:::s: @ (ñ' 00' 6 ~ ëi)' S æ (ñ" :E CÐ ëif s: ~ (ñ' :;: ~ (Ii" s: 0 Q)::J CD <::J CD < ::J ~~g~ ~~; ~~; ..., C" Q):J -. "'C:J ..., "'0 ::3 <gCOcr...... ~CD...... ~CD_ ""ã)roffi 3"Cñ'ffi 3"ürffi ~g.õcn ::;.g(JJ :::;.gcn (") (") CD 0 ..... cn (") ..... (J) (") g CD x.g 3' C)..g ~r (r.g 9-~-gCD C:~CD c~ro 000 3-<0 3-.<0 ..... -.. -.. ...... ~ c iÞ Þ CD ~ c. (1 < (f ,¡::- ~ " 0 ¡¡;" '" co CD Õ" 5 -a c õ" c. "" III :;; m III " OJ 0 X OJ - " ;;¡ "0 ~ "~ or '" Ò g '" 5' CD , CD" 0 ~ '" <C en '" '" GJ 0 0 c '" '" '" 0 a. Ci " '< '" III "it ~ :=':(0 '" 5' S' o c SO I III OJ -" OJ '" C. '" " '" CD œ. c. ;yiff!E 51' ~ '-> 5" ¡¡;" 0- 0> CD " S- o '" §. 0- â ~ '" 0"> 0" 0 0 OJ () SO III '" -< "tJ "tJ -0 -0 ~ III ~ III 0 ;:¡. 0 ;:¡. " " '" 0 '" 0 '" - '" - '" 0 '" 0 ~ '" '" '" '" < ~. < ~. -. <C -.'" '" OJ '" OJ :;; ;U :;; ;U '" '" < < (D' ii, :;; :;; GJ en GJ en (D' III (D' III - III - III '" c. 9'i Co ~ ê: ~ () () ~ ~ '" '" -OJ .OJ ~ $: 0 1D OJ <C .~ ()oen o £-6 3 OJ ""0 3 OJ 0 CJ ð ;¡ ~. CD "'C o .. C ::1_ ~ Ë en û.ï c5 '" -" c"'<c a: ('") £. :rgg- cc (J') = "'C 00":J S" or g¡ ('") ::J _. -5" .-+ :J 1D ;;. '" 5' 5' '" § m g ~ c.<Oj (1) ro- (") CD ~~~~ CJ1 0 :J ::J -"'c. ~ ~;;. ~ ~ 9 ~ 0 ::U~Õ'c5 o ~ -< 3 ~ :::r~< o -. CD 3 [ìi '" c. '" ""0 '" ~ ~. roO CD U'J ;::;: 3 en III C OJ "0 ,<""0 _0 '" 0 ;:¡. OJ " m < ~ x '" OJ ~ ~d~ ~r2:- ",¡;;GJ " ~Cñffi c. OJ '" 3 :J s: Co", § 0- CD s. ê '< ë:"'C -CD"O Q -, 0 '" ;:¡. g¡, ~ ø m a o f- -& 0 :So ;Þ ~·o '2::;: CD ..." :;: 0 ~~ :TO œ. ~. cg.g. -0 ~ ~ ~ u.,- c: CD §I~ o' CD ::J'S- õ' ::J õ' ~ 1J(I)°CD~O" CD ::r..,,~ ~(\ ..., 0 CD........ en ..., (" C Q) !:.. CD co CD c.- ....... Q) ...... W ::I CD...... 0 ..., ........ cr Q) Ö· :J Q) 2,roCO:J_cgs: .......:J C ::r CD ::J"'0õ: (1)3cc ~ 3 CD s= c:: c:: oQS: ~~g: 3.(D~ c.cffis: ro:y... O><CtI rom!E. ã)ro <:Jro <omS: ê:9icc O~N~ g,< Q) õ OJ ë3 Q) 9.. st ~ CD '1' o ()1 ::;¡ 0 0 ~ ;;y OJ ~ O.~ ;Þ O""'(/\""'O~lQ-~"'·\1)'·.C'\ :J m ...............3 _.~o -.mu_ < ~ æ U1 0" en < :E ~ 52. 'S õ' ~Oa.ëD'=ï Q.OroCD.~Et:.::¡ ::;¡ 0 CD ('[) c ~'ti5 -"';'Œ ....... ....., - a.. 3 CD 01 ø: :TCD ->'::E::!1 (1)...... g en '0-0" a..., s=..o ~Ñ)' g.--s=S!t ~CD~ æ.. ::r~CJ1CJ) CDa.O:::Þ~·? ~"""'-õ Q)oJ,Q)t~ o CD.:;, OJ c: - -'0 ::1m (f)crOO}.þ. o 3" '!'. ~ iD -< ~ ,ii' ~ S" g- ~. 8 5 g I: <J 3_· (f) CD C 3 (þ Ace Ci Œ.. a.::¡CD-~ (DC 0'" =:(JO,'@ ." 3 m :E::I "",,'~~ì u.o C1 --(Q Õ <:c,^, :::J ;;J;"'" 50 ~~ a. en _::;:~ :ii0.g>:ii0.g>:ii0.g> o CD m 0 CD m 0 CD m :JeD'a.:::JëÐa.::JeD'a. cc_""!E.(Q~""!E.(Q....,!E. ;;: .-. ;;: --. ;;: --. =() =() =() ro=r (ñ:::r ã)::r ..., CD ..., (I) ..., CD -.? - _::J ~? '"(J OJ <C CD .... o ..." .... C/J c: "0 "0 o ;:¡. C/J c: "0 "0 o ;:¡. C/J c: "0 "0 o ;:¡. :ii0.g> o CD OJ :JCD'Q. co _-, !E. ;;:--. =() ~~ - ::J -:;:C/J 9.. 0 c ~ ~"'C <J - "0 ä:cr§. CD S. .. cn.......s= ~ ~ (,ñ" g- CD ü)" ~ (ñ" :::J . :J 2- o 0 " ::J :T5' gJ CD <C <J CD " _0 0"0 _CD ft"g. :iicn o OJ ::J OJ cc~ ~ iD :0 G)() -. :T ~CD CD ::J ~ . Q () cff ~ ::J ::J OJ - <;;0. o~ <J CD -D ~ '" "'c: . "0 "0 o ;:¡. 5' CD ~ £~ (f) 3 "'. c: CD g :::Þ:g :;: <J :.... 0 ::roo(/);:1. "è CDc. <J --. ~ c: ()1 m Q) cr en X Cf ~.o 2 :;: OJ . r.n~~? ~. ~...... CD:;: :T :T CD ë)" 0 Q) :Toc. (iï en g .c õ' ?::J "è :;: '" ffi '" ¡-~~ ( - ~ 'It ~ t:r1 " " (þ '"C ~ õ' " '" >-rj0>-ì ;.. -< :E ~~o * w (/) v. ~ ~O o Q ;.. " ~ õ " '" " '" " r:T (þ ~ '"C (þ '" (õ p. ~ o -- nC;);<l8',»n o ¡:: (to ., ~ 0 " _. -< u" ~ p. ..... tj ~ 00 o (') (p C1> :::,: ¡:: :;j ~ ~ 00 (tI !=' ::! Þ _. () ;:::r-. '" (þ 8'(¡q ~ " ::¡. ., þ ., f]C¡ " p¡o ~ <1> _. (/)<1> OJ :E i::J ~ ::r <1> n n ~ " C§. ~ ::r (þ "d n ~ w o ~ 8 ~ -, " 5' (¡q " (/) o ~ ~ ° "'Q " "d (¡q 0 (õ JI' w o o 1 * * * * * ****~ ***~> :';t:1Z;o nn~n II n II II >-rj II "d II t'""' õ n-t:1<1> 0 ~. ~ ~ ~ ., '-< 5 -, -;;-- n 5'~ Z <1> o (¡q ;0 § '" §g~o~ 8. § ....·0 =--. ...... (tI::I 0 _.:E 8' '" n::¡ ~.o ¡;j . § § Jr ¡:¡" <1> (þ ~t:1 ~;o n * * * >-rj" >-ì ;.." :E ~g.o * .... (/) w ~ v.O ~~ " O(/) o " ~ þ _. ~ S'g.~ S=o;o ¡- § ~ ~. , " <1> : <1> :E : ~ , .... , , , , , , .----- ,. "dtD CD S. S õ:: ~. S' .. (¡q r:T0t:r1 - """ p.t'""'~ (¡q Z (þ . " =on'" " _. <1> * 0 * " Z <1> á<i' g: o .... ~ '"C 3 -< e:. ¡ ~ ~ '"C '" a ~ -< '" - o " <1> (/) ~ ° Q n e ~ z ~ Id ....... tJ t'rj -< t'rj r o I-1j ~ t'rj z ~ I-1j Id o n t'rj r:/J. r:/J. tr1 @ >-< to >-< >-3 c;J o~~ ~ ~ "" "" "" ~ '::::tIjN~:-O ........- ~ ::! -.J (tI (') ....... c..... ~ ....... (tI en + '-t Õ· ~ ÔC¡Q ~ ~ Õ·~ ~a. n ::s (:L.. (D tr.I § 0 ~ CD ~ cT""i'I"'~cT (1) ~ en p. ~ Z þ" () ..§ n ~. ~ ""(I) * f10 (I) * þ" 0.. E.. .......¡:: (tI cr' 0 (') p. s:: ¡:; P'. ~ 0 Õ qc¡ ~. J::j 0.. (I) o "" cT E. s:: S' f10 (I) ~ <: (I) Õ "" (I) Et- S' (I) (I) "é o * * * * * * * *"rj * t"":> "éZ?;i 00 II II 1I"rj "ét""~ -§ (I) 0 f10 0 ., .... -, - ~ ~ Z (I) 00., o :;> ?;i i3 g ê-. i3 ~ 0 (;1' go ~'ä ~ _. ~ f10 ~O:>:'I::I (") a. ~ ~ () -',-."",. "O~(1)C§ ~. ., ~ o " .. ~ () '" (I) ~~w (I) ~ 0 c1Q' ~O g:-...]~ 0"" 0 "'1 ........ =to 0> () ~ S' ~f1O o . ., &. ~ "" "" ~ 0:>:'1::1 o (I) (I) 3 ;s.~. 8. ~ '§ ~ ~ (I) (I) -<"" (I) (I) " -< 0..'" (I)"" ::1. ~ ~ ~ (¡q _. <: (I) ;::~ ~~ '-'-' v, ~ t"""é-ì ~ g ~ (I) ¡:j , .......~. (/) ~ ~ ~ 0 .... '< OQ:>:'Õ'Þ-O o ¡::: (tI >; h¡ 0 ~ ~ ;s. t) g. ~ o ( (tI (1) :::::~: ¡::: ~ ~ ~ en (D ....... t::!::S _. ('") ~. ~ (tI ~O"CI .......::s ::s '-t=:S""'tO'Q () "" (I) (I) 00- $. [f)(I) or < ~ l '<~~""~i ~ 0 (tI ....... 0 "'1 ....... _. ....... 0.. -'f1O § _. ~ ~ g:: 8. --- _. 0 0 ~ (') =:s "," ~ ... o;:p o..~ - 0 "d '-.:...I........ 00' " "'1::S en >< w CD.............. ......0 p. 8.. -.J~ ;::§ ~~ " '-'-' v, ~ . OQ[f) o ¡::: S- ,::! -.!"""!"¡ ""o..Hj o (I) "..; ::¡ :=: '" ¡:j ~ (I) P' (tI :5. ~ (I) g ~ Õ' .... ~ @ ;:p"" ~ :> ::1 0 0 --- p. p..::S ~ .......<..;.... (1) ....... CD ....... ~ ::¡. '< 0..:>< (I) ::s P" p .......::s O"CI a. 0 -...] ....... '" ~."" ~ <: 0 ....... 0 --- (tI þ.) =t. cr" _.::s (') ?::s "U1~. .. . ~S':>I::I :t:f: 0 "d ::;. -' ::r "'t:S (1) (i) a g. '" <: 0 ;:J. þ) '"1" ~ - '" f10 ~ , Z 0 0 0 ~ '" . õ' ::¡ (I) (I) '" '< "ét!:J ~. ~ ....... S' f10 t"""é-ì ~ g ~ (I) ¡:j , ....... ~'íJJ ~ ~ o ~ "é (I) ê. ~ ~ "" ~ :-o¡;: (I) _. ~.:::I 0..0 (I) -< ~ [ ~ :> ~o.. ~~. ~o> :>< g ~~ -..}~ "" ~ _0 § ~. '00 D. ~ f10 ~ o ~ (I) [f) ~ o .... '< t:1 tI1 (/J - ~ G; < - tTJ ~ 'ï::I ~ o (J tTJ (/J (/J tf'j ~ == .... O;: .... '"Ì = ý-fv 3 EXHIBIT I Public Survey - Rl Ordinance The Planning Commission is reviewing the Rl Ordinance and would like your input! Please fill out this survey and snbmit it to City Hall by Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 5 p.m. Hyou have comments about specific questions, please use the Comment section at the end of the survey. The City has a zoning ordinance (referred to as the Rl Ordinance) that limits what can be built on single- family residential properties. 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 second-story regulations and created a design review process. The purpose of the R 1 ordinance is to ensure that new construction be reasonably consistent in scale and design with neighboring homes, as well as protecting the privacy of neighbors and reinforcing the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods. Please tell us about yourself: 1. Are you a: (check all that apply) D Homeowner in Cupertino D Homebuilder or designer in Cupertino D Renter in Cupertino D Other 2. How many years have you lived in Cupertino? 00-4 D 5-9 D 10-14 D 15+ o I do not live in Cupertino 3. Please check all that apply: D I recently built a new home in Cupertino D I recently built an addition to a home in Cupertino o My addilion or new home wenl to a public hearing at City Hall o I am a neighbor of someone who recently built a new home or addition in Cupertino D None ofthe above 4, Please provide your street address below. Only one survey per household will be accepted. (this information will be strictly confidential): 5. If you are a homebuilder or architect, please provide the street addresses of up to three recent projects you worked on: 6. Are you familiar with the differences between homes built under the current ordinance adopted in 1999 and homes built under the previous ordinance? DYes DNa D Not sure Floor Area Ratio IF AR) Information The Rl Ordinance uses "Floor Area Ratios" (FAR) 10 limil the size of new single-family residential construction. The FAR is a ratio oflhe lotal area of the building (including lhe garage, but excluding basements) as a percenlage of the lot size. Homes can have a Floor Area Ratio of 45% of the total10t size. For example, a 2,700 sq. f1. house is allowed on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. Two-story additions or new two-story homes lhat have a FAR over 35% must go through a Design Review process and public hearing before lhe Design Review Committee and! or PlaIU1ing Commission. ¡~&<-f Second Storv Area The Rl Ordinance allows a second-story to be as much as 35% of the first story of the house. For a 2,700 sq. ft. house, the second-story can be a maximum of700 sq. ft., leaving 2,000 sq. ft. to the first story. Ina1l cases, a homeowner is allowed 10 have alleasl600 sq. fl. on the second slory. Therefore, if you have a 1,000 sq. ft. single- story house, you can build a 600 sq. ft. second-story addition even though it is more than 35% of the fiTSt story area. 7. I believe thai the second-story proportion should be: (check one) DOver 50% of the first story D Less than 35% of the first slory D Between 41 % and 50% of the first story D Don't increase it - keep it a135% of the first story D Between 36% and 40% of the first story 8, I believe that the minimum allowed second-story area should be: (check one) DOver 1,000 sq. ft. D Less than 600 sq. fl. D Between 751 sq. fl. and 1,000 sq. fl. D Dou't increase it - keep it at 600 sq. fl. D Belween 601 sq. fl. and 750 sq. ft. Setbacks Setbacks are the minimum distance the walls of a house must be from a property line. The standard setbacks are 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other. 9, I believe that the first-story setbacks should be: (check one) D Nol changed 0 Increased D Reduced D Don't Know I No Opinion The RI ordinance requires lhe second-story of a home be set back 25 feet from lhe ITonl and back property lines and a total of 25 feel on lhe sides of the home. An additional setback of 10 feet musl be added in any combination to the front or sides. 10. I believe that the second-story setbacks should be: (check one) D Not changed D Increased D Reduced D Don't Know INo Opinion Hei~hts In general, the RI Ordinance allows a singie-story to be at leasl12 feet lall within five feel of the property line. As you move away from the property line, the allowed wall height increases. A single-story section of a house can be 14 feet tall within len feet of the property line. This regulation is called a "building envelope" or "daylight plaue." 11. I believe lhat the heights allowed by the building envelope should be: (check one) o Not changed 0 Increased D Reduced 0 Don'l Know I No Opinion Entry features consist of special roof elements that mark the location oflhe ITont door. The roof eave of an entry feature is limited to a height of 14 feel. 12, I believe that the entry feature height should be: (check one) D Not changed D Increased D Reduced o Don't Know / No Opinion Privacv The RI ordinance requires planting of evergreen trees or lall shrubs to block views inlo neighboring yards from second story windows and decks. The planting is recorded on the deed of the two-story property and must be maintained by the owner. It is anticipated that the planting will grow to provide screening in tluee to five vears. 13. I believe that the privacy protection requirements should be: (check one) D Not changed D Increased D Reduced D Don't Know I No Opinion ¡-~t ) Desi~n Review Process Proposed two-story homes or additions that exceed a 35% FAR are required to participate in a Design Review. Two-story homes with aFAR of 35% or below and single-story homes do not participate in the Design Review process. The purpose of the Design Review is to "ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods" for proposed new two-story homes or second story additions. The total cost a property owner might incur during the Design Review varies and may include City fees, architect or designer fees for required modifications to the plans and developer interest fees on the property. All fees or costs are the responsibility of the property owner. The Design Review can increase the cost of a new home or lwo-story addition by 0.5% to 1%*; roughly $2,500 to $8,000 depending on the size of the project and required changes to the design, excluding interest or taxes. In general, the Design Review process can take several months and is completed when the architectural design is reviewed at a public meeting. Neighbors within 300 feet of the project site are notified by mail of lhe Design Review. Neighbors have the opportunity 10 provide input lhroughout the Design Review process, which includes public meetings. The Design Review places extra costs on the individual property owner while giving neighbors the opportunity to provide inpul on the proposed project. *Source: Contractors who build in Cupertino. 14. 1 believe the benefit provided to lhe neighbors is worth the additional costs to the property owner associated with the Design Review. (check one) DStrongly Agree OAgree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know I No Opinion 15. 1 believe there should be Design Review for: (check one) D Two story homes or additions with aFAR D All new homes or additions resulting in over 35% (currently required) increased square footage o All two-slory homes or additions 0 There should not be design review for anything As part of the Design Review process, story poles must be construcled on lhe site. Story poles are wood, metal or plastic fiames wilh orange mesh that shows the outline of the proposed second-story. Slory poles serve as a noticing 1001 and as a visualization 1001. The story poles generally cosl between $1,500 and $3,000. 16. 1 believe the benefit of story poles is worth the cost to the applicant and helps neighhors visualize how the second-story will appear. (check one) o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree 0 Strongly Disagree ODon't Know I No Opinion Noticio!! 17, I believe the following noticing techniques should he required for projects that go through the Design Review process: (check all that apply) o Slory poles (currently required) o Mailed notice sent to all owners wÌlhin 300 feet of the project site (currently required) o An II" x 17" copy of lhe architectural plans included with the mailed notice to adjacent properties o A 24" x 36", weatherproof, picture of the proposal posted in the fiont yard of the project site o Olher Construction that does not require Design Review can commence without providing any notice to neighboring properties. The City can provide a courtesy notice to adjacent neighbors of proposed additions and new homes in cases where the project does no~ r~quire a Design Review. However, a neighbor would not have an official opportunity to requesl changes to the project. 18. I would like to have courtesy notices initiated. (check one) o Strongly Agree o Agree ODisagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know I No Opinion I--&~ Desi~n Guidelines Projects that go through the Design Review process have to conform to Design Guidelines, which in some cases call for reduced wall heights, use of roof pitches and building materials that are consistent with neighboring properties. In some cases, the Guidelines call for design clianges that are more restrictive than the ordinance. You can review the Design Guidelines on the City's website at h!m://W\vw:s;!m.ertino.orc/plannimr - scroll down to the Design Guidelines section on the web page and click on the link to "Single Family Review Design Guidelines." 19, Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to have building forms, roof pitches, roof heights, and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes, (check one) o Strongly Agree DAgree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know I No Opinion 20. Specifically, I believe the following types of projects should meet guidelines that encourage building forms, roof pitches, roof heights and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes: (check one) o Two slory homes or additions with aFAR 0 All new homes or additions resulting in over 35% increased square footage o Alllwo-story homes or additions 0 Nobody should have to meel guidelines (currently required) 21. I believe that new construction should not have to have building forms, roof pitches, roof heights and wall that are consistent with the original neighborhood homes when a certain percentage of the homes in the neighborhood have been rebuilt: (check one) D Less than 25% of the homes are rebuilt 0 Between 50% and 75 % of the homes are rebuilt D Between 25% and 49% of the homes are rebuilt DOver 75% of the homes are rebuilt If you have any other comments, please write them below or attach separate sheets of paper: Thank you for taking your valuable time to complete this survey. Your input is highly appreciated. Please mail or drop off the survey at the following address: Cupertino City Hall Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 8~~( EXHIBIT J: R1 Survey Summaries Question All Respondants (492) Type of Respondant (can check more than one) 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 Tenure in City Responses % of Group Total Have you recently built or has your neighbor recently built? (can check more than one) Second Story Minimum Allowed Area 71 %,of Group Total 19% 15% 8% 10% 48% 58% oppose changing the current rule or support reducing the allowed area. The remainder supports an increase. 125 % of Group Total 57% 26% 57% support the current first story setbacks. story setbacks. 12% support a reduction. 222 % of Group Total 46% 19% 46% support the current second story setbacks. 19% support an increase. 8 -& 8' Question 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 All Respondants (492) Building Envelope Responses % of Group T ctal 85 18% 51 % support the current building envelope regulation. 22% support a reduction in the building envelope while 18% support an increase in the height allowed. 263 % of Group Total 55% 27% 55% support the current privacy protection rules. 27% support an increase In the privacy protection measures while 12% support a reduction. 184 % of Group Total 39% 23% 23% 15% 39% believe that only two-story projects with FAR's over 35% should go to Design Review. 23% believe all two-story projects should go to Design Review. 23% believe all one and two-story projects should go to Design Review. 15% believe there should not be Design Review for anything. Benefit of Story Poles Noticing Methods (can check more than one) 8~~ Question 18 19 20 21 All Respondants (492) Courtesy Notices 55 10% 12% 22% disagree. Neighborhood Compatibility 1¡1.' 56 % of Group Total 40% 31% 13% 12% 4% 71 % believe that new construction should generally be compatible with the neighborhood pattern. 25% disagree. What Should Meet Compatibility Guidelines? 167 14% 36% 32% 18% 36% believe that all two-story projects should meet compatibility guidelines. 32% believe all projects, whether one or two-story should meet guidelines. 18% believe that no projects should have to meet guidelines. 14% believe that only two-story projects with FAR's over 35% should meet guidelines. 137 % of Group Total 31% 23% 22% 23% This question had the most even split. 31 % believe that if 25% of the neighborhood has been rebuilt, new construction does not have to be compatible with the original neighborhood. 22% to 23% each believe that either new construction does not have to be compatible when either 25-49% of the homes in the neighborhood have been rebuilt, 50-75% of the homes have been rebuilt or over 75% of the homes have been rebuilt. There is a strong possibility that respondents made mistakes when answering this question. While tabulating the results of the question, it was frequently observed that respondents who opposed regulations or guidelines often selected choices C (50-75%) or D (over 75%). when you would expect that respondent to favor the least restriction choice. Likewise, respondents who favored stricter regulations and more design review often selected choices A (less than 25%) or B (25-49%). This question was also the least answered question, with only 443 responses from the 492 valid surveys. One respondent who left the question blank said: "Number 21 does not make sense. If it is to be consistent, it must stay consistent. The rebuilt homes are consistent, so more new homes would have to be consistent with that." g-)D ~ o (Q co ....... en w ~ cft.W,; ~ ~N cft.-ÞO- -< N ~ o " '" ~ õ' " ::c (þ en 'C o :s a. (þ » :s ::: ....~ n~ '" " :s 0 n " ::r¡} (þ " n iñ ""~ 3 <'i; o~ ... (þ .... ::r '" ~ :s <D o '" :J is: (þ 0 <D ~.,,, ~éñ :¡: s: :dt o tIJ ~ ~ õ:)~ .::::!e: g: " '" ~ . <D ~'" "," . g i3'Q, ., <D O¡¡, " '" '" s: ~.. g" ): "'¡;¡ -::;::¡: -<'" ~ñl Q, g><: :::::::eÞ beg Q,o- Q,O "'¡;¡ õ' 0 -¡;:¡:::¡...... ..."'~ ~O(þ ., '" ~Q: :¡: ~ J:iñ o '3 s: '" !!t '" ,;¡tri ......>< cn::r; c:: ......, < g:¡ CD >-J '< ?\ en c:: 3 3 III ~- CD tf C'" '< ~ "C CD o - ÃI CD tf "C o :::::I a. CD :::::I - t~l ( ~ ~ ~ o ~ (,Ø o t: '" ~ õ' " ~ == :tJ '" .. "C 0 " g. " ¡;¡ " <0 ~ :tJ '" .. 0 õ: '" ., " ~ ¡;¡ ~ s à= .. .. !II 3 t: '" -, .. .. Q¡ ~ "- .::::! S: .. õ' " .. :tJ . '" ~~ .. 0 . " ë!'''- ., '" " §'Cit '" S .. .. .. 0 .. " ~ '" " .. ~ ~ .. .... ~ ia "- g>"" ::::;:CD ~'§: "-0' "-0 -, ... ~tIj ;;:; o 0 " .. ~ .. :tJ -:= o '" ., .. :ë: -. '" "- ~ ~ :x:¡;¡ 0 S ;¡ '" ~ .. ¡-jL "'- "'- '" '" "'- 0 '" "'- 0 0 C- O '? .... Q) '" '" ;¡: J:, Q) '" ^ '" '" v to .c " "0 Q) . . Ell 0 . r:: 0 1:: 0 Co 2 c.. ,...:¡ ~ E-< 0 ucf2. ...... ... ..... r::o en ...... "C :r: r:: 0 >< 0 µ.:¡ GI en I'- r:: -o'#- 0 Q) :¡:¡ rJ GI ::¡ a ;,R. Q)~ " f-73 , ,I iMvn'tu,~ ----~._.._~.-.....- J)'~ to' ,;¡:~ , ~ ,~' m~_·. ~^VÁ;lU1!¡g :t.1 i ., -..11").-- ,... i 1- t-t~T ! , æ _ "- " -~ \ , . i ::.- '--, t ~ '6 I~ I . ~.. 00:" -. P}lSUI]J315 , '. "', ,... ~ ~ i : . _I ______1-'-..__] _.~~;¡; ~ I~ ~ . ....--.- ~~ I ý cd" ·____ooN - . --I·ì~ , . " , , :. ::;;: t:: ~ ~ :r: x ~ '" , -, . \ """".-:- . . , : .,,- N - .. ;^,(J;!IIW -~ .'. ~ , ¡ . '. " ~ : "' . P^¡g_~<J(l -, , , , '" N e/ ~I . ~~ ~ i:' = 0 0- 1",'" ~~ ~ § o~ ä:: -2 >.~ .... tj (, l-- .. ¡¡;: ';¡¡.. 1 c.. t: ¡:;; 0 , , :q ~ O! ::I ::s 0 ...., .... ~ v '" ... ~~ 1 ¡iDOl 0 ~ e; .« ¡ ~ . 'I' ¡.-. l~';, ð:H 'ü 18! i j I , È ] ¡ § ~ . I\,~ -)! 'N _ N 0- ~ " ] ~ PHqqng ~ I '~_ ,.J.:"- ~,'" '".. . '.. : , I d /-~_:-~ .. 1- . . , ! u____/ ~- '" ,1 I ;"'iii 'N. . . -j. ,,/ (J ~ ~ mi~ . 'i-7'--f :1- , , . .. - ~II¡:- I I _ ~ . . ,I ;hvne¡UV.L -----.-.-----..- -----. J~ I . u. . i I ..... - ... .M·V1;¡II!W n;}JI~0_ \ . .... ·'~l I--~·.- '-. .. - ~ ". '" MVÁ<lUe[Q . . I I JL- I ~r ., "' , -~ ~ ~ ~ ! o ~ " -. -~ . .\ 1'1:1.£1.1111"45 '- "-. ,.., / _EV' ~I p1:l.qqng - . ~./ .... -_'.'. _n.., I ~ ., ! . ''':!i 'j'~"'-I~ _.___~u.~__ ____ _0' _."..~ _._....._ I l' ~ .. . '0 I _.~. r' é ~ \ .'~'- )- . . ~-... ~ , . {'--, " . .. , - ;J ¡ " '" I!J N. . .. '" Z E-< '"""" ¡:r¡ '"""" :r: ~ µ¡ . .-0« ~~ ~ >- ¡¡ = ~. ~."- 0- p,'" ~ '1j , ~ § :1 o~ ¡j ¡¡:; ¡¡; .S>.oo¡¡¡§o,,- ~. ti Q. <Xi R .... ~ '" ¡¡¡ g. ~ § ;:-.:. .... §;;< ~ U=·.t:^¡Q~v;;z;~~ 82 î Ilooe 0 ~ ~ . '¡:::¡ ." .ð , ~ .. ~ Ì;. .., '" ¿" J .4 .~ f-/J e~ ¡II L, m "'ï."'i. ~.. o;ð~ ~ ~ ¡ , , . . I ¡ ~ J' J_,:V""u.:· ~ I' u1 n~ '~_Iu: I . '" ....;s:_ I.:": . ..~,^V"",I' ~ .~. I " . JL=-- ~ --"~II~ "-:~ 00 -,;. "'U!ll'" . 'J: ~ ¡: ~ J' LJ : ~" ,~ , 'i e ~ " - ,~\ - \ t<.. .... . .',;--~ ..... . .. . ." .. r. '" ..., o E-< § ::r: X ~ ~ - ~ ~ OJ .~ ~ ~ o ~ .~ No & ~ O¡¡¡ o~ð ~ ~! ] :>... <: .~ ~ ~ Q,¡ ~,.., 0 $< ~ï::=~~l~¥ ~ u ::1 ~ ~ bb ,:\ r -;:¡ :II õOO<IJ <i5¡¡¡8 ~ GO;¡ & ICJCJII 0 : ~, - " , .... '-" ., - . ~r ''-.. ~ ;:J;Jrt!W . M . " . " I . r !!' . . . / . ..' P^ta"'uv,o o N N N " .' . - ¡;j ..:~ ~ @/ ]/ -----.-, p~qqn8. . . " "co ..... ~ ~ , ,I .œ '~ _1, .",,~..,' '. . .' . . '" (f ~7~ ~..o( i'~ ¡ ï '11 ri IH in '¡¡U;. ¡ - , J j , ~ , ¡ § \~- , " )'~ " ~ ~ ~ CJ.S:! ~ > §~ + Ç¡,Q,~ ~.~ ~ } or::::: ò f;; ~ í!! d! .ã ",.. -¡: "" .... eLl ~ ái 6'ii :¡¡ ~ i:: ¡:: 0 ~ ~ ¡::¡ U :::3..§ ~ :i! :;.j ~ - '" . ð¡2 & 1101 ~ , . , .;' -. ,-< "- :' -"--~--; __~ JI "Y""O'l I -J--'-";-"_, /, - ___-../') ,.'nOM- r- I - - --.-----~----- ''''--<:' ~-.. .. '" ';. f ' ~..,,- -----~. N - I =. - ~"'V~¡¡mw -.0 .." .. T ðt.yNotnl¡11 . .....] ~~:~-- . ., '/P^"~OY'G .' -, .....~ \, 1_ .: ~ r r- , ¡ --LO-- ,-< I I _," ,I, ' :,-- ~',L-~-·'·-"',· .' ' , ' , . -~ ~ ] , i x " ~: .. '~> .. ! -i ,,¡- ." II^_~ I t ";;'-1 E)/ I ±-4¡ ",:', .. .. r } '" ~' ..¡~ ¡;¡ ~ ~ .- -. p~Bl.I!¡¡¡¡IS .: t<.. ,-< Ii , ] ! ~ P'dqqng <. h. oJ .,~ " '\" . . -Ii. ~-"-'" f· -;11:'" '71--- j -·i.·~-· . . . O! ,Jr~' ":m~:_~::'i ,,' .. O' . : r, . ... 0- '" ,........--...' .., , '~ ' ,-.0 'N iIIIII '. "" f-< ~ g¡ :I: Þ< ~ .--c: ~~ B! m Hi tü;§. i :3 ; . . 8 , , , , , §! . ~ s ! , o 1\ ~ .. ~ ~ '~ -j£ ~.., ~--" g.-ll CY f-- - ¡:Q ~ w 1" [IU~'~;' : r~~.Î I~~ --""--~:--1" - '" " . ôI^Vamw - '-L"> _~H_~J~~~_ , .. ~ . '" , ' ~-~ ," i ,~ÁIMIHl . .' " .. -~' ~--' " " " :~ 'i o ~ " .~- ~J i "- L'" .: I ' . ~-- -- .-i~-- , .. . - . ; ¡ , ,--' ~ "- ~ :_':'_-~ .... .. p~iu!Jt;JS I .:: -~ \ ",ï. .... ~- .-.~.-- .' - {/:;¡¡, r"-, r '" ~ . e ..:..~--., . , . ,- . ---:-.*' .,J'C"", '" , '4-" , , ". \ ., , ," , " ~ ~- " Ii $ . . " "' p^I~~;}a " " ¡:¡ 0' /.-- c' . .;,«:1 ..... PHqqng - II ~ -,' : "I~ ~ ~ 1__- ~ '. .~, .'. , r~-' ..".. I i", ¡ _'!'.____----::_.____/I 1j --~. .- . !~ ._.,~... .',~;~/ . : ~ . .. . . . -- ~~ e~ I~~ w }'ii .ð~ i ~ J , , , t ~ \1/ ~ ~ o Õ 6 1"01'0' ~ è- & o~.E i!j t ~ ~ ~~.r ~ ? :!i,:::.......... i!j 0 ð I-< ¡:: ]> i!j 6!, ~ ~ _,E]~<bb.~§.¡; ; o 'oJ.} <n .,' 0 <ÎÍ 8 ~ â:;1 8, 10011 0 : ~ ~ ~ § ! / ~ . ~ ,\.~ )~ - ~ -, ¡::j -' ./; j . ~ .. n'<\' .. ;'''' .. .-'~, t ~ ~" ai~ ~ .-- f~7r ---.-I / I . . ">-"~- I 1· __¡II .^V"""'~: " , '"--..' r . .-< "'- --0:::11- ~'-- _I I I'.' '" ' .. ~ " MVJ;)nJW . \ ,~ ") .' ¡ : ·1$ I P^IQI!ZU"<f"Q , . '" , , .. '~'_;$_'_'_~è', ' ,- ..~""''' _ I.. i -~. "'_11 ...... ,. -[:.... - ! -.._-;- r I ' " ,'" - "" '" " . , ~ I -1 ~ 'J- r--- , , ¡ I Ii ;~ ~ ~ ~ J " ~, ,~ - .-< .-< ~ -. '. I~·... \ -\ P~SU1!1;)15 " ,Ü .-< Niq'lna -,... I ..; -~ ~,\ ~ " ... " ~ , .., -.,.------ .' . " ~ ~ :.iIII . '" p:: ¡-. ;:a s:: :x: ~ - .--c: ~¡ ,ï ¡U ", 1i""'" ~H iH -ó' j ~ f ..'\ , í , , ¡ , ¡ · · · >- to:( = § o . 's ~~ ~ ~ t ~ o ~ ð a:: ô1> Z .~ ~<7\ ~ -~ -;- §-i:~ ~ ~~~ u=og~'" 'õ Ct.I:;¡ (II « ¡Š ~ ~ ª âa & 10011 0< : ~ ~ ~ í. 1"- , '¡:j ...\~ - .-¡:,:: J~ . ~ ð , E . ~ . "" ~ '¡~4 ,..'" .. f~77 --.-!')P'.¡¡OM .'.. I '" ....._n_.._~ It '^V""~l '7-:I--~--T_" ! "--"'---1':-,:",,", " - ..00( ~' "'- ~ ~, ~ ,., ¡ ·U ~ '" ¡;; v L. . ri o ~ .- [~ ~ ~.~ " I!.::¡;:¡ ~ ,,'itï ~ c . .. ',- oc::; 8 a ~ ~ .fð& ] >.." ~~ ~ t ,3 ~o ;; . ~... <;;; û> ~ ~ :2 ¡ 8~.9~~~~ ¡ , , ~'" ~ , 8¡2 ~ IIDR 0 ¡ , , , é t . , , " , .- 0-< - -. ',...... t"':I.~.... ;MyÁõlU1IQ ~ "- , ~_I"""i" 0-< .. ru' '~ ")£ ~ ] i ~ " I~I- ¡~> -- " i ,I I I I P~BU!lt;1S -- t<.. 0-< ""," ./v .. ~ j ~ ¡., I .,J "1" -' " , 1", ",,' . \' ,/ \ ~ ~ ~''-. J~ " . " ".-' 'Ii', . " ,J ) " j/.í. ..' IS/' ',¡;s . , oJ , -N _..i .' '10 1 ~. 'T¡ ..---.-- ;('i-~ . . ".-: ~""-' !.. !~ ;.' ,,',r'~: ---co' - . '", *;,." '('.- '>,¡¡/ ~ , n' .. . (/] ¡- i§ ~ f~ w "'", --.----------------.--- -------~ EXHIBIT T CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P,M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 1,2004 CONFERENCE ROOM C MONDAY The Regular Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2004 was called to order at 6:50 p,m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre 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: City Planner Ciddy Wordell APPROVAL OF MIN1JTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None . CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No,(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the Rl Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 23,2004 J~g( Planning Commission Minutes 2 March I, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Rl survey, which includes some modifications that were recently incorporated, · Asked for cornÍnents Com. Wong: · Asked for clarification on Question 15 of the survey regarding Design Review, saying that the instructions to "check all that apply" could cancel each other out if someone checked the "There should be no design review for anything" box and any of the other boxes · Asked for an explanation of how these instructions came about Com, Miller: · Said "check all that apply" should be deleted No further discussion was held on this point and the commissioners agreed to delete "check all that apply" from the instructions on question 15, Com. Wong: · Regarding question 19: Since the 1999 ordinance already states that new construction should be designed to have architectural fonns, roof pitches, roof height and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes, he would change the statement say "Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to transition to architectural fonns..." · Asked for clarification of staff s thinking when they drafted question 19 Com. Miller: · Explained that the original question said "Everybody should be compatible with their neighbor. " · Said he objected to the term "compatibility" · Tried to 'use definition of compatibility in the guidelines, which went along the lines that people need to be compatible with respect to architectural fonn, roof pitches, roof heights and eave heights---which for some reason got changed to wall heights · Original intent was to do away with the word "compatibility" because it means different things to different people, and to go with the actual words in the guidelines · Wanted to know why "eave" heights got changed to "wall" heights Com. Giefer: · Stated that the survey from the last meeting also showed "wall" heights rather than "eave" heights, but the word "consistent" was used instead of "compatible" Com. Miller: · Asked Com. Wong if he is suggesting that in neighborhoods where there is a major amount of redevelopment occurring, there should be more latitude for transitional neighborhoods Com. Wong: · Agreed that this is what he intended · Asked Com. Miller if he thought question number 19 should be replaced with the question regarding transitional neighborhoods ?-%L Planning Commission Minutes 3 March I, 2004 Com, Giefer: · . Said she had written Com. Wong's statement as: Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to be in transition and have architectural forms, roof pitches, roof heights and eave heights that are consistent with homes in the neighborhood. Com. Wong: · Need to strike the word "consistent", or it would delete the word "transition". Talking about neighborhoods in Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada and Monta Vista, they are in transition from the older 1950-1960 homes to more modem homes. Ms. Wordell: · Stated that Com, Wong is only speaking about neighborhoods that are in transition and focus should be on that. · Felt the proposed wording would be hard to follow · If commissioners want to find out how people feel about neighborhoods in transition, they should first agree to address transitioning neighborhoods and then decide on the wording to accomplish that goal . · The question on the survey is general and covers everybody Com, Wong: · Wanted to know if it would be possible to add one more question asking if the community is open to having neighborhoods that are already in transition to continue doing things the way they are doing them now · Current ordinance says the new development must be "compatible" ---he wants to get the heartbeat of what the community wants Com, Miller: · Said he had sense of what Com. Wong intends to convey · Remembered Mr. Hung's application, which had a wall height issue. Mr. Hung got signatures from neighbors supporting his application · Commissioners had the feeling that neighbors were supporting the application because they would eventual1y be doing the same thing to their houses · That was neighborhood where people wanted to move in different directions · Said the question should be asked that specifically addresses that issue to find out how many neighborhoods are similar Commissioners agreed to add question 21: Generally, I believe that construction in neighborhoods that are in transition from an older to a newer style should not necessarily be consistent with the older style. Com, Wong: · Regarding question 20, the Design Guidelines are meant for 2-story homes over 35% FAR. The two check boxes for all new single-story homes and all additions goes beyond the City Council's directives · Those two boxes are inappropriate and should be removed · Design Review Guidelines would need to be revised if commissioners want to address single-story homes and additions S-~3 ') Planning Commission Minutes 4 March I, 2004 Com, Giefer: · Recollected that when the question was drafted, they wanted a "barometer" of what current opinion is: Should we leave the Design Guidelines as they are or should we expand them? Chair Saadati: · Some single-story homes may be taller and have features that neighbors may object to Com. Chen: · One of goals is to solve some of inconsistencies between Design Guidelines and R I Ordinance · The purpose of the question could have been to see if people want to be more far- reaching than the present Guidelines, in which case the question is appropriate Com, Wong: · Said he could see both sides of the issue, but is reluctant to go beyond what the Design Guidelines were meant to be---which is to address 2-story homes The commissioners agreed to remove the instruction "check all that apply" and to move (currently required) from under the check hox for "All two-story homes or additions" to under the check box for "Only projects that require Design Review should have to meet guidelines," They also agreed to remove "All additions" as a check hox. Com, Giefer: · Formatting issue: page 2, the box does not line up well in the "Between 601 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft," selection · Question 14: There should only be one text box under the heading of Design Review Process. The box should not be broken up into two parts · The text describing story poles should be above question 16, rather than question 14 · On page 4, the heading Design Guidelines should be. in bold font Com. Wong: · Requested that a final copy of the survey be e-mailed to the commissioners before it is printed for the public · The timeline for the survey should be 15 days for the "Cupertino Scene" and on the website · Once the survey is formatted it will be mailed to 2,000 applicants, and counting 15 days ITom the mailing date, there will be two sets of data-first ITom the applicants in surrounding neighborhoods at the end of March, and then another set of data at the end of April from the "Cupertino Scene" and the website · Regarding timeline for the public hearings: Commissioners have gotten e-mails and letters ITom the previous survey that was sent out in January, and the Commission asked for feedback regarding other city ordinances. Also, Lisa and Marty brought up other technical changes · Does not want to lose momentum and wants to keep having public hearings on the Rl ordinance, divided into the six categories in the letter that Peter wrote Chair Saadati: · Depending on the time, at least one of the categories can be discussed at each meeting ¡- fY Planning Commission Minutes 5 March I, 2004 Ms, Wordell: · This item needs to be continued to wmchever meeting date the commissioners want to re-hear it rather than re-noticing it Com, Miller: · Depending on how extensive the agenda is with other items, individual categories can be discussed · Need to review data from other cities · Should review recommendations made by Planning Commission last year at tms time Ms. Wordell: · Suggested that item be continued for three weeks to the next regular Planning Commission meeting (the second meeting in March) · The length of time allowed for discussion would depend on the number of other items on the agenda Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com, Giefer to approve the revised survey and to mail the survey to selected residents prior to publication for the public, Vote: (5-0) Motion: Motion by Com, Wong, second by Com, Miller to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2004, Vote: (5-0) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 3:00 p.m. on March 2, 2004. SUBMITTED BY: Isl Nancv Czosek Nancy Czosek, Acting Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Isl Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson ATTEST: Isl Ciddv Wordell Ciddy Wordell, City Planner fj~ð' 5~ Planning Commission Minutes 19 April 12, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · A simple solution would be 10 require that in addition to the windows on the doors, the applicant shall install the windows on the walls as illustrated 0 the floor plans, and we will make sure the windows are reasonably close to the sizes sho on the plans Com. Giefer: · Would like to require a minimum of24" by 24" win do in the doors · There should be windows in the walls---if not sheet ss walls Com. Miller: · More windows would be fme · That shopping center has been struggling, a maybe this use will help it · The only concern is that the patrons ffi' t "take the party outside too much", but as the applicant indicated, right now people g utside to smoke and this would not be too different · Supports the application Chairperson Saadati: · Any window that is installed s uld be such that one can view the whole room Mr. Gilli: · These are the added con o The hours operation are II :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. o Lounge oms shall all have windows on the doors and on the walls. The windo on the doors shall be at least 24" by 24", The intent is to make as much of ro visible as possible from the hall o P_arJíng will be reviewed six months after the use opens o ~.~lcohol will be sold on site or brought on site, There will be a sign on the door n the sign or the wall of the business stating the no-alcohol policy. There will be review by the Planning Commission if there are behavioral issues in the parking lot or inside the building. There will not be a time limit on this issue-if issues arise, it will come back to the Planning Commission. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller to approve U-2004- 02 as amended (Vote: 5-0-0) / OLD BUSINESS: 5. Preliminary schedule ofthe Rl ordinance review process Mr, Peter Gilli, Senior Planner: · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary Rl schedule and review infonnation about approved projects and the ordinance approve in February 2003 · The schedule is flexible · Until May 24, public input and background issues will be review · From May 24 until August, ordinance changes will be discussed · In August, the design review process will be talked about---what will be reviewed, how will it be reviewed, etc. · There should be a final approved ordinance in September 2004, which will be sent to the Council in either late September or in October · The goal is to have it enacted at the beginning of 2005 g-~6¿ Planning Commission Minutes 20 April 12, 2004 Chairperson Saadati: · It is usual that one meeting is cancelled during the summer. Will that impact the schedule? Mr. Gilli: · It would just move the whole schedule down Com. Wong: · Wants to hold off on the "Commission's Guiding Principles" and "Commission's Objectives" until after the public hearings and the survey results are in · Because of limited time, and because of the large applications such as Vallco, General Plan, etc. coming in, and with one of the meetings being cancelled, could this be condensed into study sessions? Com. Miller: · Concerned that the process is extended out too long, and there may be conflicts with the General Plan and some of the other applications · Would like to move more quickly and get started as soon as possible · Does not feel there needs to be a session on "Guiding Principles". The commission is taking input and deciding if the Rl ordinance needs improvements and, if so, making the necessary improvements. Does not see any other guiding principles or why there is a need to spend a session on that · Should try to condense the schedule and perhaps add study sessions where appropriate Mr.Gilli: · Par! of the layout of the time if the how long it will take staff to prepare materials to be presented · If there are study sessions, it does not necessarily mean that twice as much can be accomplished in one day. It will still take an additional amount oftime to prepare for each of them · The issues of the background and the survey are appropriate for a study session · If we are on a fast-track, maybe we do not need to do a review of other cities---ifwe know our rules, and we know what the public is interested in, that may be sufficient Com, Wong: · Still feels the regulations from other cities would be valuable · One meeting could be saved by not having "Commissioner's Guiding Principles" and Commissioner's Objectives" · Perhaps regulations rrom other cities could be discussed during a study session prior to a public hearing. During the public hearing, items that require a vote could be discussed Com. Chen: · Use study session time to digest information and have commissioners' discussions, and use public hearing time to focus on public hearing issues Com. Giefer: · Since the deadline for receiving the surveys is April 15, is there any way for the commissioJ1 to receive the information more quickly than is listed in the schedule? g- ~¡-1 Planning Commission Minutes 21 April 12, 2004 Mr.Gilli: · At the rate the City was receiving tbe surveys prior to the "Scene", the information could have been available on April 26. Since the survey appeared in the "Scene", they are being returned faster than can be input into the computer · Part of the results can be available on the 26th, but they will not be complete Com. Giefer: · Understood that the principles and objectives were already set by the City Council Mr.Gilli: · These principles and objectives are going to be wbat the commission felt should be the overall goal, based on the input received · This is not a required element, but is often done in a long-range planning project · What may be found as the process continues, is that people will question the reasons for certain actions, If a principle is established at the beginning stating that all review processes are as short as possible, that could be the answer to a person who later questions a choice that was made · The background material is everything that was covered prior to May 24 which includes the plans for all the approved projects that could be used as reference as rules are discussed, the recommendations ofthe commission of2003, the rules of other cities and the survey results · This is for the edification of both the public and the Planning Commission Mr. Piasecki: · One way to handle the "Guiding Principles" is for each commissioner to list three to five major issues or topics he/she would like to see the ordinance cover and to share that list with the other commissioners Com. Wong: · Most of the major issues are covered in the tentative schedule · Does not recall one topic scheduled for July 12-RI issues on sloped lots Mr.Gilli: · That topic is on the first sheet of the Scope of Work · One commissioner had said he was happy that we are looking at R I review on sites in the hills Mr. Piasecki: · This is an issue that has been faced in the past. There are a few lots in the hillsides that are on relatively steep slopes that are zoned R I · This creates problems when applicants bring forward homes following standards that are inconsistent with the hillside standards Ms. Wordell: · The commissioners will want to add study sessions, because looking at some of the Planning Commission meetings coming up, the agendas are quite heavy on a couple of the dates. If RI is discussed at all, it will be competing for public hearing time · One meeting will be lost during the summer, so a study session may be one way to make up the lost time f ~d J> Planning Commission Minutes 22 April 12, 2004 Mr.GiI1i: · The next two Planning Commission meetings are April 26 and May 10, If the commission would like, the Rl issue can be continued from tonight's meeting to a study session on April 26 · The amount of time needed will be dependent upon how much detail the commissioners want on the regulations in other cities · Information has been received from all the cities in the county except Monte Sereno and Milpitas · Because this is an Old Business item, it is not an advertised public hearing. It would be best if the commission refrains from going into detail and stating individual stances on the 2003 recommendations until there is a public meeting · A study session could be a public meeting Ms. Wordlell: · A study session is a public meeting, but it would need to be advertised as a public hearing so people would get notice in the paper and in any other way we want to advertise it · Most of the meetings on R 1 so far have been public hearings, but the chain was broken because Rl was not discussed at every meeting, and no date was set · We will need to re-advertise if we want it to be a public hearing. These are all public meetings, but people don't hear about them in the same way · There is not enough time to advertise a study session as a public hearing for the April 26 meeting Mr.Gilli: · If the commission is going to strike the guiding principles and objectives outside the scope of work, the items could be condensed and the commissioners' stances on past actions could be discussed in a study session format on May 10 · The survey results will be in a database so information can be pulled up in any way desired · If any of the commissioners have ideas on what types of information they would like to have pulled ITom the survey, please present them at the April 26 meeting, so the information can be gathered for the May 10 study session · A large stack of plans is in the materials presented with this report. These are for reference and commissioners can call or e-mail me if there are designs that they don't like and they want to know why a particular design was approved · Presented slides of projects that were approved in the Rl zones from 1999-to the present. Stated that it is good to take the time to look at these proj ects on the computer because they are three-dimensional and it is easier to get a feel of whàt the project looks like than from the plans · Each of these projects went through a public hearing · Asked each of the commissioners to let him know if they see a site that they would like to have photographed and presented to the other commissioners · Presented a brief overview of the Rl ordinance approved by the Planning Commission in February 2003: o Revised illustrations: The graphics in the ordinance will be made more applicable o High volume area: The definition section of the ordinance specifies when an interior area is double counted. There is no explicit explanation of when it counts as first-story and when it counts as second-story area. It does not make sense to count high-volume area in a one-story house as second-story area. In a two-story house, if there is a grand entry and stairwell with a ceiling over 15', then the part that is over 15' will count as second story area, In a one-story house, the applicant rJ1 Planning Commission Minutes 23 April 12, 2004 will not have to go to design review if ihere is a vaulted ceiling over 15', Most of the time, the applicanl is able to design a home so it does nol have double counted areas o Guideline Conformance: All new homes or additions would have to be generally consistent with the design guidelines, Currently that only applies to two-story additions or new homes, Since 2000, we have reviewed two-story homes that have not gone to design review just to make sure they meet the guidelines in a general sense. This is to make sure that a house that is clearly not going to fit into the neighborhood is caught o Two-story review: All two-story additions or new two-story homes would require discretionary approval. Unless an exception is asked for, it is handled at staff level approval. Neighbors are notified, they comment to staff and staff would acts on it. If there is controversy, it is appealed, Some of the commissioners felt that it was a waste of the applicant's time to come to a design review meeting if there was no controversy from neighbors o Exceptions: This would be renamed as "design review" rather than "exception" to eliminate the negative connotation. The idea was that RI is a "one size fits all" and that doesn't work, There are cases where exceptions should be done, and the past commission wanted to encourage that o Narrow lots would have 5' side setbacks: A narrow lot should have smallér setbacks o Side-facing garages on comer lots: There should be enough of a driveway to park cars on o The building envelope would start at the side setback line: Currently, the building envelope starts 5' in from the property line, goes up 12' and then comes in at a 25 degree angle. The recommendation in 2003 was to start the building envelope at the side setbacks, which are 5' and 10'. That would make a minor reduction in height on the 10' side o Basement lightwells: If a basement is built, it will not count as floor area as long as the lightwells are as small as they need to be, It was suggested that, as an incentive to build a single-story house and a basement, without having a second story with its impacts, one lightwell that serves more as a patio would be allowed o Privacy planting species list: The past commission removed the list of species from the ordinance and agreed to refer to it as a handout. That allows staff to update it more easily o Privacy covenants: If there are privacy trees, they will be on a covenant on the property. This was in the tree ordinance, but not in the RI ordinance and the past commission wanted to make sure people knew about it o Second story decks: This proposed to move the rules out of the Accessory Structures ordinance and put it into RI o Variation to FARs and first story setbacks requires a Variance: Everything needs an exception, which has fmdings that are easier to meet than a variance, With a variance, one needs to have some hardship or some issues with the property. The idea was that exceptions would apply to the design aspects in the ordinance- second-story wall offsets, visible second-story heights, and not to the FAR. If someone wanted an FAR over 45%, it wasn't supposed to be an exception, There is a lot of documentation in the code stating, "... but in no case shall the FAR be over 45..." Staff proposed explicitly stating that this would be a variance, which is a different process, Staff also suggested that first-story setbacks have a variance. Everything else would have an exception process ð~ 1D Planning Commission Minutes 24 April 12, 2004 · A]] of these changes are in the scope of work, so commissioners can do any/a]]1 or none of the changes as they choose · Council wanted to have the two-story review process and the exception process reviewed closely · Staff recommends approval of the schedule as amended and that the next meeting on April 26 wi]] be a study session where the regulations of other cities wi]] be discussed · The amendments to the tentative schedule are as fo]]ows: o April 26: Study session on regulations of other cities o May 10: Public hearing at 5:00 on survey results and compilation of a]] other public input, Commission's Objectives and Commission's Guiding Principles o July 12: Minor topics of the February 2003 action o June 24: Items origina]]y scheduled for the June 14 meeting and so on, until the date the Planning Commission schedules as a break Motion: Motion by Com, Miller, second by Com, Wong to approve the tentative schedule for the Planning Commission's review of the RI Ordinance as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housing Commission: Housing Commission has ha 0 meetings. No commissioner was able to attend the meeting at which the Commission li ned to organizations who are applying for Block Grants. On April 8, the Commission approv. d the Annual Action Plan which specifies how low income housing will be mitigated. Discu ed ways low cost housing can be improved in Cupertino and ways to serve the entire commu ¡ty. Ma or's Monthl Meetin With Com 'sioners: The key infonnation shared by Mayor James was the ballot initiative attempt by th Cupertino Concerned Citizens. The group is currently collecting signatures to have an initiat" e put on the ballot. The City has detennined that it will not take any legal action at this time, b reserves the right to do so at a later time. An outside finn is conducting a study to detennine w, at the results might be if the initiative is approved by Cupertino residents, The cost of the study, ill be approximately $100,000, The study should be available in 4 to 6 weeks. The Cuperti Concerned Citizens has asked the City to discuss some of their agenda items so they might ot need to proceed with the initiative process. The Council declined the invitation and asked e Citizens group to continue to attend the public hearings and the General Plan Task For meetings. If the initiative is placed on the ballot, the cost to the City could range from $70 00 to $240,000 depending on whether there will be a special election or a general election, A statue called "P rspectives" has been installed in the City Center Park (which will be renamed City Center PIa . The Teen Co ission reported that the new name for the teen center at the sports center is "The Down Under' , The library, IS on track for its scheduled opening. Measure B did not pass, and it will impact the new libr , probably in the fonn of cuts in library hours. ð~ ~( CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 5:30 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MAY 13,2004 CONFERENCE ROOM A THURSDAY The Planning Commission study session of May 13, 2004 was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre 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 Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the Rl Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2004 g-~¿~ Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 2 May 13,2004 Chair Saadati: . Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Rl Guiding Principles Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: · The concept of having "guiding principles" is to facilitate meetings that are open to the pubic · Only a few principJes, which address the fundamental issues, are needed · Ex.: The majority of the commissioners might feel that the second floor to the fIrst floor ratio is too restrictive, based on information, testimony, design review, survey, etc. One of the guiding principles would be to evaJuate that and to open the topic up to pubJic discourse and discussion · The purpose of this during the public hearing session would be to hear the arguments for and against the concept of relaxing the standard in various formats. The commission could then decide how to go about making changes · Cautioned that the commissioners need to be clear that the current ratio of 35% of second floor to first floor really gives a roughly V. - % relationship · 35% is approximately 1/3, and the comparison has to be 1/3 compared to 3/3, so it is basically '.4 above to % below to get that kind of ratio · If the commissioners went to something as flexible as 50% of the first floor, it would be a 1/3 above and 2/3 below ratio · The "tiering on the wedding cake" gets shaped a little differently-it becomes a littJe Jess flat and a little more vertical · Another guiding principle might be design review and the issue of compatibility in terms of the evaluation of what should go through design review and what is important to the community in terms of design review · The position taken in the past was that single story homes did not need to go through design review, because they had less chance of being incompatible with the neighboring homes · As styles have changed, even single story homes have gained more volume, and the commissioners may want to discuss whether there should be a principle relating to design review, and the process one goes through during design review-who does what and when · The question of compatibility could be roJled into the design review process, with a defmition of what is meant by neighborhood compatibility, (Is it the 6 homes you see when you walk out on your front porch, or is it literally the whole neighborhood?) · Large neighborhoods such as the Rancho Rinconada or Monta Vista areas may be handled through neighborhood plans rather than through the ordinance Chair Saadati: · Privacy is another item that might need to be considered Mr. Piasecki: · There does not seem to be a lot of controversy regarding privacy · The commission could decide whether they want to enhance or not enhance current privacy regulations · Most people responding to the survey want the privacy regulations o~9J Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 3 May 13, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Design review seems to be a big issue. A lot of neighbors have concerns about the current policy that allows trees to be planted that take three years to grow. This could be something that would be worth discussing · Asked if the commissioners need to identify all of the issues, or just a few Mr, Piasecki: · Suggested focusing on the "big" Issues, because all of the other issues will come through in staff reports Chair Saadati: · One of the largest issues is the second floor to first floor ratio · Feels this should be the number one item · Asked each commissioner to identify his/her top three priorities for discussion at the public hearings Com. Giefer: · Agreed that it would be a good idea to identify each commissioner's top three items and see what are the most heavily weighted issues among the commissioners · Wants to understand better what the right first/second floor ratio is, if change is necessary, that will provide flexibility for people who want to nlinimize the footprint of their first story house but maximize the size they feel is necessary when designing and building a second-story home · Wants to make sure existing neighbors' privacy is protected as well as possible while providing flexibility to people who are building up or out · Special neighborhood design guidelines would merit consideration for specific neighborhoods such as the Rancho area, One case in point: A long-time homeowner fTom Rancho whose lot was re-surveyed and is much smaller than what she thought she had purchased 40 years ago. She is having a difficult time selling the lot, because the size house that can be redeveloped on her property is no larger than what she has now. For people like that, is there something that can be done to help them, while maintaining neighborhood compatibility and privacy Com. Wong: · Wanted to know if it would be possible to add one more question asking if the community is open to having neighborhoods that are already in transition to continue doing things the way they are doing them now · Current ordinance says the new development must be "compatible"---he wants to get the heartbeat of what the community wants Mr. Piasecki: · That would be a fairly unusual case, but it has happened occasionally in other areas of town · There are some very narrow, small lots in the Rancho area, and in the past it was discussed whether rules should be written to allow people to have single-car garages in those situations so there is not a dominant garage facing the street · Some rules for specific areas could be written into the ordinance · Commissioners could invite neighborhoods to get together to write neighborhood plans, which would cover bigger issues than just the zoning issues and circulation. They could address such issues as desire for parks and access to schools, etc. ð--7Y Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 4 May 13,2004 · That may not need to be part of this ordinance unless it gets down to something specific like small lots and whether they should have special consideration for certain features Com. Miller; · There is a fairly large amount of housing stock that was built after WWII -some in the 50's, a whole lot in the 60's and some in the 70's · That housing stock has reached the end of its useful life · One of the guiding principles should have to do with the revitalization of aging housing stock · Along with that, there should be sensitivity to changing needs, What people needed in the 1950's and 1960's in the way of housing is very different than what people need today · Houses then were small, ranch-style houses. Now there are more two-story houses and much larger one-story houses · In Cupertino, there are changing needs, because the demographics have changed, There is a larger Asian population and that population has different needs than the previous population · The ordinançe needs to be sensitive to the fact that things have changed---particularly important in the neighborhoods where it is clear that re-building is going on or should go on. In some ways the current ordinance is too restrictive and is holding back the revitalization. · Revitalization is important for the City and there should not be an ordinance that holds it back · The second guiding principle is the "diversity versus conformity" issue · Developments are built two ways; I) A large developer buys a mass of land and builds tract homes where everything looks the same. 2) Neighborhoods are formed when the property is sold off piecemeal and individual homeowners buy and build or individual builders build spec houses, and everything is different · One could look at one neighborhood and say it is great, then look at the other neighborhood and say it is equally great. It is not clear that diversity is a bad thing · The current ordinance penalizes diversity · There are a lot of diverse styles in Cupertino that were acceptable in the past which are no longer acceptable under the current ordinance · Would like to see the flexibility to have diversity brought back into the ordinance · The third guiding principle is "achieving a balance between property owners' rights and neighbors' rights. Before the 1991 ordinance, the balance was shifted more toward the homeowner and neighbors didn't have many rights. Some argue today that the balance has switched so that the neighbor might have more rights than the homeowner. The balance may need to be readjusted Com. Saadati: · Questioned Mr. Piasecki about how the ordinance currently addresses the owner's rights versus the neighbor's rights · It seems that our process allows an parties to come and speak and get a fair share of the benefits Mr. Piasecki: · Asked Commissioner Miller to clarify his statements Com, Mi11er: 8-95" Planning Commission Study Session Minut~s 5 May 13, 2004 · Privacy is one instance where neighbors get far too much consideration, particularly if the neighborhood is moving from single-slory to two-slory. How much consideration should be given to a neighbor who is living in a single-story house who may live there 3-6 years compared to a neighbors who are building armmd that person who are planning to live ther~ for the next 20-30 years and are building for the next gen~ration? · How much is the new home forced to be restricted by the current home? Chair Saadati: · The privacy aspect addresses both sides · There is public noticing and a hearing process. People can express concerns and work out the issues. Permits under design review are not approved until everyone is pretty well satisfied with the outcome Com. Chen: · In addressing changing communities, the first priority is to provide an Rl ordinance that gives the maximum amount of flexibility for a good design, without forgetting the bulk and mass we're trying to avoid · The goal is to have a good looking community · Some of the rules, such as the building envelope and the first-story to second-story ratio need to be relaxed · The second principle is to give more thought to "compatibility" and to the definition of compatibility · Does compatibility pertain strictly to height and volume, or could it also pertain to materials and basic design style being in compliance with the neighborhood · Wants to see if the total bar percentage for two-story homes be loosened. For the two- story, right now if it is over 35% FAR, it has to go through the design review process, Would like to raise the bar to 45% FAR, while adding other restrictions to encourage compatibility and correct design · For the third principle, wants to add language to encourage environmentally friendly development · Wants to establish balance between homeowners and neighbors. Neighbors need to get plenty of advance notice about proposed changes in the neighborhood · Privacy issues can be addressed as part of the balance between homeowners and neighbors. A workable privacy plan needs to be developed to protecl both homeowners and neighbors Com. Wong: · First principle is to stay within the intent of the ordinance which is to reduce mass and bulk o The second story ratio should be less restrictive-increase to 45% o Fully enforce the daylight plane. Perhaps follow Palo Alto's example of not using a percentage of the second story ratio to still achieve the intent of reducing mass and bulk · Second principle would address the Design Review Guidelines o Make them user friendly to applicant, staff and public o Fold Design Review Guidelines into the Rl ordinance · Third principle should address affordability. Fees are being raised throughout the area, A lot of things in the ordinance are there to improve design, but the review process needs to be streamlined and take into consideration how much the applicant must go through in the review process without being "broke in the end" Ò~7& Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 6 May 13,2004 · Notification is very important. In DRC, it seems that a lot of people are not aware of what is happening and it needs 10 be explained a bit better · The market is changing and people want to live in larger homes. With the changing demographics, there are a lot of extended families and homes need to be larger Chair Saadati: · We cannot expect 10 have things done today the way they were yesterday, and in the future we cannot expect things to be done the same way, This needs to be kept in mind · Policies need to be done in a way that minimize future changes and the policies need to be "built to last" · The second to first story ratio needs to be flexible. We can be flexible by increasing the ratio and tying it to the setback by adjusting the setback--the more mass on the second floor, the more setback · The focus should be on how we can build homes that are nice and compatible with the neighborhood. Compatibility does not mean having tract homes that all look the same and don't enrich the neighborhood. The more desirable neighborhoods are those that have individual homes that are not all the same Mr. Piasecki: · Getting this information ITom the conunissioners is very helpful, because it allows staff to focus on what issues are important · As the public hearings are held, the public can give input on the main topics · It would be helpful for conunissioners to consider how to implement their principles. For instance, "homes that are nicely designed". Very few of our rules are aimed at getting nice designs. If that is an important consideration, it argues for more design review, which is con1rary to some of the other objectives, · Commissioners can discuss what is meant by "nice" and if it is possible to achieve Chair Saadati: · Give people some examples of attractive homes that have been built in Cupertino · Provide a design guideline booklet that can be handed out Mr. Piasecki: · The booklet could discuss basic design principles such as symmetry and balance and alignment offeatures · To get to that element, there needs to be an implementation mechanism and the guideline booklet would be one "soft" and suggestive way to do that · Most of what wi1l be seen in the conununities wi1l be homes that are added on to, There will be relatively few new homes, so most of the construction wi1l be in existing, cons1rained homes. The homeowner may want to add a larger master bedroom on the second floor, enlarge a kitchen or develop a particular feature · It is harder to design high quality into that type of construction Chair Saadati: · The third principle is in the line of allowing the public and neighbors to get involved with privacy issues. If someone builds a house and the next-door neighbor is not happy, it will affect his attitude toward the City and toward the homeowner who built the house · Currently there are requirements for planting 1rees or using frosted windows for prIvacy ¡- ~97 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 7 May 13, 2004 · Concerned about the 3-year period that it could take the trees to grow to afford privacy. This is not acceptable to many people · There is some concern with frosted windows that they can block the view or may not appeal to some people · Anyone adding a second story to his home concerns to be sensitive to the concerns of his neighbors Com. Giefer: · Asked Mr. Gilli the size of the trees required for privacy planting Mr. Gilli: · The trees need to be 24-inch box trees or 15 gallon shrubs Mr, Piasecki: · There is a physical restraint against getting larger trees into existing yards Chair Saadati: · Asked if the principles need to be rewritten to combine the common elements from the commissioners' proposed principles Com. Wong: · There is already a tentative schedule proposed, and a lot of the guiding principles listed, such as a less restrictive second story area ratio and privacy planting can be discussed at the May 24 meeting · The May 24 meeting would cover the guiding principles and any objectives outside the scope of work. Start with the minor modifications staff suggested regarding comer lots and other minor issues · The June 14 meeting would include second story area ratio and high volume ceilings and second floor setbacks · At the June 28 meeting, everything could be finalized and privacy could be discussed · July 12 meeting: Lot coverage and comer garage setbacks could be discussed with the minor modifications ftom 2003 · The July 26 meeting is scheduled to cover single-story privacy impacts, second-story setback for tall walls-regarding gables, heights and attic space . · The review process and design guidelines could be discussed on the August 9 and everything should be wrapped up by August 23 Mr. Piasecki: · The principles will be assigned to the appropriate categories, then they'll be opened up to public for discussion. The Commission will discuss the topic and provide direction to staff on how to craft that section of the ordinance · By the end of the process, there will be a draft ordinance that can be revised if necessary Com. Wong: · At the end of the public hearing, each commissioner will give his feedback on every major segment, such as second story area, etc., and say"... this is what we want." · At the next meeting, we can talk about it and make sure that is what we want and vote on it and then move on to the next topic ð~1f Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 8 May 13,2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Staff had envisioned possibly writing the whole ordinance and letting commissioners review it · It seems that the preferred method is to listen to the discussions and then write the ordinance rrom the results of those discussions Com. Miller: · This method would be less confusing and would allow commissioners to take public input before committing to a particular position Mr. Gilli: · This process will slow down the schedule · These steps will need to be taken: o The commissioners will talk about the issues and try to establish a consensus direction o Staff will draft that section of the ordinance o Commissioners will respond to the draft section at the next meeting to make sure that language reflects what was intended o Commissioners will then discuss another issue and try to give staff enough to write language for another draft section of the ordinance · If we look at past issues that have been handled in this manner, it has taken two or three meetings to finalize Mr, Piasecki: · There doesn't seem to be another practical way to manage the process · Some of the guiding principles conflict with one another and staff couldn't write a section of the ordinance right now if commissioners asked them to Ms. Wordell: · Another way to do it would be to not visit it until the end and then say, "Here is what you said in the last few months." Mr. Piasecki: · That method could be done, and in that way the issues would not be debated at the next meeting · There would be a record of what commissioners intended for each topic and there could be a wrap-up meeting at the end to go through everything one more time · Wants to be an advocate of keeping the process simple so there wiU not be confusion of overlapping rules in the ordinance Com, Giefer: · As we look for input on a specific issues, such as, should the first-second story ratio be increased and more flexibility be allowed, commissioners need to go in with an open mind · When the survey data was reviewed, roughly 5 percent of the homeowners in Cupertino said to keep the first to second story ratio the same · Probably one percent of the total population responded to the survey, so we need to listen to the feedback rrom everyone who participates Com. Wong: · The survey is only one tool in the process t r11 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 9 May 13, 2004 · The public hearing is very imporlant to get input from citizens Chair Saadati: · One e-mail or letter received as part of the survey said that the decisions should be left to the professionals · We need to infonn and educate the public. Most of the public are not architects and have not in general dealt with a lot of buildings, but they live in the community and need to be able to comment on what is being built there Mr, Piasecki: · Staff will combine all the principles that were shared by more than one commissioner, but otherwise leave the list as it is · Commissioners can decide at any meeting to combine topics for discu$sion as long as at least three commissioners agree to the discussion Com. Wong: · Wants to discuss slope lots and RHS at a different hearing, even though they are within the scope of work for the Rl Com. Chen: · When this was discussed before, it was detennined that slope lots and RHS were more of a zoning issue and belong in a different category Mr. Piasecki: · Finish the RI, and on the heels of it, bring up the slope lots and RHS · The RI ordinance may be amended twice-we'll write an ordinance without it, and on the heels of that, you'll discuss the slope lots and RHS and we'll write another RI amendment Chair Saadati: · Asked if there is an estimated time for each meeting Mr. GiIli: · It was anticipated that each topic would require a three-hour meeting, not counting public input · Commissioners have a lot to talk about on each issue · Staff will not be proposing recommendations. The commissioners will discuss the topics and come up with their own recommendations Ms. Wordell: · The discussion schedule is also dependent upon what else is on the Planning Commission agenda · If there are two and a half hours of public hearing time for applications, there will not be three hours to discuss the Rl ordinance Mr. Piasecki: · There may have to be some special meetings scheduled to keep the process on track ADJOURNMENT: meeting of May 24, 2004 The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission 8--(lrD Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 24, 2004 · Com. Chen: · Supports the proj ect · Pleased to see the lot being used · Pleased to see another commercial business in Cupertino Com. Miller: · Supports the project · Concur with Com. Chen; the project is a major im rovement on the site Vice Chair Wong: / · Support the project · Recommending adding two more space on lot for auto sales Com, Giefer: · Supports the project · Ideal use for the facility Chair Saadati: · Concurred with other co · Supports the proj ect Motion: Motion b Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application Ui_2004 5; with the addition of two anto spaces for anto sales, totaling 11 spaces. Planning Co . sion decision final unless appealed to City Council. Chair Saada declared a short recess, / 6, MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled Peter GiIli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed topics to be discussed: high volume ceilings; second story area; and percent of second story to first story floor area · Discussed the percentage of first story as outlined in staff report o Staffrecommends the second-story proportion be increased to between 40% and 45% of the first story area without significant impacts; a 50% proportion should be reasonable taking into account that the high volume area change recommended will result in more interior area being double-counted · Discussed the second story area (minimum allowed size) as outlined in the staff report o Staff recommends 800 square feet as a starting point · Discussed high volume ceilings as outlined in the staff report o Staff recommends increase from 15 to 16 feet for ceiling height Cary Chien, Felton Way: · Said he was pleased with staffrecommendation to increase from between 45% to 50% of the second story ratio t~(D( Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 24, 2004 · Stated confusion; reminded the Planning Commission why there has been a call for increase in percentage because applicants and architects say they do not have enough space upstairs; to tie it with high volume ceilings and then say they equate, does not accomplish what the people are asking for · Recommended that they encourage the second story FAR to stand on its own merit; those merits are what people are telling them about not having enough space upstairs, and ask that the percentage be increased · Said he did not feel it was tied to the high volume ceiling Mr,Gilli: · Staff would like the Planning Commission to come to agreement on the general language of the three topics Com. Miller: · Said he was pleasantly surprised by staff S recommendations · The option giving the most flexibility while still limiting mass and bulk is extending the daylight plane in a way similar to what is done in Palo Alto · This particular way of approaching mass and bulk seems to work in Palo Alto while still allowing the flexibility for diversity and design and creating designs functionally useful for people in those houses · If that is the direction, the discussion on the volume ceilings goes away because you define the house by creating an envelope and what you do inside the envelope is up to the homeowner and designer Com. Chen: · Questioned if extending the daylight plane was in conflict with what is being done today in setting up a standard for the second story to the first story ratio Com, Miller: · Weare trying to achieve the same thing, but doing it in a different way · One way to limit mass and bulk is by limiting the square footage by tying it to the flISt story; it produces a sandpile effect of building that you are forcing, the higher you go, the smaller the area up there, depending on the size of the lot can be designed to be very effective · Another way to do it is the concept of the daylight plane; that is in Palo Alto, they start at some point in from the property line, and at X feet from the property line and X height, you define a plane which is at a 45 degree angle up, on both sides, and you can build whatever you want to build within that space · It allows for more architectural diversity because there is a volume to work with; it simplifies the whole ordinance · It doesn't necessarily make it looser, but gets at the same idea of limiting mass and bulk while still allowing architectural diversity and added functionality Com. Giefer: · Noted that Palo Alto has 100% design review; while they allow building within the daylight plane, all plans go before an architect to ensure quality and attractive building · Said it was for single story and second story Com. Miller: · They are separate issues and would prefer to take them as separate issues 8-~rD ;L Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 24, 2004 Com, Giefer: · Recommended language for the high volume ceilings is good · Like the idea of increasing the minimum second story to 800 square feet; it will eliminate some of the poorly designed crows nets seen on some single story homes and will help some of the smaller lots achieve the home they want · Idea of having other measures; how to really develop high quality, well designed homes within the community · Like the idea of building within the daylight plane provided we have the mechanism in p1ace for the design review and the quality · We are a community with a lot of engineers; they tend to like function before form · Want to give peop1e the opportunity to be creative and build beautiful homes within the community, am not comfortable that the right proportion is between first and second; would go up to 100% if assured that every home would be reviewed by an architect for specific design elements to be sure we were building beautiful buildings in our city · Not certain which is the best way to go now Vice Chair Wong: · Agreed that it would be nice to have an architect on the DRC, but no budget for it · If using Com, Miller's idea of a daylight plane, they could all go through the DRC to make sure there is the design we want in Cupertino; we wouldn't have to worry about percentages, high volume ceilings · Agree with Mr. Chen that they are exclusive · Strongly support the daylight plane, but if it were to fall back to double count high volume ceilings, it penalizes residents, and when they go to the property taxes, they will double count area that is not livable, don't want to double count high ceilings · Regarding minimal allowable sizes, it is nice staff suggested 800, but I would go for 1,000 minimum based on what staff gave in Exhibit B, for smaller lots in Rancho and Monta Vista, it would be difficult for them even for 800 to fit 3 bedrooms above · Agree with staff that 50% is good, but still advocate daylight plane and have it go through design review Mr. Gilll: · Clarified that if there was an architect on DRC, it would be at the applicant's cost, not the city's · Explained the fees and deposits involved Chair Saadati: · Measuring the height based on the outside vs. the ceiling is more appropriate; it lifts many restrictions · Increasing the second story ratio would be appropriate; 50% is easy to apply · Regarding daylight saving plane, need to learn more about it; there is not enough information; don't feel we need to go that route · Some commissioners want 1,000 square feet in one area, 1,000 square feet if it is done nicely won't make much difference; provides flexibility; 2,000 on first floor, 1,000 on second floor · Increasing the second story would help to open up the land and help the environment to some extent · Later in the meeting, following discussion, said he would go back to 800 minimum to allow for flexibility · Feel this is the direction to go t-(03 Planning Commission Minutes 15 May 24, 2004 Mr, Piasecki: · Weare not doing much in the arena that Palo Alto or Los Gatos does; it is not a good budget year to add costs to applicants or staff functions to the city; there are gradations of design review, simple things, such as symmetry, balance and alignment of architectural features, helps with the design of the building and architects will emphasize when they review something · You could go to the next level and say you are interested in looking at details such as materials, colors; some communities spend a lot of time focusing on those types of issues as well as the issues of privacy impacts, massing and bulk · If the Planning Commission is interested in looking at that, it would take more time Com. MiUer: · Don't see there is a connection; Cupertino's ordinance with all its details does not ensure good design; the two are not tied together · In the first instance, it talks about limiting mass and bulk, either by tying the second story size to the first story size, or as Palo Alto does, to a daylight plane; it has nothing to do with good design · Cupertino allows the applicant to hopefully come in with a good design · It is a separate issue, and should not be tied to whether or not we go with the daylight plane or what it is looking like as a general consensus to go with 50% on the second story · Feels it is reasonable to split the two; and look at mass and bulk and how to deal with mass and bulk first; and later talk about how to achieve better design if that is the objective Ms. Wordell: · In tenns of knowing whether you are interested in looking at the daylight plane or not, you will need more information on just what kind of flexibility it allows or doesn't allow; it may lead you to say it is very flexible and be sure to look at the product of what comes out of this · The idea of bringing back more information on how Palo Alto's daylight plane works or if anyone else uses that, would need to be done Mr. Piasecki: · The earlier discussion of how to avoid somebody building a two story box if you don't have design standards, the daylight plane doesn't prohibit it from happening · Agree with Com. Miller that it may be an effective way of supplementing some of the other mechanisms we use to offset second .story massing, if you get something within a daylight plane · Not familiar enough with how Palo Alto does it to provide good feedback Com, Chen: · Good design to provide maximum flexibility to develop a good design and also to reduce the mass and bulk are equally important · What is the impact to provide both; one solution might allow maximum flexibility and provide good design but might not guarantee, what is the potential for daylight plane option to provide the amount of flexibility for good design · Would like to have design review process to apply to that one, with professionals on board · The other option is to go within the box we give them · Support staff recommendation on high volume ceilings; makes more sense than existing ordinance · Support the increase to 50% of the first to second floor; stay with 800 square feet minimum t--(ðY Planning Commission Minutes 16 May 24, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Said what a lot of cities do when they exercise more design review, is they try to prepare residential design guidelines and talk about symmetry and balance and show good and bad examples · Wi1l look at examples of guidelines from other communities · Look into the daylight plane procedure in Palo Alto; understand how it works and if it is applicable Mr. Gilli: · Said most of the population would rather know what they can get at the beginning, than have the ambiguity of hearing it is in the building envelope and have to go through the process and may not end up with as much as the building envelope might al10w Com. Chen: · Relative to high volume ceilings, said she supported staff recommendation as it made more sense than the existing ordinance · If we are going to explore daylight plane, as a backup plan, support the increase to 50%, the first to second floor, stay with the 800 square feet minimum; with the increase on a 50% to the first floor area ratio, they have potential to maximize the use of the space Mr, GiIli: · In trying to ascertain if the Planning Commission goes with a proportion and a minimum, look at Exhibit B, because if the Planning Commission is comfortable that the second floor is 50% of the first floor, but then if you make the minimum 1,000, in al1 cases except large lots, having a minimum of 1,000 almost makes it not necessary to have proportion because the proportion wi]] always be less Vice Chair Wong: · Said he proposed 1,000 square feet on smal1er lots such as in Rancho Rinconada because it would be difficult to get three bedrooms, master bedroom, hal1 bath and 2 bedrooms upstairs; with the higher amount of 1,000, they would not have to come back again to change the ordinance · Asked if the consulting architects could provide an opinion on the square footage for the second story Mr. Gilli: · If the Planning Commission wants to ensure that everybody would be able to have 3 bedrooms on the second story, 800 square feet may be difficult · Said that some state 800, while others state 1,000 or 1,200 Com. Giefer: · In Rancho, there are some homes that are 1,000 or less; would we potentia]]y have a situation where the new home would end up being 100% if it was a 1,000 square foot second story because they would be increasing the footprint of the home as well, giving a total of 2,000 square feet Mr. Gilli: · Said it is possible in Rancho that if the minimum were 800, there are some cases where it could result in first and second story being the same . f ~/DÇ Planning Commission Minutes 17 May 24, 2004 · Said that relative to affordability, the applicant would pay an extra $1000 for a second story, and he fell the increase in fee would not have a significant impacl on decreasing two slory development. Mr. Piasecki: · Said staff was clear on the direction and would come back to the Planning Commission in two weeks to one month Vice Chair Wong: · Suggested that they continue in the event the daylight plane does not work; privacy can be discussed and move other things around to avoid wasting time Chair Saadati: · Suggested gathering information on the daylight plane and present it to the Planning Commission at the next meeting, so that they could continue with the rest of the items Mr. GilIi: · Said in the interest of planning for having a document at the end of this process, what he heard was 50% is a good number; verified that at least three are happy with that figure; Com. Miller said two Planning Commissioners said 1,000 and would support it as a backup plan; and the other two are still with 1,000; three for high volume ceilings; three said they supported staff language Vice Chair Wong: · Even though the design looks unusual, examples 45, 52, 64, can they still do this even though the design is not really good inside and even if they were to convert it, they would still have to come back for a building permit to convert it Mr. GilIi: · As a Planning Commission do you see yourself saying no to a project that is just adding a floor in and the outside walls are not changing; we had a case similar two months ago Vice Chair Wong: · It still had to come back to DRC and the staff recommendation on that particular one in Monta Vista, staffrecommended Yes. Mr. Gilli: · There was no point in saying No because the mass was already there Vice Chair Wong: · We can literally enforce it and staff could have said No Mr. Gilli: · Said it was his opinion that it would not hold up at the City Council level to say No when the volume is already there and it only adding a floor in Vice Chair Wong: · On these particular ones since it is not open; it doesn't open out to a living room area; it is just the staircase area; instead of it being double counted, said he was not opposed to allowing this type of ceiling [f~(Db Planning Commission Minutes 18 May 24, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · Reiterated that three commissioners supported staff S language Vice Chair Wong: · Just wanted to offer one more chance; to have it double counted; by allowing this unusuaJ design will add more space, affordability, be cost-wise and Jooking at value for the property. Chair Saadati: · Some people opt to have a higher ceiJing and to do that, they pay more · Other option is to put two levels · They could choose to put in high ceilings at the same cost, or put two levels at the same space Vice Chair Wong: · On some of them you need the high ceiling in order to get the staircase in Mr,Gilli: · There has to be a small amount that has to be double counted on a two story house · Are double counting stairwells because it has a floor to ceiling height over is feet; and the language is what the City Council agreed to in i 999 Com. MiUer: · From a functionality standpoint, if you are going to have a second floor, there is no way to avoid it; why double count it? · Another approach may be that if it is in the stairwell, which has to be there by definition if you have a second story, why not not-double count it in the stairwell and then double count it anywhere else Mr. Gilli: · Minor drawback is if the stairwell was never double counted; you may get people who exaggerate the size of a stairwell, and have it be larger than it needs to be; or an exemption of up to a certain will not be double counted Com. Giefer: · What Mr. Gilli said about having a certain amount of space that would not be double counted that was dedicated to the stairwell makes sense; it may work as well · If you said you were going to give a 4 by 6, or whatever the correct dimensions are; that this will be double counted. However, if you have an 18 x 36 foot foyer that is part of the stairwell, the Planning Commission will not accept that it is part of the stairwell; it will be double counted · Accepts staff s language Com. Miller: · It seems fair Mr. Gilli: · Staff will look through the plans to see the average size of the stairwell and put the number in · One note on the recommendation; based on wanting to consider a minimum of 1,000 square feet; in that case for the regulations to make sense and work together, the Planning Commission should explore the idea of a second floor that is 60% of the first floor because if 8 r(O ì Planning Commission Minutes 19 May 24, 2004 there is a minimum of 1,000 very few people will use the proportion rule because 1,000 is a¡ways going to be more than half of the fIrst floor unless it is a 10,000 square foot lot Com. Chen: · Said she has a concern about the 1,000 minimum; as Com. Giefer stated, there goes all the daylight plane and any other planes they have; it doesn't comply with the good design and also the reduction of bulk and mass, principles that we have · When we have a building with 1,000 square feet both on the top and bottom, there goes all the plans we have in our ordinance; it doesn't make sense · Strongly opposed to it Com, Giefer: · Also suspect that the FAR would be well above 45% on some of the smaller lot examples Chair Saadati: · Said he would go back to 800 square feet minimum to allow flexibility for some people to go up Vice Chair Wong: · Requested that staff corne back with information on the 1,000 square foot second story area, showing the pros and cons on percentages Mr. Piasecki · Said that it was his understanding that staff would return with more information to allow the Planning Commission to make a judgment on whether it was 850, 1,000 and as Mr. Gilli suggested, ifthey go with 1,000, look at a higher proportion. Chair Saadati: · Suggested a one hour study session to review the material Com, Chen: · Said she understood Vice Chair Wong's concern about flexibility for the second floor design. · Qualify the distinction in the ordinance that the 1,000 applies to certain lot size, with the design review process in place which will take everything into consideration Mr. Gilli: · Said the idea of having a special rule in Rancho because they are all smaller lots makes excellent sense because it is a completely different problem there, with the size of the lots, width of the lots, it cannot be compared to a 10,000 square foot lot in the old Manta Vista area Mr. Piasecki: · Said staff had suŒcient direction to return to the Planning Commission in two weeks. None o~rDt Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 14, 2004 5, MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2004; Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Discussed the topics of focus as set forth in the staff report: o Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge o Second Story Wall Offsets o Privacy Planting o Old Business: Second Story Area (Minimum) o Old Business: Second Story Daylight Plane · Staff recommends that either the offset sizes be increased or that part of the approving action of a design review project, if all two story projects are reviewed, will be to make sure that the offsets are effective, and then it will be case by case and up to the approving body. · There are also cases where the offset may not be necessary and those are cases where the second story wall is not very visible; the only occurrences of this have been with a building permit, not a design review project, that is a two story project with an FAR of35% that didn't need design review, that they had to add in an offset where it didn't really need to be done to reduce the mass and bulk of the second story · Along those lines, staff recommends that the offsets not be required in cases where the exposed wall height of the second story is less than three or four feet and whichever figure is more comfortable with the Planning Commission or even higher or lower; that is a ballpark amount that staff believes is reasonable. Com. Miller: · Requested that second story wall heights be added to the discussion (19.28.060, Section FA) · Said that in looking at the requirements, he had a general concern as it is a complex ordinance. · Said he felt the daylight plane would simplify the discussions in terms of many issues and would satisfy the issues relative to bulk and mass, and at the same time simplify the ordinance to make it easier for a layperson to understand how to comply with the requirements. The daylight plane concept applies just as much to all the things relative to second story setbacks and offsets as it does to the other issues. Mr,Gilli: · Said it was not in the scope of work from the City Council, that is why it was not included in the staff report. Mr. Piasecki: · Said they contacted the city of Palo Alto to request that they come to speak on the daylight plane. They were not able to be present tonight, and staff will also get written material fÌom them for the Planning Commission before the next meeting, Mr. Gilli: · Said city of Palo Alto staff would not be available until August. ~-(o 1 Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 14,2004 Com. Giefer: · With regard to recommendation on the privacy planting, who would bear the cost of a tree in ones neighbors yard; would it be the homeowner? Mr. Gilli: · It would be the person who built the two story house. Acting Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Susan Lui, Woodburry Drive: · Asked for clarification on second story surcharge in addition to the setback. · Asked if changing the second story minimum square footage ITom 600 to 800 was being continued for discussion. · Re]ative to the setback of the house, one side has to be 10 feet, one side 5 feet, can a property owner place the home 8 feet on one side, 7 feet on the other. Acting Chair Wong: · It is being continued in discussion. Mr.Gilli: · Relative to the surcharge, said the ordinance has minimum second story setbacks and also a surcharge to insure that there is more than enough offsets off the first story. · The rules were prior to ] 992 which was prior to the city having a limit on the area that the second floor could be. The surcharge says that you need to add 15 feet more to the front and side setbacks, and at least 5 of it has to be applied to one side. · The front setback on the second story is a minimum 25 feet, the sides are 10 feet; the surcharge can be split amongst the front and side, but at least 5 feet has to be on one side. One option is to keep the front setback at 25 feet, and put an of the surcharge on one of the sides and make one of the side setbacks 25 feet instead of 10, or put most of the surcharge on the front, where that will result in a front setback on the second story of 35 feet and one of the sides will be ]5 and the other will be 10, The rule predates the 1999 amendment which created a minimum or a maximum amount on the second story, The P]arming Commission may want to look at whether or not that is needed now if there is an aerial limit that will already preclude anybody from maximizing a second story that would fill up all the setbacks. · Acting Chair Wong had answered the second question. · The first story setbacks that were specifically in the scope of work that the Council gave to the Planning Commission were in cases where there are narrow lots. What the Planning Commission may still want to pursue is make some recommendations that aren't in the scope of work and staff can present that to the City Council for endorsement. · There have been people in the past bringing up the idea of splitting up the sides; although there have been people on large lots as partially reflected in the surveys, that believe the large lots, over ]0,000 shou.1d have 10 feet on both sides. There are many nuances to that and the Planning Commission may want to look at that further. Acting Chair Wong: · Wanted clarification; for the second story surcharge, what is the purpose of it again, since we already have second story setbacks, 8'-rró Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 14,2004 Mr. Gilli: . When the rules were put in place, the idea was that the minimum setbacks were not enough, but they wanted to have more setbacks, and to provide the flexibility where the applicant/architect can place the additional setback wherever it worked in their case. Part of the reason a minimum of 5 feet is' to be applied on the side, was to make it harder to have a two story wall plane because one of the fIrst story side setbacks is 10 feet; if you had the second story side setback at 10 feet, you could have a two story wan plane, and in the history of Rl, that has been discouraged by the City Council. In one respect it was to require more, but in a flexible way. Acting Chair Wong: · Currently, are they any other cities that have this surcharge. Mr.Gilli: · Based on the review of the cities and county, I don't believe so, Acting Chair Wong: · Ms. Lui had an appropriate question regarding the flexibility of the 5 to 10 feet; your recommendation is to bring it up at a different hearing for staff to investigate it. Mr. Gilli: · If the Planning Commission wants to explore that and any other item that is not on the scope of work, direct staff to take it to the City Council and present that it was not on the original scope of work; but after an the public input, it may be an issue that the Planning Commission wants to look at and see if they win endorse it. Summary on Second Story Setbacks and Surcharge: Com. Chen: · Said staff suggested changing the language without changing the real content; it doesn't change the result, but change the language to further clarify that; not sure it helps. · Said she felt the intent of the setback was to further reduce the bulk and mass, Mr. Gilli: · At the time the surcharge was put in place, there was no rule that had a limit on the size of the second story, so you could conceivably build out to the minimum setbacks; the approach at the time was make an additional surcharge that would keep an the houses ftom looking the same; it precludes the architect ftom building out to the minimum setbacks on the second story, and the Planning Commission may fInd that now we have a minimum area already, that we can't build out to the minimum setbacks, that maybe the surcharge is not needed on all lots. · What was added as a recommendation is if the Planning Commission believes the existing setbacks and surcharge should remain, then that would be the language to change that; that we would recommend, but we are not going so far as to say that you should not look at the possibility of the setbacks changing. Com. Chen: · With the second story setback plus the limit on the maximum square footage on the second floor, do they an work out? g~r/( Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 14,2004 Mr. Gilli: · Said he could only speak to the projects that have been approved with the second story at 35% or in some cases 40% of the ground floor; they have never maxed out the allowable area on the second floor within the setbacks; so there has always been extra setback area that has either been on one side, both sides, the front or the rear, and that leads to a lot of variety and flexibility in design. .r do not know if the second story is 50% if that will still exist, r believe it will, but there may be some cases where you could have a second story that fills out the entire second story building envelope. Probably that would be on smaller lots. Com, Chen: · Basically do not disagree with second story setbacks, although r think the surcharge might be a little too much restriction; without a decision on the second story area, it is a difficult decision to make. Mr.Gilli: · With all of these rules you can't really make a decision On one until you really know what the whole picture is, because they are inter-related; but the process that we are trying to do is to try and take it issue by issue and then when it is brought together at the end, see if it meshes or there are conflicts that need to be explored further. Com, Chen: · Agree with the second story setback; it is a regulation with good intent and would like to keep it. · The second story wall offset is a good requirement; concur with staff recommendation of privacy planting. · Agree that all the privacy planting has to be recorded for the protection of all the property owners, · Rancho Rinconada: staff recommends the surcharge be eliminated; agree with that. · Relative to staff s recommendation that the Planning Commission consider the benefits and drawbacks of privacy planting; the existing rule is appropriate, · Agree with staff that offsets should not be required in cases where less than tluee or four feet of the wall height is exposed. Com, Giefer: · Supports staff recommendation to change the language to make it less confusing with regards to the second story surcharge. · Pointed out the irony that while privacy is an issue on tluee sides, the one part of the building where the homeowner will not invade anybody's privacy is in the front of their home; yet it is required that they push the second story to the rear which invades tluee other neighbors, · Said it would be ideal to design 100% front facing walls to push as much of the house to the street as possible as part of privacy protection; but it may result in designing a lot of ugly boxes. The more of the house that can be pushed to the front, would create less invasion of neighborhood privacy; yet again it would create bulk and mass which is specifically what is trying to be reduced. · Pleased they are doing something to help the neighbors in Rancho Rinconada, and support that the surcharge for the Rancho Rinconada owners be eliminated. · Supports privacy plantings; would like to see choice in privacy plantings for screenings; said that if re-Iandscaping her yard and there is not enough room on her lot for all the trees, and if there is still a privacy issue, she would like to have the option of planting live trees on the t~IIL Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 14,2004 neighbor's lot at her expense as opposed to having frosted windows and louvers III the neighborhoods other than those specifically designated Eichler neighborhoods, · Supports staff recommendation with regards to the second story offsets. Com. Miller: · Relative to privacy, the majority of people in the survey said àe--flet leave the pnvacy unchanged and I agree with that. · Staff had a good suggestion in terms of exploring wherever possible if there are issues with privacy, putting the trees on the neighbors' property who has a concern about the privacy. · Moving to the topic of small lots and sections of town such as Rancho, said he was going to suggest something perhaps radical. There are a number of planned communities in town that are somewhat similar and the one that comes to mind, is Seven Springs, and many of the lots are similar to the size of the lots in Rancho that we have to deal with, and yet Seven Springs is a development that I think was done very well. Allowing that kind of development in areas where we are dealing with small lots is a good idea; furthermore picking up on what Com. Giefer said about moving the second story setback on the front up, I am not convinced that it creates ugly buildings, we just approved earlier tonight an application where there was no second story setback, and everybody commented how well that was designed and it didn't appear to us as enhancing bulk and mass at all. · That again gets me back to where I started earlier this evening and I think we need another way of looking at this; I keep coming back to the daylight plane, it would allow us the flexibility to get better designs and different designs and not have every house look the same. In fact if the ordinance itself forces houses to look the same if we got rid of the complexity of regulations and we went to a simple concept like the daylight plane, I think we could solve the bulk of our problems. Palo Alto is using it very successfully and no one would claim that there are bulk and mass issues in Palo Alto, Asked the Planning Commissioners to reconsider looking at it in a different way and getting rid of the incredible number of regulations, restrictions, that someone has to figure out. No other city in this area has this except Cupertino; there is a better way of doing this, · Not in favor of the setbacks or the offsets; would rather see it done differently, · Feel surcharge is not necessary; there may be one other city that uses surcharge, but no other city in this area. Acting Chair Wong: · Second story setbacks and surcharge: Concur with Com. Miller that if the people from Palo Alto come and discuss daylight plane, the Planning Commission would not be looking at all these unnecessary ordinances and procedures; it might simplify the process, which is one of the principles he said he was advocating. · Regarding the Rancho Rinconada area, support staff recommendation to eliminate the Si.Ircharge regarding the simplification that staff is suggesting for wording; my question to staff is that if we go to 50% to the first FAR with the second story setbacks, will they still have enough building envelope to build. Mr. Gilli: · Said that he agreed that bigger lots would be fine; they would have to draw it up to see. For the small Rancho lots, the reconunendation is to not have the surcharge; therefore you have to look at the 6,000 square foot lots and see how much area is left within the setback and the surcharge. It depends on the Planning Conunission, it can be done at the end when there is a complete package or do it sooner. There are going to be a lot of issues come up, and staff would like direction on what approach should be taken, 8-~{/3 Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 14,2004 Acting Chair Wong: · When you go on smaller lots, Page 5-5, 6,000 you can get 900 square feet; but anything under 600 feet, like 5,000 square feet, you can only get 750 square feet on the second story. Even if we look at the Civic Center project we approved, these second story bedroom floor plans look really good, but one thing that really comes out is that they don't have the wall offsets and in order to get these plans in RI, it wouldn't happen because of these wall offsets. Mr,Gilli: · The difference between the townhomes in Civic Park and other townhomes and what is in Rancho Rinconada is the townhomes are 25 feet wide and they are designed that way. The Rancho Rinconada lot will be twice as wide so there will be the opportunity to have a wider first story and even possibly a wider second story, to provide some articulation on the side. Acting Chair Wong: · Regarding the second story wall offset, the recommendations that if the Planning Commission determines that a design review is necessary for all two story homes, then the Planning Commission may leave the regulation as is, but requiring the approving body of two story projects determine that the offsets are effective on a case by case basis. I really have strong reservations regarding having staff review all two story homes; I think that the current way allows flexibility so I don't support that. · Do not support unnecessary offsets. · Regarding the privacy planting, Com. Miller brought up a good point on Question No. 13, in the survey that 55% didn't really have a strong concern, and of those who did understand the RI ordinance, 60% did not have a strong concern on privacy planting. · Agree with Com. Giefer that putting louvers or frosted windows or even 12 foot trees would not really address those privacy planting; communication is the most important thing regarding privacy planting by strategically planting the trees. · Do support updating the landscaping trees and shrubs with the handout vs. putting it in the ordinance. · Second story setback and surcharge: Agree with Com, Chen that second story surcharge is a little stringent; would agree with her too; can staff come back and suggest something more flexible but still keeps with the intent, because there is too much regulation and it should be user friendly for the designer/architect to have good design. Com. Miller: · Suggested more discussion on the small lot issues and staff providing comments. Asked what the objection would be to allowing the flexibility on small lots in Rancho that was given to the Seven Springs project. Mr.Gilli: · There is no objection to looking into that; it is part of the reason why in the recommendation on the second story setbacks and at a later meeting on the first story setbacks we have recommendations that make it easier to build in on the Rl-5 lots, It is difficult to compare because Seven Springs was one whole development but is along the lines of a special neighborhood plan. Before going too far, it should be determined if the Rancho residents want that, because a lot of people supported annexation because they had a concept of what the rules would be, and there is a need to be sensitive to that; as well as sensitive to the people wanting to build in Rancho because it is difficult because of the size ofthe lots. ð-( ('1 Planning Commission Minutes 15 June 14,2004 Com, Chen: · Asked Acting Chair Wong if he was suggesting lhat for as long as the design is within the ordinance and guidelines, it not be reviewed at all; since he was strongly opposed to having two story buildings reviewed by staff. Acting Chair Wong: · Correct, that is the current ordinance, except for if it is over between 35 to 45%, it is reviewed by staff. If it is under 35% it is not reviewed by staff as long as it meets the current ordinance; because if staff recommends that all two story developments should be reviewed by staff, that is what was approved in the last Planning Commission hearing in December 2003. Com. Chen: · In the meantime, increase the total square footage to 45% also for two story buildings; these two go together. Acting Chair Wong: · They go together, but the review process portion will be the appropriate time for discussion. These are not exclusive, everyone addressed them individually fIrst and then at the end. ILthe Planning Commission still determines that they are not exclusive and they should be together, it will be determined at that time, If they can come up with an ordinance that meets everything, the staff will not have to do discretionary review. Com. Miller: · Agree with Acting Chair Wong, am hesitant to expand the scope of review to second story structures that are below 35% and the original ordinance doesn't require it. · It adds more complexity to the process át this point. Com. Giefer: o When Seven Springs was planned, it was planned with open space pathways all joined to make that entire planned development feel open; every three cuI de sacs backs into a park. Even though the houses are large and the individual ownership of the lots are small, it is specifIcally designed to give the feel of open space and flowing neighborhood that is highly walkable; and don't feel it can compare one to one between Seven Springs and Rancho Rinconada. o Also appreciate staff's comments that the reason why they voted for annexation was they perceived a better quality of zoning with the way the neighborhood is zoned today vs. the way it had been when it was county land. o Reminded staff that Palo Alto has a one to one relationship between using the daylight plane or building envelope and design review; all two story homes in Palo Alto go through design review, and that is their process, Not sure what would happen if you didn't pair those two hand in hand. o Numbers staff provided on Page 5-5 are good with regards to house size, the FAR, and what the potential 50% second story size would be. o It would be very informative to apply our rules today to a 50% second story to see if it is doable, or if we apply our current setbacks and offsets and surcharges, is it even possible to have these 50% numbers on the second floor, which we as a group have not agreed that the fIrst to second floor ratio is 50% yet. Wanted to remind everyone that it is a working number, not a fInal number. 8'-({J Planning Commission Minutes 16 June 14,2004 Acting Chair Wong: · Said the summarizing was direction for staff, and as Com. Giefer said, it is true there was a majority of commissioners who would like to go 50% to second to first FAR, but at the end once stafflooks at everything, they may recommend likewise, · Summarized for direction to staff that regarding the first recommendation, the maj ority of the commissioners felt that regarding the RI zone and Rancho Rinconada that a surcharge be eliminated; maj ority saying yes. · Regarding simplification, at least two commissioners support it, which he expressed concerned about. Asked staff to come back with more infonnation on flexibility. · If the Planning Commission detennines a type of design review, the Commission is evenly split today; there was no comment regarding increasing the minimum width offset with 6 to 8; that remains as is. · Regarding the unnecessary offsets, the commission is split; regarding the privacy planting, all agree that it should be as is, · Said he supported having a presentation from Palo Alto regarding the daylight plane, and asked Corns. Giefer and Chen 10 comment on whether they are interested in hearing a presentation from Palo Alto. Com, Giefer: · Said she was agreeable, and would like to specifically understand what their issues are with it, what they have run into on a regular basis, and what they believe would be the impact if they did not have the design review coupled with that. Com. Chen: · Said she would agree to learn from their experience. Com. Giefer: · Relative to second story wall offsets, agree with staff. Com. Miller: · I think that is an increased restriction and I don't agree with that. Com. Chen: · I agree with staff on this one. Mr,Gilli: · On the issues that are split 2/2, one was the wording change in the surcharge; Coms. Giefer and Chen wanted to go with staff recommendation on the wording, and Com, Miller and Acting Chair Wong did not want to go with that, primarily because you wanted to explore a method that didn't have a surcharge. Com. Miller: · Yes, if the Planning Commission goes along with exploring a different method, that is my first choice; if we are going to stay with the current method, then I would go with the revised wording. Acting Chair Wong: · Said he concurred. f -Ifb Planning Commission Minutes 17 June 14, 2004 Mr. GiIli: · For now it will remain as 2/2. Com. Chen: · Said she felt the surcharge was stringent; agree with setbacks, but don't necessarily agree with the surcharge. Mr. GilIi: · I had it in my notes that you were agreeable to the change in the language, but if you are not, then I can adjust that. Com. Miller: · This is actually, what I think the majority of us are saying is we would like to eliminate the surcharges, is that correct. Com. Giefer: · The thought was that the surcharge is confusing on how to apply it; said she liked the simplification and language and would like to see flexibility on how that additional five would be added to one side or the other. Com. Chen: · Yes, basically correct, but I would also like to see how that would work with a 50% second story, so no decision on surcharge, I would need more information. Com, Giefer: · Said it was not unlike the comment she made earlier that with calculations for second story area with all the setbacks and surcharges, are those second floor; can you actually put that much second story square footage in those houses at 50%, because if we go down from there, they will be impacted more gready. Acting Chair Wong: · Definitely on smaller lots we would have to do adjustments, especially on lots under 6,000 square feet in Ranch Rinconada or in Monta Vista. · Three commissioners share that concern, Mr. Gilli: · Privacy rules: the same, although there is interest in seeing if it can be in the neighbor's yard; but that can be on a case by case basis unless language is desired, · The daylight plane we are going to bring back; Planning Commission wants to make sure the surcharge works if the second story area is allowed to go up to 50% of the first story, and it is split on the offsets to support making it wider to oppose primarily because you want to go a different route. · Agreed that more communication would result in less rules and they should strive for that. · The issue with the daylight plane, one thing that is going to be an issue is if you have a daylight plane that allows you to build out to a certain area, that is equivalent to having minimum setbacks without a surcharge. If you had a daylight plane that allowed everything in this envelope without additional rules, you will see houses that are built out to that envelope and there is a likelihood that they will start to look more or less the same. Palo Alto takes care of that through design review; it would be good to have them here to explain how it is done. ¡-f{ ì Planning Commission Minutes 18 June 14,2004 · Rela(jve to the offsel recommendation in the staff report, if the design review is agreed upon for all two story projects, then the idea was perhaps you don'l have to adjust the actual rule, you can just look at it on a case by case basis. The review could be all Design Review Committee, staff, none; it has not been looked at yet. · Said that the comment that there is no review of two story homes under 35% FAR, is not correct. The ordinance now calls for staff to look at the general compatibility of a two story project that does not need design review; if it cannot be corrected, it would be referred to the Design Review Committee; that has never been done, so I would like the Planning Commission to understand that and take that into account. · Reviewed the list of topics for the next Planning Commission meeting, in addition to some things that need to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Acting Chair Wong: · Said it is true that staff does review every application that goes through, even two stories and reviewing for compatibility, because that was done with the design review guidelines, and is required by the current ordinance until July. · Said he saw a different interpretation, Motion: Motion by Com. MIller, second by Com. Chen, to continne Application MCA-2003-03 and EA-2003-19 to the next Planning Commission meeting, (Vote: 4-0-0; Chairperson Saadati absent) OLD BUSINESS: None 6. Consideration of cancellation of one Planning summer months. meeting duriug the NEW BUSINESS: Ms, Wordell: · Explained that the Planning Commission may oose to take a week off in the summer and may consider the last week in July to coinci with the City Council break, · Staff recommends canceling the July 26 eting. Com. Chen: · Said it was logical if canceling y meeting, to cancel the one prior to the City Council cancelled meeting. Com. Miller: · Said that if everyone is lanning on being on vacation, it doesn't make sense to hold it, but suggested they move rward with RI if commissioners did not have conflicts, Com. Giefer: · Said she could end the regular meeting; but was open to canceling a meeting if there was no need to hold e, · Said that S felt they would not meet their schedule if they canceled a meeting. · Felt ther were many things that they required information for; suggested that Palo Alto may be abro attend the meeting to discuss daylight plane, . ,. t-({ t Planning Commission Minutes 31 July 12,2004 Chair Saadati opened the. meeting for public mment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Saadati moved the agenda b 4. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19,28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance) Continued from June 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Tentative City Council Date: Not Scheduled. Mr. Gilli presented the staff report: · Said it was the 12th meeting on the R I ordinance. · Topics for discussion will include; Design Review - What is reviewed; tools for review process; who does the review; where Cupertino should be on the spectrum. · Reviewed Exhibits E - Alternative I, Expanded Review; Exhibit F - Alternative 2, Streamlined Current Methodology, and Exhibit G - AHemative 3, Reduced Design Review Vice Chair Wong: · Said other items for discussion included story poles, design review guidelines, and notification, · Asked for staff report on notification; what does sending out the II by 17 plans entail, and how far does that go out? Mr. Gilli: · Said that the issue of poles and notification, because they are both on the exhibits, will hit at the same time, · There are certain times in each of the aHematives that story poles are required and that certain levels of noticing is required. · Currently, exceptions require noticing 300 feet; it is a piece of paper that has legal language saying there is a hearing; · Two story over 35% FAR, they have story poles and the noticing, and the story poles have to be up at the time it is applied and remain up until the action, Vice Chair Wong: · Regarding the guidelines, do you want to tie it into the process? Mr. Gilli: · Said you could not talk about these items individually, e.g., if you talk about story poles, are they good, bad; that depends on what we are talking about, story poles are useless for one story houses; you do have to talk about it with the other things. · In the case of two story, that's typically where story poles are more useful because people can see it; so we can try to talk about it separately, but I think they are also interconnected; it is extremely difficult. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he felt story poles were dangerous, a safety issue, · Said he met a year ago with fonner mayor Chang, Com. Miller, Cary Chen and Maika Negel, and recalled that staff had no ties to two story poles. Asked if it held true today? I-I rf Planning Commission Minutes 32 July 12, 2004 Mr. Gilli: o The issue of story poles is not something staff needs; the survey indicated many peop1e liked them, but staff does not need them, not important for their review, There have been cases where story poles have fallen, and not constructed properly. Mr. Piasecki: o Said they were a hassle to install on an older home; the survey indicated people liked them; however staff does not need them. o Said it was the call of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wong: o Referred to Exhibit A, Page 4-6, Question 16, and discussed the breakdown of the responses from various homeowners with different levels of experience with the process. o Regarding guidelines, based on the three processes, that is how staff will make the recommendations on guidelines, Mr. GiIli: o If the idea is to remain status quo, you may need some 1evel of guidelines, if the idea is to move closer to having less review, you may need less, you may reach the point you don't need any. If the idea is to move towards more review, all the towns and cities that have more review, have detailed guidelines and they enforce them. o If you look at the three options: more review, less review, or remain status quo; likely wou1d not need guidelines for less review; for more review, you would need to have them and expand on them, and for status quo, you could reduce them slight1y, increase them or change them a little, depending on where you want to go in the spectrum. Vice Chair Wong: o Said that the City Council1et the P1anning Commission look into design guidelines. o Also let the Planning Commission look at residential design approval; Page 4, but was limited to two story, on the second story that is over 35%. o If you look at your process review here, you are also looking at one story and that was not in the scope of work, so if you want to follow that direction, he recommended a minute order. Mr. Gilli: o If you wou1d like to and you believe so; but what was presented to the City Council was the Planning Commission would look at the whole review process, what was reviewed, how it was reviewed, who reviewed it. That was presented to the City Council in those words and they agreed to that. o Said he could provide a copy of the minutes or tape of the meeting. STORY POLES Com, Miller: o Would like to add comments on story poles, having been on the DRC and heard the comments of some concerned residents when they came to review that, said he found that the story poles in a number of incidents actually give a mis-representation. o People have come to the DRC and said the story poles frightened them, but he said with the actual design, he felt more comfortable. ? -( lD Planning Commission Minutes 33 July 12,2004 · Questioned how valuable the story poles are in terms of neighborhood notification; Said he felt it was likely better to notify them and/or give them some kind of picture of what they are looking at; because story poles don't represent what is actually going to be up there when it is constructed. · Noted that only Los Gatos and Cupertino are currently using story poles in the surrounding area. (Others commented that Palo Alto and Los Altos also used them) · Concurred lhat there was a lot of expense in putting story poles up, there are some potential issues in tenns of damage or other problems, and it is not clear given some of the comments seen at the DRC how beneficial they are. · Said he was not certain of the value of story poles, particularly since staff doesn't feel they need them, and we have talked at a Planning Commission meeting before, and the commissioners in the past hadn't felt they needed them. Com. Giefer: · Read an e-mail regarding story poles from Cary Chen, regarding dangers of story poles, · Said she felt they were a good noticing tool, and supported the use ofthem. · Said they repeatedly heard that the people didn't get the notices, they either didn't understand what they were when they came in the mail; they are not clear enough; but for some reason the message is not getting out. · While the story poles don't provide the most accurate definition of what the proposed home is going to look like, it at least prompts the neighbors to understand that there is some action taking place and that something is going to change on the property, · It is a strong visual cue, if nothing else, to explain to the neighborhood that something is happening. · There was a high number of survey respondents who expressed support for story poles; said she was in favor of them also. Vice Chair Wong: · Said that Com, Giefer had good points; many neighbors are concerned. He has on the DRC for two years and currently is the Chair on the DRC; and a lot of people who do come in either through notification seeing the story poles or word of mouth, and are most concerned about not knowing what is being built, and once they come in and see the plans and have the regulations explained, they are calmer. People need to take the time to contact the neighbor and ask them what they are doing and the neighbor will show them. · There are other ways to notify the neighbors; we are taking one notification away by taking away story poles which is a health and safety issue, but you can also notify people by sending the application and plans, elevation only to the immediate neighbors and if they really want to learn more, they can either contact the applicant or go to City Hall and contact the professional planner. · Other concern is money-wise, it is very expensive; some folks know how to do it correctly, some do not. Other cities don't do it except for Los Gatos. · One constituent talked to me about when they put the story poles, they hammered them into the building and it caused damage to the building, if you put it up during the winter months, water can go into the building and damage the building; it is not a good process, · Want to streamline the process, and especially staff is willing to use another way of notification and not have story poles. · Does not support story poles. t ~ ( .2{ Planning Commission Minutes 34 July 12,2004 Com. Miller: · Said he understood that some residents paid as much as $7,500 to $8,000 to have story poles put up; and said for that expense, plans could be mailed to the residents in the 300 feet radius and provide a better way of noticing, · As Vice Chair Wong pointed out, they can cause damage to the building. Chair Saadati: · It is chailenging to put story poles on an existing building; on a new building it is easier to do it because you can support it, but other options are available. · Have expressed concern before about story poles and said he would consider a three dimensional elevation that shows adjacent properties. When people look at that they can understand it, most people cannot read plans and don't understand them, · As long as appropriate drawing is provided, it enables the neighbors to understand and be able to visualize what is built, relative to the adjacent homes. · Said it was an alternative that he would accept. Mr, Piasecki: · Asked for the definition of "an appropriate drawing" Chair Saadati: · TIrree dimensional perspective drawing showing the adjacent homes; usuaily if the architects do the plan on a computer, there are programs that they can utilize. NOTIFICATIONS Com. Miller: · No question that we want to expand the notification, · Support doing that in whatever method deemed appropriate; it adds more information and reduces confusion. Com. Giefer: · Agree with Com. Miller; would like to see notification expanded. · Would also like to ensure that we include unincorporated areas that are adjacent to properties who are puiling permits and becoming Cupertino so they received notices also. · Weare talking about sending them an II x 17 elevation as part of the noticing. · The idea in some of the options, depending on the spectrum, is in some cases, to send adjacent neighbors an II x 17 plan, not just the elevations. Com, Miller: · Suggested using legal size paper as II by 17 is difficult to work with, · Said it was not clear why a neighbor would need to see the floor plan, but just should be concerned with the elevations and not the interior of the house. It is inappropriate for the neighbors to comment on the interior of the house. · Later in the discussion, he said that if there are copy machines to easily copy II x 17, he stood corrected. Mr, Gilli: · Asked if there was agreement to have the site plan with it. Com. Miller: 'f¡~/1- L Planning Commission Minutes 35 July 12, 2004 o Said the site plan is fine. Vice Chair Wong: · Also concur with Com. Giefer as well as Com. Miller to have a site plan; the elevation, no floor plans; it is the property owner's rights; the main concern is mass and bulk and we want to make sure that we address that issue. · Regarding privacy, if they are concerned, they should make the time and come to city hall to look at it, when they get the noticing for the DRC, it is a second opportunity for them to come. o It if raises a concern to the immediate neighbor, they should come and see the full set of plans at the counter. · Want to make it cost effective for the applicant. · The other concern is no story poles, but if we increase that notification for the DRC to more, they can also get the notification to come to the DRC to see the second story addition. · It is very important to keep the DRC so that it is another way of notification. · Recommend legal size, much better for economic reasons. · Summary: Will have a site plan, the elevation, the renderings, no floor plans; and also a contact information ¡¡-om staff. Mr, Gilli: o Commented that legal size paper will end up being very small with a large amount of white space on the bottom, whereas II x 17 is a better fit because the plans generally start out at a certain aspect ratio that works better with 11 x 17, Chair Saadati: o Also in favor of expanded noticing; the site plan; as more people receive notification, hopefully there will be less outrage and surprises, Mr. Gilli: o Is there any discussion on courtesy noticing; or is this the courtesy notice? · There are two levels of notification; one is there is an action that the city is taking, in which case, in the alternatives, staff has this as one of the elements and then the other is right before a permit is about to be issued, it would be a letter saying the owner of this address is receiving a building permit to do an addition. Vice Chair Wong: · Do the courtesy notices. Com. Miller: · Generally feel that rather than create a new review, expanded, or reduced review, to stay with the current development process review and make some small changes; I am in favor of staying with Exhibit D, · One of the things with Exhibit D I would like to review is the design guidelines and one of the issues that we have had that we have heard about with design guidelines is that there is an inconsistency between some of the design guidelines and the existing ordinance, and I would like to take a look at that and perhaps fold some of the design guidelines into the ordinance and do away with the rest of them, and so that to the extent we can, we have more of the design guidelines in the ordinance, but you also iron out the discrepancies between the ordinance and the design guidelines. · The other place where it might be potentially a good idea is staffs suggestion to have more architectural input and adding an architect to the DRC has some merit; although it is not clear 8-( 2-3 Planning Commission Minutes 36 July 12, 2004 that lhe architectural consultant would do it because that is going to be an added expense. Said it was not difficult to get architects to volunteer to participate. · I would like to stay with that process; suggest we modifY, get rid of the design guidelines, incorporate the good points into the ordinance. Propose adding more review rrom an architectural standpoint to the DRC with a member that we could add rrom the community at large, which would not be an extra expense to either the applicant or the city, Chair Saadati: · Basically you are keeping the 35%. Com. Miller: · Yes, leaving it the way it is. Mr, Piasecki: · On the point of adding a volunteer architect, you may have to go outside the city to get one; we would normally go to the Santa Clara County AlA, Com, Giefer: · I am somewhere between keep it where it is today, but I would like to suggest modifications to that: I agree with what Com. Miller said in terms of taking the highlights and strong points rrom our guidelines, and incorporating them into the Rl, but I think one of the things that I appreciate about some of the other guidelines that we have, is they are more illustrative of the do's and don'ts and I would actually like to see ours enhanced and not just go away. · Also am in favor of having more professional participation in our DRC, instead of having Planning Commissioners on the DRC, I would recommend just having professionals, architect and staff on the DRC to make those reviews and decisions. That is potentially an added expense and I understand that, but this is not the right year to advocate adding additional expense and I am not quite sure how we would go about getting people rrom an organization to support our city that we would not have to compensate, · I would also be in favor of having our current design review with some architect participation on that as well. Vice Chair Wong: · Agree with Corns. Giefer and Miller, that the current process is working; but don't want to majorly change the process, · Suggested that in next meeting regarding processes, is to give some guidance to staff on what particular guidelines we would like to see folded in, and what we don't. · Not prepared at this time to say likes and dislikes; vs. having staff second guess us; perhaps do it via e-mail. · We get money from Sacramento; Com, Giefer's idea would work, but it should be community generated, · Find an architect in Cupertino, who lives in Cupertino, who can feel what it is like to be in Cupertino, and can see the issues here; use the Santa Clara County AlA, but I feel that the City Council needs to appoint that architect ITom Cupertino because we want to make sure it is a community person here in Cupertino. · Said he wanted to see Exhibit D, the current RI development process; need to give some guidance to staff regarding which guidelines that we like or which ones we don't want to see and these guidelines would be applied equally, !f -I Ly Planning Commission Minutes 37 July 12, 2004 Chair Saadati: o Said that once before they discussed the design guidelines and his view was if they can fold the design guidelines intothe ordinance, that would be more straight forward, but it would be good to have handout with some infonnation that the general public can get when they are planning to design a house; at least that handbook gives them some infonnation to supplement our ordinance to some extent; some brief information rrom the ordinance with some sketches or drawings that helps them to understand it better. o Also Exhibit D, having a professional on board would be an added benefit. o Finding an architect in Cupertino may be difficult; different professionals to sit on different matters, but you may not fmd the same person all the time. o Sometimes the benefit is if you get somebody from outside, you get an impartial opinion, Mr. Piasecki: o One of the best architectural advisers we had in Campbell was an instructor over at West Valley College; he did not live in the City of Campbell and he was excellent. You may get somebody in your own city, but you might not get the quality. Vice Chair Wong: · If there is concern about not being able to find someone in the community or their impartialness, whether or not the person may be in the community or not in the community, if it is a non-voting member, there would not be any worry about that particular issue. Chair Saadati: · Already have an architect who is a non-voting member and expresses his opinion and who reviews all the plans, Mr. Piasecki: · I have seen both models work; the one that Com, Wong is talking about is just an advisor at the meeting who can help you work through the plans, that is one way to do that, you can have him voting, you can even indicate that your preference is to find an architect in the community, · In the event that you don't fmd one, then you would select one outside the community, still the best qualified; but you would encourage community architects to be involved, Vice Chair Wong: · By making it non-voting, it addresses the Chair's concern about having a quorum. Chair Saadati: · It may lower the interest level of the architect wanting to sit on the committee; if they are a voting member, they may be more interested to come on board; it could go either way. Com. Miller: · I would just like to add, even if there was a meeting where the architectural member could not attend, one would hope that the architectural member would provide his input so that the other members would have the benefit of that even though he was not present. Mr. Gilli: · Larry Cannon's comments are incorporated into the staff report. t-{ L) Planning Commission Minutes 38 July 12,2004 Chair Saadati: · That won't change anything, but having a professional at the meeting, there is a dialog; that is different "than having just a comment coming in, Com. Miller: · I understand that, and most of the time you would expect if we had someone participating as a member of the committee, he would be there and it is not the ideal case that he is not there; but it is somewhere in between; if he still reviews it and provides his comments. · You would expect that he is not going to be missing meeting after meeting, or else he wouldn't have signed up in the fIrst place. Chair Saadati: · I think there needs to be more than one on our list in order to make sure there is continuity, Mr. Gilli: · Summarized that the commission wants professiona1 review at the meeting, to look more at design; maintain the same number of meetings which is the cost of the applicant; but the commission is interested in going for having better design. · The only reason you wou1d want a professional architect is because you want more input on how to make the design better; Vice Chair Wong: · Said he did not recall saying he wanted more design. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for pubhc comment. Kwon-Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive: · Commented on having an architect in the DRC process, · There is already a consultant architect to review the design, and he is going to make comment; I assume that when the app1icant brings forward a p1an, there is a review and in working with staff to make the plan workable for the city of Cupertino, that the recommendations reviewed by the architect should have been incorporated in the plan before it comes to the review process. · By the time it comes to the review process, it should be clear whether it is a good plan that the staff is recommending or not, and if the staff is recommending with the guidance of the architect, then do you want another architect to review the comment of the fIrst architect? Asked for clarifIcation. Chair Saadati closed the pubhc comment portion of the meeting. Com. Miller: · The speaker raises a good point, and in fact the only reason for having an architect is that issues come up after the initial review by the architectural consultant to the city, that particularly at the DRC meetings, that potentially could be facihtated easier. As to how much va1ue, that in itself is a good question. · In tenns of should we be moving towards more architectural review, I am a1ways hesitant about what leve1 of architectural review we are going to do into single story houses; because it is hard to get two architects to agree very often on architectural issues associated with the house; and it is not clear that we are going to be adding to the process if we put peop1e through further architectural review, or we are basically opening up another whole new issue to exp10re J-~! 2j¿ Planning Commission Minutes 39 July 12,2004 and then create guidelines for what architectural items we are going to review and not going to review. · Not sure I am prepared to support that, right now we look at mass and bulk and periodically there are some other issues that come to mind where architectural input is important but not necessarily to the point that we are going to have an "architectural review" of the house structure. Mr. Gilli: · From my experience if the commission believes and is comfortable with still maintaining the focus on mass and bulk, if that was the philosophy the Planning Commission wanted to pursue, I would agree with the speaker, that you don't need the architect at the meeting, and in many cases you don't need the meeting because the ordinance rules and the very basic guidelines which the commission can spend more time at a later meeting, going through, takes care of the mass and bulk issues. · If mass and bulk is going to continue to be the main focus then a process like Exhibit F or G would be what we would recommend; it would save the applicants significant time and money; it would save a lot of staff time as weU and we can give you the same output as you get right now. · If the wish is to have more professional input to get a better design and so on, then you have to have hearings. Vice Chair Wong: · By suggesting what you are saying, you are fundamentaUy changing the process and the process is currently working and one of the reasons why the 1999 ordinance passed, is because they wanted the DRC, · If we are going to eliminate story poles this is another alternative for folks, because you have to notify people to come to the DRC; this is your second opportunity; once you just do the notification, with I I x 17 or legal size, they wiU be dealing directly with staff, they wouldn't be directing the Planning Commission. · Said he wanted it to come back to the Planning Commission and not to staff, and let the Planning Commission take the hits, not staff. Mr. Gilli: · As the commissioners know, in the last year, there haven't been any hits at the DRC, there haven't been any issues that haven't been about trees and that is something that past commissioners who have been on the DRC have said, why are we meeting if the only issue that comes up is a tree, because it is cost to everybody to have the meeting, · The idea was if we are just trying to get the output that we currently get out of the process, this is faster and cheaper and I spoke to architects about this and knowing they have an appeal right, they would prefer this process because it is faster. · If the purpose is to stay in the current concept of what we are reviewing, we can do it better, and faster and cheaper. Chair Saadati: · Suggested because of the lateness of the meeting, they could put a doUar and time figure on each of the processes, how long it takes, and what the cost is. Mr. Gilli: · Generally it will cost an extra couple of thousand doUars if you go to hearing at applicant's expense, ;-~( l 7 Planning Commission Minutes 40 July 12, 2004 Chair Saadati: · I served on the DRC for almost two years and with the exception of privacy, a lot of applications went through without a lot of problems, Mr. Piasecki · What Mr, Gilli was saying, it gets back to what your philosophy is; if it is mass and bulk, the last thing you want to do is bring an architect in to talk about architectural details and if the roofleaks. · You want to keep it focused and keep the messages pure and unmixed. Vice Chair Wong: · It should be about mass and bulk and I appreci~te the person staying here so late, but we even decided not to cancel a meeting to continue discussion about this, but the emphasis should be mass and bulk, and design compatibility, we can discuss it at a later time, Mr,Gilli: · Based on what we heard, the next meeting we are going to bring back a process based on Exhibit D, with infonnation about guidelines and minor changes as discussed regarding story poles, notification, · After one with the possibility of an architect, I will put the possibility of an architect into it and just lrnow that if you decide later it can be taken out. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he wanted the DRC meeting to stay in, and see the cost breakdown. Com. Miller: · Would like to see what the costs are, Mr. Gilli: · At the last meeting, all the commissioners were unanimous on a number of minor issues; rear setback on the first story having it reduced; going to Director's approval; that is reflected in the Exhibits E through G; is the commission still on board with that or going away from that? · Exhibits E through G have a process for minor issues including the rear setback reduction on the first floor, having a gable end height over a certain amount outside the building and below. · Second story decks, and extension oflegal non confonning building lin.es, at the last meeting it was unanimous that the concept of having this at adjacent noticing with a Director's action after hearing if the neighbors have problems with it or not; there was agreement then, Ijust wanted to lrnow if that is still agreed upon. Vice Chair Wong: · What is it currently? Mr. Gilli: · It is different for each item; if it is a second story deck it has to go to a public hearing, but the only issue is privacy, the thinking was it didn't need a hearing; extension of a legal non confonning building line needs the neighbor approval but we have had cases where a neighbor has not agreed to approve in a seemingly harmless case; and in the other two the issue of the rear setback reduction and the gable end height currently is allowed, but we had people who had concerns with that. g -/1-J' Planning Commission Minutes 41 July 12, 2004 · Should that stay in this model or is that off the table now. Vice Chair Wong: · I think we should take it out of this process and address it differently, because I remember clearly the second story decks were going to be a Director modification; it wasn't going to go through DRC, because it saves money on that. · Can't respond on the others because of lateness of meeting. Com, Giefer: · Suggested that it be continued to help review entire process and be able to see that it really will help streamline the process and makes it easier for the applicants. Vice Chair Wong: · Requested that the staircase issue be discussed at the next meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) to the Planning Commission study session on July 26, 2004 at 5 p.m. in Conference Room C. (Vote: 4-0-0) Housinl! Commission: Com, Giefer reported on the ly 8th meeting; the Vallco Rosebowl development was reviewed and she was asked to sh e the following comments: The Housing Commission recommends that the applicant maxi ze the density of units per acre and possibly request a density bonus in favor of adding more w cost housing to the project. They feel that it is an ideal situation because the project does not' pact an existing neighborhood or cause additional crowding to an existing neighborhood. ere was a meeting scheduled for OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Wednesday, July 14th, Mayor's Monthly Meetinl!: No Report, om. Giefer asked if someone could attend the August 17th meeting in her placè; Vice Chair W ng volunteered to attend the August meeting; Com. Giefer will attend the September meet" g. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No verbal report gIVen. ADJOURNMENT: The eeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 5:00 p.m. on July 26, 2004, followed by the regul Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p,m, SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A, Ellis, Recording Secretary .8--( 1..1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CupERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED STUDY SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM C 6:45 P,M. MONDAY The Planning Commission Study Session of September 13,2004 was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Vice Chair Gilbert Wong. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chairperson: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner City Attorney: PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Angela Chen Taghi Saadati Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Peter Gilli Charles Kilian 1. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) Citywide location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continuedfrom Planning Commission Study Session of August 23, 2004. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Peter Gnll, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Meeting is a continuation of discussion of the building envelope or daylight plane regulation that the City of Palo Alto had, and discussion about incorporating it into Cupertino's rules, · The staff report outlined examples of what that would mean; Exhibit A is an example that shows how the Palo Alto envelope relates to the current building envelope which is only meant to apply to single story homes or sing]e story portions of two story homes, · In summary, if the Commission utilizes the Palo Alto envelope, it is recommended that it only be for two story elements, that we retain our single story envelope as it is now with a slight change to start it at the property line instead of 5 feet in from the property line, · That would make the starting point of both the one story envelope and two story envelope start at the same point which is 10 feet high at the property line, If that is done, it is recommended that you also eliminate the second story side setbacks surcharge and consider keeping the minimum setback just for ease of use for the common resident that comes to the counter and cannot visualize in three dimension what the envelope means. It doesn't make a difference to staff either way if you kept that language or not. r~{JD Planning Commission Study Session 2 September 13, 2004 · The last item in the staff report; the last study session two commissioners indicated that our current second story wall offset requirements should be eliminated if we go with the building envelope. Staff recommends that they remain because they provide a benefit even if we had a building envelope; but at this point it appears that the Planning Commission recommendation is going to be for two story review of all homes, so the offsets can be converted into a guideline since staff has seen cases where offsets have been required in cases that they didn't appear to be necessary. · In summary staff's recommendations are outlined on Page SS-3; if the Commission chooses to implement the Palo Alto envelope, and with the second story wall offset, it is recommended that they at least remain as guidelines. · The next meeting will be September 27fu to review the first draft of the model ordinance. Mr. Gilli: · In response to Com, Giefer's question about rrequency of offsets, he stated that currently the rule is if you have a span of a second story wall over 24 feet in length, you have to have a wall offset of at least 6 feet width and 2 feet in depth, At an earlier meeting there was a split decision to increase the minimum width of the offsets to 8 feet, but at the same time there was a majority opinion that the offset shouldn't apply in cases where the first story roof was covering a certain amount of the second story wall. Com. Giefer: · Do you feel that if we looked at adopting a second story building envelope, that it would impact or change the rrequency and requirement of where the offsets would be; is there any tangible difference between the way our prescriptive method is and the way it would be after &R-& a building envelope? Mr.Gilli: · If you had a building envelope without any wall offset requirement or guideline then there would be no regulatory method to have an offset; you could have a second story that could be a straight wall over 20, possibly even over 30 feet in length, Corn. Giefer: · Do you feel that we would still have to say if it was 24 feet long it would have to have one every 8 feet or do you think you could say something like we require you to have several wall offsets in the design, and staff approval. Mr. Gilli: · If it were a guideline the language that I have in a draft fonn is just that it fit, state that wall articulation is desired on second story and then it doesn ~t go into detail on how much. That will be looked at on a case by case basis. Com, Giefer: · How would that work if it was a guideline for enforcement. Mr. Gilli: · If it is a guideline then it could still be enforced through design review; if there is not a review process then it can't be enforced. t -( J { Planning Commission Study Session 3 September 13, 2004 Com. Miller: · Asked if the reason for having two different daylight planes is because of staf:fs concern for the first story placement. Mr. Gilli: · Said yes, if they did not have a single story envelope then a property owner could propose a one story house that had 15 foot height on one side and a 19 foot height on the other side, in terms of the wall height. · The ordinance is currently limited to: on the side with the 5 foot setback, the height is limited at 12 feet which translates into plate height of between 10 and 11 feet, and on the 10 foot setback side, it limits it to 13 feet which translates into 12. Com. MiUer: · Said he was impressed with the presentation that Palo Alto gave in tenns of the success they are having using the daylight plane. · I believe it simplifies the regulations quite a bit which is always a desire; I appreciate Mr, Gilli's point that laymen will have difficulty potentially understanding daylight plane; however, the people who actually design the house will not have difficulty understanding it and normally the owner does not design the house, he hires people, Those people won't have any problem. Palo Alto's experience is that those people don't have a problem with that. · Also sensitive to Don Burnett's remark last time which is he was in favor of going in this direction and felt that the Palo Alto ordinance actually did a better job than Cupertino's. · Supports the daylight plane. Com. Chen: · Many changes will be made if going for the daylight plane, specifically regarding the single story heights. · It is a major change and not within the authorized scope of work, will likely delay the process and create confusion. · Said he feels the existing plan works well, and will support staff's recommendation. Com. Giefer: · Several things were solved by the Palo Alto daylight plane policy; during their presentation several concerns that I had; one of them being privacy and I think my understanding of the way the plane works is the higher you want your walls to be the further in you need to go and that is always a concern of mine, I think we have issues with how to design around the existing one story; that was very attractive to me, I think there are several things we would need to work out with regards to the detail relating to height; I would not want to see us use daylight plane and make any changes to single story Rl because that is not our directive from City Council. · I think we would create a lot of confusion, and going into this, if we are recommending a change, I think we would have to acknowledge people who have traditionally built in Cupertino and have invested time and effort understanding our current ordinance; this is a re- education process and I am not sure how we address that, or if we have a way to address that within the building community in Cupertino, · I want to see some setbacks required, am not completely comfortable tossing them out and saying they are all guidelines because it is new; so I have a concern regarding the setbacks that would be building a lot of lovely tissue boxes within the building envelope, and I wouldn't want to see that happen. lJ-f ]2- Planning Commission Study Session 4 September 13, 2004 · I would also want to ensure that every second story home is reviewed by staff for aesthetics, making sure i1 does fit into the daylight plane and that it follows the rules if we went that way, · I see it as an opportunity for us to simplify several things in our current Rl and protect privacy of neighbors which is attractive to me, and I wouldn't have a problem having the starting point for a single story and second story being at the same point; just to make that more simplistic. · Do not want to see the overall height as high as Palo Alto allows for single story; I wouldn't warit to change that. Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr. Gilli) . If we were to go with the Palo Alto daylight plane, our maximum height of our RI ordinance is currently ~ 28 feet, so even though the envelope goes over ~ 28 feet, which would supercede, the envelope or the height of 28 feet. Mr. Gilli: · It is always going to stop at 20 feet. Even our current envelope on some lots will go over 20. No one can go over 28 feet. Vice Chair Wong: · The design review guidelines would help mitigate some of the concerns of the designs that you were concerned about to make sure that the design was important to you; and that is how I felt that by using the daylight plane it allows flexibility; · Asked Corns, Chen and Giefer if they would reconsider if Cupertino had a good design review guideline similar to Palo Alto, Com. Giefer: · For second story, don't have a problem with the daylight plane, but want a staff review of every second story; not just guidelines, · Staff to actually review and approve it as they do in Palo Alto. · Supports one story, if it doesn't go over 20 feet. Vice Chair Wong: · Currently all second stories are going to be reviewed. Mr. Gilli: · As it is now in the code, all second stories are reviewed in some fonn, but it is very limited if it is under 35%, in the new proposal, it will be a more fonnalized process, Com. Chen: · Is open to two story; it can work with the staff review, a more fonnalized review process. · Supports it. Vice Chair Wong: · With the one story house, more or less what staff is suggesting is just to keep the current policy. Mr. Gilli: · What is recommended is if it is a single story house or a single part of a two story house that it meet our single story envelope; the two story element meets the two story envelope, 8-~[ '3 ] Planning Commission Study Session 5 September 13,2004 Com. Miller: · Supports two story daylight plane. · Supports reducing the complexity of the ordinance if it made sense, but if the majority of the commissioners are concerned about what that impact might be on the first story, we are going to make recommendations to the City Council and it appears to be an open field, Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr. Gilli) . Asked staff to explain what the concern is about if it is one story; why is staff so concerned about not having proof of one or two story, Mr. Gilli: · If you look at the exhibit in color, you could build a one story house that filled up the green and the blue, whereas right now if you build a one story house, you could only be in the turquoise or the green, so what we are proposing if you do a one story you stay under our current envelope, if two story stays under the blue envelope; if you didn't have the single story envelope, there could be a 19 foot tall wall plane located 10 feet away from the property line, Vice Chair Wong: · The daylight plane where the one story currently is at the 5 to 10 feet or is at the property line? Mr. Gilli: · It comes in at 5 feet, what we are suggesting is make it at the property line; that equates to having 10 feet; it is currently a 12 foot high wall; at the property line it would be 10 feet. Vice Chair Wong: · Four commissioners agree to support the two story daylight envelope with a very good offset of guidelines; and Com. Miller said that if the majority chooses, to remain with the one story. · Said he concurred with Com. Miller. Com. Giefer: · Clarified that the one thing not said which would change her position 100%, is that there is not a mandatory staff review of all two story homes; and she would not support it. Com, Miller: · Said it was previously voted 3:2 to have a mandatory review. Vice Chair Wong: · Reiterated that there will be a staff review. Com. Miller: · If you are building a two story home, you are allowed to go to the 19 feet. Mr. Gilli: · It is possible. 8"- (]y Planning Commission Study Session 6 September 13, 2004 Com. Miller: · On the two story homes, we are allowing the Palo Alto ordinance; you are saying if you come in with a two story design, it is okay if you go that high. If you come in with a one story design, it is not okay, Mr. Gilli: · If you have a one story element, you would have to meet the Cupertino one; it is as it is now; on the building envelope now, only the single story has to be under that and the second story, it is okay to be outside of that; as shown on the example, all of the one stories are under the envelope. Com. MiUer: · So that would force a setback because the one story element would be guided by the current Cupertino ordinance; the two story; you are putting an enforced setback there. Mr. Gilli: · It could force a setback if the applicant chooses to put the single story as close to the side as you can, they could also choose to have the first story wall where the second story wall is going to end up. · The bottom line is you could get a second story wall at the ten foot setback line; that is basically how the Palo Alto total envelope works; unless you go with excessively high plate heights, then you may be pushed back a little. Com. MiUer: · You are saying if you are building a two story, you can have a vertical line up to 19 feet. Mr. Gilli: · If you extend that plate, itis still in the envelope; you would have to have a hip roof because it may not fit the gable; it could be right there, which right now you could do also because our min, setback is 10 feet. You could chose to put the surcharge on the other side. Vice Chair Wong: · By implementing this there wouldn't be any second story setback surcharge and it would put some of this in the guidelines. Mr. Gilli: · That was staff's recommendation if you implemented this to take out the surcharge, to possibly even take out all language about the side setbacks and with the wall offsets, · If there is a review of all two story houses, it works better in guidelines. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked Commissioners to review their previous comments and decisions, Com. Giefer: · June 28, SS-7 with regard to allowing 10 x 10 lightwell for single story basements; voted No, and since then had a conversation with Mr, Gilli and better understand it and support it; change from a No vote to a Yes vote, · July 12, Page SS-8 with regard to the story poles; I really want story poles and I know it is not popular, but I vote No in terms of eliminating story poles; I want them, It is the best way of t-/j) Planning Commission Study Session 7 September 13, 2004 noticing that we have in addition to everything else we discussed that would help solve the problem; we are always hearing how noticing is a problem in this community and it is the one visual outreach that we have; so I would like to change my position on that to a No from Yes, Vice Chair Wong: · I wanted to make sure that it was a decision incorrectly done or you changed your mind. (delete), · August 9th, Page SS-9, 3 commissioners voted Yes, 2 commissioners voted No; felt it was redundant in the notes to state that 2 commissioners opposed and then the next paragraph, one commissioner opposes; staff to correct. Also the use of Exhibit G; oppose e it. Mr. GOO: · Not certain of Com, Miller's stance on that; I don't have a problem taking out one opposes, it is redundant. · Should it say Miller and Wong's issue was with the formalized review of two story homes. Com. MiUer: · August 9th - "No" Column. Vice Chair Wong: · August 23 - those notes have been clarified, Mr. GiIli: · Will strike much of it; a final decision was not made and they will move to this meeting, Vice Chair Wong: · Clarification on June 28th - asked Com. Miller ifhe was in favor of 50 feet. Com. Miller: · It was not clear what the reasonable number for the stairwell is; 50 square feet seems like a small space. Vice Chair Wong: · Commended Mr. GilIi's summarization of commissioners' suggestions, Mr. GOO: · Said he would go to June 28th on the two items; one is second story building envelope and requesting authorization because it is addressed at this meeting; strike the process late surveys, since that point was passed and it is pertinent to the City Council. · Relative to presenting the design review guidelines, said he would move forward with what was decided on August 9th to incorporate the key guidelines into the ordinance; but did not plan on preparing a set of guidelines. Vice Chair Wong: · Suggested redesigning the format of the design review guidelines to be more simplistic, similar to Palo Alto's being numbered vs,just groups in different categories, (j-{ J~ Planning Commission Study Session 8 September 13, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Said it was dependant on whether they wanted to incorporate them into an ordinance or separate guidelines, which should be resolved first. · Now that you have decided on daylight plane, what should the guidelines say, how specific do they need to be; now they don't want them in the ordinance whereas before they did, · What is the pleasure of the Commission; it can be done either way; it will be a more subjective process if they are not in the ordinance, but it was thought that the idea was to make it more ordinance driven. Mr. Gilli: · It is not that the guidelines are now required; the guidelines are in the ordinance so that people cannot say they did not see them. Com. Miller: · Said he was incorrect in thinking that putting the definition in the ordinance meant it went from a guideline to a requirement, but understands that it is put in the ordinance to make it easier for people to pick it up in one package. Mr. Gilli: · We may still have a separate sheet that may have some illustrations but the actual wording will be in the ordinance. Com. Chen: · A follow up question is when staff does the review, the more formal; the more extensive review. Is staff going to follow the guidelines more closely, Mr. Gilli: · Staff's intention is to follow the guidelines about how they have been enforced to date, For example, there was an issue over wall height, a couple of years where it was enforced strictly, now we are in a period where it is not enforced strictly, and will likely continue that until there is a decision at either the Planning Commission or City Council that says we are still too strict or too loose; that is where our intention is on the guidelines at this point. Mr. Piasecki: · Would you write the guidelines to reflect current practice or keep it vague. Mr. Gilli: · The draft language now is rather vague; it allows for us to adapt to a neighborhood, · That has no interest in protection of mass to a neighborhood that has extreme concern about new mass and also to change in time if a new council was elected who has completely different ideas. Com. Chen: · What is the difference between a formal review process and an informal review process, Mr. Gilli: · For the houses that currently don't go to a hearing; those are two story homes with a total FAR under 35%; the first time staff sees them is the plan/check stage. For the formalized review, staff sees it before the plan/check stage before all the structural drawings are done, so if there t-rn Planning Commission Study Session 9 September 13,2004 are some changes, we can do it at that point instead of having to wait until after we see structural and then the architect has to adjust something. The applicants will have to show us the envelopes on the elevation drawings. There will be notice of the adjacent neighbors in the case of the smaller two story homes, and they will have a chance to comment at the conceptual stage, For the cases over 35% FAR, it will have a 300 foot mailing, adjacent neighbors are still noticed, it is the same overall process, except that more of the neighbors will be notified. · Instead of using story poles the idea is to have a rendering which is a ¡¡-ont elevation prettied up a little with some color; in the case of bigger two story houses, it would be a perspective on a large board and it would have the contact infonnation on who is working on it at the city and we hope that will serve to give people a better idea of what is being proposed. · The notice board will be put out when staff feels the project is close to being approved; if a project comes in and doesn't work architecturally at all, then we would not recommend to put up the notice up yet because it would be the wrong elevation possibly; but once the design gets to a certain point, that is when we would do the notification and the rendering, Com. Chen: · Summarized that staff will be involved in the project with applicant early on in the process and the immediate adjacent neighbors would be notified if it is a two story under 35% square feet, but that is after all the design review is done and accepted by staff. · That work is not going to be reviewed by people around the 300 square feet radius; it is going to be reviewed by adjacent neighbors. The larger than 35% will trigger the official design review process. Mr. Gilli: · It is not going to be called anything different, but it is going to have a larger noticing in and more elaborate rendering on the board out in the ¡¡-ont of the house. Mr. Piasecki: · The expectation is to try to write the guidelines as objective as possible, Let staff prepare it and bring to you in a meeting with the ordinance; study it; if it has to be continued that is fine, · Staff wants the opportunity to make sense of it. Vice Chair Wong: · Said Com. Chen had appropriate questions. They agreed that there would be a 300 foot distance; adjacent neighbors would get the II x 17 plans, elevations. · Said he was not comfortable using the floor plan because he felt that if they really wanted to come inside to see where the windows were showing, that the nearby adjacent neighbors would come to look at it. · Asked Mr. Gilli about staff's position, said he did not recall their position regarding having floor plans. Mr. Gilli: · We think if it is going to be a case where the neighbors are getting notification of a two story house next door, it is going to be important to the affected neighbor which room is looking at them, and if you just look at the windows you don't know what room is behind them, you may not be worried if it is the bathroom, you may be only worried if it's a bedroom, but if you don't have the floor plans, you are not going to know, S--/7 ð Planning Commission Study Session 10 September 13,2004 Vice Chair Wong: · W ouldn't that be indicated with the landscape plan and also force them to get more information by coming to city hall, Mr. GilIi: · From our position we think we should give as much information as the average person would want and our position is we think the average person would like to have the floor plans so they can see what is going to be the room that is looking down, Com, Chen: · Palo Alto plan limits the square footage. Mr.Gilli:· · The Palo Alto situation is if you have a 5,000 square foot lot you get 45%; as the lot gets larger, the FAR goes down. When you get to lot sizes of 7,500 to 10,000 the FAR is about 35%, with an acre in the RI zone in Palo Alto, the FAR would be ,3. Com. Chen: · Palo Alto has a maximum home size, Cupertino should consider having maximum home size. · Too many two story homes exceed the 35% coming forward and getting approved as a standard process; it takes longer and delays the project. · Would like the formal process for all two story reviews; make the notification more uniform, for two story building, · Allow 45% and go through the process of review notification and don't have to trigger the design review process. Mr. Gilli: · What the Commission agreed on was to have all two story reviewed, but not have a public meeting because the public meeting often appears not necessary. · The plan is to review all two story homes now, but nobody needs to go to a hearing unless they have an exception. The idea is to save time for all parties and save money which would translate into less fees. As it is now, our Rl design fees are not as inexpensive as they were and if we go to a process without a hearing, they can be reduced. Com. MiUer: (To Com, Chen) · Wanted to clarify: in terms of the process, the process that everyone agreed upon is that staff gets to review everything, and if there is an exception it goes to DRC; if there is no exception, it doesn 't. Was that something you agreed with or were you concerned? Com, Chen: · Agrees with that. Vice Chair Wong: · If applicant disagrees with staff recommendation and it is appealed to DRC, and if the DRC rules in favor of the applicant and not go through the process of the DRC, Planning Commission, City Council; he said he would like to see a change in that; because the applicant keeps paying and paying, · Streamline the process; reduce the time, 3--/J c¡ Planning Commission Study Session 11 September 13, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · The applicant only has to pay for an appeal once; it is not extra cost; it is extra time. · The current practice is that the action of the DRC is treated like the action of the Director's minor modification, and Director's minor modification goes to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then to City Council. The Rl rules were made to mirror that. · If they wanted to appeal the Planning Commission decision, they would have to pay again and go to the City Council. · What is in the model ordinance is going to stay with that process; instead it goes directly to the Planning Commission and stops there; the idea is that the DRC is only two people, and if it is a controversial issue then it should be something that can't be tied; that is in the model ordinance. Vice Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input. Jennifer Griffin: · Urged caution about adopting the daylight plane until the ramifications have been fully studied on how it affects Cupertino, particularly. · The second story setback is necessary and how they are affected by the daylight plane still remains to be seen, Said she hoped that these changes would not be made to the Rl at this time until there can be a further study of the affect of the daylight plane, and how some other cities have used the daylight plane or whether they are still using the FAR · The second story setbacks are necessary for certain parts of Cupertino and in my neighborhood; the lot size dictates that. · Urged everyone to think clearly about changes. Vice Chair Wong: · The next meeting will be at the City Council chambers to introduce the model resolution on September 27th and depending on the outcome, may in the next meeting make a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Gilli: · Distributed a copy of the draft ordinance and reviewed changes and updates. The study session adjourned and resumed at the Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p,m, in the City Council chambers. Submitted by: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as Amended: October 11, 2004 f¡-rYð Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair ong, second by Com, Chen, to approve Applications 003-09, (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Saadati moved the agen a back to Item 2. 2. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Citywide Location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordipance) Continuedfrom September 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled. Mr. GilU presented the staff report: o He reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report. o Based on the presentation from the City of Palo Alto on wall plane, the Planning Commission agreed to go with that concept and remove the second story side setbacks, o He reviewed the changes to the second story area, second story side setbacks vs. two story building envelope; second story wall offsets; design review process; and guidelines in the Ordinance; as recommended by the Planning Commission, which were outlined in the table on Page 2-2 of the staff report. o Staff's recommendation is to review and comment on the draft, to take public input, and either provide direction to staff which will be incorporated into a final draft at the next meeting, or to recommend approval ofthe draft with some modifications to the City Council. Com. Miller: o Said that the surveys were included in the packet for all residents, and asked that a complete packet be made for the City Council that also includes the cuts the Planning Commission made for the people who know Rl and also for people who went to a public hearing. o In the draft itself; page 2-39; staff added a category Rl 5,000 to the ordinance; I don't believe we discussed that. Concern is that without discussion, what I wouldn't want happening is larger parcels being divided down into 5,000 square foot lots; obviously we have inherited some and they are there because we inherited them, but it is not clear without further discussion that we should be opening the door to 5,000 square foot lots. o Page 2-40, No. 3b: 50 square feet doesn't nearly cover what a stairway is going to take, and if we are going to give some allowance for stairways, we should make it more reasonable, I would suggest 100 square feet, or something higher than 50. o Page 2-41, Cl,h,: Looked at what existing houses were in town, roughly speaking 75% of the houses that exist in Cupertino, which is subjective, have the garages closer to the street than the homes, but this guideline suggests that we do the opposite. There is some inconsistency there because in other parts of the ordinance we talk about being consistent with existing neighborhoods, but here this proposal is to be doing something completely different than what is in existing neighborhoods. o Page 2-41, D Setback, side: our ordinance currently states that it has to be no less than 10 feet on one side and no less than 5 feet on the other side, and the suggestion here was we might want to allow more flexibility so that the total minimum is 15 square feet, but if for some reason there was a need for flexibility because of the particular configuration in neighboring houses to allow 7 and 8, or 6 and 9, I think that would be a reasonable addition. o Page 2-42, G. Height: I know we talked about Item 2.a.!, that is a change from what the ordinance is currently, 1 really only have a question; does that work out to a 12 foot, 12 foot at 5 feet in from the property line, are those two equivalent. g--~(c..¡( Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · This case is within 3 inches, if you do the trig, it is the closest map. Com. Miller: · Page 2-43: 4, We have had some people come, some neighbors of houses we have reviewed, with the comment that rather than see roof they would rather see a window, and that particular requirement is not always in the best interest of a pleasing design. · My comment there is perhaps we might consider making that a guideline instead of a requirement in the ordinance. · Page 2-48: (top of page, first line, re: noticing) I think at least in my view, the only plans that need to be distributed are the site plan and the elevations, we should specifically say that in the ordinance as opposed to development plans which leaves it open to possibly reproducing 12 or 15 pages of development plans, II x 17, and distributing them to a lot of people with matter that is unnecessary. · Section B.3. , Page 2-48: Concerned about the word "design". The ordinance talks about mass and bulk and this is the first instance of including design into the ordinance and ask that the word be removed. · The word has been used elsewhere, and am concerned about us getting involved in helping people design their houses too much. · Page 2-49: B.t: I am not sure how much more the color will add for the neighbors but it potentially makes it more difficult for ·applicants who might be dealing with someone who doesn't have easy access to color equipment and is at a considerable added expense, and not sure the expense is warranted. · Page 2-50, A, last sentence: Add the same clarification there of specifying which pages of the plan set they shall receive. · Exhibit E, Page 2-85: July 12, elimination of story poles: There are a number of comments; and vote indicating the Planning Commission wants to eliminate story poles, and discussion that they should not be doing that; and if all that is going to be included, I would like to include some notes that give the reason that the Planning Commission voted to remove the story poles, namely that they are expensive and of questionable use, Cupertino and Los Gatos are the only two cities that require them; so much comment in favor of keeping them, yet the vote was to eliminate them; I would like to add some comment to that side as well. · Page 2-86, August 9: comment that Corns. Miller and Wong may have misunderstood the intent, regarding incorporating key guidelines into the ordinance; said he did not misunderstand the intent at this point. · Vote remains not to do it. Com. Chen: · Page 2-40: Same question regarding the 50 square feet of bonus which was not in there before; has there been discussion about adding that in. Mr. Gilli: · June 28 - it was talked about; you were in attendance and in support of it. (Page 2-84) Com. Chen: · Said she would not want to exceed 50 feet. · Page 2-47: 19.28.075: minor residential pennits: I assumed that the definitions defined are on Page 2-88 where the flow chart is, so minor residential permits as rear yard setback reductions, 17 feet plus gable end. J-~(Y J..... Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · Those are the items in the code that say they need a minor residential permit and if it is highlighted in the code and you will only see it if you are at that section. One thing we could do is specify in the minor residential permit section also, Com Chen: · I think that would be good if we could clarify it by doing that. Page 2-48 we have small two story residential permit; do we talk about the title being small and large, or have we discussed a possible change to a different title, major or minor. Mr. Gilli: · It was presented as small and large and I noted at the study session that the commissioners may want to come up with a different name; that is just a first draft. · Major, minor, the only conflict with that is we have minor residential permits and you ate going to have a minor two story and then a major two story. Com. Chen: · Concerned about large, because large is still within the 45% FAR and all has to comply with the guidelines, regulations and don't think it is large; it seems to give the wrong perception. · It needs a titJe. · My last comment is a question also, Page 2-88, the flow chart, the Jast process regarding design review for ordinance exceptions, can we put a pubJic hearing or public meeting in the DRC box, so we know it is a public process, not within the department process. · Re: 11 x J 7 plans, agree with Com. Miller that we should specify what other charts need to be distributed; no problem with II x 17, black and white or color; the rules for two story buiJding have relaxed quite a bit and color coordination with neighbors is extremely important, not to put them in a position to decide whether or not the development should go through, but it is important to communicate with the neighbors so they understand what is coming into their neighborhood, II x 17 color would be appropriate. Com. Giefer: · AJso request one cut of the survey data we did earlier and I know Mr. Gilli: ran this and I am not sure if it was distributed to all commissioners; I would like to see the second story ratio as the answer was given by home owners in the area; I think that is a really good representation of what percentile people who are vested in our community have in terms of what they believe the correct second story ratio should be. · In that one it showed of the majority there were two times as many home owners in our community who fe1t that the second story ratio should stay 35% or lower and that was just a telling statistic to me as I was considering this because I went in thinking it didn't matter if it was 100% second story but I think the data collected was so overwhelming that we need to give it consideration and I would Jike City Council to see that data. · In the RI model, one of the things that has been bothering me through this process as we are talking about the second slory height, and that it directly hits at the mass and height of building and specifically as you get to larger lots; many of these are located at the base of the hillside at the west side of our community; the potential to build extremely large homes exists there and there is no way you can adequately screen a 15,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 square foot two story home at 50% you are going to have an extremely large home and we have a lot of people in our community who are sensitive to their protection of viewing the hillsides and I don't think they acknowledge or understand how quickly those hillsides are being bui1t up with Jarge homes, I would like to add a maximum home size in Cupertino. ~-/l{J Planning Commission Minutes 6 Seplember 27, 2004 · Thought about changing the slope trigger where it is a 15% slope, then you mandatorily have to follow the hillside regulations, but I am not sure what percent of the problem that would solve; staff may have the answer to that question. That is one approach I considered, waiting to rezone those Rl lots at the base of the hills and in the hills, but I think those properties are currently getting subdivided and sold off and I don't think we can wait for the General Plan designation to change. · If those lots are blocked by property owners in legal suits, which would be another concern, there is a lot of building and massive homes that could be built in the hillsides. I would like us to add a maximum home size under Section 19.28.060, Page 2-39; that no RI homes may exceed, and the hillside number I believe is 6500 square feet, so I would like to suggest that, regardless of the FAR within the Rllot. · I believe we need to take more of an evolutionary approach to our second story ratio and my feelings changed dramatically because of the data we collected in the survey and I think 50% just feels too revolutionary to me, because if we change the maximum second story height to 50% today, in five years I don't know what it would be, 75 or 100%. The one thing I like about the building envelope concept is as more space is put on the second story, the home gets smaller and one moves away from their property boundaries and that is a positive thing for us. I am not comfortable agreeing with 50% number to this date, and although I believe we need to show some change, we need to increase that number. It seems too large to me at this time. · Page 2-40 with the design guidelines I understand why we have changed some of the "shalls" to "shoulds" because they are perceived as guidelines and I am comfortable with most of them. The one I am not comfortable with is the ones that are regarding a three car garage; I think that if you have a three car garage that is a huge wall plane and if that is facing the street, I don't think it is appealing for the neighbors. · Either take this out of the design guidelines and add stronger language with regard to the setback for the third garage; prefer the old language that it should be a setback of at least 2 feet, and disagree that on a narrow lot you would still be allowed to have a lot less than 60 feet; it says that there should not be a three car wide garage, but feel that we should not have a three car wide garage on a lot less than 60 feet because the lot becomes primarily garage at that point and from an aesthetic point, I don't agree with that. · Page 2-47, G: Bring to staff's attention that there may be seasonality involved in replacing trees that are designated for privacy screening; some trees are just not available for transplanting all year round; I don't know how we address that. Would like to give them some opportunity to choose the tree they like, which would prevent them from replacing the tree within 30 days if the tree is not in season. I don't want it to go on indefinitely. · Page 2-48: One of the things I was looking for in reading the RI draft is language explicitly explaining that staff would be doing a review of the design. I like the idea of staff reviewing the design, I like the work design; and I feel confident that we will see more consistent improvement in both the mass and scale of homes and hopefully have better designed homes with a staff review of this. They are professionals and they can add value to the process without slowing it down, The review will be done early enough in the process so as not to increment costs at the time of structural drawings. I would like that called out more, and also just to make people aware of what the process is; and I am not sure where the right place to put it, and if it is here or earlier on in the document. . On stairwells, am comfortable with 50 square feet for stairwell allotment. . When addressing where the notices will be posted, there are a few flaws; on a flag lot, where does the notice about remodeling go; you cannot see the house from the street and there is no direct access except for the driveway to the street; and this specifically says that it needs to be posted by the sidewalk; but where, is it within 3 feet of the sidewalk? Needs to be wordsmithed for clarity; also need to say how long it is to be posted. ~-IYl-( Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 27, 2004 · Page 2-49, 0: I suggest that we send everything by first class mail and electronic mail. The reason is that if the e-mail stops moving, e-mail can be lost. If you approach it from both physical mail and a virtual mail environment, one of them is bound to go through, so I would like to have both of them sent. · I would also suggest that we have the staff review on the matrix of RI regulations, recommendations for changes, and study. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the process change is not included in this document and is only in the flow diagram, will Council understand that it is a process change. Mr. GiIli: · It will be in our presentation to them that there is a process change; it is not known whether they would be able to gather that by reading the ordinance. Com. Giefer: · It is a positive thing and adds value to the process without slowing it down or creating incremental fees. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he shared many comments made by his colleagues. · Regarding the group care activities with 6 or fewer people, asked staff to review. Mr. Gilli: · It is a change we considered minor because under conditional uses you are allowed to have group care with over 6 people, you would infer that as peffi1itted use you could have group care with under 6 people, and that is the intention in the ordinance; it is added as language. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he agreed with Com, Miller that the mlmmum size should be 5,000 square feet to accommodate some of our small lots in Monta Vista and Rancho Rinconada, but they cannot be subdivided below 6,000 square feet. One thing that makes Cupertino unique is our RI ordinance and our single family homes. · Regarding the staircase, 50 square feet is too small; want to allow more flexibility; and talking to colleagues if we could compromise some and allow perhaps 75 square feet, staff was open to a little higher, maybe 100 might be too high for some; suggesting it go to 75 square feet. · Regarding design guidelines, I like how they are incorporated into the ordinance, that it should be "should" VS. "shall", · Regarding three car garages, said he discussed it before Com. Giefer became a Commissioner, that there shouldn't be any three car garages. Said he liked what Com. Giefer said, that maybe you could include a third car as a guideline with an offset originally, but I think the three car garage should be included in here, but should be offset and should be in the guidelines. · If they are on a pie shaped lot, I agree with Com. Giefer that if you set the three car garages far back, there may be enough room to have it, so it might penalize those residents on the cuI de sac and we need to take that into consideration. · Page 2-41, H: (living area should be closer to the street, while garages set back more); a lot of our houses are older stock, ranch style houses where you have garages up front and when the people tried to remodel their homes, you might have one or two houses that have houses stick out in front and the garages are in the back. Being that one of the goals is being haffi1onious, I don't see that as being harmonious. I would rather see that as a guideline vs. in the ordinance. <;;-{ '--I) Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 27, 2004 · Page 2-41, same thing on the side setbacks for the first story; maximum of 15 feet, also want flexibility, 8 and 6 or that also. · Page 2-43, No.4: Would like to see 50% percent of the total perimeter length be a guideline also. Many people would rather see a window or some things other than seeing roof trying to cover the'mass and bulk, I agree with the principle of reducing mass and bulk, but by seeing roof, I don't think also achieves that goal either. · Page 2-44, second story setbacks: Not comfortable with 15 feet; suggest 10 feet since currently the ordinance is 5 and 10 and by making it 10 feet including the landscaping mitigation measures; would like to see it 10 feet. · Page 2-46, No. II,C: front yard tree planting: Feels 24 inch box or larger as excessive. · Page 2-48, top of page: development plans: I want to be specific, we did agree in the matrix of the Planning Commission tentative decisions that we agree that would be the site plan and elevation plan that was on Page 2-85; four commissioners agreed to that. · Page 2-48, B3: When I read the goals of the RI were to reduce mass and bulk, make the guidelines user friendly, etc., design is in the eye of the beholder and although we have a great professional staff, you can never get two architects to agree and I am not sure if I want to emphasize design; I think I want more emphasis on reducing mass and bulk. · Page 2-49, B.!.: Regarding posted notice, agree with Com. Miller that it should be black and white; should be cost effective. Agree with Com. Giefer regarding notice of action to City Council members and Planning Commissioners that if for some reason e-mail does not work, it should be sent by first class mail unless it is requested. Currently I think I am the only Planning Commissioner and none of the City Council members, everybody is receiving it through e-mail, but I do request it through first class mail, unless it is requested just bye-mail. · Commended Mr. Gilli for the excellent job of putting the Planning Commissioners' tentative decisions in a matrix which will assist the City Council and public understand that we have been at this since May 24'h and even earlier. The application actually began in 2003; we have been at this for two years. · Want to make sure this is correct, regarding August 9,2004, it was clear in my mind on how I voted, so I wanted to make that note to staff regarding incorporating the key guidelines. · Regarding story poles, I think that Coms. Giefer and Miller had some good ideas but I think that it would be easier, either to include both their comments or not include either of them and they could just read the minutes in the report. I appreciate Mr. Gilli for putting all the minutes in the report. · See not having story poles because of the safety hazard; also as an expense, staff supports eliminating story poles; there was an e-mail done to the Planning Commissioners that the Director is not really married to the story poles and I wanted that on the record as well. · Agree that we should be more specific on where the noticing should be in front; one of the big improvements about this is that notification, you go to a lot of DRC meetings, and a lot of folks just received the legal notices, but they have no clue what is going on; either they don't have time to come down to the Planning Department to see what the plans are, and having the elevation and site plan will be good. · Don't strongly believe in showing where the rooms are arid things like that because I think that is privacy concern and I think that if they are concerned, they should go down to the City Hall. · Regarding the 6,500 square foot maximum, I understand where Com. Giefer is coming from, but I see this as a private property issue that if you are lucky enough to have a very large lot that is on a flat piece of area, you should be able to build to what is in the ordinance; we did agree that regarding some areas that should be in the RHS, that should be done through the General Pl~n and those folks should be notified who might be transferred to RHS, should be notified at that time but I strongly believe that 6,500 square feet should not be the maximum. 3-(1.(0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 27, 2004 · We spent a lot of time this year discussing the second to first floor area ratio, and wanted to reiterate that I personal1y had to take a lot of compromise and want to thank staff for supporting the 50% to second first floor area ratio and also taking into consideration the second story plane. The reason I am supporting the 50% is to al10w flexibility so that you can get a master bedroom, two bedrooms upstairs. · He said that Council member Don Burnett said that they picked the 35% because at that time they were one of the first city councils to make that decision; at that time 35% sounded right and he said that things can change and he understood where it was coming from; there were some things we agreed to disagree, By doing the second story daylight plane together with the 50%, and with the design review guidelines, this will make an improved ordinance that will be user !Tiendly to the applicant as well as the staff and the Planning Commission and City Council. Com. Miller: · Relative to the chart of significant changes, one is to highlight that we are increasing the noticing significantly, because over the last couple of years if anything it has come back to us that we are not doing sufficient noticing for some of these projects. That is a significant change that I think the City Council will appreciate, · Relative to the 50% ratio for secondlfirst story, one of the things learned !Tom people who are building houses is that in many instances, people are building larger first stories than they normal1y need in order to get sufficient space on the second story, and that was in effect resulting in houses that are larger than necessary, This by increasing the second story and al10wing you to get a reasonable amount of space in terms of a three bedroom configuration is potential1y going to result in smal1er houses and less mass and bulk. Com. Giefer: · Would like to take an approach of common sense noticing; it is more applicable on some of the townhouse and condo developments; but applied here as wel1; especially in those very large lots where you can build the 30,000 square foot homes. If we took a common sense approach and started our 300 feet noticing, where the adjacent neighbor is, for example, if I live on a lot where I don't have a neighbor within 300 feet of me, let's go to the neighborhood boundary and do the 300 foot noticing from the beginning of the adjacent neighborhood, and I think that would also work with a lot of the issue that are corning up with the Rose Bowl development and the Hewlett Packard lands, and we heard this over and over again at the Crossroads. There is no neighborhood within 300 feet of that development, so if we took more of a common sense approach to this, it might help solve some of our problems. Chair Saadati: · Regarding the front elevation of the home, in the past we have discussed that the front elevation ÍfefII of the house should not be more than 50% garages; do not recall seeing that. Mr.GiIli:. · Said it is not in the ordinance or the guidelines. Chair Saadati: · If we put that in, that will take care of the garages taking over the whole house; it is one item we should emphasize. · Page 2-39 regarding the porches; somehow I wasn't sure if using unenclosed porches and patios would clearly explain what we are looking for. Is there any other way; if it is enclosed by glass, it is closed, but it can be viewed; privacy is going to be impacted. J-{l(l Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 27, 2004 Mr. GiIIi: · The standard definition of enclosed is if it has walls (glass walls included) or partial walls on three sides and a roof. Chair Saadati: · Page 2-40, C: Concur that we should change "should" to "shall" and on lots with 60 feet, with no car garages, basically you can't fit them based on the 50% rule. · Page 2-41: was hoping for a clearer definition on the garages being set back and also comments from other commissioners about some of the existing homes and garages are sitting in front of the rest of the homes and what may address the issue is the new homes be harmonious in a design compatible with others, would that override this requirement. Mr. GiIIi: · The intent of this was it is understood that the pattern is having the garage out front; that is also something we have heard is not attractive, so the idea was make a guideline that said we would like you to do this. Yes it may not be compatible but it is meant to be something that is an improvement; this would be one of those guidelines that would be very loosely enforced. Chair Saadati: · Page 2-46: The privacy and allowing the trees within three years to provide privacy; three years is a long time to look at a two story home, I have expressed concern about this in the past and still think putting a 24 inch box tree with a 6 foot high limit on it, that is too long to wait for it to mature. Perhaps we should look at this in such a way that the privacy planting shall be sufficient to provide the desired needs within two years or frosted glass or other things that we discussed. We have heard from the public that the trees are not enough. · Page 2-48: Had same concerns regarding small or large; probably should come up with a different definition; it does not accurately fit the description. · Page 2-48, No. B.3: How much will staff influence the design material because I am not necessarily looking for the adjacent house to look the same; it is good to have variety if done with taste; if the intention is to achieve that, it is fine; but not dictating to every owner who wants to build their house, how to design it. Is that going to be done through the architect's review? It is for the larger homes, Mr. Gilll: · The particular finding in question is the same present wording, so it was transferred over. The intent is we would enforce it as we are enforcing our findings now, so in cases where it would have to go to the architect's consultant, it would; in cases where it didn't, staff would do the best we can to find ways to improve the design with minor detailing and use of materials. · Said that mostly the applicant concurred with the recommendation or they have in the past. Chair Saadati: · It is fine if the intent is just to provide some guidance to the designer. Getting colored rendering is not that difficult nor expensive; everyone in their home has black and white and color printer that they can produce color prints. · Regarding hillside development, Com. Giefer brought up, I have been concerned because I am not sure if this ordinance would really increase the possibility of the homes being more visible. Going through the design process will help to make it less visible, by how the house is situated in the hillside and the way it is designed, and also the tree planting that is required, so the J-f'i r Planning CommÌssÌon Minutes 11 September 27,2004 design is a big factor in how the house is going to turn out. The size of it doesn't necessarily wi1l resolve the house that is very visible from distance looking up the hi1lside, · Noticing should be specific and the duration needs to be mentioned. · Regarding the stairway, the usual stairway is about 8 feet wide and 10 feet long; from first story to second story. If it is a single climb, it is about 4 feet wide so you can; if you put in a curved stairway, you need a lot more space. 75 feet would be a good compromise, I am willing to concur, to provide some flexibility, · Agree that first class mailing and e-mail both should be used to make sure all information is received. · The building envelope is an improvement; it provides a guideline and flexibility for people to build their homes within a given space and if they chose to build more on the second story, they push the building back, resulting in a nicer home. Vice Chair Wong: · Agree with Chair Saadati and Com. Chen that the draft language on the name "large and small" homes may not be the right name in the eye of the beholder. · Instead of having large and smaller homes, perhaps it should be two story residential homes that are under 35% and two story residential homes that are over 35%. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the definition of smaller home is under 35%. Mr. Gilli: · Yes, that is correct. Com. Giefer: · Suggested the alternative of two story residential I, and two story residential II, then you have no judgmental language; it is not confusing and not a long name. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Pleased with RI since its inception as of 1999 to 2000; it was a vast improvement over what the Rancho Rinconada community experienced under county jurisdiction prior to 1999. · Was pleased with RI when annexed into Cupertino when Rancho came in, · The current Rl has effectively solved most of the problems the Rancho community experienced prior to 1999, · At this point see no reason to change RI; it is a General Plan year and there is a tendency to change the document. · The Rl document is a strong document that deals with a lot of the problems that have plagued the residents and building problems in Cupertino. · Concern is that many of the changes proposed for Rl will have negative impact on small lots; the Rancho community is at risk. · She is a homeowner attempting to protect family investment in property. · See changes to Rl being counter-manding my property value; I think that we should keep the story poles, they work effectively in the neighborhood and some other cities require them, Increasing the second story allowance to 800 square feet would be disastrous in Rancho where most of the lots are under 6,000 square feet. · Eliminating second story setbacks would be disastrous; saw what happened prior to 1999, and invite people to come into Rancho and see what types of homes that were constructed there, t-( Lf.1 Planning Conunission Minutes 12 September 27, 2004 · I hope that everyone will see fit 10 keep R I as tight and strong and as effective as it has been; it works for me; it appeared from the survey and I was here in January of 2004 which was the first time I was aware that this document was being changed for RI, the consensus was that the neighborhood property owners did not want to change significant portions ofRI. Urged everyone to keep RI in tact as much as possible. · Mr. Dennis Whitaker, resident: · Reported that a fire occurred last July where the landlord thought there were 8 people living in the home, but there were 14 people living there; and a child died in the fire. · Expressed concern about garage conversions; noting that safeguards into garage conversions had not been mentioned. · There has been talk about decreasing the size of garages, setbacks, moving them around; but the purpose of setting limits is to make sure you have in the places and you can't stop families ITom growing but can stop additional families from moving in. · What kind of safeguards can be placed into the draft to protect against conversion of garages to increase the living space for uses other than what is originally intended. Mr. Piasecki: · Said there were parking requirements for enclosed number of parking spaces that prohibit people nom converting legally; if they convert illegally then it is on a complaint basis, staff responds to that and through code enforcement and the Building Department, we will either stop an in-progress conversion or insist that they convert it back when it comes to our attention. · No additional verbiage is needed in the ordinance to prohibit garage conversions. Leslie Burnell, Hollyoak Drive: · Was present at all the Rlmeetings several years ago and is familiar with the issue. · Like the idea that Com, Giefer said to make it evolutionary, don't make it a big jump. He said while Vice Chair Wong is correct about 50%, but a 15% increase on 35% is really a 43% increase in the size of the upper story. It is not a 15% increase on the size of the upper story, because if the upper story is 35% now, you add 15%, resulting in a 43% increase in the size of the upper story, which is large, · Historically, former Commissioner Orrin Mahoney was responsible for arriving at the calculation of 35%. · Said the story poles were evolutionary; he went and took photos in Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and said they modeled the best way for people to see things, as proven by the Crossroads. At the Crossroads, the only buildings that showed were the new ones and not the old Apple building so people got a misinterpretation, but having pictures out front, the average person does not understand and can't read them correctly. The story poles do cost money but they are an excellent idea, Before you say no to them, talk to the people in Los Altos and why they still have them. · Reiterated that the second story size was being increased 43%, not 15%. Vice Chair Wong: (Directed to Mr. Burnell) . Said he asked Mr. Mahoney the same question about the 35% and would check with him one more time; he recalled Mr. Mahoney believed that the Planning Commission came up with 35%; it wasn't for the first story, but for the whole two story home. ð-- -¡SlY Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 27, 2004 Com. Miller: · Said he had a long conversation with Mr, Mahoney about this; what he originally intended what that it be 35% of the total building square footage, and if calculated would come up to be roughly 50% of the fIrst story. Mr, Burnell: · Said that 50% was incorrect; it was 43% and explained the calculation. · He reiterated that the increase ofthe second story was 43% larger than it is now, Chair Saadati: · Said a simple way of looking at it, now maximum second story 600, changing it to 800, the difference being 200, which is approximately 30%, Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chair Saadati declared a short recess. Mr. Gilli summarized earlier concerns: · ClarifIed earlier concerns of Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller relative to the issue of the RI- 5 zone, Page 2-39 ofthe staff report. · It is included because there is an RI-5 area which is Rancho Rinconada and it recognizes the fact they exist. You cannot rezone an RI-IO to an RI-5 and then subdivide; the RI-5 has a density of slightly over 5 units per gross acre, whereas the rest of RI has a density of under 5 units an acre; so you actually cannot rezone from RI-6 and above to RI-5, without changing the General Plan. The notation is just recognizing we have a neighborhood that is RI-5; in that zoning category its lot area is 5,000 square feet. Vice Chair Wong and Com, Miller: · Said the clarifIcation answered their concerns, Mr. Gilli: · On stairway bonus, there were two for 50, two for 100, but the 100 said they would consider 75 which the Chair specifIed, Are there three Commissioners comfortable with having the stairway bonus being 75 square feet. Com. Miller and Vice Chair Wong: · Said they would go with 75, and Vice Chair Wong thanked the Chair for compromising. Com. Giefer: · Recommended minor word change on Page 2-46: Under E: "the covenant.,.." Change "new" to "all" because there may be existing privacy plantings that would not be recorded unless we say "all", Mr. Gilli: · Relative to the issue of side setbacks, currently 5 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other; two commissioners brought up the concept of can it be changed so that it adds up to 15; so that you can have a situation where it is 9 and 6 or 8 and 7; most of the properties zoned or annexed from the City of San Jose after 1979 were built such that they don't meet our 5 and 10 and they have an existing situation of 8 and 7 and so on; so those cases are treated as legal non-conforming and have to go tluough the permitted yard encroachment rules. If change is ~---{Jf Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 27,2004 made, staff would suggest the minimum always be 5 and the other side be 10, but if they want to make their small side 7, they can make the other side 8. Staff is neutral; except that there are people on the larger lots who expect that one of the sides is going to be 10 feet; beyond that it is not a maj or change. · Asked for input on three commissioners who had not previously commented. · History of 5 and 10: Said the neighborhoods historically that were developed in Cupertino, had lot sizes of minimum 7,500 square feet and many 10,000 square feet; with those larger lots they were generally wider and when it was decided what the setback would be,S and 5 was not enough, and they decided that one side should be at least 10, with the smallest side allowed to be 5. It may still hold true on the larger lots, but on the smaller lots brought in from San Jose, the RI-6, RI-7.5s those do not necessarily work as well. Com. Chen: · No preference; IS feet is appropriate. Com. Giefer: · No strong feelings but to get any heavy equipment into your back yard to do construction or excavation or yard re-landscaping, you need to have a minimum of space to get back there; which is the only reason to keep 5 and 10 if possible. · I don't know if there are safety issues regarding the fire department. Mr,Gilli: · Said the fire department would likely prefer more clearance, Some neighborhoods, most of Rancho has setbacks of 5 feet on both sides, and there are small lot areas in neighboring cities that have 5 and 5; it may just be an issue for the Commission that do you think the larger lots should have a larger setback or can it be averaged out. Com. Giefer: · Before going with a split the difference approach, would need to give it more consideration than has been given. Vice Chair Wong: · The Planning Commission voted recently on Santa Clara Avenue, that one minimum had to be 5 feet and when it came to the DRC, the other size was only 3.5 feet, so I can see where you are coming from, but it would be dependent on the situation. We have approved something that one side was only 5 feet and the other side was less than 5 feet. Chair Saadati: · My position is we could have minimum 5 feet and flexibility would be good. Also the neighbors have a right to come and speak as long as neighbors do not object to it; it is good to have flexibility like 6 and 9, but this does not include the fireplaces that could encroach into the space, Mr. Gilli: · Two things, the change discussed would affect single story houses that won't have any type of review, so one neighbor wouldn't have input. · On the issue of the fireplace, the fireplace is allowed to encroach 2 feet into a setback, as long as it is no closer than 3 feel and that is regardless if it is on the 5 foot side or the 10 foot side, 't~l)' .L Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 27, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Put the flexibility in as long as the neighbors have no objection or their input is received. Mr,Gilli: · The only way to do that is require a minor residential permit for anybody who wants to use that amount of flexibility; that is the only way to get the neighbor input. Chair Saadati: · How many projects in the past have corne and requested to have different setback than what is in the ordinance, Mr. Gilli: · As the rules are now, there are not many applications for smaller size setbacks; if they have an existing house that is non-conforming, they have a rule that allows them to extend a wall so that normally takes care of one side, and the other side meets the 5 foot setback. We haven't seen this in the case of a new house being built, the old house being tom down, everybody has met the 5 and 10; they choose which side will be the 10 feet based on their preference. Chair Saadati: . · It is easier because they don't have to consider too many options, they just do it. If that has worked in the past, we should keep it and they can ask for an exemption and it would corne to the DRC. · Supports minimum 5 feet on one side, splitting the difference, (Total of 15 feet for both sides) Com. Chen: · Said she would agree with 5 and 10, with one side not less than 5 feet. Mr. Gilli: · Relative to the issue of plan sets, the Commission was clear they didn't want the floor plans; the reason that wasn't specifically put in the ordinance is because there are certain things that may change over time, we may learn that people want the floor plans and they may not have an issue with it, there is a point to how much detail you put in the ordinance; this was one section to leave flexible so that as conunissions and councils change, the ordinance would not have to be amended to say that the floor plan is included now or isn't included. Our intention is to implement it as the Commission stated, but not have it specifically spelled out in the code, · Three or four. conunissioners indicated you did want specification as to which of the plan sheets are to go to a neighbor in the code. Do all still want that. Vice Chair Wong: · Referred to Page 2-85 on the matrix for sununary of decision on floor plans. · Justified his reason for not putting floor plans in is that not only will they get a legal notice, they also get a rendering; they will see the elevations and by using conunon sense they can tell if the windows are a little smaller on the second story, it's likely is a bathroom; if it a little bigger, mostly likely it is a bedroom on the second story, If they want more information, they should go to the Planning Department and get more information. Com. Giefer: · Asked if the information mailed would indicate to the adjacent neighbors in the noticing that further information and the floor plan is available at the Planning Department. f-153 Planning Commission Minutes 16 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · Would state that the complete set is available; I don't think we would spell out that the floor plan is. Com. Giefer: · I think if we said it in common terms that the layman would understand and spell out what plans and permits are available for public review in the Planning Department, it may eliminate the need for an extensive amount of information mailed, but I do think that there is merit to providing the floor plans for neighbors because it may make a difference if a bonus room upstairs or media room upstairs was overlooking your bedroom, where potentially people will be making a lot of noise or looking down into a bedroom in your single story home, Chair Saadati: · My view is as long as the neighbors get the site plan that shows what is on the first and second floor in general, and they are informed that the plans are available for their review, that should be sufficient. The neighbors who are very concerned will usually go to the Planning Department and look at it. Mr. Gilli: · That is how it would be implemented. The issue is whether or not you want to spell out in the ordinance which sheets are included and which are not; it also hurts you in cases where it is a unique case that an additional sheet of a section drawing of the site could be useful if you were limiting it to just the site plan. and just the elevations, There are enough reasons in our mind that you shouldn't be explicit but if the Council agrees with the Commission that it doesn't need the floor plans, that is how it is going to be implemented. · What we are asking is don't spell it out so that we have to amend the ordinance if the Council or Commission in a year says floor plans shall be included. Ms. Wordell: · Suggested some wording that could cover both bases, such as "would include plan sets, normally consisting of elevations and site plan" and then if the occasion arose where you felt, or the applicant wanted the floor plan to go out, it still would be possible. Chair Saadati: · That would be appropriate, the main thing is the elevation that each neighbor wants to see how it is going to look from their house, Com. Chen: · Said she agreed, for the purpose of notifying neighbors, I think this said is enough, just to let people know there is a new development going in and what it looks like. · Supports eliminating the story poles, but feel it is helpful information to have the storyboard ready to help neighbors understand how this new development will be like in relation in terms of height, look with neighbors. Questioned if it should be a requirement in the ordinance, Mr. Gilli: · As the rules are now, these kinds of things are not listed in the ordinance; there is no requirement in the ordinance that you have to do a storyboard; it is a requirement in the application and that goes to the argument of not tying yourself down so much so that if you do want a storyboard, you can still have it required in the application or if you don't, then you don't have it required because it is spelled out in the ordinance. 'o-{ j(1 Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 27, 2004 · We can still do that, and have it required of the applicant, but it really doesn't need to be in the ordinance, Com. Chen: · Following Mr. Gilli's explanation, concurred that the storyboard should be part of the application for the applicant to prepare, and not included in the ordinance. Mr.GiIli · Asked if there was a majority of the group that accepts the general language that the plan sets will nonnally include a site and elevation plan, and other plans as deemed needed on a case by case basis. The intention is not to have floor plans. The majority agreed with Mr. GiIl!'s proposal. Mr,GiIli: · Is there agreement on the naming of the two story processes, instead of "small" and "large" name it "two story residential permit F' and "two story residential permit IF' or is there another tenn that is more appropriate. The majority agreed to the suggested new titles. Mr,Gilli: · All comments about wanting additional infonnation to go to City Council will be incorporated into their packets · Remaining question is would the Commission prefer to have the changes made in the draft and brought back to the next meeting" or have them incorporated and sent to the Council? Vice Chair Wong: · Page 2-43: overlap of the roofto disguise wall heights.., could colleagues comment ifit could be made into a guideline, Mr. Gilli: · Explained that it was the regulation that calls for 50% of the perimeter of the second story to have wall heights of a certain height and a certain offset. This has not been discussed because it was left out of the scope of work and not known if the Council intended it not to be touched or it was an oversight. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he was bringing it up because he was using Mann Drive as an example, and the City Council set a precedent, or just changed it. It can done either through a window or through architectural design. Another example on the DRC is that there was a turret on Tantau across from the elementary school and it was a nice tower element that they used a staircase inside and draped that tower case with a rooflike skirt. · Said he felt the element was a nice element and it should stand out and they had the roof covering it. There are other cases that half the roof covers half the building and for design wise I know that Com. Chen thinks highly of design that maybe using the roof to cover it may not be the best way to have a good design. · I also look at it as a design standpoint as well and would rather have it implemented as a guideline. 1f-()j~ Planning Commission Minutes 18 September 27, 2004 Com. Miller: · Also spoke to this point and agree. Vice Chair Wong: · No wording change, it is a good language; just as a guidelines. Mr. Gilli: · It was part of the ordinance in 1999. Com. Chen: · Since it is not part of the scope of work, I would just leave it. Com. Giefer: · Concurs with Com. Chen that because it was not part of the scope of work, I would leave it. · Said she appreciated what Vice Chair Wong said about the design element, and as long as we have staff reviewing the design, if the design merits it, then a Director's minor modification can be made to let the design stand and that is one of the advantages of having the staffreview. Vice Chair Wong: · If we had a DRC because it was staff s recommendation to have the skirt around the turret, it was the DRC that ruled differently, so that it will not come to the attention of the Planning Commission unless the applicant wants to appeal the case. Time is money; there is one instance of an emergency meeting for the DRC last Friday and the applicant was honest that the setback was not done correctly so they had to do a modification vs. the next door neighbor did not bring it to staff S attention. Once something is set, it is hard for them to ask for a change or ask for another public hearing, so hopefully someone will reconsider. Mr. Gilli: · It is one of the more difficult rules, If you look at what it is trying to achieve, it is not possible to simplifY it; it is calling for the second story wall over a portion of the house, over half of the elevation to be pushed back from the first story wall and then to have a roof. In the cases that Com. Wong cited, that didn't have anything to do with this rule; Mann Drive was not asking for an exception to this rule and in the case with the turret, it was a judgment that the mask could use the breakup, but it wasn't to address this rule either, because the turret is straight up and there is no offset. · If the Commission is split on this, one idea that is in the middle would be that allow exceptions to this rule without going through the full exception process; if there is a case where, the design doesn't need it, that the design has mass bulk that is reasonably compatible with the neighborhood, staff has no problems with it, the neighbors have no problem with it, let this be one of the things that avoids having to go through the public hearing and pay the extra fee and have this also be an exception that the director can approve; that allows flexibility but also lets the neighbors have a voice if they like the concept. Chair Saadati: · Having the second level set back, this is similar to some guidelines or ordinances which other cities have in place, ¡'rS'fr, Planning Commission Minutes 19 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · It is, except this talks specifically about the portion of the second floor that has to have it: it goes a litile further; a lot of cities will say your second story needs to be set back a little bit, but it won't say half of the perimeter. · It was part of the 1999 amendment; the second story wall offsets and the size of the second story were the three main regulations added in 1999. Chair Saadati: · Leaving it in with allowing exception that you mentioned that will give some flexibility. Mr. GilIi: · It would have to add a section to the exception language to say there is one particular case that the Director can approve an exception, where all the other exceptions will be at the DRC with hearings; and we would also have language at the regulation that says you can ask for an exception according to this rule. Com. Miller: · Both ways would achieve the same thing; the only comment I would have is the way the staff is suggesting, is a little more complex, by moving it to a guidelines we are not really changing the requirement because everything goes through staff and you are going to review it in that regard. It does allow the flexibility for an application like the one with the turret that it doesn't require an exception and you are proposing some other way of doing it; my comment it is more straight forward to move it to a guideline, What you are proposing will work as well. Mr. Gilli: · The only caveat about moving it to a guideline is this will be the only guideline that is specific, all the other guidelines are general, like we move the wall offset to guidelines but we didn't keep the exact language, we just said you should have articulation on the second story wall. If we had that amount of specific language it would be awkward with the general comments. Com. Giefer: · Couldn't we leave it to the interpretation of the Planning Director 19.28.130 because he has the discretion to interpret. Mr,GilIi: · Yes, that is in a case where there is a gray area where the rule isn't explicitly clear; in this case we can calculate out whether it meets this or not, and it's not a matter of us not being sure. Vice Chair Wong: · Want to ask about the implementations that, if we put it through DRC, it would be better since what with the turret idea, since staff already supported putting the roof around it, maybe it should go to DRC vs. the Director. Mr. Gilli: · That is possible, except as I said that turret was not implementing this rule, because this rule talks about there is an offset between the first and second story, and that turret it went straight up. We just added a band; that roof overhang was not this rule. They met this rule either with that band or without it; they still met it. B-1S) Planning Commission Minutes 20 September 27, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · But staff recommended that they should have it; staff implemented the recommendation; there is no third party like the Planning Commission; I think that it makes the process simpler but then there is no oversight from the Planning Commission and that is what my concern is. Chair Saadati: · How does that differ from making it the guidelines, Vice Chair Wong: · Is that it is "should" vs. "shall" since it is in the ordinance. Chair Saadati: · It is "shall" but if you add the allowance for exception it goes through the Director. Vice Chair Wong: · Which we will work out; I am open to that; what would be better is to go to the DRC for the exception. Mr,Gilli: · As the code is now, if they didn't meet that rule, they would file for an exception and go to the committee, so the idea was making something in the middle that was cheaper, quicker. · In the case of the roof element on the tower, it was a recommendation of our architectural consultant that it broke up the mass 'of the tower, and the applicant did not indicate to us that they had a problem with that; so had they indicated they did not want it, it may not have ended up as it was presented. Vice Chair Wong: · Said when people come to the DRC, he asks them what they want; sometimes feel that they are not communicating with staff based on the fear of not having the application passed. Then look at the ordinance to see if there is some flexibility, · Asked if the current way it is, if they oppose it, it goes to DRC, Mr,Gilli: · Currently, because it is a regulation, if they don't meet it, it would be an exception and they would go to the DRC. Vice Chair Wong: · If the exception goes to the Director, that is fine with me. Chair Saadati: · Does the majority concur? Response: · Yes. There was consensns that the ordinance return to the Planning Commission at the next meeting, f-rs--r Planning Commission Minutes 21 September 27, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Asked for clarification on the three car garages. Mr. Gilli: · There were some people who said it should be guidelines, that it should be a regulation, but there weren't enough people who said one way or the other to change what the language is in the draft. · There was not a majority on any issue regarding garages. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he believed the three car garages should be a guideline; agree with Com. Giefer that the third car should be offset currently as stated in the current ordinance, · Believe that we should take into consideration applicants who are in cuI de sacs. Com. Giefer: · Prefer the language that Chair Saadati recommended; it is a simpler way to solve the issue, that no more than 50% of the street facing the plane could be garages; also feel that rather than a design guideline, the inset of a third garage if it works measurably, should be mandatory, not just a guideline, · The 50% rule mitigates the impact of the plane. Com. Chen: · Agrees with Com. Giefer, the 50% rule is easy to understand. · The third garage should be recessed. Com, Miller: · Where are we implementing the 50% from; the face ofthe house or the street? Chair Saadati: · The elevation; when you look at the front of the house, you don't want to see more than 50% garage. Com. Miller: · That is a good question; so if it is a 50 foot wide lot and there is 5 feet on each side, that leaves 40 feet and a garage would nonnally take 20 feet; it would meet the 50 foot rule. Mr. GiIli: · Staff recommends it be made a guideline because there will be cases where it may be 55, but it is all they could reasonably do on the lot to get a 2 Car garage. Com. Miller: · Prefer staff suggestion of a guideline. Com. Giefer: · Asked if there was agreement on a third garage having a mandatory inset; as opposed to being in the same plane even if it meets the 50% rule, just to break it up. õ -( )7 Planning Commission Minutes 22 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · As it is now, having a 2 foot offset on the third car garage is in the guidelines; what Corn. Giefer is saying is make that a required ordinance requirement that if you have a three car garage, the third one has to be minimum of 2 feet. Com. Miller: · I agree that in general three car garage across doesn't look that attractive; only concern is we are talking about flexibility and there might be an instance where that is the only way to do it. Chair Saadati: · Said that they could apply for an exception. Com, Miller: · Said it was a minor point, and would agree with the other commissioners. Chair Saadati: · Said his position remained the same. Com. Giefer: · Said she would e-mail minor grammatical changes. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application MCA-2003-02 to the next Planning Com ssion meeting. Vote 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMIS Environmental Review Committee: · Com. Chen reported that the meetin HOllsin!! Commission: · Com, Giefer reported that the eeting was postponed and cancelled. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!!: Com. Giefer reported: · Mayor updated the ot r Commissions on the Rose Bowl development and part of the delay with some of the approval for theater are because Penneys and Sears would like improvements, and re working with their management to get those. · All revisions oft General Plan Task Force are in one place and they have added a Hot Topic section, which 11 also be on the city website. · The status of e three initiatives by the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino is it is currently looking as tough is going to be a special election in February and the cost to the city is $371,000 r that ballot initiative. The Chamber of Commerce is opposing those particular initiative nd trying to organize some response to them, · The Lib ary is opening October 30th with a street faire on Torre Avenue; they need to raise $1.2 . lion in funding to pay for library furniture and other items. ?-r~o Planning Commission Minutes 2 October )1, 2004 Minntes of the September 27,2004 Planning Comm' sion meeting: Com. Chen: Page 1, Roll Call: Second refer ce to "Gilbert Wong" shonld read "Angela Chen" Chair Saadati: Page 9, 4th bullet from ottom of page: delete "elevation front" and replace with "front elevation" Com. Giefer: Page 7, first line: In rt "I" before "suggest" Motion: Motion by V' e Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the September 2 , 2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMU would be discussed und ATIONS: Chair Saadati reported that an e-mail was received and Old Business: Planning Commission Procedures For Public Hearing. POSTPONEMEN SfREMOV AI. FROM CALENDAR: None None 1. MCA2003-02 (EA-2002-19) City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Continued/rom September 27,2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled. Mr. Peter GiIIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reported that the staff report contains version 2 of the model ordinance based on comments from the last meeting. · Page 6, highlighted the new language; the first part is that the combination of the two side yard setbacks are going to add up to 15 feet, as was agreed upon at the last meeting. The second part at the end of the page refers to certain cases where property may have more than two side lot lines and may be an odd shape; the last part states that whatever setback is used on one side, has to be used on all the sides between the front and the rear. · Reviewed other modifications staff recommended to clean up the ordinance: Page 18: Rl-e ordinance Eichler zone; there is a section that is deleted because it talks about wall offsets not being required in Rl-e there will not be wall offsets, so you don't need that language. What was added was referring to the visible wall height regulation as a guideline in the RI-e district and that is because the roof pitches in the Eichler zone are going to be so low that it is going to be hard to meet that rule. It is recommended to save the guidelines so it is enforced as a regulation. Another option could be because it is so unlikely that you will be unable to meet this rule in the Eichler zone that it could be waived. · Page 19, Section J: is rewording; the intent is not to change anything in the existing wording, but to clean it up; this is for the RI-a zone, which is the Lynwood Acres neighborhood; they '5-/{;/ Planning Commission Minutes 3 October II, 2004 have a requirement that all two story development has to be approved by the DRC so all that is changed is the reference to the section and the reference to the finding. · Page 21: There is a large section at the end that is crossed out, staff is recommending that it be removed because the RI noticing procedure matches what the Lynwood Acres neighborhood agreed to, there is no need to have the language in there; it is repetitive. With that unless there are other things that staff missed, based on the last meeting, staff is recommending that the Commission recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and the model resolution based on the latest version of Exhibit I. Com. Miller: · Asked staff to clarify Page 1-7, 19.28.060 under b, floor area ratio, Item No.3. Mr. Gilli: · An interior area that has a height of 16 feet and that is floor to roof rafters, is counted as floor area; if it is a two story house it is counted as second story area; if it is a one story house, it is counted as first story area. If it is a one story house, it is counted twice, but not counted as a second story addition. If there is already a second floor, that is already a floor that has been counted. Com. Miller: · Under design guidelines, the design guidelines were put into the ordinance, there is a minor conflict in terminology; he asked staff to clarify. · Page 1-4, Purpose, No. C, and Page 1-7, Design Guidelines la.; Page 1-15, 19.28.075, B3, there are three different ways of describing this; he suggested reducing it to one way; preference "that it is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" and dispense with the details shown in Section 19.28,060c which goes into a lot more detail. · Said to him harmonious means that you can have different kinds of construction or forms but they give a pleasing effect; and his preference is that they leave it and take words such as "compatible" and getting into the details of eave heights which has created a lot of discussion in terms of whether it should be II feet or 12 feet or something of that nature; and this kind of change would give more flexibiJity, · Noted that on the matrix, although four commissioners voted to eliminate story poles, the wording in the boxes suggest story poles; the wording spends more time on the minority opinion rather than the majority opinion. He suggested that the wording be changed to reflect his comments in the minutes of the last meeting. Com. Giefer: · Said it is not clearly discussed when a variance is needed; asked if it should be added, or because as an example, if someone wants to go over 45% FAR, and it is allowed for whatever reason, that requires a variance. · Said she did not see the language that talked about that trigger, and questioned if it should be added or was it covered somewhere else, Mr. GiIli: · At this point the ordinance treats a house that is over 45% as a house that doesn't meet a setback; it is just an exception process. In order to do that, the variance process would have to explicitly state that exceptions don't apply to a particular rule and that a variance is necessary. 8~fb2.. Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 11,2004 Com, Giefer: · Would that be one currently that we would provide and ask someone to get a variance for if we did allow them to go over 45%. Mr. Gilli: · Currently the process for going over 45% is the same as the process for having a larger second story; it is just an exception. Com. Giefer: · Referred to Page 14, 19.28.076, Section B regarding noticing, and said there was no reference to the notification by both first class mail and e-mail, which was agreed to. Mr,Gilli: · Explained that when people are notified of a proposed project, staff doesn't always have their e-mail addresses at that point; the concept is when they are mailing the notice out saying that there is a project, it would only be by first class mail. Later, Section D, Notice of Action states that the people willbe notified by first class mail and e-mail, if they have provided their e-mail address. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked how the implementation of the boards used for posting the second story would be handled. He noted that the City of Palo Alto rents the boards out to property owners if needed, Mr. GiIli: · Referred to the Randy Lane property owner who put up a notice board; and said the property owner was able to locate a board and post the materials without too much trouble. · Said at this point, he did not think that the city would provide them; but if problems occurred, they could consider doing it without having it included in the ordinance. Vice Chair Wong: · Regarding design review guidelines, Mr. Piasecki mentioned that we might still need prescriptive descriptions, pictures or will they be needed at all. Mr. GiIli: · For the concept of graphical representations of all these rules, the plan is we will try to make as many of them as possible, they will be included in the handout, but we will not make it part of the actual ordinance. Vice Chair Wong: · Agreed, and asked that when it is made into a handout, that the Planning Commission review that as policy. Mr. GiIli: . Explained the appeal process: Using the two story residential permit as an example, Section D, Page 15, is the notice of action, which states that everybody participating is going to be notified; any interested party may appeal except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. ¡-- f'" j Planning Commission Minutes 5 October II, 2004 · The appeals process for minor residential pennits, has the same language except it is C instead of D, but with the same paragraph. The final appeal will be the Planning Commission. · The flow chart can be included in the application fonn. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Said she was surprised at the number of proposed changes for Rl because of the size of the document and the number of strikeouts and replacement of text, which is a compilation of the last four months. · Cautioned that Rl is a fine document as it stands, and sees no reason to change it. · Believes that the retention of story poles, as evidenced by public input the last several weeks, is very important. · Opposed to increasing the proposed second story to 800 square feet; if it is being proposed she asked that there be an addition to that statement in the Rl document stating that for R5000 properties, it be kept at 600 square feet because of the negative impact to the neighborhood with the very small lots. The sensitivity should be kept for the neighborhood. · The 800 square feet is a very large second story and does not work well in some neighborhoods in Cupertino. · The second story setbacks should be retained, and if the documents are trimmed, there should be strong adequate wording in the document to protect what has been kept by the current R I document since 2000. · Suggested that different colored documents be sent out when they are noticing residents; she noted that the County sends out different colored ones. · Keep the RI in tact. Mark Burns, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors: · Said they were working hard on "reasonably compatible and hannonious" but emphasized that they were trying to make these neighborhoods great for everyone and there is a tight set of rules for Rl now; making it hard for both homeowners and families here and developers to try to improve the neighborhoods. · When we talk about reasonably compatible, sometimes reasonably compatible means keeping the neighborhood with the same 50 year old style without a lot of modem upgrades, and I am sure a lot of people would like to see their neighborhoods improve; because neighborhoods go through cycles and they generally improve most of the time, sometimes there are declines but you would like to see them improve so I would like to emphasize that we don't necessarily keep some neighborhoods where they are, instead we allow homeowners more room to improve the neighborhoods, improve the way the homes look. There are a lot of families who would like to do something better to their house when they have an opportunity. · Said in his opinion, the RI rule presently is not a 35/65 rule where 35% upstairs and 65% downstairs; it is a 75/25 rule; 75% downstairs and 25% upstairs; it is simple to work out because the way the RI is written it says that the upstairs can only be 35% of the size of the downstairs. With simple algebra, it pencils out to 74.9 and 25.1 %, resulting in a likeness of a small head on a large body. Also, unless you have a large lot of 10,000 square feet or more, it requires when you rebuild a house or build a new house, that you have an upstairs with either a very nice large master bedroom, or perhaps one or two small bedrooms, but not a master bedroom and two bedrooms for children. This is not conducive to family living; people would like to have their children on the same floor and we see a lot of that going on, there is more t-/~ "1 Planning Commission Minutes 6 October II, 2004 and more demand for family housing so the family can be together and not have one master suite upstairs and the remainder of the bedrooms downstairs. · He suggested the Planning Commission refer to the tapes of the meetings where fonner Com. Mahoney said 6 or 7 years ago, thai it needs to be 35% total FAR upstairs and 65% total downstairs, which would give the right ratios to build reasonably proportionate houses that are attractive and not something that only a \I, of it is upstairs and % downstairs, with the pinhead on the large body. That would make a great difference in improving the quality of the neighborhoods, the way the neighborhoods look, and give builders the freedom to build the houses that buyers are demanding in Cupertino. Kwon-Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive: · Supports the changes to the ordinance. · Changes are a step in the right direction; the old ordinance was too restrictive particularly on the setback requirement and also the flexibility in the design. · In the last meeting Corns. Miller and Wong recommended that for the level II large home the prospective rendering be black and white; said he did not think there were any changes to the proposal and wanted the commissioners to reconsider that to change the rendering to black and white. · Said he visited Randy Lane and the posted hand drawn renderings clearly indicated what the house would look; and he did not feel that a colored rendering would give any additional infonnation but would incur additional headaches for the homeowner. · Asked if the property owner could change the color choice once it is posted; and whether or not the owner would have to go to another hearing to get the color approved, · Urged the commissioners to reconsider that. Mr. Gilli: · Clarified that the issues of colors and materials are part of what is reviewed at the DRC at this time, and would still be reviewed if they go to a new process. · He said that going from a light gray to a darker gray would not be a problem; but changing from a light gray to a bright orange could require that the approval be amended. Having the color on the board unless there is some evidence that it is a significant cost, according to an architect consulted, would be an insignificant amount. Unless there is infonnation that it is costly, the addition of color only adds to the effective noticing and it is not going to tie them 100%; it would take an extreme change in order to have to amend the approval. Yvoune Hampton, Oakview Lane: · Expressed concern about color control from the city. · Said her home is painted a giddy yellow color and although some neighbors snickered, laughed and asked questions about their choice of color, they painted it in their choice of color and feel that the city should not decide what color a homeowner can paint their own home as they are not a gated community. · If the city keeps itself flexible in its plans and directives to homeowners, they are less likely to get entangled in issues such as the present one. · They have gone through changes in their home and have become an extended family living together, but have had the capacity to add onto their home and it has worked out well for them. · Many of the old homes are not big homes; people want bigger homes and as a speaker pointed out, when you have spent a lot of money to move into this area, and you have a home 50 years old, you should be able to make the necessary changes. · Under the present regulations, their home would not be compatible with present family needs. ð-! ~5 Planning Commission Minutes 7 October II, 2004 o It is wise for a city to look to the future with understanding of the past so that someone doesn't put a space age home in the middle of a rustic neighborhood; that is the purpose of guidelines. o Make sure we are friendly to each other but not forced to put on a 35% upstairs when we really need 3 bedrooms and a master bedroom to support our family. Roy Hampton: o Supports the proposed changes. One concern is that the RI-a is specifically for Lynwood; asked if it could be applied to other areas such as Monta Vista because his lot is 10,000 square feet, but he would not want to be in an RI-a category, o Said the flexibility is good; and commented that the more you expand on the first floor, in his case they do have opportunity to expand on their first floor and not violate the lot requirements, but it would be better if they could expand more on the second floor, still respecting their neighbors and save more of their lot and their trees, since they have many trees on their lot. o The more you force the ratio to be bigger on the bottom and smal1er on the top, the more you force the homeowner into taking down trees and shrubs and things that are existing on some of the larger lots such as theirs. o Said he concurred with his wife's other comments also. Mr. Gilli: o Said that R l-a is not going to be applied to any neighborhood that does not come forward and ask for it; it is not an issue for a large lot, it wil1 be in that zone, o If the home is in the Rl zone now, it will stay there unless a long process is undertaken, Rhoda Fry, San Fernando Ave.: o Said she would like the Planning Commission to be more empowered to encourage outstanding architecture in Cupertino and do design reviews for al1 second story homes; preferably al1 homes. o Said she was in favor of story poles, and provided costs of story poles in different cities, stating that the costs were minimal costs for a project running between $700,000 and $1.5 mil1ion, and also something that wil1last for generations and is going to impact the look and feel of the city. o Why is it that other cities have attractive architecture and Cupertino does not? From what I can tell, the current rules allow the property owner to build a small second story without a design review, which means you can build something pear shaped without a design review or pinhead or all these other descriptions, without adhering to anything that I have seen that resemble great American architecture such as Greek revival, Victorian and craftsman homes. Design reviews may take more time, but I think it is more than worthwhile because it will shape the look for our city and generations to come. o Please toss out the percent rules and do more design reviews. Susan Louie, Woodbury Drive: o Supports not requiring the residents to put up story poles when they have additions because they are dangerous b<;cause they stay on top of the roof and may cause leakage. o Some people may feel that $3,000 to $5,000 for story poles is a rraction of the budget, but it is part of someone's limited budget; therefore the city moving to use a board to display the actual look of the house instead of story poles would make it easier to envision what the house would look like, since the location of the windows, number of stories, etc. would be visible. Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 8--1 &~ Planning Commission Minutes 8 October II, 2004 Com. Chen: · Said in the past months they have worked hard with extra study sessions to come up with this rule, and she appreciates the public input; it is divided into two parts and some people want the rules to be more restrictive, and some want them to be more relaxed for different reasons. · The Planning Commission's role is to create a vision based on the need of the community and also to try to protect the homeowners and property owners as well. · The efforts that staff and the commissioners put in and the public input provided has helped create this set of rules that is much more relaxed than before; it provides the flexibility for a reasonably good design and also protects the neighborhood for other property owners who want to maintain the city in a different look. · She thanked everyone for helping develop the RI ordinance, and staff particularly for working so hard in the past few months to develop this rule, She said she supported the Rl ordinance change; and will make the recommendation to City Council and hopes for support from al1 the commissIoners. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, to approve tbe negative declaration and model resolution, Com. Giefer: · Reiterated her concern that throughout the process there was limited public input. · Said this meeting was one of the better attended meetings; the meetings were wel1 attended at kickoff; then the community survey was done asking what people thought of the current second story to first story ratio, She said she was aware that she was the only commissioner who was still concerned about that, but it is because of the lack of data and the lack of input. · Suggested that they separate the second story ratio; and stated for the record her concern. · Said she supported the document and agreed with Com, Chen; they have done a lot of work; there are many good things in the new Rl, but reiterated her concern about the lack of public input in general; and the one data point trom a large majority of residents indicates that they don't favor increasing the second story ratio. · She agreed that they have to show vision and leadership within the community. Com. Miller: · Former Commissioner Mahoney originally intended when he was on the Planning Commission, that the second story would be up to 50% of the first story, which gives you the 1/3 - 2/3 ratio that Mark Bums talked about; and also by using the daylight plane that Palo Alto uses, it allows further flexibility in terms of designing of that second story and how the ratios of the first story and the second story fit together. · Said he felt they have added a lot of flexibility, and will hopefully eliminate the need 10 make an unusually large firsl story in order to get a decent amount of space to have living on the second story. · He noted there were some incompatibilities in the wording of the text, and opted for one that gives more flexibility to al10w for, as a number of speakers said, changing neighborhoods or what could be cal1ed transitional neighborhoods, where the houses are reaching the end of their useful life and it makes sense to rebuild them. · He said the last thing they would we want to do is to force the people who are rebuilding to match something that was done 50 years ago. He said he felt the language in one part of the document where it talks about harmonious scale and design was a lot more open and flexible than some of the other areas, and would hope that his fel10w commissioners would support that change in the document. '6-(&7 Planning Commission Minutes 9 October II, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Commented to Com. Giefer that the process began two years ago, and it was sent to the City Council and because there were a lot of concerns, and was sent back. · Said he believed with the public input that was done with the surveys as well as the study sessions for about six months, and a lot of compromises as well, it is a fine document. He commended staff, particularly Peter Gilli for taking the time and especially communicating with him. · Believes that putting the boards in fronl will provide improved noticing; story poles are costly and there are safety factors involved with their installation. He said he felt the noticing was sufficient, and story poles were not necessary. · By incorporating the design guidelines into the ordinance is also moving in the right direction, as well as increasing the ratio from the second to first floor, that will give more flexibility. · He said many speakers talked about extended families in one home and the fact that some people wanted to live in a bigger house, · Agreed with Com. Miller that the intent of the ordinance was to address mass and bulk, and said he would like to see the document discussed more about addressing mass and bulk vs. design, which could be addressed through staff. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Wong. Chair Saadati: · Following Com. Miller's comment regarding the transitional neighborhood, he said there is flexibility for people to change their home and that has been evident by building two story homes in one story neighborhoods. He said he felt that has changed and the ordinance will change it more and provide more flexibility relative to the design aspects. · Echoed other commissioners' comments and thanked the public for their input; added they have been working on the item for quite some time, including many study sessions which the public attended, although they wished more people would have attended; there was ample of advertising and noticing for the meetings. Vice Chair Wong: · Said if his colleagues agreed, taking into consideration one of the public comments made, a minor amendment would be to make everything generic in black and white; and secondly was Com. Miller's suggestion of stressing the mass involved vs. design. Com, Chen: · Said she would agree to change the language to focus more on the mass and bulk, but was not in favor of changing the rendering from color to black and white; said she felt it was not a change; but what they were requiring everybody to do at this current point. By changing the design review process they gain a lot of time already; and her position is that providing the service to the neighbors is not too much to ask for. Com. Giefer: · Agreed with Com. Chen that the color adds benefit and helps one's neighbors visualize more what the project will look like. · Relative to the language changes proposed by Com. Miller; she said they do mean different things in the sections he pointed out; and she would not support the language change. 5--{ & r Planning Commission Minutes 10 October II, 2004 Chair Saadati: . Said he favored the color rendering in lieu of the story poles; the added cost is insignificant compared to the benefits of the color renderings. . Mass and bulk --a little more language ¡¡-om the staff would likely clarify it. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he would withdraw the black and white rendering and incorporate Corn. Miller's suggestion of mass and bulk vs. design. Mr, Piasecki: · Clarified the correct sequence to follow regarding the motion, second and amendment. Second: Com. Miller Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that the first amendment was the suggestion that Corn. Miller had that you substitute the language in that second section with the broader language that he preferred. Mr. Gilli: · Sununarized that Corn. Miller proposed to strike 19.28.060 c.l.a; "That the mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern, new construction.... and entry feature heights." Mr. Piasecki: · Summarized Corn, Miller's suggestion, for Section 19,28.050 which discusses minor residential permits, and use the language from there that says "the proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" which is much broader wording. Mr. Gilli: · Stated that what created a lot of the uproar about the guidelines was that they were too vague and too generalized, and this is specific language in the current guidelines and current ordinance. · Also without further study of the implications, staff is not certain they would support having it removed, Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Giefer voted No. Motion: Motion by Corn, Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to propose to separate the second story ratio from the overall Rl document and vote on that separately; in lieu of voting on it as a whole within the document. Com, Giefer: · Said that she supported the work done; all have worked very hard, but she is concerned that they have one pub1ic data point to the contrary of what there is; the meetings have not been as well attended as she would have liked them to be, which is the reason to separate out that one point, so that she can show her support for the overall document and make the point with just the ratio of the first to second floor, which is the reason she is proposing it. tf-/(ç'l Planning Commission Minutes II October II, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Explained there was a motion to first vote on that aspect ofthe ordinance. and there is a second to the motion; you simply can vote on it, you could either vote to approve it as it is, or if it should not be approved as is, then you need to discuss what you would substitute in there instead; but the first part of it is back to the main motion which was 'should it remain at the 50% of the first floor as you have discussed up to this point'. Vice Chair Wong: · Commented that serving two years on the DRC, he noticed many applicants have been frustrated not having to get three bedrooms, a master bedroom, a bathroom and 2 bedrooms upstairs; that is because of the 35% to second first FAR. With a family of four, if building a second story they would be forced to have one of the bedrooms downstairs, or parents would be sleeping downstairs and the children upstairs. · Said he recently pulled a building pennit and decided to build a one story home; but for the overall community if they wanted to build a two story home, it would be easier for them to build it higher; and it allows more flexibility. · The Planning Commission has put in a lot of hard work during the past 6 to 9 months, staff has been supportive of this 50% to second FAR, and he urged his colleagues to keep the 50%. Com. Miller: · From a procedural standpoint, we have all taken sides on a number of issues, and we are not agreeing with everything in this document, and to single out this one thing, we could probably point to something we would like to single out and do the same issue with. · It was a team effort and we compromised on a number of things and we have admittedly a compromised document, and we should pass that on and not single out one thing for special attention. Com. Chen: · Of all the points we discussed in the past 9 months, this is probably the one discussed the most. We talked about flexible design: dealing with mass and bulk; maintaining the community as it is now; and we also talked about what can be done to acconunodate a larger family size and what can be done during the transition of changing from older house to newer house, older families to large and young families; and talked about daylight plane and maintaining it at 35%. Also talked about increase to 50%; tonight people were talking about throwing out percentage and just deal with it based on design. · There are different inputs and different points of view and I think this is a good compromise at this point; 50% gives a little more room to address the design and you can choose not to go up to that height if it is a perfect design or you don't need that space. · Supports the document as it is now. Chair Saadati: · We have discussed all these items and prior to this meeting I did not hear strong opposition to that, to some extent there was some concern but it wasn't such that it brought us to this point. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that a YES vote on the motion would be to retain it as it is, although the motion was to break it out, and a NO vote would be to change it. · The substance is to break it out and to discuss it first' a YES vote would be to support leaving it as it is, and a NO vote would mean I want something else, and then you could have a r -/76 Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 11, 2004 discussion about what something else would be shouldn't there be enough NO votes; now YES would be to support it. · Reiterated Com. Giefer's motion was to pull it out and vote separately on the 50% rule; so all you are voting on is if you support leaving it as is you would vote YES; if you do not want to leave it as is, then you would vote NO. If you want 50%, you would vote YES. It allows Com. Giefer to go on record as opposing it if that is what she chooses, and the Council can see she wanted to change it, and the remainder of the commission mayor may not. Amended motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Wong. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com, Giefer abstain). Com. Giefer: · Said she abstained because of her concern stated earlier that the public thinks either they are doing a tremendous job and that is why they are not coming; or they have given up and they don't think their comments are appreciated when they attend the meetings. · In her professional opinion, the data collected in the survey, is viable data and she said she wished they had got more public input during the process; it would have alleviated her concerns that were brought up during the data. She emphasized it was not her personal opinion, but her opinion based upon the proceedings throughout the summer months to present; and it greatly influenced her decision, the information collected earlier. · She said she felt the Council meeting would be well attended, with people who have strong opinions about the issue, OLD BUSINESS 2. Planning Commission Procedure for Public He Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report: · Reviewed the revisions made to the Planning ommission agenda cover sheet, and asked for endorsement of the Planning Commission. noted that any suggestions would be considered for the final version. Com. Chen: · Noted for the record that relative to eceiving negative comments from the public on general, not specific items, she asked that e public focus more on issues and not particular persons. She reiterated the role of the P nning Commission is to collect public input and make their decisions and recommendati s to City Council and she would appreciate it if the input focused on issues, not perso s. Chair Saadati opened the m ting for public comment. Robert McKibbin: · Commented on t procedure for public hearing items, stating that it lists the outline in regards to the Chair intr ducing the application, etc. · Noted that in e Cupertino Scene it mentioned the city had Helen Putman Awards that were for two ite s; both of them dealt with the staff reaching out to the citizens for public participati n in these areas. · Express concern that the three minutes allotted per speaker was not adequate time for them to expr ss their opinions and speak on the item. ¡-(ll EXHIBIT U City 01 Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 StalfUse Only EA File No. EA-2002-15 Case File NO.MCA-2002-03 Attachments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: Amendment to the R1 Ordinance Project Location: City-wide Project Description: Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to sinqle-familv residential development in the R1 zoninq district. Environmental Setting: Standard sinqle-familv subdivisions, predominantlv on flat terrain. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - N/A Building Coverage - N/A% Exist. Building - N/A s.l. Proposed Bldg, - N/A s.f. Zone - R1 G,P. Designation - Residential Low 1-5 DU/Gr. Ac. Assessor's Parcel No. - N/A II Residential, Units/Gross Acre - N/A Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) o Monta Vista Design Guidelines o S. De Anza Conceptual o N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual o Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - N/A Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required s.f. N/A FAR - 45% Max, Parking Provided N/A Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ŒJ NO o f-f/2.... A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D, OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 1. Land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary Dislrict 4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A- Hillside Deveiopment 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CAL TRANS 10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Ciara Valley Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E, OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 13. "Cupertino Chronicle' (California History Excesses Center, 1976) 38, FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report (site specific) 39, USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 15, Parking Ordinance 1277 40, County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map Plan 17, Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documenls 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 18. City Noise Ordinance 42, Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43, CalEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Development Depl. List Substances Site 20. Public Works Depl. 21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan SeUApplication Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance D, OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46, Experience w/project of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 47, ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmenlal of Environmenlal Health A, Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE, ß, Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D, If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E, When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each paae. F, Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. "Project Plan Set of Legislative Document "Location map with site clearly marked (when appiicable) I BE SURE YOUR INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTAL IS COMPLETE - INCOMPLETE MATERIALS MAY CAUSE PROCESSING DELAY , t-r)J EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: r--- ---- - _n_ »- c:- 0 c:- - c: c c ~ c: (ijraü <U <U 0 <U <U <U- - ..c: u .-... .c: <> <> <> ISSUES: = u C'G 1-¡;::5iâo I-¡;:<U o <U c: ~ g. I/)'-'~ tJc. 1/)'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] c: E cnC =~ I/) c: E E õ.~- '" tJ ,_ 0 4) .~- - ...J ,- :æõ <> C-(IJ (IJ c: ...J(IJ I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 ŒJ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 ŒJ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41 ,44J c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 ŒJ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 ŒJ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 ŒJ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 ŒJ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 ŒJ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39J 8-- ( ) '1 >,.... I: ... 0 1:'" I: I: :¡:J - I: IV ~ 0 ~ I: r;cct; 11I~... ..... .- U ta ~U..c::'¡::;ê5 ..c:uu u ISSUES: ... r.¡:: º r.¡::...", I-r.¡::'" o '" <: '- UI'- ':¡: ",c. UJ'- a. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" <: E en!:: =.... III <: E E õ.~- Q '" ,_ 0 Q "'_ .....I ,- :;;; u c..en en -= .....I en III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations, Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 ŒJ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ŒJ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 ŒJ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 ŒJ pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 ŒJ substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 ŒJ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ŒJ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44J c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ŒJ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Œ.r:!cluding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ----.,-. . .___.u__ .__________.__ L......-__________ _____..,_._____ .--.---.--.-..- t-[J) »... s:::'" 0 s:::'" _ s::: s::: s::: +:I s::: ';l'1t cv l'1 0 l'1 cvl'1.... .... :.¡;:I u C'G ~OJ::+:Io '<:uU u ISSUES: <: !!: º ..,..... 1-..," o .. CI)'- ';¡i en c. U).- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] .s t: E me:: :¡:¡:"- '" <: E E o .~- Q) C} ._ 0 (),~- ...J ,- :2; 0 Q.c/) C/) <: ...JC/) pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 ŒJ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 ŒJ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 ŒJ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V, CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ŒJ the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ŒJ the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41J c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 ŒJ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 ŒJ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ŒJ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthauake Fault Zonina Map issued bv the f -/¡~ I 'SSUES, ;>..... c.... 0 C.... -c: c: t: ;¡:¡ c: Cijnst; l'! OS 0 OS !\I OS"" .... .- u ns t=u..t:~o '<:uU U .... 0:: ª 0::"" os 1-0:: os o OS c: ,_ III ,- '§ C> c. en .- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" " E en I:: .- "- III " E E õ.~- Q) C'J :t:: 0 Q).~- ..J ,- :iõ u 0. en en c: ..Jen State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D D ŒJ [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including D D D ŒJ liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] D D D ŒJ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D D D ŒJ loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D D D ŒJ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined D D D ŒJ in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately D D D ŒJ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or D D D ŒJ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or D D D ŒJ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle D D D ŒJ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile f~/ì ì ».... I: .... 0 1:.... - r: r: I: :¡:¡ r: m~~ Ia ns 0 It lans.... .... +:I 0 ttI ¡::~=1ão J:: U U U ISSUES: c:!!: ë 1-,='" o '" U>'- ';: '" c. (1)'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] .Be:: E U) t: +:I.... '" c: E E o ,~- II) C> ._ 0 '" "'- ....I ,- ::¡;; U D..e/) e/) .= ....Ie/) of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 ŒJ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ŒJ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ J f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ŒJ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ŒJ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ŒJ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] VIII, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ŒJ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ŒJ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42J -- ..--- --- }-17! .. :-,'" r: ... 0 1:; -t: t: I: :¡:¡ canst) œ ns 0 ns ..",- - +:I~ra ,=tJ..t:~o ..c: <.> <.> <.> ISSUES: ""-.. 1-",," o .. <=.- 9 en ,- '~ C> C. (1).- c.. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" <= E en C +:I.... en <= E E õ.~- Q) OJ ._ 0 Q),~- ..J ,- :æ: <.> c..en en c ..Jen - e) Create or contribute runoff water which D D D ŒJ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 ŒJ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood 0 0 0 ŒJ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 ŒJ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 ŒJ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 ŒJ mudflow? [2,36,38] IX, LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ŒJ community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 ŒJ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ŒJ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X, MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ŒJ _miner.§'--~s()!:1~ce that would be of value to__________ __~___________________ ________ õ~{ 7 Î - »- I: _ 0 1:- - I: I: I: :¡:I I: -!'IS'" C1!!'IS 0 ca C1!!'IS'" ... tIS <> ~u..c::=6 .c <> <> l} +J (.) ns ISSUES: I: ~ 9 ""-'" 1-",,'" o '" III ,- ';¡; 0> C. (1)'_ a. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] .seE en r::::: = II- III I: E E o.~- 41 tn ._ 0 Q).~- ~ ,- :æ; <> c..en en I: ~en the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ŒJ locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 ŒJ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 ŒJ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 ŒJ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 ŒJ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ŒJ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive nois.e levels? . [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ŒJ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII, POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an -- --- 0 0 0 ŒJ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] ------- ------ 0-1 ro »- t:- 0 t:- _ t: t: t:~ t: -(1- (1 (1 0 (1 (1(1- - III (J .c: 0 .-.. :: 0 (J (J ISSUES: ~°rG I-I¡::~~O I-l¡::rG o rG t:~ 5! U)'-'3: c> Co (1)'- C. zCo [and Supporting Information Sources] -S E:: E II) s::::::: +:I.... U) r:: E .Ë o .~- Q)C) ._0 Q) .~- ..J ,- :æ; U 0.. en en t: ..Jen - -- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D ŒJ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16.44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D ŒJ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] D D D ŒJ Police protection? [33.44] D D D ŒJ Schools? [29,30,44] D D D ŒJ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27.44] D D D ŒJ Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D D D ŒJ XIV, RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of D D D ŒJ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27.44] b) Does the project include recreational D D D ŒJ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV, TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC-- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is D D D ŒJ substantial in relation to the existinq traffic 8'-(rl ».... 1:.... 0 1:.... -I: I: I::¡:¡ I: - I\! +' nr I\! 0 I\! ral\!+' .... !II <> ¡!:~;¡:;o ..c: <> <> <> ISSUES: ~~m 1-",,'" o '" c:: ,_ ~ '" ,- '¡E o>e. U).- c. ze. [and Supporting Information Sources] .ær:E en c: :.¡::¡ L.., '" c:: E E o 0>_ <1J C) ._ 0 Q).~- ....I ,- :¡;¡ <> 0. en en c:: ....I en load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44J b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, D D D ŒJ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, D D 0 ŒJ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a D D D ŒJ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D ŒJ [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D D D ŒJ [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or D D D ŒJ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34J -- XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ŒJ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of D D D ŒJ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the . construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 D 0 ŒJ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] L___ f-lo-Z.... -. ».... ¡:.... 0 ¡:.... -c c S:::¡:i c meet; IU œ 0 t\I lUœ.... .... .=~=:go ..r:: o,U u ISSUES: :.¡::I u ca I-¡¡::'" o '" ¡: ~ ¡; III ,- '§: c>CI. en'- a. zCl. [and Supporting Information Sources] .scE cnt: :¡::¡.... III ¡: E E o .~- Q) en ._ 0 '" c>_ a. en ...Ie;¡ :æg ...I en e) Result in a determination by the D D D ŒJ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's eXisting commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient D D D ŒJ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local D D D ŒJ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] 8" -( r J a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? [] c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] o o o ŒJ o o o ŒJ o o o ŒJ PREPARER'SAFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. ~ 4Ø' Preparer's Signature I ( Print Preparer's Name Peter Gilli. Associate Planner g--( ¡ Lf t=NVIRONMt=NTAl t=VAlUATION (To be CDmpleted by City ~\aff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources D Geology ISoils D Hazards & Hazardous D Hydrology 1 Water D Land Use 1 Planning Materials Quality D Mineral Resources D Noise D Population 1 Housing D Public Services D Recreation D TransportationfTraffic D Utilities 1 Service D Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: ŒJ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed pr eþt, nothing further is required. f Staff Evaluator 1)~~ Sç-() ".--, / ~. Date q\\\! UL Date ERC Chairperson 8--/0 ) EXHIBIT V CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 11, 2002 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on September 11, 2002. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03 (EA-2002-15) City of Cupertino Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single- family residential development in the R1 zoning district. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant enviro ental' cts, "- ~- Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2002-15 8'- ! ¡ b EXHIBIT W CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGA nVE DECLARA nON As provided by the Envirorunental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on March 3,2003. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2002-15 Application No.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03 City of Cupertino Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Amendment to Chapter 19,28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single-family residential development in the Rl zoning district. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The Planning Cormnission granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Cormnunity Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200215#2 f'-/óÎ ¡~! ::::::::J City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (40R) 777 -'1'10R FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: November L 2004 Application Summary: Reports on three initiatives to regulate building height, building setback and residential density in the City of Cupertino, BACKGROUND: At its meeting of September 20, 2004, the City Council draft reports on three citizen-initiated initiatives were submitted to the City Council along with the draft General Plan. The draft initiative reports were prepared independently by three consultants, hired by the City, to analyze the housing, fiscal and legal impacts of the three initiatives, which are intended, through the General Plan, to: 1) restrict building height, 2) restrict building setback from the street, and 3) restrict residential density, Exceptions to the restrictions would require a vote of the electorate(Exhibits A, B & C). The consultants are: Housing Analysis - Freitas + Freitas Fiscal Analysis - Bay Area Economics Legal Analysis - Goldfarb & Lipman At its meeting of October 4, 2004, the City Council received the Certificate of Sufficiency from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for the three initiative petitions that determined there were sufficient, valid voter signatures to hold an election on the initiatives. At that meeting, the Council requested that the draft initiative reports contain additional information on: 1) the potential economic disadvantages to Cupertino as they relate to neighboring cities without such development restrictions; 2) the impacts on the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program; 3) the impacts on the schools; and 4) the impacts on school income. I Printed on Recycled Paper 1 q, -( DISCUSSION: The three consultant-prepared draft reports are enclosed, For the additional information requests, Bay Area Economics (BAE) was retained to prepare a report addendum, responding to Item #1, #3 and #4, BAE's addendum will not be ready until Friday, October 29th Staff will deliver the addendum on that date, Information on the initiative impact on the City's BMR housing program can be found in the Freitas + Freitas housing analysis and is su=arized below: If the initiatives are approved, there is a significant loss of potential units due to "downzoning," i.e., reduction in housing density. Since land at densities greater than 15du! ac is considered necessary to acco=odate very low and low income housing units, the City ends up with a housing land inventory that cannot acco=odate the remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Approval of the initiatives creates additional RHNA requirements for land to acco=odate 370 more affordable units, primarily at densities greater than 15 dus! ac, These are the units that are provided through the BMR program. To address the RHNA, the City will need to: 1) Designate additional sites in Valko Park for higher density residential development. The 17-acre HP site could acco=odate 510 units at 30 units to the acre. 2) Modify the BMR Program to increase the number of BMR units: a) increase percentage required from 15 to 20%, b) require housing for very low, low and moderate income households regardless of unit tenure, and! or c) restrict residential projects so that more developments build affordable housing instead of paying in-lieu fees. When you look at the RHNA beyond June 30,2007, the City would continue having a problem meeting the City's RHNA and must go back to Valko Park to redesignate even more industrial land for higher density residential development. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Initiative Petition restricting building height Exhibit B: Initiative Petition restricting building setback Exhibit C: Initiative Petition restricting housing density Initiative Reports/Memorandum: 2 1C¿-L 1) "Initiatives' Impact on City of Cupertino 2001 Housing Element" prepared by Freitas + Freitas, undated. 2) "Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Growth Control Initiatives" prepared by Bay Area Economics, dated June 2004. 3) "Proposed Height, Setback and Residential Density Initiatives" prepared by Richard Judd, Lee Rosenthal and Rafael Mandelman, of Goldfarb & Lipman, dated June 16, 2004. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: ~[ -" Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W, Knapp City Manager G: I Planning I PDREPORT\ CCI InitiativeJeportsl.doc 3 1cc-] Exhibit: A Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to the General Plan Concerning Building Height Part II: Purpose and Findings I. The Cupertino City Council ITequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center. 2. The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife. 3, Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people of the city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements ofthat growth, 4. Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require building heights not to exceed a maximum height 086 feet. The height is measured ITom grade level to the highest point of the building structure. An exception to this provision may be granted only if flIst approved by city voters in an election, Part IV: Exceptions A. ValIco Park The Vallco Park Planning District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i.e, Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter. The Vallco Park Planning District is exempt from the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require building heights not to exceed 45 feet. The height is measured ITom grade level to the highest point of the building structure. 1 t2 -'--( B. Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is the area within 500 feet of the centerline of Wolfe Road, starting at the point 500 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard on its southern end and extending northward to Highway 280. The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that building heights not exceed 45 feet. C. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, as defined as of I February 2004, are exempted from the limitations in this amendment. D. Existing Buildings Existing build.ings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (1) they do not exceed their original heights and setbacks or (2) any added portions of their structures comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the future, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election, Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder ofthis amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, Part VII: Additional Requirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or any existing law, from imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. 1/(-) Exhibit: B Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to General Plan Concerning Setbacks Part II: Purpose and Findings The people of the City of Cupertino find and declare as follows: I. The Cupertino City Council frequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center. 2. The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife. 3. Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people ofthe city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements of that growth. 4, Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require buildings to have minimum street setbacks of 35 feet, or the distance determined from a 1.5 to I slope line ratio measured ITom the nearest curb line(s) of adjacent public street(s), whichever is greater. An exception to this provision may be granted only if first approved by city voters in an election. Part IV: Exceptions A. Vallco Park The Vallco Park Planning District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i.e. Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter. The Vallco Park Planning District is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that buildings have minimum street setbacks in accordance with I to I slope line ratios measured from the nearest curb line(s) of a public street(s). 1a...-& B. Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is the area within 500 feet of the centerline of Wolfe Road, starting at the point 500 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard on its southern end and extending northward to Highway 280. The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is exempt from the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that buildings have minimum street setbacks in accordance with I to I slope line ratios measured from the nearest curb line(s) of a public street(s), C. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, as defined as of I February 2004, are exempted from the limitations in this amendment. D. Existing Buildings Existing buildings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (1) they adhere to their originally authorized setbacks or (2) any added portions of their structures comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the future, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election. Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. Part VII: Additional Requirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or any existing law, from imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. 9r:¿-1 Exhibit: C Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to the General Plan Concerning Housing Density Part II: Purpose and Findings The people of the City of Cupertino find and declare as follows: I. The Cupertino City Council rrequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center. 2. The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife. 3, Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people of the city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements of that growth, 4, Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of mixed-use facilities and/or residences shall limit the density to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per net acre, As used herein, "net acre" refers to the area of a site contained within the property lines, excluding any portion of a site within the right of way of a public street. An exception to this provision may be granted only if first approved by city voters in an election. PartIV: Exceptions A. Vallco Park The Vallco Park Planning District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, This area includes those portions ofthe streets themselves (i.e. Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter. The Vallco Park Planning District is exempt from the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of mixed-use facilities and/or residences shall limit the density to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per net acre, ?~-íf B. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex, as defined as of I February 2004, are exempted fÌ'om the limitations in this amendment. C. Existing Buildings Existing buildings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (1) they do not exceed their original housing densities or (2) they comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the future, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election. Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, Part VII: Additional Reqnirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or an existing law, from imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. 1 t( -9 Executive Summary Initiatives' Impact on City of Cupertino 2001 Housing Element Freitas + Freitas acted as an independent housing consultant in conducting its analysis. The findings outlined in this Executive Summary have not been influenced in any way by City staff, City commissioners, or by any elected officials. · OVERALL HOUSING PRODUCTION If approved, the initiatives would have a negative impact on the overall potential for new housing units in the City of Cupertino. Using the current General Plan guidelines and unit allotments, there is a potential for 2,056 additional residential units throughout the City. If the proposed initiatives are approved, it is estimated that 669 of these units could not be built primarily due to the reduction in maximum density allowed. The net result is that the original 2,056 potential unit total is reduced to 1,387 units, . CONSISTENCY WITH 2001 HOUSING ELEMENT The City's existing 2001 Housing Element was certified by the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, as being in compliance with State Housing Element law, If approved, the initiatives could conflict with the adopted goals and policies of the 2001 Housing Element and could affect the certification status of the Housing Element. Specifically, the potential conflicts include: o Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Approval of the initiatives could reduce the amount of land available in the City at appropriate densities to accommodate the City's remaining Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). In particular, passage of the initiatives would result in a deficit of adequate land for the very low and low income housing need as well as for the moderate income housing need. o Goals, Policies and Programs of the 2001 Housing Element There are several goals, policies and programs in the adopted 2001 Housing Element that would be inconsistent if the initiatives are approved. Further, the reduction in maximum density as proposed by one of the initiatives would impact at least 3 of the 5 goals as listed in the 2001 Housing Element. . ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES There are several alternative strategies available to the City to mitigate the effect of the initiatives. Included in these alternatives is a possible strategy of increasing the allowable units in the VaIlco Park Planning District and amending the City's General Plan to designate additional sites for residential/mixed use in that district. This action would increase the amount I i r;¿, -( () of vacant and underdeveloped land available at higher densities (up to 30 units per acre). For example, the Hewlett-Packard site in the Valko Park Planning District could accommodate up to 510 additional units at a density of 30 units per acre. Use of this site for residential purposes would require a General Plan Amendment, This action alone would provide the necessary llnd acreage to accommodate the City's remaining RHNA deficit for very low, low and moderate income households, Also, revisions to the City's existing Below Market Rate (BMR) Program and Second Unit Program could assist in mitigating the initiatives' effect. Revisions to these programs could encourage or require the production of units affordable to more lower income households. 2 1C?.-( ( Initiatives' Impact on City of Cupertino 2001 Housing Element A. OYERVIEW The City of Cupertino's Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on October 15, 2001. The State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), reviewed the adopted Element and found it to be in conformance with State Housing Element law in January 2002. In 2004, three citizen initiatives regarding development standards were drafted and proposed. These initiatives propose changes in the City's standards regarding building heights, building setback lines and residential density limitations. The following analysis evaluates the impact of these three proposed initiatives on the City's adopted and certified Housing Element, B, EFFECT OF APPROVAL OF INITIATIVES ON THE CITY'S CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT The City's Housing Element was certified by HCD in 2002 as being in compliance with State Housing Element law. The 2001 Housing Element includes programs and strategies to address the City's housing needs for the time period of 2001-June 30, 2007. It is important to note that, at the time that the Element was adopted, the HCD approved time period was 2001-June 30, 2006. However, that time period was later extended by State statute to June 30,2007, This extension was effective for communities in the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) area, which includes the City of Cupertino. The following analysis evaluates the effect of the initiatives in the following critical areas: 1. Effect on Overall Housing Production, 2. Effect on Regional Hoùsing Needs Allocation (RHNA), 3. Housing Element Status, and 4. Alternative Strategies, 1. Effect on Overall Housing Production The proposed initiatives would restrict building heights, setback lines and maximum residential unit density. The most significant of these restrictions in terms of housing production is the restriction on residential unit density, The initiatives specify that residential density cannot exceed 15 units per net acre. The only exception to this restriction is development in the Vallco Park Planning District, which would be limited to 30 units per net acre. Single-family, duplex, triplex and fourplex structures are exempted from the initiative restrictions. In the spring of 2004, a review was conducted of all land parcels in the City that had a residential designation under the current General Plan. Using the current General Plan guidelines and unit allotments, there was a potential for 2,056 additional units throughout the City. If the proposed initiatives are approved, it is estimated that 669 of these units 3 1Cl~(1-- could not be built due to the reduction in densities. The net result is that the original 2,056 potential unit total is reduced to 1,387 units. 2, Effect on Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Determining the Regional Housing Needs in a community has been the responsibility of regional "Council of Governments" in past years. The State of California provides population estimates to each regional government in the State and the regional government then allocates estimated housing units needed among member communities, ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) is the regional Council of Government that represents Cupertino and neighboring communities in the Bay Area. During 1999-2000, ABAG developed the "Regional Housing Needs Determination" allocation for its member communities and, on March 15, 2001, the ABAG Board of Directors certified the fInal numbers. The estimated number of housing units needed as determined and certifIed by ABAG reflect the planning period from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2007. a. Original ABAG Regional Needs Housing Allocadon (1999-June 30, 2007) According to the certifIed ABAG estimates, Cupertino has a need for adequate sites to accommodate 2,720 new housing units between 1999-June 30, 2007. This estimate was developed by ABAG based on various factors including projected population, job growth, land availability, vacancy rates and replacement housing needs. After determining the number of additional households expected by the end of the planning period, ABAG further quantifIed future households by income level. The goal of this analysis was to distribute lower income households equitably throughout a region thereby avoiding undue concentrations of very low and low-income households in one jurisdiction. For the City of Cupertino, the ABAG goal by income group is as follows: Very low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income TOTAL 412 households (15.2%) 198 households ( 7.2%) 644 households (23.7%) 1.466 households (53.9%) 2,720 households (100%) b, Remaining ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocadon, 2001-June 30, 2007 The 2001 Housing Element used the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal as identifIed above. However, the original RHNA estimate was adjusted in the 2001 Housing Element to account for units developed between 1999-2001. The revised total estimate of units needed between 2001-2006 was 2,325 units. 1 ¡Please see pages 26-27 of the 2001 Housing Element for a description of this process. Please note that the 2001 Housing Element references the end of the planning cycle as June 30, 2006. This date was later extended by State statute to June 30, 2007. 49tt-(S The 2,325 unit figure has been updated and the remaining RHNA for 2001-]une 30, 2007 is 3 . 2 2,3 4 uruts, c. Remaining ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2004-June 30, 2007 The RHNA needs to be further adjusted for units added to the housing stock between 2001 and 2004. There were 757 units added to the City's housing stock between 2001-2004. In addition, there were 12 very low income units, 11 low income units and 10 moderate income units provided as part of the total 757 units,' Following is a summary of affordable units and market rate units added to Cupertino's housing stock during 2001-2004 and the resultant remaining RHNA for 2004-June 30, 2007, Summary Table: Remaining RHNA, 2004- June 30, 2007 Ve Low Income Low-Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate Income TOTAL 378 Units 188 Units 626 Units 1,142 Units** NINA, ë 30, 2007 366 Units 177 Units 616 Units 418 Units 2,334 Units** 757 Units 1,577 Units * As described in tbe City of Cupertino 2001 Housing Element ** As acfjusted to account for 9 additional bousing units that were over counted in the periodjrom 2000- 2001, d. Effect of Initiatives on RHNA If the initiatives are approved, the most significant effect would be the loss of potential units due to downzoning. As of spring 2004, it is estimated that there is a potential for 2,056 additional units in the City using current General Plan designations. If the proposed initiatives are approved, it is estimated that 669 units could not be built due to the reduction in densities, The net result is that the original 2,056 potential unit total is reduced to 1,387 units, 2 Because Department of Finance (DOF) data for 2001 was not available at the time that the 2001 Housing Element was prepared, an estimate of the number of units produced from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2001 was developed. Ths estimate was based on the number of residential building permits issued for that time period, which was a total of 71 units. This figure needs to be slightly adjusted because the actual DOF estimate now indicates that 62 units were added to the housing stock for the 2000-2001 time period. Therefore, the total RHNA for 2001-June 30, 2007 should be increased to by 9 units.(71 units less 62 units = 9 units), with a resultant remaining RHNA of 2,334 units. Further, the 9 unit addition is reflected in the above-moderate income group housing need,increasing that estimate from the original 1,133 units to 1,142 units. 3 See Attachment #1 to this document for a description of the new units added between 2001-2004. 51ct.. -f'( Density is the typical measure used to determine whether there is sufficient land to accommodate the RHNA, Typically, land at densities greater than 15 units per acre is considered necessary to accommodate very low and low iocome housiog units. Moderate iocome units can generally be developed at densities of 10-15 units per acre, If the initiatives are approved, the only area io the City that would allow densities greater than 15 units per acre is the Vallco Park area. There is currently the potential for 204 units at densities from 15-30 units io that area, There is a potential for 585 units at land with densities of 10-15 units per acre. This 585 unit estimate assumes that the 246 units io the North DeAnza Boulevard, Bubb Road and Monta Vista districts would be allowed densities of 10-15 units per acre, The remaining parcels io the City are primarily at densities less than 10 units per acre and could accommodate 598 potential units. Summary Table: Effect of Initiatives on RHNA, 2004- June 30, 2007 Ve Low Income Low-Income 616 Units 418 Units 585* Units 598** Units Moderate-Income Above Moderate Income TOTAL 1,577 Units 1,387 Units * Assumes 246 units in 3 planning districts with no current zoning designation would be rezoned at 10-15 units per acre. ** Includes approved development applications for 107 units in Val/co Park Planning Area and 142 units in Civic Park development. These two projects will generate a 15% BMR requirement but, at the time this report was written, the exact affordability requirements by income level had not been determined. In summary, the effect of approval of the initiatives would result io a land ioventory that would not accommodate the remaining RHNA. The total unit objective of the RHNA from 2004 to June 30, 2007 is 1,577 units. There is only land potential within the initiative guidelines for 1,387 units. Therefore, there is an overall deficit of 190 units. In regard to specific iocome levels, there is not sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate the very low, low and moderate iocome needs. There is a need for appropriately-designated land for 339 very low and low iocome units and 31 moderate iocome units, a total of 370 units. Therefore, although the overall "deficit" is land sufficient for 190 units, the RHNA requirements indicate a need for appropriately-designated land for 370 units, primarily at densities exceeding 15 units per acre. 6 11{, ~(J 3. Housing- Element Status As identified earlier in this report, the City of Cupertino's 2001 Housing Element was certified as being in compliance with State Housing Element law in January 2002, Approval of the proposed initiatives could impact the existing 2001 Housing Element goals as follows. a. Goal #1: Expand the Supply of Residential Units for AD Economic Segments (pages 60-62 of2001 Housing Element) Several of the policies and implementation programs under Goal #1 could be affected by the initiatives' restrictions, if approved. In specific, Policy 3-1 and Programs #1,2,3 and 5 reflect the objective of adequate land to accommodate 2,325 units at densities ranging up to 50 units per acre, As discussed earlier in this report, the initiatives' restrictions would decrease the number of potential units as well as limit the residential density to 15 units citywide with an exception for 30 units maximum density in the Vallco Park Planning District, Assuming approval of the initiatives, it is estimated that the City would not have sufficient land at adequate densities to meet its RHNA need for housing units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households, b. Goal #2: Develop Housing That Is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households (pages 62-660f2001 Housing Element) The approval of the initiatives could impact Program #7, which describes the potential number of BMR units that could be produced under the Residential Mitigation Program. If the total number of potential units in the City is decreased as envisioned with the initiatives' approval, the number of potential BMR units will also be reduced, Further, Program #12 could also be affected due to the decrease in potential units, The jobs/housing ratio will be further exacerbated with the reduction in potential housing units, c. Goal #3: Conserve and Enhance Residential Neighborhoods (pages 66-71 of2001 Housing Element) There is the possibility that Program #24 could be affected by the approval of the initiatives, This program encourages the preservation of the City's existing multi- family rental housing stock by requiring that the removal of existing rental units be replaced with an equal or greater number of units. While the initiative allows existing units to be rebuilt at original densities, it prohibits any additional units above the original density limitation. In summary, the approval of the initiatives could affect several of the key programs and policies in the 2001 Housing Element. Of particular concern are those programs and policies in Goal #1 that describe the City's strategy to address its RHNA, The current certification of the Housing Element as being in compliance with State Housing Element law could be jeopardized by the approval of the initiatives, The legal implications of this action are addressed in the analysis prepared by Goldfarb & Lipman. 7 1~-{' 4. Alternative Strategies As the above analysis demonstrates, approval of the initiatives could affect the goals of the City's certified Housing Element and the City's availability of land to accommodate the RHNA. In specific, the production of units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households could be negatively affected by the initiative's density restrictions. Listed below are some alternative strategies that the City might consider in order to mitigate the initiative restrictions. The strategies are not mutually exclusive: that is. the Ci1;y might want to adopt one or more of the strategies in order to address the potential RHNA deficiencies. a. North DeAnza Boulevard, Bubb Road and Monta Vista Districts There is a total potential of 246 additional residential units in these three districts, according to current General Plan guidelines. However, there are no specific residential densities identified for the units' This report has assumed that the properties would be developed at 10-15 units per acre. If the total number of potential units allocated to these districts remains the same, any reduction in maximum allowable densities will result in residential units spread out more extensively through the planning district. The City should either specify that the potential units will be developed at a maximum of 15 units per net acre or, alternatively, transfer the 246 unit potential to the Vallco Park Planning District, where the density could be allowed at up to' 30 units per acre. b. Designate Additional Sites in Valko Park Planning District Amend the City's General Plan to designate additional sites in the Vallco Park Planning District for residential and/or mixed use development, Examples of sites include the Hewlett-Packard site, an approximate 17 acre site. If this site was allowed to develop at residential densities of up to 30 units per acre, there could be a potential for a maximum of 510 additional units, c. Revise the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Program The City of Cupertino's BMR Program currently requires that 15% of all new construction be affordable to households at or below 120% of the County median income. Rental units are affordable to very low and low-income households while ownership units are affordable to median and moderate-income households. The BMR program could be amended in three significant areas, First, the minimum percentage of affordable units could be increased from 15% to 20% or higher. Secondly, the program could be revised so that very low, low and moderate income units are required irregardless of unit tenure. Therefore, all new units whether they 4 It should be noted that Program #2 in Chapter 8 of the 2001 Housing Element specifies that the units allocated to the Bubb District \Vill be located on land rezoned to 15 units per acre and that the units allocated to the North DeAnza District will be located on land rezoned to 35 units per acre. These rezoning have not yet occurred. 8 1ct -(I be owner or rental units would be required to include units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. The third revision would affect the in-lieu fee provision. Currently, developments of 1-9 units can pay an in-lieu fee instead of building an affordable unit. This requirement could be revised so that the in-lieu fee option is only available to very small developments (e.g. 2 or 3 unit maximum). The effect of these revisions would be the production of a greater number of affordable units and a guarantee that those units would include units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. In order to address the RHNA potential deficiencies, this approach would need to be combined with the provision of additional land that can accommodate up to 30 units per acre (such as in the two alternative strategies "a" and "b" previously identified). In order to meet the RHNA, the common test is whether there is adequate land at appropriate densities and infrastructure to accommodate the housing need. While the BMR program provides a structure for requiring affordable units, it does not address the density and adequacy of land. Therefore, the BMR revisions would need to be coupled with changes in General Plan or zoning designations. d, Revise the City's Second Unit Program The City's existing Second Unit Ordinance could be revised to encourage the production of more second units, Recent State legislation in 2003 (AB 1866) revised second unit guidelines with the goal of stimulating the production of more second units. As a first step, the City should review its existing Second Unit Ordinance to ensure compliance with AB 1866. Additionally, the Second Unit Ordinance could be further revised to require affordability restrictions for new second units. New second units could be required to be rented to very low, low or moderate income households, Similar to the BMR revisions proposed above, revisions to the Second Unit Program would probably need to be combined with land use density revisions in order to address the RHNA deficiencies. 9 C¡a.. -[ f ATIACHMENT #1: CHANGES IN HOUSING STOCK AND NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS, 2001-2004 CITY OF CUPERTINO A, Overall Change in Housing Stock, 2001-2004 There have been a total of 757 units added to Cupertino's housing stock from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2004. January 1, 2004 Total Housing Units 19,520 Units January 1, 2001 Total Housing Units Total New Units (18.763 Units) 757 Units Source: Department of Finance, State of California Table E-S, May 2004 B. Affordable Units, 2001-2004 The number of new units added to the housing stock must be further refIned by identifying the number of units with affordability covenants that are affordable to very low, low or moderate income households and that were produced between 2001-2004. A review of the City's inventory of affordable units indicates the following units were produced during this time frame: Very Low Income Units: Verona, 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard Biltmore, 10159 S. Blaney Avenue TOTAL 11 Very Low Income Rentals* 1 Very Low Income Rentals 12 Very Low Income Rentals Low-Income Units: Verona, 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard Biltmore, 10159 S. Blaney Avenue TOTAL Moderate Income Scattered Site Homeowner Units 10 Low-Income Rentals* 1 Low-Income Rentals 11 Low-Income Rentals 10 Moderate-Income Units *There is a possibility that some of the units at Verona will convertfrom lower income to moderate income units in the next 12-18 months. However, because this has not yet occurred and it is uncertain whether it will definitely occur, the units are still counted as very low and low income units for the purposes of this report. 10 1 ~-{ '7 eae , ,'~;~"'. ~..~". ,.( "" Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Growth Control I niti atives Submitted 10: The City of Cupertino Submitted by: Bay Area Economics (BAE) June 2004 Headquarters 510.549.7310 2560 9th Street. Suite 211 fax 510.549.7028 Berkeley, CA 94710 bae1@bae1.com bayareae<:onomtc.s.com 1 {( - 1-D Table of Contents Executive Sum mary .""......."""""""""""".."""",........."...........""""..""""""" i I ntrod uction ....,.."""""",.."" ,."",.." ,.. ,... ...."'.....""",,, ,.....",.."" .........., ............., 1 Purpose of this Report............,...........................,........ .................,....... .................,....,.... 1 Impacled Areas.....,.....,.....................,...,.................................,.............,.....,..,........ ,....... 1 Development Feasibility Analysis ...............................................,..................... 5 Methodology..,........... .,.... ........,....,............................ ....,................................................ 5 Findings............................,.....,...........................,..,... ,.,.....,.....................,..,..,...........,..., 8 Fiscal Impact Analy sis ,.....""""""""",..,.....,...."......,.."""....."..........."..,........ 15 Melhodology ........, .....................,..............................,..............................................,..., 15 Findings............................,................,...... .....,.............,.....,........................... ............... 18 School District 1m pact Analysis ...................................................................... 21 Fiscallmpacl Analysis ......... ........................................................ ...... ........ .............. ..... 21 Capacity Impacl Analysis ...................... ...... ........... ............,.............,.....................,..... 23 Appendix A: Development Feasibility Analysis Pro Formas ........................ 27 Appendix B: Key Informant Interviews .................,.........................................40 Appendix C: Fiscal Impact Analy sis Methodology and Assumptions ......... 41 Appendix D: List of City/County Personnel Consulted ................................. 65 1 ct - .2.1.... Executive Summary Purpose ofthis Report In May 2004, the City of Cupertino contracted with Bay Area Economics (BAE) to conduct a fiscal and economic analysis of three growth control measures proposed for the November ballol. Specifically, BAE analyzed how the proposed measures would (I) impact development feasibility in Cupertino, (2) affect the Ciiy's General Fund, and (3) impact local school districts' operating budgets and capacity. For the purposes of this analysis, six study sites were selected that are potential locations for new residential, office, retail, and mixed-use projects in Cupertino. For each site, BAE formulated a prototypical "low densiiy" scenario, based on the likely development patterns under the proposed initiatives, and a prototypical "standard density" scenario, reflecting the City's current General Plan. BAE then compared development feasibiliiy and fiscal impacts associated with development under each scenario to examine the potential effecls oflhe proposed initiatives, BAE conducted ils analysis as an independent economic consultant. The findings outlined in this report have nol been influenced in any way by City slaff, City commissioners, or any elected officials. Development Feasibility Analysis To sludy the proposed iniliatives' impact on development feasibility, BAE formulated a pro forma analysis for each sludy site under the low and standard density scenarios. BAE then compared the financial returns generated by each, In addition, BAE interviewed key informants including local developers, landowners, real estate professionals, and other economic development stakeholders to get their views on the proposed measures. Findings . All residential and mixed~use prototypes generate lower financial returns under the low density scenario. The analysis found lhal the proposed initiatives reduced developer returns by 30 to 70 percent in the residential and mixed use study sites. The analysis suggesls that residential and mixed-use projects are significanlly more difficult to "pencil" below IS-units 10 the acre, As a result, the proposed initiatives would narrow developer flexibility, limil the conditions that support a financially feasible project, and lead to a more uniform type of residential development. . The proposed growth control initiatives would likely lead to higher prices for new housing in Cupertino. Developers reported that in order to achieve a sufficient return under the reduced densities, they would focus on product types thai command higher sale prices, 1a..-Lt-¡ · The proposed 36-foot height limit would limit the feasibility of "vertical" mixed-use projects and new large-scale office development. A 36-foot height limit generally translates into two stories, unless the project has a flat roofline and no vertical design features. These limits would prohibit mixed-use projects with residential units above office or retail space. In addition, key infonnants stated that the proposed height limil would detract from Cupertino's viabiliiy as a location for corporale headquarters. · Key informants agreed that the measures' broad approach limits the City's ahility to develop effective design guidelines and zoning regulations at a neighborhood level. The infonnants fe!llhe initialives would lead to a very limited development pattern and homogeneous streetscape. · To the extent that other communities have less restrictive development conditions, developers may choose to build in neighboring cities instead of Cupertino. Key informants all emphasized that the initiatives discourage development in the Ciiy. In addition to financial and economic factors, developers slated lhat they would be hesitanl to build in a communiiy with an apparent anli-development sentiment This analysis assumes land values will not adjust to reflect the growth control measures, if passed, In fact, over time, land values will likely absorb a portion of the additional cost ofihe new developmenl restrictions, However, key infonnants indicated lhat landowners are often reluctant 10 reduce their asking price, given the scarciiy of properties and high demand for sites, Consequently, the lag as property values adjusl may last a number of years. Fiscal Impact Analysis To analyze the proposed initialives impact on ihe fiscal health of Cupertino's General Fund, BAE analyzed the net fiscal costs and revenues expected from the low and standard densiiy scenarios al each of lhe six study sites. Findings · Cupertino General Fund expenditures are relatively stable and will not increase significantly as Cupertino's population increase. Cupertino is largely built out under its currenl General Plan, and has sufficient infrastructure and services in place to accommodate future growth. As a result, in many instances, City departmenlsldivisions expect no or few addilional costs as the Ciiy approaches built oul under the General Plan. · Compared to the standard dens ity scenario, the low density scenario results in significantly less projected net revenue for the City General Fund. Both the standard and low density developmenl scenarios are projected to result in a ii 10..-25 net increase in revenues to Cupertino's General Fund. However, the low density scenario generates notably less revenue. For the six study sites, total annual net revenues for lhe standard and low density scenarios are projected at $887,000 and $487,000, respectively, a $400,000 difference. Foregoing the expected revenue of the buildoul represents a lost opportunity to assure lhe continuing health of Cupertino's General Fund, School District Impact Analysis Under lhe proposed initiatives, a significant portion of residenlial development in Cupertino would be limited to small-lot single-family homes, which typically generate more studenls per unit than multifamily projects. These additional sludents could have a negative impact on the local school dislricls' fiscal health and student capacity. As wilh the development feasibility and fiscal impact analyses described above, BAE assessed lhe impacls on the local school districts under low and slandard density prototypes built at a particular sludy sileo Findings · This analysis suggests that the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) would experience an insignificant net fiscal impact under either scenario. District officials confinned this slatement, and reported !hat they do not expect the proposed measures to have a notable impacl on the District's General Fund, · The standard density prototype generates approximately six times the revenne to the Fremont Union High School Distric t (FUHSD) than the low density prototype. This additional property tax revenue is particularly importanl for Basic Aid Districls, such as FUHSD, since they do not receive any funding from lhe State, and rely exclusively on property tax increment to cover new costs. Therefore, the proposed growlh control iniliatives, if passed, would generale a significant opportunity cost to the High School District. · Given the ·cnrrent space surplus and facility plans, CUSD officials stated that the proposed measnres would not pose a concern to their student capacity. · Both the low and standard density scenarios exacerbate tbe projected space shortage at FUHSD. District officials project thai !he incoming cohort of middle school students would exceed the District's sludent capacity over the next five years. Under the low density scenario, an additional 166 students would be added to the Dislrict between 2004 and lhe City buildout. These new sludents would increase lhe existing capacity shortage 10 479 spaces, Under the standard density scenario. lhe District would need to accommodate approximately 103 new students. This projecled level of demand would increase lhe currenl shortage 10 416 spaces. iii '10.. -J.4, Introduction Purpose of this Report In May 2004, the City of Cupertino contracte d with Bay Area Economics (BAE) to conduct a fiscal and economic impacl analysis on three proposed growth control inilialives, These iniliatives, proposed for the November ballot, would amend the City's General Plan to restrict building heighls 10 36 feet, establish a minimum building set back of35 feet, and require that all mixed-use and residential projects have a maximum density of IS units per net acre. Exceplions are made for the Vallco Park Planning District and Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor. For residences and mixed-use facilities in these areas, the initialives would allow maximum building heighls of 45 feet, a minimum street setback line equal to a 1 to 1 slope line ratio, and a maximum density of 30 units per net acre. The City seeks 10 undersland the impacts of lhese initiatives on the Cupertino General Fund and the local school districls. In addition, the City requires an analysis of how the proposed initiatives would impacl development feasibility in Cupertino. City staff and Council will use lhe results of lhis analysis in planning their strategic response to each initiative. As always, BAE conducted ils analysis as an independent economic consul1ant. City slaff have provided BAE with bas ic informalion regarding slandard developmenl guidelines and land use patterns in the city, as well as details on Cupertino's fiscal status. BAE lhen used lhis data to produce an unbiased fiscal and economic impact analysis. The findings outlined in this report have nol been influenced in any way by City staff, City commissioners, or any elected officials, Impacted Areas Maps I through 3 illustrale the parcels in Cupertino that would be impacted by lhe proposed initiatives. The proposed inilialives primarily affect lhe Heart of the City, Homestead, Bubb Road, and North De Anza Planning Areas, Cupertino current Housing Element slates that these four areas would accommodate approximately 1,338 unils, or over 57 percent of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2001-2006, Therefore, the City's ability to meet ils affordable and market rate housing needs may be significantly impacted by the proposed initiatives. These areas also comprise the City's primary commercial districts. Consequently, mixed-use, office, and retai I development in Cupertino will also be directly affecled by the proposed iniliatives. I 1í{-J-% .æe c: '" "'- (f)Ü CII > .- ... '" :¡:; ï: "CII) C)... 11).1: &..2' OC) ~ ....J: ã3 Q) D........æ.æ ~ ~ ¡ CD ~_ e ~ E ~ - « .... VJ VJ 0 "'C G>o.mmC:Q) ..... 0 Q) ~ t +-' gãi ~ <{ Q) -ê 0.> c: g- 0 EG>-gOüe- _0 ü ~ õ 8 en:: m ~ Þ c: ãi E g- >< ü'- c: t).- L1J ::;¡ ~ ~IIDD ctI :::¡¡ ~ w'" s: ~f- ~ -E . ~ ca ¡ij (t d;ä:§ g'~ ã. -- Q) Q) 00 ~ u .cwx ::::0Q) ~ ().£ ~£Q5 o ~ " .c w- --0'" - ~<t g-~o <..>00- xc", Q).QE !!1 ro_Q> Q) c: Q) _ U t)).J: U) ......- ro ~~E ~ _ -0._ ro "'ffiQ)=Ö-O Q) u_ Q) -oro6ü .2@-~ro g !:: Q) Q.E .- Q) > t/ g.:¡';: ro ._ Q) ~~£:g "O.~"O !:: ü~~~ ~:2 8.$ EIDeI.D _ L.. Q.C'1 <1z '" ro ~ c: c: :J (f) (J) .8 <c (J) .3 . Æ ~ OJ ~ .~ ~ o ~ t w 0. ~ ü 'õ ;3È' 00 N.. Q)" æ §õ: .- -'" ~:u .- c f5~ c 0 8.5 W<o m~ ~~ <0 ~'õ u..i '" ,,< >-~ CO .0 Ü of ~¡ng ~w", ~e.5 ~õ"E ,,--",0 N o '" CJ) o - ~ '" (f) 7a..-ct9 '" '" - ~ c '" "'- Cl)Ü GI > +:: '" ., "2 <jz "C ID 'ê' Q) ð 0 ~b ~ ~ c.'i) Q) c: o - ..E; -= ... - =! 0.. Q) =!"O (JJ ~C ~ 0 m .cm~E:2.. -< -g~ (/) ~ ê ~ õ.! m (l) t ro ca.~ <: ~ ~ t C. tJ) C:::J 0 E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CI)~ cti Q;I 0 g -¡¡¡E_~¡;¡üª'<:: 0'- llJ :J ~ B II~[ '" :¡: OJ -¡¡; ~ c C ::J CI) '" o - « '" .3 ~'" .- '" Q) ~]! ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ §--c.Q x(j)w"E.. .- > ¡g Q) E Q) a. U ....'00>< o Q) .... CD 1ij :ë Co Q) ui .- co Q)'¡;;;; ro ë ~¡:: ~ ~ IV 0 .- ro ~~<ri~'t:I ~..cb~2 ='=ro u :€ ;= ã5 Q) ~ ~ !:: c:: c: E II) E;! .... CD'- Q5!l. ~a.Q) ~[ij 2:5 co Q):ê·c 0 ~æ§:J.s C6(!)lt)gCD Q) ..... t; -o1?c:Ero .2-rooo_ gà3:5.~ê .- 't:I ....:':: .... [3§~~~ ~(/)~'C(f ttI § O);t:: ~ -g 16 ~L§ ::I õ 5:2 "C ~ CIJ .- () 'S Q.(/)Co"C É~~~æo " ~ -:; '" ~ "c o N o ~ t " "- ~ ü õ 3"~ °ü N.. ar¡:ij §õ: ~- -'" ~(¡; "f: æ 0<.9 ~o 8.= UJ"I:: ~~ ~ ~ <ü ~õu.i OJ >-< >.:!:: !:D ..Qua; -g;,;g rn ~ ê g.~'6 a:c2è5 N '" Q) o - '" ~ '" CI) '" '" - .... r:: '" "'- enU " . ~ ~ <Iz,,~ h~ ca 0 « ¡:::i:v~~ E~ c: ~ .!B.'" .o.$:;~.!: ~u t 15 u æ"'¡¡¡õ()"C '" Q) t:: ~ -~cøø 'tS 0... rn -ca...6·-ott.l Q).c ::I 0 CL CD_......(j).J::8.. cnã) Ü e- êO~~Q)~o OUJ...... 0 "'C .9~ro~~a. Q. 0 CJ .$ CJ,~c("')oQ) 0.... >..~ () Q>"""0-eJ::.J:: .... C:!::::: C ('¡ "0 Q)"C c:......:: n.. Q) (j:J a. Q).cQ)ro~Q) ~_>-Q) §.~>D D ~ ~ ~i~ ~~§ ro ã) ë.§~roêm a.. Qj ?J (þ ~ § ~(ij > )( o..c·- _ U Q) ~ Q) Q) ~Q)ã.-g¡q "'C,~ ~ 7:: U) !£!(fU8üB v, ,,, .... '+- Q)cQ)(ro- Q.cu ro Q.) ctI 0 ~Q)'šQ)a.o E VI ~ .... a. roa.o-cE::::e: - - - « _E c 0..0 Q)'-'-å .'" ........ .Q =........-e>-LO tn Q)"U C >. ...... (lj0'C:::JQ)C ã) 1:; .$ ~ ã5 ~ ~I2~~:Ü.ê CJ c: ~ Q) Q; c .2C::;::¡ß¡jj....... '- - ,,, > Q) u CD .... C/) f/) (tJ a. 0 Q) () C'O~ro (/) ~ B f:~1~ÎÒmm 0 :æ: a.~e; a.E ~ Eïña.~._ct Q) rn ~ r:: r:: :J en <fJ o - « <fJ o ....J ~ I C> ~ .~ o N o ~ 1" " C. => o .Õ g~ ¡;:j0 ~c "'" c:- =>"- -,- -'" '" ~ u" .- c: E" oeD ag tÍ}:e "," "c. ~=> «0 ~õw tD >- « >.:!::: a) ..cU .. "C .. 1! " '" c: ~ " '" 1! r=.5 ,,=>"C a:~O '" CJ o -¡;; .... CO en Development Feasibility Analysis By reslricling densities, limiting building heights, and requiring large setbacks, the proposed initiatives would effectively reduce the square footage lhat could be developed on Cupertino properties, As a result, residenlial and commercial developers may not be able to achieve an adequate financial return on projects in Cupertino, and the proposed growth control measures could have a chilling effecl on development in the Ciiy. This section examines the initiatives' potential impact on local development feasibility lhrough quantitative and qualitalive methods. Methodology To analyze the measures' impact on development feasibiliiy in Cupertino, BAE fonnulaled a series of pro fonnas representing proloiypical projects in the Ciiy. For the purposes of this analysis, six key sites were selected that are likely locations for new residential, office, retail, and mixed-use projects. For each site, BAE lhen formulated a "low density" scenario, based on the proposed initiatives, and a "standard density" scenario, reflecting the Ciiy's current General Plan, BAE then compared the financial returns generated by each scenario to evaluate the initiatives' effect on feasibility. BAE developed assumplions for each scenario through inlerviews with developers active in Cupertino, as well as City staff familiar with local projecls, Developers and staff provided financial details associated with specific projects, which BAE then combined with independent research to construct a "generic" prototype. In addition, to determine appropriale sale prices and renls for lhe protoiype projects, BAE inlerviewed local developers and conducted independenl research of comparable projects in the Cupertino market It is important to nole thai while lhe protoiypes are based on developer inlerviews, lhey do not reflecl specific plans for lhe sites, and are intended for modeling purposes only. As an example, actual residential projecls conlain a range of unit iypes, differing in the number of bedrooms, amenities, and price. However, the pro fonnas in this analysis present an average number of bedrooms and price for each protoiype, Furthennore, while BAE made all attempts to develop sound assurnplions, the analyses carry a margin of imprecision relalive to specific real projects. On- and off-sile improvement costs, construction costs, fees/permit costs, and unit configurations will vary from projecllo project. The sludy sites and the uses assumed for lhis analysis are as follows (see Map 4): . Site I "Valleo Rosebowl": Localed at 10123 North Wolfe Road, Planned as mixed-use residenlial and regional-serving retail on 5.84 acres, This site falls within lhe Valleo Park Planning Districl, and therefore has less restrictive height, setback attd densiiy requirements under lhe proposed initiatives. 5 10.. - ] .:L · Site 2 "Hewlett Packard Properties": North side of Stevens Creek Blvd, and bolh sides of Finch Ave. Planned as multifamily residential on 17.4 acres. Also falls within Vallco Park Planning Dis trict. · Site 3 "Adobe Lounge": Located at 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd. Planned as residential on 0.84 acres. · Site 4 "Villa Serra": Located al20800 and 20900 Homestead Road, Planned as residential on 23,8 acres. · Site 5 "Apple Campus": Located all through 6 Infinity Loop. Surface parking lots adjacenl to Stevens Creek Boulevard may be developed as addilional Apple office facilities. Potential developmenl area lolals 6.4 acres. BAE only assumed 2.25 to 3.0 acres of this area would be developed. · Site 6 "United Furniture": 10071 Estates Drive. Planned as mixed-use residential and local-serving retail on 2.75 acres. Tables I through 3 summarize the primary assumptions for each prototype under the low- density and standard density scenarios. Appendix A contains the detailed pro formas, In addilion to lhe financial feasibility analysis, BAE interviewed key informants including local developers, landowners, real estate professionals, and other economic development stakeholders to assess their views of how the proposed measures would impact developmenl in Cupertino, These findings are also outlined below, Please see Appendix B for a complete list ofinterviewees. For lhe purposes of \his report, a 10 percenl profit as a percentage of development cost is considered "acceptable." This threshold is relatively conservative, as developers will often regard an 8,0 percent return on cost as an indicalor of feasibility, It should be noted thai while return on equity can vary using this measure (depending on the amount of equity and debt for \he project), following rough proportions of30 percent equity investment means that the 10 percent of cost measure translates into at least 25 percent or more return on equity. This methodology reflects a conservative approach, as it assumes \hat land values will not adjust to reflecllhe growth control measures, if passed. In fact, while land values are generally slow to react 10 changing markel conditions, over time, land values will likely absorb a portion of the additional cost of new developmenl restrictions. This economic shift will reduce lhe full impact to developers. However, developers and landowners interviewed for this study indicated that land sellers are often reluctant to reduce their asking price, given lhe scarcity of available properties in the area and lhe high demand for siles. Consequenlly, the lag as property values adjust may last for a number of years. 6 1CL-73 ro ro ..... l- e ro ro- enü (/) Q) t: Q) c.. o ..... a.. "'0 ..... CIJ ~ (.) CIJ a.. ~ {2 ~ - 2:' Q)-g (1 ;¡ (t ::!: -c= <1 a; ~.s~ L...:Jco(f.l ~ Z ('¡ I::::IC ro"2~~ :5'~ Q) '0 () Ew ro 0)....«<:1 :~:ðaJ æ ~~~Ji5 ~ ~::J.... r¿ .~~~~ !l' _.....c. <ë :g ai= :ß o Q).!::! o:=: c: "'0 :2:gi1!~ 6 t 2 .8-"~~ ~ -ê :gÆ e-£ ~ 0 tí ái ð.. 'õ ~ §" ~~Æ(ij o (,) u Q)....... Þ .!: :5 ~ 0 2 u) _ c ';EWLLO.Q I"D~ Hilt ~ g~ ã'> 55 ~"O"O Q) ro ~ e e ::J en Q) C/) o """) e ro en "' .!" ~ g> ." ° N ° c 'E " Co ::> o .õ ;!;þ ~u a>g c- ::>a. ...,- - '" "' ~ " " .- c Eo> gø 00 "c w:.e ",0> "Co ~ ::> «0 >.- . ",ow aJ >. « >,;;;: !:D .c 0,· 'O..~ *!ßæ c..Ec ~ð'o Q..UJo Findings This section oudines the key findings oflhe development feasibility analysis: · All residential and mixed-use prototypes generate lower financial returns under the low density scenario. Tables 1 and 2 show lhallimiling unit densities reduces developer returns by 30 10 70 percent in the residential and mixed use study sites, The financial loss to developers appears greatest outside lhe Vallco Planning Dislrict. Under the General Plan, these areas would permit average densities of approximately 30 unilslacre, and up 10 50 unitslacre at the Villa Serra site. Consequendy, reducing the permitted density to 15 unitslacre creates a significant impact on developer returns. Within the Valleo District, the decrease in financial returns is less severe, as developers may still build up to 30 units/acre under the proposed measures. · The low density residential and mixed-use prototypes have more difficulty generating a sufficient financial return. Under the standard density scenario, all residential and mixed-use prolotypes exceed the 10 percent financial feasibility threshold. Under the low density scenario, the HP Properties and Vallco Rosebowl siles meet the threshold as well. However, il is worth noting lhat lhese siles still allow up to 30 units/acre under the proposed initiatives. In contrast, the Adobe Lounge, Villa Serra, and United Furniture low density prototypes do nol realize a 10 percent return, For lhis analysis, BAE adopted a relatively conservative approach when setting sale prices and cosls. In practice, a specific project at these sites may command higher sale prices or achieve a lower cost structure, thereby generating a 10 percent return. A developer may also be able to accommodate 14 unitslacre on these sites, as opposed to lhe 13 unitslacre assumed here, Nevertheless, lhe analysis indicates that residential and mixed-use projects are significandy more difficult to "pencil" below 15-units to the acre. Therefore, the proposed initiatives would narrow deve loper flexibility, limillhe conditions that support a financially feasible project, and lead to a more uniform development pattern, · The proposed growth control initiatives would likely lead to higher prices for new housing in Cupertino. Developers reported that in order to achieve a sufficient return under the reduced densities, they would focus on product types lhal command higher sale prices, Simply put, ifland prices and building costs remain constanl, and the number of allowed units on a site decreases, developers would have to build fewer, more expensive units. Under a 15 unitslacre limit, developers staled they would likely build small-lot single-family homes at 12 to 14 units per acre. This product type would also fall below lhe proposed 36-fool heighl restriction. As a detached product type offering more living area, these units have higher sale prices that support local land values. However, limiting 8 c:¡ a.. - J) new development to this relatively high-priced product would exacerbate the lack of affordable housing in Cupertino, · The proposed height restrictions would limit the feasibility of "vertical" mixed-use projects. Key infonnants reported that a 36-foot height limil generally translales into two stories, unless the project has a flat rootline and no vertical design features. This restriction would not have a significant impact on stand-alone neighborhood and community -serving retail, which seldom exceeds one story, However, the height limit would prohibit mixed-use projects with residential units above office or retail space. These developments often do have at least three stories, pitched roofs, and other vertical design elements. The heighllimil would also constrain regional-serving retail projects. In facl, key infonnants report that even the 45-foot height limit in the Valleo Planning Districl would be somewhat restrictive for regional relail, depending on lhe specific project proposed for that site. Among the low dens ity mixed-use prolotypes studied in lhis analysis, BAE accommodaled a mixed use project al the United Furniture site by assuming small-lot single-family homes behind neighborhood-serving retail. This "horizontal" mixed-use plan falls within the 36-foot height limit. As shown in Appendix A-I, BAE also fonnulated a low density Valleo Rosebowl scenario thai could be buill within three stories. This prolotype could conceivably fit within the proposed 45-foot height limit in Valleo, depending on specific archilectural details. · The 36-foot height limit would negatively impact new large-scale office development in Cupertino. Due to lhe sluggish office market throughout the region and the surplus of vacant space in Santa Clara County, little to no new office development is expected in lhe near fulure. Nevertheless, as the office market rebounds, commercial developers stated thalihe proposed height limit would delract from Cupertino's viability as a location for corporate headquarters. Major finns typically require more space and visibility for their headquarters than a two-story building allows. While a lhree-slory building may be possible under lhe proposed restriclions, lhe flat rootline and other necessary archilectural constraints would make lhe project less appealing to users. · The expansion of the Apple Campus could occur under the proposed measures. Alihough new speculative office projecls remain unlikely in the current market, build-to-suit projecls or expansions remain a possibility. Table 3 summarizes the development feasibility analysis of the Apple Campus site, and Appendices A-9 and A-IO contain the detailed pro fonnas, This analysis assumes Apple would add 150,000 square feel of new space and redevelop a portion of the 6.4-acre surface parking 101 along North De Anza Boulevard, Under the low density scenario, BAE assumed lhat Apple would use 3.0 acres of the site to keep the projecl within two stories and the 36-foot height restriction. 9 1((,-J~ Under the standard density scenario, BAE assumed Apple would design a more efficient site plan, and build the 150,000 square feet in three stories, For the purposes of this analysis, BAE assumed current economic conditions in the pro fonnas. As such, with today's low lease rates, new office projects like the prototypes analyzed here do not achieve financial feasibility. However, assuming an improved office market and more favorable lease rates, financing tenns, and cap rates, both the low and standard density scenarios do exceed lhe 10 percenl threshold,' The financial model also reflects lhe fact lhat Apple currently owns the property, and would not have to pay for land under either scenario. Based on these assumptions, the analysis indicates that Apple could accommodate 150,000 square feel of new space under a lwo-story low density scenario. However, the project does generate a lower return than the standard density scenario due to the more efficient use ofland in the latter, and resulting lower land cost. Due to the unique circumstances associated with the Apple Campus site, it is difficult 10 extrapolale ITom lhese findings to other office properties in Cupertino. Unlike the Apple campus, few properties have access to such a large amounl of adjacent underused land for expansion. Therefore, expansions would have to have a higher floor-to-area ralio (FAR) and therefore may have difficulty fitting wilhin lhe 36-fool heighllimit. Ultimately, the amount of new square foolage and available land at a specific sile will detennine a projecl's ability 10 fit under the proposed initiatives, . The proposed setback requirement would have varying impacts on development feasibility, depending on the use and constraints of particular sites. In general, shallow lols wilh a lenglhy street frontage would be mosl affecled by the minimum 35 -foot setback requirement. Key informants slaled lhat commercial uses would be somewhat less affected by the minimum setback, as many retail and office projects separate the building from the street with surface parking and/or landscaping, However, one developer cautioned that the setback requirement would limit a '<New Urbanist" approach to urban design and encourage developers to push parking towards the street. Mixed-use and residential projecls may be more impacted by the setback, depending on particular site plans and property constrainls, Infonnants also noted that in existing areas with setbacks less than 35-feet, the new requirement would prevenl developers ITom matching the currenl building pattern, and lead 10 a more disjointed streetscape. , Even increasing rents to $3.00 per square foot, well below the $4 to is/square foot rents achieved at the height of the office market, achieves a return over 10 percent in both scenarios. 10 7tz-37 For the purposes of this analysis, BAE structured all the low densiiy proloiypes to account for the increased setback; the requiremenl did not have a material effecl on the protoiypes or the development feasibiliiy findings, . In general, key informants stated that the proposed initiatives were excessively inflexible and would binder future planning efforts. Developers, real estate professionals, landowners, and economic development stakeholders all stated that the measures' ciiywide approach limits the Ciiy's abiliiy to develop effeclive design guidelines and zoning regulalions al a neighborhood level. The infonnanls felt the initiatives would effectively lead to a very limited development pattern and more homogeneous streetscape. . To the extent tbat other communities have less restrictive development conditions, developers may choose to build in neighboring cities instead of Cupertinn. Key infonnants all emphasized that the initiatives discourage development in the Ciiy. In addition to the financial and economic factors noted above, developers slated lhat !hey would be hesitant 10 build in a communiiy with an apparent anti-development sentiment. II 1ct-3ð Table 1: Residential Assumptions and Returns Site 2: HP Properties Site 3: Adobe Lounge Site 4: Villa Serra Low Density Std Density Low Density Std Density Low Density Std Density Project Characteristics (a) Number of Units 522 609 11 29 309 1,190 Site Size (acres) 17.40 17.40 0.84 0.84 23.80 23.80 Net Density (Units/Acre) 30 35 13 35 13 50 Average Unit Size (sq. ft.) 1,200 1,200 1,800 1,200 1,800 1,200 Parking Ratio (spaces per unit) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Common Area 12% 12% 0% 12% 0% 12% Unit Mix (b) Market 444 517 9 25 263 1,012 BMR Median 39 46 1 2 23 89 BMR Moderate 39 46 2 23 89 Sale Prices/Rents (c) Market Sale Price/Rent $550,000 $550,000 $645,000 $550,000 $645,000 $550,000 BMR Median $194,204 $194,204 $238,769 $194,204 $238,769 $194,204 BMR Moderate $238,769 $238,769 $304,185 $238,769 $304,185 $238,769 Development Costs (d) Land/Square Foot $68 $68 $68 $68 $68 $68 Mkt Rate Construction Costs (Per Sq. Ft.) $130 $130 $100 $130 $100 $130 On and Off-Site Costs/Unit $25,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 Permit & Fees/Unit $6,000 $6,000 $15,000 $6,000 $15,000 $6,000 Other Soft Costs (% of const. & on/off-site costs) 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Cost/Parking Space $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $15,000 Construction Financing Interest Rate 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% Period of Initial Loan (months) 36 36 8 18 24 60 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Average Outstanding Balance 70% 70% 60% 80% 60% 70% Loan to Cost Ratio 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% Return as % of Cost 10.3% 14.4"1. 9.4% 21.4% 4.4% 15.1-J" Difference btw Std Density and Low Density 28.6% 56.2% 70.8% Notes: (a) Assumptions, while based on discussions with City staff and local developers, do not reflect specific plans for the sites analyzed here. Pro formas are intended for modelinQ purposes onlv. (b) City's Residential Mitigation Requirement obligates developers to dedicate the following share of total units for median and moderate income households. Median 7.50% Moderate 7.50% (c) Below-market rate sale prices per City of Cupertino Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual. (d) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. Source: BAE, 2004. 1o...-J1 Table 2: Mixed Use Assumptions and Returns Site 1: Vallco Rosebow! Site 6: United Furniture Low Density Std Density Low Density Std Density Primary Project Assumptions (a) Site Size (acres) 584 5.84 2.75 2.75 % Dedicated 10 Residential (b) NA NA 90% 90% % Dedicated to Retail (b) NA NA 10% 10% Residential Component: Project Characteristics Number of Units 162 2V5 32 .7 Site Size (acres) 5.40 5.40 2.48 2.48 Net Density (UnitsfAcre) 30 3. 13 35 Unit Size 1,200 1,200 1,800 1,200 Parking Ratio - Residential (Per unit) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Common Area 12% 12% 0% 12% Unit Mix (c) M"''' 138 175 27 7' Median (100% AMI) 12 15 2 7 Moderate (120% AMI) 12 15 2 7 Sale Prices: (d) Market $550,000 $550,000 $645,000 $550,000 Median $194,204 $194,204 $238,769 $194,204 Moderate $238,769 $238,769 $304,185 $238.769 Retail Component: Project Characteristics Retail Square Footage 100,000 100,000 10,000 10,000 Leaseable% 90% 90% 90% 90% Leaseable Area 90,000 90,000 9,000 9,000 Parking Ratio (spacesl250 gross sq. fl.) 1 1 1 1 Ren~ Retail Rents (Monlhly/Sq. FI. NNN) $2.25 $2.25 $2.15 $2.15 CapRate 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% Development Costs Ie) land Costs (per Sq. Ft.) $68 $68 $68 $68 Residential Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) $130 $130 $100 $130 Retail Construction Costs (per Sq. FI.) $120 $120 $100 $100 Residential On & Off-site Improvements (per Unit) (b) NA NA $30,000 $25,000 Retail On & Off-Site Improvements (per Acre) $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Residential Fees (per Unit) $6,000 $6,000 $15,000 $6,000 Retail Fees (per Sq.Ft.) $10 $10 $10 $10 Residential CoslIP8f1<ing Space $15,000 $15.000 $0 $15,000 RetaW CostJParldng Space $15,000 $15,000 $1,000 $1,000 Other Soft Costs (% of const. & on/off-site costs) 20% 20% 20% 2V% Construction Financina Assumptions Interest Rate 8.0% ..0% 8.0% 8.0% Period of Initial Loan (Months) 38 38 18 2. I~itial Construction Loan Fee (Points) 2% 2% 2% 2% Average Outstanding Balance 60% 60% 60% 60% Loan to Cost Ratio 70% 70% 70% 70% Return as % of Cost 12.7% 26.301. 6.6% 20.3% Difference btw Std Density and Low Density 51.8% 67.2% Notes: (a) Assumptions, while based on discussions with City staff and local developers, do not reflect specific plans for the sites analyzed here. Pro-formas are intended for modeling purposes only. (b) Site 1 is a ~vertical" mixed-use project with residential above retail. Therefore. the pro-forma does not differentiate between residential and retail land and on- and off-site costs, as the two components occupy a single footprint. Site 6 is a ~horizootar mixed- use project, and can effectively be treated as two separate projects for the pro-forma. Therefore costs are more parsed between residential and retail components. (c) City's Residential Mitigation Requirement obligates devetopers to dedicate the following share of total units for median and moderate income households. Median 7.50% Moderate 7.50% (d) Below-market rate sale prices per City of Cupertino Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual. (e) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. Source: BAE, 2004. C¡cZ-y& Table 3: Office Assumptions and Returns Project Characteristics (a) Site Size (acres) Site Size (Sq. Ft.) Total Office Square Feet (excluding pkg.) Building Efficiency Factor Gross leaseable Area lot Coverage Ratio lot Coverage Number of Stories FAR Revenues Office Rents (Monthly/Sq. Ft. NNN) Cap Rate Parking (b) Parking Ratio - Parking Spots/285 Sq. Ft. Total Parking Spaces Parking Space Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Area (Sq, Ft.) Surface or Podium Parking Development Costs (c) land/Square Fool Construction Costs (Per Sq. Ft.) On and Off-Site Costs (per Acre) Tenant Improvement Allowances (per GLA) Permit & Fees (per Sq.Ft.) Other Soft Costs (% of canst. & on/off·site costs) Parking Costs (per Space) Construction Financing Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Return as % of Cost Site 5: Apple Campus Low Density Std Density 3.0 2.25 130,680 98,010 150,000 150,000 10% 10% 135,000 135,000 70% 70% 91,476 68,607 2 3 1.15 1.53 $2.25 $2.25 8.0% 8.0% 1 1 526 526 350 350 184,211 184,211 Surface Surface $0 $0 $100 $100 $250,000 $250,000 $25 $25 $10 $10 20% 20% $1,000 $1,000 8.0% 8.0% 18 18 2% 2% 60% 60% 70% 70% -35.8% -34.2% Notes: (a) Assumptions, while based on discussions with City staff and local developers, do not reflect specific plans for the sites analyzed here. Pro-formas are intended for modelinQ purposes on Iv. (b) For both scenario, analysis assumes existing surface lots will accommodate all or a portion of parking demand from new facility. Therefore, parking area exceeds total site square footage. (c) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. Source: BAE, 2004. 112. -LI ( Fiscal Impact Analysis To analyze the proposed initiatives impact on lhe fiscal health of Cupertino's General Fund, BAE analyzed lhe net fiscal expendilures and revenues expected from six sludy sites described above. Methodology The fiscal impact analysis focuses on the various cosl and revenue ilems lhal make up lhe City of Cupertino General Fund, The General Fund is the discretionary portion of the City budget used to finance most of the City's basic municipal services, such as police protection, development services, parks and recreation, public works, and overall City managemenl and administration, To support these ongoing services, the General Fund balance depends on various revenue sources, such as the City's share of property taxes, , sales laxes, various local taxes, and revenues allocated by the State of California, Development programs for the study sites, depending on the number of new employees, residents, built square feet, bus inesses, and associated infrastructure generated, create additional revenues and costs that impact the City's General Fund, This analysis estimates lhe net fiscal impacl of a low density scenario, based on the proposed initiatives, and a standard density scenario, reflecting the City's cUITenl General Plan. As a primary step in the fiscal analysis, BAE eslimates the number of new residents and employees based on the development programs for the low dens ity and standard density scenarios at each site. Table 4 contains these estimates. For several revenue and cost items analyzed, the number of net new residents and employees is used to estimate the project's overall "service population." This analysis uses the service population as an indicalor of the relative demand lhe proposed projecl will create fo r certain City services. Typically, the service population is defined as lOa percent of project residenls plus 50 percenl of project employees, Counling local workers as equivalent to one-half of a resident is a commonly accepted practice in fiscal impact analysis to reflect the reduced demand for services created by workers as opposed to residents. Revenues On lhe revenue side, BAE eslimates lhe net additional revenue to lhe City General.Fund generated through sales taxes, property taxes, property transfer taxes, business license fees, franchise fees, and motor vehicle in-lieu (MVIL) fees. , It should be noted that the City of Cupertino receives police and fIre protection and library service from Santa Clara County through a shared services model. The City General Fund reimburses the Santa Clara County Sheriff Department for expenditures related to serving the City of Cupertino. Fire protection and library services have their own dedicated revenues streams, received directly from property tax revenues. 15 'jc¿ -'-I:L This analysis uses a number of different techniques to estimate increased revenues, Generally, BAE applies current per employee, household, or service population revenues to projected growth to estimate future revenue. Other projections are more specialized, such as those for sales lax, property tax, and property transfer tax, Note that the analysis does not include one-time revenues or costs, such as impact fees or capilal projects, and focuses solely on ongoing annual revenues and costs. This is because in Cupertino, as in most other California cities, il is expected thai new development will pay for the capital facililies it requires up-front through participation in existing improvement districts, construction of facilities, and mandated impact fees. Appendix C conlains addilional detail on lhe melhodology associated wilh each revenue item. Costs On lhe cost side, BAE estimates the nel cosls 10 the City General Fund generated by additional demand for services generated by future growth, Cupertino is a relatively malure city, approaching build-out under the City's current General Plan, According to calculations made as part of lhe General Plan update, the City currenily has over 20,000 housing unils with a remaining capacity for fewer than 2,000 additional units. indicaling a city that is approximately 90 percent built out. Likewise, the City's office development capacity is approximalely 90 percent built out with 8.3 million square feet buill and a capacity for 9.4 million square feet. Commerciallrelail developmenl has more room to grow, but is still 75 percenl built out, with 3.3 million square feet developed as of2004, The facllhat Cupertino has largely reached its development capacity impacts lhe amounl of costs anticipated as a resuli of future development. In many instances, City departments/divisions expect no or few additional service costs as the City approaches buildout under lhe General Plan. In these departments, slaffing levels are adequale to serve a larger population and employment base. and infrastructure is sufficient to meet expected demand. This is the case for overall City management and administration including Administralive Services, City Council, City Attorney, and Public Infonnation offices. For other areas, costs are expected to increase relative to new residential, commercial and office developmenl in City. These ilems include Law Enforcement. Parks and Recrealion, and Public Works. Wilh regard 10 each of these departments, BAE conducted interviews with department staff to identitY "fixed" versus "marginal" cosls. Fixed costs are those ongoing costs which lhe City will incur regardless of future levels of growth. These include staffing required to serve the exisling service populalion, and maintenance of existing equipment and facilities, where a larger service population is not expecled 10 generate additional costs, 16 let -4 J Marginal costs are those incurred as a result of future growth. These include additional staffing to serve a larger service population as well as new facilities or increased maintenance for existing facilities. The following describes BAE's approach to the marginal cost elemenls oflhe analysis: Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement services comprise the largest cost item in the fiscal impacl analysis. BAE identified general beat officer cosls as a marginal cosl expected to increase wilh future growth, According to the Sheriffs Department, other items, including traffic patrols and investigative services, are not expected to increase due to future growth; current staffing levels are sufficient to serve the larger service population envisioned by lhe General Plan. Using service population as a cost basis, BAE eslimates additional costs for Law Enforcement beat officer services, as shown in Table 5 and Appendix C-ll. Park and Recreation. The Park and Recreation Department is fundedjoinlly lhrough the General Fund and various enterprise funds, which draw revenue from user fees. Five divisions exist within the Department: Cultural Programs, Youth and Teen Services, Senior Programs, Blackberry Fann, and Sports and Physical Recrealion. Wilh regard to the first four of these divisions, General Fund costs are not expecled to increase relalive to future growth, due to cost recovery based on user fees and sufficient facilities and staffing levels to accommodate future demand. In lhe case of the Sport and Physical Recreation Division, increases in the service population are expected to translate into increased membership. Additional members would positively impact the operational budget for the facilities. Nonetheless, the overall impact of increas ed memberships generated by development on the study sites is expected to be relalively small and is not likely to have much, if any, impact on the General Fund, Public Works. Like the Parks and Recrealion Department, Public Works is divided into various divisions. The Environmental Management, Service Center, Grounds and General Service divisions do not anticipate increased General Fund costs related to future growth due 10 a combination of cost recovery from user fees, sufficient staffing levels, and no anlicipaled changes 10 mainlenance budgets which are not closely tied 10 service population. However, the Departmenl expects increased cosls relaled to future growth for the Transportalion and Engineering Services divisions. Colleclively these divisions are responsible for lransportalion planning and transportalion facilities design and maintenance. These costs are expected to rise as traffic grows in conjunction with future expansion in the City and surrounding communities. To estimate this cost increase, BAE divides marginal costs between the existing service population to detennine costs on a per service population basis, then applies this figure 10 the study sites. Table 5 and Appendix C-12 contain this analysis. Appendix C contains additional delail on the methodology for each General Fund expenditure item. 17 14..-lfl.( Cost and Revenue Inflation This analysis has been perfonned on a current 2004 dollar basis. For purposes of this analysis, cost and revenue inflation are assumed to be the same, and therefore inflation increases are not relevant. This assumption is somewhat problematic when estimating property lax projections due to the twopercent annual Proposition 13 cap on increasing assessed value and lherefore property tax revenue, The two percent cap may be below cost inflation rates in the future, Because the buildout year is unknown, no adjustment has been made for property tax revenues' potential lag behind real estate appreciation and cost inflation. In the short and mid-term horizon these potential adjustments are likely to be minor. Findings Table 5 contains a summary of lhe net fiscal impact of the low and slandard density scenarios. This section outlines lhe key findings of the fiscal impact analysis ofthe proposed initiative: . Cupertino General Fund expenditures are relatively stable and will not increase significantly as Cupertino's population increase. Cupertino is largely buill Oul under its current General Plan, and has sufficient infrastructure and services in place to accommodate future growth. As a resul!, in many instances, City departments/divisions expect no or few addilional costs as the City approaches buil! out under the General Plan. o Compared to the standard dens ity scenario, the low density scenario results in significantly less projected net revenue for the City General Fund. Both \he standard and low density development scenarios are projecled 10 result in a net increase in revenues to Cupertino's General Fund. However, the low density scenario generates notably less revenue. For the six study sites, total annual net revenues for \he standard and low density scenarios are projecled at $887,000 and $487,000, respeclively, a $400,000 difference. o Foregoing the expected revenue of the build out represents a lost opportunity to assure the continuing health of Cupertino's General Fund. Though the low density scenario show positive net revenue to Cupertino's General Fund, comparison to the buildout indicales that \he City can expecl significantly lower net revenues under the proposed initiatives. As such, the initiatives create an opportunity cost, with the City foregoing revenue lhal could help the City balance the General Fund in lhe face of future shortfalls. With \he existing tax base and City expenditures, future expenditure inflation could outpace revenue growth, Development under the standard density scenario affords the City the opportunity to increase net revenues and build its reserves against future cost increases and unexpected shortfalls. 18 Itl-~J Table 4: Development Program by Study Site EXISTING DEvELOPMENT Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Total Warehouse Current Use Vacant Vacant Vacant Apartments Vacant Retail Office Space (sq.ft,) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Space (sq,ft.) 0 0 0 0 0 38,230 38,230 Single Family Residential Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential Units 0 0 0 3BB 0 0 388 Service PODulation Estimates Employees (a) 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Residents (b) 0 0 0 9B9 0 0 9B9 SeNice Population 0 0 0 9B9 0 25 1,014 "STANDARD DENSITY' BUILDOUT SCENARIO (c) New DeveloDment Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS Site 6 Total Office Space (sq. ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq. ft.) 100,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 110,000 Single Family Residential Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential Units 205 609 29 1,190 0 B7 2,120 Net New Develooment Office Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq.ft) 100,000 0 0 0 0 (28,230) 71,770 Single Family Residential Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential Units 205 609 29 802 0 87 1,732 Service PODulatlon Estimates Net New Employees (a) 333 0 0 0 500 (94) 739 Net New Households 205 609 29 B02 0 B7 1,732 Net New Residents (b) 523 1,553 74 2,045 0 222 4,417 Net New Service Population (d) 689 1,553 74 2,045 250 175 4,786 "LOW DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (c) New DevelODment Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Total Office Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq.ft.) 100,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 110,000 Single Family Residential Units 162 0 11 309 0 32 514 Multifamily Residential Units 0 522 0 0 0 0 522 Net New DeveloDment Office Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq. ft.) 100,000 0 0 0 0 (28,230) 71,770 Single Family Residentia1 Units 162 0 11 309 0 32 514 Multifamily Residential Units 0 522 0 (388) 0 0 134 Service PODulation Estimates Net New Employees (a) 333 0 0 0 500 (94) 739 Net New Households 182 522 11 (79) 0 32 648 Net New Residents (b) 418 1,331 2B (192) 0 B3 1,668 Net New Service Population (d) _ 5B5 1,331 2B (192) 250 36 2,037 Notes: (a) Estimate of number of employees is based on the following assumption: 750 sq.ft. per warehouse retail worker 300 sq.ft. per office worker 300 sq.ft. per general retail worker (b) Estimate of number of residents is based on the following assumptions (see Table 1 notes): 2.58 persons single family household 2.55 persons per multifamily household (c) See Table 1 notes for description of buildout scenarios. (d) Service Population = Residents + 1/2 Employees. Sources: City of Cupertino; BAE, 2004. c¡a - V& Table 5: Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary STANDARD DENSITY' BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) Revenue Sources Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS Site 6 Toto' Sales Tax $248,178 5150,954 $7,188 $198,793 $52,297 ($34,151) $823,260 Property Tax $32,641 573,689 53,509 $143,990 $8,454 $11,259 $273,542 Property Transfer Tax $8.404 $22,107 $1,053 $43,197 51,031 $3,254 $79,046 Business License Tax $7,176 $0 $0 $0 $10,764 ($2,026) 515,915 Franchise Fee 527,045 529,360 $1,398 $38,665 $25,743 ($650) 5121,581 MVILFees 533,488 $99.484 54,737 $131,012 '0 $14,212 $131,012 Total Projected New Revenue $356,933 $375,594 $17,885 $555,857 $98,290 ($B,103) $1,244,335 EXDendltures Law Enforcement (542,063) ($94,750) ($4,512) ($124,778) ($15,253) ($10,665) ($292,022) Public Works ($9,445) {521,277} (51.013) ($28,019) ($3,425) ($2,395) ($55,575) Parxs and Recreation No new costs projected based on future growth (b) City Council/Commissions No new costs projected based on future growth (b) Administration No new costs projected based on future growth (b) Public Information No new costs projected based on future growth (b) Administrative Services No new costs projected based on future growth (b) Community Development No new costs projected based on fUture growth (c) Library Expenditures funded through direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) Fire Expenditures funded through direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) Total Projected New Expenditures ($51,509) ($H6,027) ($5,525) ($152,797) (S18,678) ($13,060) ($357,596) Net New Revenue $305,424 $259,567 $12,,360 $402,860 $79,611 ($21,163) $686,738 LOW DENSITY' BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) RevenueSoun::es Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Toto' Sales Tax $237,992 $129,389 $2,759 ($18,681) $52,297 ($47,691) $356,065 Property Tax 530,624 $63,162 $1,561 $43,647 $8,454 $5,272 $153,120 Property Traf\Sfer Tax $7,859 $16,949 $468 $13,154 $1,031 51,458 $42,920 Business License Tax $7,176 $0 '0 '0 $10,764 ($2,026) $15,915 Franchise Fee $24,972 $25,166 $530 ($3,809) $25,743 {$3,302} $69,301 MVILFees $26,775 $85,272 $1,818 ($12,311) '0 $5,289 ($12,311) Total Projec:ted New Revenue S335,598 $321,938 S7,13& $22,201 $98,290 ($40,999) S&25,009 EXDendltures Law Enforcement ($35,670) ($81,214) ($1,732) $11,725 ($15,253) {$2,167} ($124,310) PublicWor1<s ($4,503) ($7,152) ($151) $1,082 ($3,425) $206 ($13,942) Parks and Recreation No new costs projected based on fUture growth (b) City Council!Commissions No new costs projected based on future growth (b) Administration No new costs projected based on future growth (b) Public Information No new costs projected based on fUture growth (b) Administrative Services No new costs projected based on future growth (b) Community Development No new costs projected based on future growth (c) Library Expenditures fUnded through direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) Fire Expenditures fUnded through direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) Total Projected New expenditures ($40,173) (S88,366) ($1,882) S12,808 ($18,678) (S1,960) ($138,252) Net New Revenue $295,425 $233,671 $5,254 $35,008 $79,611 ($42,959) $486,757 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDOUT SCENARIOS Std Den, Scenario Net New Revenues Low Den, Scenario Net New Revenues Difference In Net New Revenues Site 1 $305,424 $295,425 $9,998 Site 2 $259,567 $233,571 $25,996 Site 3 $12,360 $5,254 $7,106 Site 4 $402,860 $35,008 $367,851 Site 5 $79,611 $79,611 $0 Sit. 6 ($21,163) ($42,959) $21,797 Toto' $866,738 $466,757 $399,981 Not~· (a) See Tabie 1 for description of bui!dout scenarios (b) Treasurer! Director of Administrative Services indicates that for the departrnenttdivision current budgeted staffing levels are sufficient to serve Cityatcompletebuildout. (c) As of July 1, 2004 the Community Development Department will transition to a fee schedule designed to fully recover costs of providing services. Under the Low Density Buildout Scenarios, certain fees may have to increase in order to fully recover costs associated with a lesser volume of development, Assuming that fees will be periodically adjusted to assure that they fully recover costs, the proposed initiatives will have a neutral impact on the cost to the General Fund of operating the Community Development Department. (d) Library and Fire services are provided by Santa Clara County and are paid for through a direct allotment of property tax revenue Fundingfor theses services is separate from the Cupertino General Fund, Sources: City of Cupertino: BAE, 2004 7Æ.-J..¡7 School District Impact Analysis Under the proposed initiatives, a significanl portion of residential developmenl in Cupertino would be limited to 15 units per acre. This density is associated with small-lol single-family homes, which typically generate more sludents per unillhan multifamily projects. ,These additional students could potentially create a negative impact on the local school districls' fiscal health and student capacity. As with the development feasibility and fiscal impact analyses described above, BAE assessed the impacls on the local school districts under the low dens ity and standard density scenarios. Fiscal Impact Analysis Methodology Tables 6 and 7 conlain the fiscal impact analyses for the Cupertino Union Dislricl and Fremont Union High School Dislrict, respeclively. BAE used lhe Adobe Lounge property described above as lhe sample site for lhis analysis, and evalualed how low and standard density prototypes on this property would impacl the districts. As a first step in the analysis, BAE estimaled lhe number of school-age children that would be generated by the low density and slandard density prototypes at the sample site. BAE identified an appropriate per unit student generation rate by comparing Cupertino school district estimates, the actual number of school-age children at the recently completed Travigne condominiums, and dala from the 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) dataset. PUMS is lhe unpublished raw data from a five percent sample of long-form Census responses. It allows for detailed cross-tabulation of lhe number of school age children per household by type of dwelling unit. After comparing these various sources, BAE elected to use the following student generation rates: K-8 StudentsJUnit High School Students/Unit Small-Lot Single-Family Units 0.12 0.20 Multifamily Units 0.05 0.12 As a second step, BAE eslimated the school district revenue that would be generated under the low density and slandard density prototypes at the Adobe Lounge site. The Cupertino Union School District (CD SD), like most districts in California, is a "revenue limit" district. According to the slructure of the public school finance syslem in California, school district revenue limits are established annually by the State Department of Education. The revenue limit, based primarily on average daily attendance (ADA), is composed of slate-provided funding and property lax revenues. If a school district's property lax revenue does not parallellhe changes in its revenue limit, the state will adjust its contribution of operating revenues so lhal the district is funded to the new revenue limit. Therefore, as enrollment changes, the amounl of money available to the 21 1tt -~ r district on a per student basis remain relatively constant, except for cost of living adjustments, To estimate the new revenue generated by a project at the Adobe Lounge site, BAE simply applied the currenl per ADA funding 10 the number of new K-6 students generated by lhe low and slandard density prolotypes. In contrast, the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) is a State Basic Aid District. State Basic Aid Dislricls' property tax revenues exceed their revenue limit. Therefore, FUHSD doe s not receive slate aid towards ils revenue limit, and only receives a basic aid amount for each studenl ($120 per ADA or $2,400 per district, whichever is greater). The District relies on additional property tax increment to maintain its existing per-student revenue amount. For this analysis, BAE estimated the property tax that would be generated by lhe low and standard density prototypes, and whal portion of this revenue would be allocated to the Dislrict. As a final slep, BAE compared lhe each districl's projected revenue 10 the districts' expendilures per studenl to evaluate the net fiscal impacl under lhe low and slandard density scenarios. It is important to note that this is a conservative approach to estimating the fiscal impact on lhe districts on lhe CUSD, in particular. In reality, the marginal cosl of adding new students is lower lhan the average per student expenditures. A CUSD official reported that the marginal cost generated by a new student is relatively low, and costs go up significantly only when a new teacher is required. Even then, \he Districl's tOlal revenue limil for a typical classroom adequately covers lhe cost of a new teacher, In lhe case ofFUHSD, the marginal cost of a new student is also less than the average per student expenditure. However, the Dislrict is not reimbursed on a per ADA basis by \he Slate, and lherefore could theoretically suffer a net fiscal loss if property lax revenues do not keep pace with increasing costs, Findings As shown in Table 6, this analysis suggesls that CUSD would experience a slighl negative net fiscal impact under both scenarios. The low and standard density scenarios generale a $318 and $514 net fiscal loss, respectively. This minor fiscal loss is not a significant impact, considering the conservative assumptions used in this analysis. CUSD officials con finned lhis stalement, and reported lhat they do not expecl the proposed growth control initiatives to have a negative fiscal impact on the District's General Fund. Table 7 shows thai both scenarios lead to a positive fiscal impact for FUHSD. However, the standard density scenario generales approximately six times lhe revenue than the low density scenario. This additional property tax revenue is particularly important for Basic Aid Districts, since lhey do not receive any funding from the Slate, and rely exclusively on property tax increment to cover new cosls. Therefore, lhe proposed growih control initiatives, if passed, would generale a significanl opportunity cost to the High School District. 22 1 tl -I{ 1 Capacity Impact Analysis Methodology BAE inlerviewed slaff al CUSD and FUHSD to evaluate lhe sludenl capacity impacl generated under lhe low density and standard density scenarios. For the CUSD, BAE based its findings on in-depth interviews wilh District officials and a recent report presented by the District Superinlendenl to the General Plan Task Force. BAE adopted a more quantitative approach to its capacity impact analysis ofFUHSD. Officials provided BAE with delaile d capacity data, which BAE lhen compared to citywide student projections under the lo.w and standard density scenarios. Findings Cupertino Union School District officials reported that a number of school siles currently have excess capacity, and students are being bussed from lhe few overcrowded siles 10 ones with space. In addition, he District still mainlains a surplus site currently being leased out. This sile could be converted 10 a new facility wilh alleast 20 classrooms if future capacity needs arise. Furthennore, the District plans to open a new middle school in 2004, convert Collins School to a middle school in 2005, and shift all 6th graders 10 middle-school dedicaled facililies in 2005. This process will free up approximalely 750 elementary school spaces. Given the currenl surplus space and these facility plans, District officials expressed confidence that lhe proposed density restrictions do not pose a concern to their student capacity. In a worst case scenario, District officials stated that classroom trailers could be added to bolsler space, Table 8 contains the capacity impact analysis ofthe Fremont Union High Schoo I District. According to District officials, the incoming cohort of middle school sludents would exceed the Dislrict's studenl capacity by approximalely 313 spaces over the nexl five years. Therefore, even wilhout accounting for sludent demand ITom new household growth, lhe Dislricl will soon experience a significant space shortage. Unfortunalely,lhe District projects böth Cupertino High School and Monta Vista High School will have a space shortage in five years, so students cannot be bussed ITom the overcrowded school to the one with surplus space. BAE's analysis suggests bolh the low and standard density scenarios exacerbate lhis shortage, Under the low density scenario, assuming an average of 0.12 students per unit, an additional 166 students would be added 10 the Disirict between 2004 and lhe City buildout, These new studenls would increase the capacity shortage 10 479 spaces. Under lhe slandard density scenario, assuming an average of 0,05 students per unit, the Disiricl would need 10 accommodale approximately 103 new students, This additional demand would increase the capacity shortage to 416 spaces. 23 fcc-57J Table 6: Elementary and Middle School Student Generation Analysis Low·Densitv Standard Density ASSUMPTIONS Net Acres 0.84 0.84 Density per Net Acre 13 35 Number of Units 10.9 29.4 Elementary/Middle School Students per Unit (a) 02 0.12 New Students 2.184 3.528 REVENUE IMPACr Estimated ADA (b) 2.1 3.5 Per ADA Revenue Limit Funding $4,516 $4,516 Total Revenue Limit Funding $9,645 $15.581 COST IMPACT Average Expenditures per Student (c) $4,562 $4,562 Total Cost to District $9,964 $16,095 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($318) ($514) Notes' (a) Estimate based on interviews with District, local developers, and analysis of 2000 Census PUMS dataset. (b) Historical Average Daily Attendance (ADA) as % enrollment: 97.8% (c) Per Cupertino Union School District 2003-2004 Second Interim Budget. Sources: 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample; Cupertino Union School District 2003-2004 Second Interim Report; BAE, 2004. 7Ct -) ( Table 7: High School Student Generation Analysis Low-Density Standard Density PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS Net Acres (a) Density per Net Acre Number of Units 0.84 13 11 0.84 35 29 High School Students per Unit (b) New Students 0.12 1.31 0.05 1.47 REVENUE IMPACT Assessed Value Per Unit (c) Total Assessed Value $645,000 $7.043,400 $550,000 $16,170,000 Property Tax Rate High School District Share of Property Tax Additional Property Tax Revenue 1.10% 17.0% $13,171 1.10% 17.0% $30,238 Per Student Basic Aid Revenue Total Basic Aid Revenue $125 $164 $125 $184 Total Revenue $13,335 $30,422 COST IMPACT Average Expenditures per Student (d) Total Cost on District $7,804 $10,226 $7,804 $11,472 NET FISCAL IMPACT $3.109 $18,950 Notes' (a) Based on "Adobe Lounge" site at 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd. (b) Estimate based on interviews with District, local developers, and analysis of 2000 Census PUMS dataset. (c) Estimate based on interviews with local developers and market research. (d) Per Fall 2003 FUSD Report to Our Community. Sources: 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample; Fremont Union High School District Reporl to Our Community, Fall 2003; BAE, 2004. ~ it -S.L Table 8: Cupertino and Manta Vista High School Capacity Analysis Low.Density Standard Density CAPACITY Current Capacity (a) 3.753 3,753 Current Enrollment (b) 3,681 3,681 Current Excess Capacity 72 72 5-Year Projected Growth (c) 385 385 5-Year Excess Capacity (313) (313) NEW DEMAND Projected Number of New Units (d) 1,387 2,056 Average HS Students per Unit (e) 0.12 0.05 Projected Number of HS Students 166 103 NET CAPACITY (479) (416) Notes: (a) Current Capacity is net of estimated special ed classrooms Total of Cupertino and Monta Vista HS. (b) Net of special ed students. Total of Cupertino and Monta Vista HS, (c) Due to graduation of current middle-school students into high school. Does not include growth due to additional households. (d) From 2004 through City buildout. Per June 2004 report to City of Cupertino from Freitas & Freitas. (e) Estimate based on interviews with District. local developers, and analysis of 2000 Census PUMS dataset. Source: 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample; Fremont Union High School District; Freitas an? Freitas June 2004 report to City of Cupertino; BAE, 2004. 7ft -5) Appendix A: Development Feasibility Analysis Pro Formas 27 1(;( -')11{ Appendix A~1: Site 1, Vallco Rosebowt: Low Density Scenario PJlajot"ð,!!,H,,"p~i,()ns, .J;šL'jfu1Y,' ' Characteristics of Pro ect Site Area (Acres) % Dedicated to Retail % Dedicated to Residential Total Building Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot Coverage Ratio Lot Coverage Number of Stories Residential Component: Project Characteristics Number of Units Site Size (A,cres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Ratio· Residential (Per unit) Common Area Unit Mix Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size Unit Area Common Area Total Residential Sq. Ft. Total Residential Parking Sale Prices: (a) 2 BR/2 BA Market 2 BR/2 BA 100% AMI 2 BR/2 BA 120% AMI Retail Component: Project Characteristics Retail Square Footage Leaseable % Leaseable Area Parking Ratio (spaces/250 gross sq. ft.) Retail Parking Spaces Rents Retail Rents (Monthly/Sq. Ft. NNN) Cap Rate Parking Summary: Parking Space Size Residential Parking Sq. Ft. Non·residential Parking Sq. Ft. Total Parking Sq.Ft. Develo ment Costs b land Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Residential Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Retail Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) On & Off·Site Improvements (per Acre) Residential Fees (per Unit) Retail Fees (per Sq.Ft.) Residential Cost/Parking Space (c) Retail Cost/Parking Space (c) Other Soft Costs (d) Construction Flnaneln Assum tions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (Months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (Points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs. Land, Site Costs Amount of Loan eroFo~~.An~ly~ls ' Develo ment Cost Summa 5.84 Land Costs $17,298,547 NA Residential Construction Costs $28,304,640 NA Retail Construction Costs $12,000,000 571,128 On & Off·Site Improvements $1,460,000 75% Residential Fees $972:,000 190.793 Retail Fees $1,000,000 3 Residential Parking Costs $4,860,000 Retail Parking Costs $6,000,000 Other Soft Costs $10,524,928 162 Finance Costs: 5.40 Interest on Construction Loan $7,048,257 30 Points on Construction Loan $978,925 1,200 2 Total Development Costs $90,447,297 12% Total Development Costs/Sq. Fi- $158 Develo ment Feasibili 138 Gross Residential Sales Revenue $80,995,622 12 Less 5% Commissions/Marketing ($4,049,781) 12 Net Residential Sales Revenue $76,945,841 Retail Revenue $2,430,000 194,400 less 10% Vacancy ($243,000) 23,328 Retail Net Operating Income $2,187,000 217,72:8 Capitalized Retail Component Value $25,72:9,412 324 Less 3% Commissions/Marketing ($771,882) Potential Net Revenue $24,957,529 $550,000 Total Net Revenue $101,903,370 $194,204 less Development Costs ($90,447,297) $238,769 Developer Profit (Net Rev· Dev Costs) $11,456,073 Profit as e¡. of Development Cost 12.7% Profit Per Sq.Ft. $20.06 100,000 90% 90,000 1 400 $2.25 8.5% 350 113,400 140,000 253,400 $68 $130 $120 $250,000 $6,000 $10 $15,000 $15,000 20% 8% 36 2% 60% 70% $69,923,187 $48,946,231 Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Assumes podium parking. (d) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. Source: BAE, 2004. 7 ct -f) Maj~rAs!Sumptl~l1s Appendix A-2: Site 1, Vallco Rosebowt: Standard Density Scenario Characteristics of Pro'ect Site Area (Acres) % Dedicated to Retail % Dedicated to Residential Total Building Area (Sq. Ft.) lot Coverage Ratio lot Coverage Number of Stories Residential Component: Project Characteristics Number of Units Site Size (Acres) Net Density (UnitsfAcre) Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Ratio ~ Residential (Per unit) Common Area Unit Mix Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size Unit Area Common Area Total Residential Sq. Ft. Total Residential Parking Sale Prices: (a) 2 BRf2 SA Market 2 BRf2 SA 100% AMI 2 BR/2 BA 120% AMI Retail Component: Project Characteristics Retail Square Footage leaseable % leaseable Area Parking Ratio (spacesJ250 gross sq.ft.) Retail Parking Spaces Rents Retail Rents (Monthly/Sq. Ft. NNN) Cap Rate Parking Summary: Parking Space Size Residential Parking Sq. Ft. Non-residential Parking Sq. Ft. Total Parking Sq.Ft. Develo ment Costs b land Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Residential Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Retail Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) On & Off-Site Improvements (per Acre) Residential Fees (per Unit) Retail Fees (per Sq.Ft.) Residential Cost/Parking Space (c) Retail Cost/Parking Space (c) Other Soft Costs (d) Construction Financin Assum tlons Interest Rate Period of Initial loan (Months) Initial Construction loan Fee {Points} Average Outstanding Balance loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, land, Site Costs Amount of loan 5.84 NA NA 659,020 75% 190,793 3 205 5.40 38 1,200 2 12% 246,000 29,520 275,520 410 $550,000 $194,204' $238,769 100,000 90% 90,000 1 400 $2.25 8.5% 350 143,500 140,000 283,500 $68 $130 $120 $250,000 $6,000 $10 $15,000 $15,000 20% 8% 18 2% 60% 70% $61,427,600 $42,999,320 fiX!) FOrma Al1alysi~ LwíG0,¿ ',;V:' '~/L1f' 'Ý:)~ "', ',<,' "C+: Develonment Cost SummarY Land Costs Residential Construction Costs Retail Construction Costs On & Off·Site Improvements Residential Fees Retail Fees Residential Parking Costs Retail Parking Costs Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction loan POÎnts on Construction loan 175 15 15 Total Development Costs Total Development Costs/Sq. Ft. DeveloDment Feasibllttv Gross Residential Sales Revenue less 5% CommissionsfMarketing Net Residential Sales Revenue Retail Revenue less 10% Vacancy Retail Net Operating Income Capitalized Retail Component Value less 3% CommissionsfMarketing Potential Net Revenue Total Net Revenue less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev - Dev Costs) Profit as % of Development Cost Profit Per Sq,Ft. $17,298,547 $35,817,600 $12,000,000 $1.460,000 $1,230,000 $1,000,000 $6,150,000 $6,000,000 $12,285,520 $3,095,951 $859,986 $97,197,605 $147 $102,906,960 ($5.145,348) $97,761,612 $2,430,000 ($243,000) $2,187,000 $25,729.412 ($771,882) $24,957,529 $122,719,141 ($97,197,605) $25,521,537 26.3% $38.73 Notes· (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience, (c) Assumes podium parking. (d) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. Source: BAE, 2004. 1 íl - )'fo Appendix A-3: S~e 2, HP Properties: Low Density Scenario Characteristics of Project Base Project Size (Units) Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Average Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Ratio (Spaces per Unit) Common Area Product Mix: Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size (Sq. Ft.): Unit Total Common Area Total Residential Total Parking Spaces 626,400 75,168 701,568 1,044 Sale Prices: (a) 2 BRJ2 SA Market 2 BRJ2 SA 100% AMI 2 BR/2 SA 120% AMI $550,000 $194,204 $238,769 Development Costs (b) land/Square Foot Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft) On and Off·Síte Costs/Unit Permit & Fees/Unit Other Soft Costs (c) Cost/Parking Space (d) $68 $130 $25,000 $6,000 20% $15,000 Construction Financing Assumptions InlerestRate Period of Initial Loan (months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of loan 70% $198,675,288 $139,072,702 Pro Fonn;¡ An,a,Iy,~i,-;'; 522 17.40 30 1,200 2 12% Development Cost Survey Land Unit Construction Cost On and Off~Site Cost Parking Costs Building Permits & Fees Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction Loan Points on Construction Loan $23,364,214 $2,781,454 $51,646,680 $91,203,840 $13,050,000 $15,660,000 $3,132,000 $23,982,768 444 39 39 Total Development Costs Tota! Development Costs/Unit $224,820,956 $430,691 Development Feasibility Gross Sales Revenue Less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Sales Revenue Less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev· Dev Costs) Profit Per Unit Profit as "I. of Development Cost Profit as Ø/. of Revenue $260,985,893 ($13,049,295) $247,936,598 ($224,820,956) $23.115,642 $44,283 10.3% 9.3% Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as perCE;!ntage of construction and on/off·site costs. (d) Assumes podium parking Source: BAE, 2004. 8.0% 36 2% 70% ¡Q..-')7 Major A~surnPt!,ci~~!;~;~:sI;:r~, Appendix A-4: Site 2, HP Properties: Standard Density Scenario Characteristics of Project Base Project Size (Units) Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Average Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Ratio (Spaces per Unit) Common Area Product Mix: Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size (Sq. Ft.): Unit Total Common Area Total Residential Total Parking Spaces 730,800 87,696 818,496 1,218 Sale Prices: (a) 2 BR/2 SA Market 2 BR/2 BA 100% AMI 2 BR/2 BA 120% AMI $550,000 $194,204 $238,769 Development Costs (b) Land/Square Foot Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) On and Off-Site Costs/Unit Permit & Fees/Unit Other Soft Costs (c) CosVParking Space (d) $68 $130 $25,000 $6,000 20% $15,000 Construction Financing Assumptions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) Average Outstanding Balance loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of Loan 8.0% 36 2.0% 70.0% 70.0% $223,180,056 $156,226,039 609 17 35 1,200 2.0 12% Development Cost Survey Land Unit Construction Cost On and Off-Site Cost Parking Costs Building Permits & Fees Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction Loan Points on Construction Loan $26,245,975 $3,124,521 $51,646,680 $106,404,480 $15,225,000 $18,270,000 $3,654,000 $27,979,896 517 46 46 Total Development Costs Total Development CostslUnit $252,550,551 $414,697 Development Feasibility Gross Sales Revenue Less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Sales Revenue Less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev· Dev Costs) Profit Per Unit Profit as "I. of Development Cost Profit as % of Revenue $304,126,042 ($15,206,302) $288,919,740 ($252,550,551) $36,369,188 $59,720 14.4% 12.6% Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Other soft costs indude architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. (d) Assumes podium parking. Source: BAE, 2004. ~û-)f ~j~~~!ª~,~~~ ',",', Appendix A-5: Site 3, Adobe Lounge: Low Density Scenario PI'Ö;FÓnìla.Analysis Characteristics of Project Base Project Size (Units) Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Average Unit Size (Sq. Ft) Parking Ratio (Spaces per Unit) Common Area Product Mix: Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size (Sq. Ft.): Unit Total Common Area Total Residential Total Parking Spaces Sale Pn'ces: (a) 2 BR/2 BA Market 2 BR/2 BA 100% AMI 2 BR/2 BA 120% AMI Development Costs (b) land/Square Foot Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft) On and Off·Site Costs/Unit Permit & Fees/Unit Other Soft Costs (c) Cost/Parking Space (d) Construction Financing Assumptions Interest Rate Period of Initial loan (months) Initial Construction loan Fee (points) Average Outstanding Balance loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, land, Site Costs Amount of loan 19,800 19,800 22 $645,000 $238,769 $304,185 $68 $100 $30,000 $15,000 20% $0 8.0% 8 2.0% 60.0% 70.0% $5,430,288 $3,801,202 11.0 0.8 13.0 1,800 2.0 0.0 Development Cost Survey land Unit Construction Cost On and Off-Site Cost Parking Costs Building Permits & Fees Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction loan Points on Construction loan $121,638 $76,024 $2,493,288 $1,980,000 $330,000 $0 $165,000 $462,000 9 1 1 Total Development Costs Total Development CostsIUnit $5,627,950 $511,632 Development Feasibility Gross Sales Revenue less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Sales Revenue less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev - Dav Costs) Profit Per Unit Profit as % of Development Cost Profit as -;0 of Revenue $6,478,687 ($323,934) $6,154,753 ($5,627,950) $526,802 $47,891 9.4% 8.6% Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. (d) Parking space cost included in unit construction cost. Source: BAE, 2004. lit -)7 ""Jo¡"A~sum~I1~?i;:" Appendix A·5: Site 3, Adobe Lounge: Standard Density Scenario P,I~t~9",~~~I1.~lysls f*+t:<0/"; Characteristics of Project Base Project Size (Units) Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Average Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Ratio (Spaces per Unit) Common Area 29.0 0.8 35.0 1,200.0 2.0 12% Product Mix: Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size (Sq. Ft.): Unit Total Common Area Total Residential Total Pa¡i(;ing Spaces 34,800 4,176 38,976 58 Sale Prices: (a) 2 SR/2 SA Market 2 BR/2 BA 100% AMI 2 SR/2 SA 120% AMI $550,000 $194,204 $238,769 Development Costs (b) Land/Square Foot Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) On and Off~Site Costs/Unit Permit & Fees/Unit Other Soft Costs (c) Cost/Pa¡i(;ing Space (d) $68 $130 $25,000 $6,000 20% $15,000 Construction Financing Assumptions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of Loan 8.0% 18,00 2.0% 60.0% 70.0% $10,661,544 $7,463,081 25 2 2 Development Cost Survey Land Unit Construction Cost On and Off-Site Cost Parking Costs Building Permits & Fees Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction Loan Points on Construction Loan $537,342 $149,262 $2,493,288 $5,066,880 $725,000 $870,000 $174,000 $1,332,376 Total Development Costs Total Development Costs!Unit $11,348,147 $391,315 Development Feasibility Gross Sales Revenue Less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Sales Revenue Less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev· Dev Costs) Profit Per Unit Profit. as '"/. of Development Cost Profit as G/. of Revenue $14,499,216 ($724,961) $13,774,255 ($11,348,147) $2.426.108 $83.659 21.4"10 17.6% Notes: (a) Based on BAE ma¡i(;et research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off·site costs. (d) Assumes podium parking. Source: BAE, 2004, C}a.. -&0 Appendix A·7: Site 4, Villa Serra: low Density Scenario Characteristics of Project Base Project Size (Units) Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Average Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Ratio (Spaces per Unit) Common Area 309.0 23.8 13.0 1,800.0 2.0 0.0 Product Mix: MarXet Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size (Sq. Ft.): Unit Total Common Area Total Residential Total Parking Spaces 556,200 556,200 618 Sale Prices: (a) 2 BR/2 SA Market 2 BR/2 SA 100% AMI 2 BR/2 SA 120% AMI $645,000 $238,769 $304,185 Development Costs (b) Land/Square Foot Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft) On and Off·Site Costs/Unit Permit & Fees/Unit Other Soft Costs (c) Cost/Parking Space (d) $68 $100 $30,000 $15,000 20% $0 Construction Financing Assumptions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of Loan 8.0% 24.00 2.0% 60.0% 70.0% $153,146,160 $107,202,312 P!OFo~,~a..tY...i8 263 23 23 Development Cost Survey Land Unit Construction Cost On and Off-Site Cost Parking Costs Building Pennits & Fees Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction Loan Points on Construction Loan $10,291.422 $2,144,046 $70,643,160 $55,620,000 $9,270,000 $0 $4,635,000 $12,978,000 Total Development Costs Total Development CostslUnit $165,581,628 $535,863 Development Feasibility Gross Sales Revenue Less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Sales Revenue Less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev - Dev Costs) Profit Per Unit Profit a8 % of Development Cost Profit as % of Revenue $181,992,209 ($9,099,610) $172,892,599 ($165,581,628) $7,310,970 $23,660 4.4% 4.2% Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience (c) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. (d) Parking space cost included in unit construction cost. Source: BAE, 2004 7 a. -if ~JorAs~~fumJpns Appendix A~8: Site 4, Villa Serra: Standard Density Scenario fr() Fq!]1B: "~~lysl" ,0i:,~ Characteristics of Project Base Project Size (Units) Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Average Unit Size (Sq. Ft) Parking Ratio (Spaces per Unit) Common Area 1,190.0 23.8 50.0 1,200.0 20 01 Product Mix: Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120%AMI) Project Size (Sq. Ft.): Unit Total Common Area Total Residential Total Parking Spaces 1,428,000 171,360 1,599,360 2,380 Sale Prices: (a) 2 BRl2 BA Market 2 BRI2 BA 100% AMI 2 BR/2 BA 120% AMI $550,000 $194,204 $238,769 Development Costs (b) land/Square Foot Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft) On and Off-Site Costs/Unit Permit & Fees/Unit Other Soft Costs (c) Cost/Parking Space (d) $68 $130 $25,000 $6,000 20% $15,000 Construction Financing Assumptions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) Average Outstanding Balance loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of loan 8.0% 60.00 2.0% 70.0% 70.0% $405,823,320 $284,076,324 1,012 89 89 Development Cost Survey land Unit Construction Cost On and Off-Site Cost Parking Costs Building Permits & Fees Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction Loan Points on Construction Loan $79,541,371 $5,681,526 $70,643,160 $207,916,800 $29,750,000 $35,700,000 $7,140,000 $54,673,360 Total Development Costs Total Development CostslUnit $491,046,217 $412,644 Development Feasibility Gross Sales Revenue Less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Sales Revenue Less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev - Dev Costs) Profit Per Unit Profit as % of Development Cost Profit as % of Revenue $594,967,840 ($29,748,392) $565,219,448 ($491,046,217) $74,173,231 $62,330 15.1% 13.1% Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. (d) Assumes podium paò;;ing. Source: BAE, 2004. 1a. -t :L MajC)~,Assllmp,~!qº!.·;>. Appendix A-9: Site 5, Apple Campus: Low Density Scenario Characteristics of Pro ect Site Size (acres) Site Size (Sq. Ft.) Total Office Square Feet (excluding pkg.) Building Efficiency Factor Gross Leaseable Area Lot Coverage Ratio Lot Coverage Number of Stories (including pkg, if applicable) FAR (including pkg, if applicable) Revenue: (a) Office Rents (Monthly/Sq. Ft. NNN) Cap Rate Parking Parking Ratio - Parking Spots/285 Sq. Ft. Total Parking Spaces Parking Space Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Area (Sq. Ft.) Surface or Podium Parking Develo ment Costs b Land/Square Foot Construction Costs (Per Sq. Ft.) On and Off-Site Costs (per Acre) Tenant Improvement Allowances (per GLA) Permit & Fees (per Sq.Ft.) Other Soft Costs (% of const. & on/off-site costs) Parking Costs (per Space) Construction Financin Assum tions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (Months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (Points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land. Site Costs Amount of Loan Pro Fonn.a ~11.~_lysis Develo ment Cost Summa 3.0 Land $0 130,680 Construction Cost $15,000,000 150,000 On & Off-site improvements $750,000 10% Parking Costs $526.316 135,000 Tenant Improvement Allowances $3,375,000 70% Fees/Permits $1.500,000 91.476 Other Soft Costs $3,150,000 2 1.15 Finance Costs: Interest on Construction Loan $990.426 Points on Construction Loan $275.118 $2.25 8.0% Total Development Costs $25,566.861 Total Development Costs! Sq. Ft. $76 1.00 Develo ment Feasibili 526 Gross Operating Income $3,645,000 350 Less 5% Vacancy ($182,250) 184,211 Net Operating Income $3.462.750 Surface Potential Capitalized Value $43,284.375 Less 3% Commissions/Marketing ($1.298,531) Net Revenue $41,985.844 $0 Less Development Costs ($25.566,861 ) $100 Developer Profit $16,418,983 $250.000 Developer Profit (Net Rev - Dev Costs) ($9.147.877) $25 Profit as % of Development Cost -35.8% $10 Profit Per Sq.Ft. ($27.37) 20% $1,000 8.0% 18 2% 60% 70% $19,651,316 $13.755,921 Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off·site costs. Source: BAE. 2004. 7CL~ ') Major ~s~mptlons Appendix A-10: Site 5, Apple Campus: Standard Density Scenario Characteristics of Pro' ect Site Size (acres) Site Size (Sq. Ft.) Total Office Square Feet (excluding pkg.) Building Efficiency Factor Gross Leaseable Area Lot Coverage Ratio Lot Coverage Number of Stories (including pkg, if applicable) FAR (including pkg, if applicable) Revenue: (a) Office Rents (Monthly/Sq. Ft. NNN) Cap Rate Parking Parking Ratio - Parking Spots/285 Sq. Ft. Total Parking Spaces Parking Space Size (Sq. Ft.) Parking Area (Sq. Ft.) Surface or Podium Parking Develo ment Costs b Land/Square Foot Construction Costs (Per Sq. Ft.) On and Off-Site Costs (per Acre) Tenant Improvement Allowances (per GLA) Permit & Fees (per Sq.Ft.) Other Soft Costs (% of canst. & on/off-site costs) Parking Costs (per Space) Construction Financin Assum tions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (Months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (Points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of Loan Pro forma Analysis Cevelo ment Cost Summa 2.3 Land $0 98,010 Construction Cost $15.000,000 150,000 On & Off-site improvements $562,500 10% Parking Costs $526,316 135,000 Tenant Improvement Allowances $3,375,000 70% Fees/Permits $1,500.000 68,607 Other Soft Costs $3,112.500 3 1.53 Finance Costs:· Interest on Construction Loan $980,976 Points on Construction Loan $272,493 $2.25 8.0% Total Development Costs $25.329,786 Total Development Costs! Sq. Ft. $76 1.00 Develo ment Feasibili 526 Gross Operating Income $3.645,000 350 Less 5% Vacancy ($182,250) 184,211 Net Operating Income $3.462,750 Surface Potential Capitalized Value $43.284,375 Less 3% Commissions/Marketing ($1,298,531) Net Revenue $41.985,844 $0 Less Development Costs ($25,329,786) $100 Developer Profit $16.656.058 $250,000 Developer Profit (Net Rev· Dev Costs) ($8.673.727) $25 Profit as % of Development Cost -34.2% $10 Profit Per Sq.Ft. ($25.95) 20% $1,000 8.0% 18 2% 60% 70% $19,463.816 $13,624.671 Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research. (b) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (c) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. Source: BAE, 2004. ia.-&l{ Major Ass4fl'IptJoJ'is Characteristics of Proiect Site Area (Acres) % Dedicated to Residential % Dedicated to Retail Total Building Area (Sq. Ft.) , / Appendix A-11: Site 6, United Furniture: Low Density Scenario el;~tForrna~J'lalysl s Residential Component: Project Characteristics Number of Units Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Unit Size Parking Ratio - Residential (Per unit) Common Area UnítMíx Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project Size Unit Area Common Area Total Residential Sq. Ft. Total Residential Parking Sale Prices: (a) 3 BR/2 BA Market 3 BR/2 BA 100% AMI 3 BR/2 BA 120% AMI Retaii Component: Project Characteristics Retail Square Footage Leaseable % Leaseable Area Parking Ratio (spaces/250 gross sq.n.) Retail Parking Spaces Rents (b) Retail Rents (Monthly/Sq. Ft. NNN) Cap Rate Parking Summary: Parking Space Size Residential Parking Sq. Ft. Retail Parking Sq. Ft. Total Parking Sq.Ft. Develoøment Costs Ie} Land Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Residential Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Retail Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Residential On & Off-site Improvements (per Unit) Retail On & Off-Site Improvements (per Acre) Residential Fees (per Unit) Retail Fees (per Sq.Ft.) Residential Cost/Parking Space (d) Retail Cost/Parking Space (e) Other son Costs (% of const. & on/off-site costs) (f) Construction Flnancina Assumntions Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (Months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (Points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & son Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of Loan 2.75 90% 10% 67,600 32 2.48 13 1,800 2 0% 57,600 o 57,600 64 $645,000 $238,769 $304,185 10,000 90% 9,000 1.00 40 $2.15 8.50% 350 22,400 14,000 36,400 $68 $100 $100 $30,000 $250,000 $15,000 $10 $0 $1,000 20% 8% 18 2% 60% 70% $15,974.470 $11,182,129 Develo ment Cost Summa Land Costs (Sq. Ft.) Residential Construction Costs (Sq. Ft.) Retail Construction Costs (Sq. Ft.) Residential On & Off-site Improvements Retail On & Off-Site Improvements Residential Fees Retail Fees Residential Parking Costs Retail Park.ing Costs Other son Costs $8,145,720 $5,760,000 $1,000,000 $960,000 $68,750 $480,000 $100,000 $0 $40,000 $1,565,750 Finance Costs: Interest on Construction Loan Points on Construction Loan $805,113 $223,643 27 2 2 Total Development Costs Total Development Costs/Sq. Ft. $19,148,976 $283 Develo m ent Feasib ili Gross Resident ial Sales Revenue Less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Residential Sales Revenue $18,847,090 ($942,354) $17,904,735 Retail Revenue Less 5% Vacancy Retaif Net Operating Income Capitalized Retail Component Value Less 3% Commissions/Marketing Potential Net Revenue $232,200 ($11,610) $220,590 $2,595,176 ($77,855) $2,517,321 Total Net Revenue Less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev - Dev Costs) Profit as % of Development Cost Profit Per Sq.Fl $20,422,056 ($19,148,976) $1,273,080 6.6% $18.83 Notes: (a) Based on BAE mar1<et research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on BAE market research. (c) Based on discussions with local developers and BAE professional experience. (d) Parking cost included in unit construction cost (e) Assumes surface par1<ing. (f) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. Source: BAE, 2004. /Oc ~t 5' ;..;;;" . Appendix A-12: Site 6, United Furriture: Standard Density Scenario fæ f~'TI1!1.Ar:t¡;(I),!lls ""~jRç;.AsSllmp"~º~~LfA0s/;'t Characteristics of Proiect Site Area (Acres) % Dedicated to Residential % Dedicated to Retail Total Building Area (Sq. Ft.) (including podium pkg) Residential Component: Project Characteristics Number of Units Site Size (acres) Net Density (Units/Acre) Unit Size Parking Ratio - Residential (Per unit) Common Area Unit Mix Market Median (100% AMI) Moderate (120% AMI) Project SÎze Unit Area Common Area Total Residential Sq. Ft. Total Residential Parking Sale Prices: (a) 3 BR/2 SA Market 3 BR/2 BA 100% AMI 3 BR/2 BA 120% AMI Retail Component: Project Characteristics Retail Square Footage Leaseable % Leaseable Area Parking Ratio (spacesl250 gross sq. ft.) Retail Parking Spaces Rents (b) Retail Rents (Monthly/Sq. Ft. NNN) Cap Rate Parking Summary: Parking Space Size Resident ial Parking Sq. Ft. Retail Parking Sq. Ft. Total Parking Sq.Ft. Develo"ment Costs IC\ Land Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Residential Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Retail Construction Costs (per Sq. Ft.) Residential On & Off-site Improvements (per Unit) Retail On & Off-Site Improvements (per Acre) Residential Fees (per Unit) Retail Fees (per Sq.Ft.) Residential CosVParking Space (d) Retail Cost/Parking Space (e) Other Soft Costs (% of const. & onloff·site costs) (1) Construction Flnanclno Assumntlons Interest Rate Period of Initial Loan (Months) Initial Construction Loan Fee (Points) Average Outstanding Balance Loan to Cost Ratio Hard & Soft Costs, Land, Site Costs Amount of Loan 2.75 90% 10% 187,828 87 2.48 35 1,200 2 12% 104,400 12,528 116,928 174 $550,000 $194,204 $238,769 10,000 90% 9,000 1.00 40 $2.15 8.50% 350 60,900 14,000 74,900 $68 $130 $100 $25,000 $250,000 $6,000 $10 $15,000 $1,000 20% 8% 24 2% 60% 70% $29,240,110 $20,468,077 Develo ment Cost Summa land Costs (Sq. Ft.) Residential Construction Costs (Sq. Ft.) Retail Construction Costs (Sq. Ft.) Residential On & Off-site Improvements Retail On & Off·Site Improvements Residential Fees Retail Fees Residential Parking Costs Retail Parking Costs Other Soft Costs Finance Costs: Interest on Construction loan Points on Construction loan 74 7 7 Total Development Costs Total Development Costs/Sq. Ft. Develo ment Feasiblll Gross Resident ial Sales Revenue Less 5% Commissions/Marketing Net Residential Sales Revenue Retail Revenue less 5% Vacancy Retail Net Operating Income Capitalized Retail Component Value Less 3% Commissions/Marketing Potential Net Revenue Total Net Revenue Less Development Costs Developer Profit (Net Rev - Dev Costs) Profit as % of Develop ment Cost Profrt Per Sq.Fl $8,145,720 $15,200,640 $1,000,000 $2,175,000 $68,750 $522,000 $100,000 $2,610,000 $40,000 $4,218,878 $1,964,935 $409,362 $36,455,285 $194 $43,497,649 ($2,174,882) $41,322,766 $232,200 ($11,610) $220,590 $2,595,176 ($77,855) $2,517,321 $43,840,088 ($36,455,285) $7,384,803 20.3% $39.32 Notes: (a) Based on BAE market research and BMR sale prices as set by City of Cupertino inclusionary housing program. (b) Based on BAE market research. (c) Based on discussions wi th local developers and BAE professional experience. (d) Assumes podium parking. (e) Assumes surface parking. (1) Other soft costs include architect, legal fees, contingencies, and other professional services, and are expressed as percentage of construction and on/off-site costs. Source: BAE, 2004. 1tt -&~ Appendix B: Key Informant Interviews Name Or{!anizatioD Jody Hansen Bob Hecox Randol Mackley Jon Moss Peter Pau Greg Pinn Michael Rohde Edward Slonn Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Apple Computers Retail Real Estate Group Prometheus Developmenl Sandhill Properties Pion Brothers Development Valleo Fashion Mall Hunter-Stonn Properties 40 ia. -& 1 Appendix C: Fiscal Impact Analy sis Methodology and Assumptions This Appendix presents the delailed melhodology and assumptions for lhe Fiscal Analysis presenled earlier this report. Methodology The Fiscal Impact Model focuses on the various expenditure and revenue items that make up lhe City of Cupertino General Fund. The General Fund is the discretionary portion of the City budget used to finance most of lhe City's basic municipal services, such as police and fire protection, development services, public works, and overall City managemenl and administralion. To support lhese ongoing services, the General Fund is dependent on various revenue sources, such as the City's share of property taxes, sales taxes, various local taxes, and revenues allocated by the Slate of California. Each new developmenl in Cupertino generates certain additional General Fund expenditures and revenues, dependent in part on the addition of net new employees, residents, built square feet, and infrastructure demands. The Fiscal Impact Model estimates potential revenue and costs impacts of development at six key sites within the City. The Developmenl Feasibility section ofthis report describes these siles and lhe potential development scenarios for each, Appendix C-l presents two development programs for each of the six sites, a "standard density" scenario and a "low density" scenario. J The table shows site development potential ("New Development") as well as net developmenl potential ("Net New Development"), adjusting for the demolition of existing structures, which is assumed in the development scenarios. Based on assumplions aboullhe number ofresidenls per single-family and multifamily household and the number of employees per square fool of office/relail space, BAE estimales the number of net new residents and employees for each site, For several General Fund revenue and expenditure items analyzed, the number of net new residents and employees is used to estimate each development scenario's overall ·'service population," BAE uses lhe service population as an indicator of demand that nel new development creates for certain City services. Typically, the service population is defined as 100 percent of project residenls plus 50 percenl of project employees. Counting local workers as equivalent 10 one-half of a resident is a commonly accepted practice in fiscal impact analysis 10 reflect the reduced demand for services crealed by workers as opposed 10 residenls, Appendix C-2 shows aggregate net new development, residents, employment, and service population for all six sludy sites under bolh standard density and low density scenarios. . , As explained above in the Development Feasibility section of this report, RAE examined the development potential of six key sites within the City using two sets of assumptions about allowable development. The standard density scenario conforms to development policies in the General Plan, while the low density scenario conforms to the proposed changes to the General Plan described in the prospective initiatives. 41 7a -~ f Appendix C-1: Development Program by Study Site EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS Site 6 Total Warehouse Current Use Vacant Vacant Vacant Apartments Vacant Retail Office Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 0 38,230 38,230 Single Family Residential Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential Units 0 0 0 388 0 0 388 "STANDARD DENSITY' BUILDOUT SCENARIO (c) New OevelODment Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS Site 6 Total Office Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq.ft.) 100,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 110,000 Single Family Residential Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential Units 205 609 29 1,190 0 87 2,120 Net New DevelODment Office Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq.ft.) 100,000 0 0 0 0 (28.230) 71,770 Single Family Residential Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential Units 205 609 29 802 0 87 1,732 Net New Service POD. Estimates Employees (a) 333 0 0 0 500 (94) 739 Households 205 609 29 802 0 87 1,732 Residents (b) 523 1,553 74 2,045 0 222 4,417 Service Population (d) 689 1,553 74 2,045 250 175 4,786 "LOW DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (c) New DeveloDment Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS Site 6 Total Office Space (sq.ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq.ft.) 100,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 110,000 Single Family Residential Units 162 0 11 309 0 32 514 Multifamily Residential Units 0 522 0 0 0 0 522 Net New DeveloDment Office Space (sq. ft.) 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 Retail Space (sq. ft.) 100,000 0 0 0 0 (28,230) 71,770 Single Family Residential Units 162 0 11 309 0 32 514 Multifamily Residential Units 0 522 0 (388) 0 0 134 Net New Service POD. Estimates Employees (a) 333 0 0 0 500 (94) 739 Households 162 522 11 (79) 0 32 648 Residents (b) 418 1,331 28 (192) 0 83 1,668 Service Population (d) 585 1,331 28 (192) 250 36 2,037 Notes: (a) Estimate of number of employees is based on the following assumption: 750 sq.n. per warehouse retail worker 300 sq.n. per office worker 300 sq.ft. per general retail worker (b) Estimate of number of residents is based on the following assumptions (see Table 1 notes): 2.58 persons single family household 2.55 persons per multifamily household (c) See Table 1 notes for description of build out scenarios. (d) Service Population = Residents + 1/2 Employees. Source: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department; BAE, 2004. 1il-&1 Appendix C·2: Total Development Program CURRENTSE~CEPOPULAnON 2003 Employment (a) 2003 Households (b) 2003 Resident Population (b) 2003 Service Population (c) 24,249 19,237 51',909 64,034 "STANDARD DENSITY' BUILDOUT SCENARIO (d) Land Use Total Net New Space Office Space Retail Space Single Family Residential Units Mutlifamily Residential Units 150.000 sqJi. 71,770 sq.ft, o units 1,732 acres Net New Employment & Population Estimates Service Density Employment Residents Population 300 sq.ft.lemp. (Q 500 0 2SO 300 sq.ft.lemp. (f) 239 0 120 2.58 personsIHH(g) 0 0 0 2.55 personsIHH(g) 0 4,417 4,417 Total 739 4,417 4,786 "lOW DENSITY' BUllDOUT SCENARIO (e) Land Use Total Net New Space Office Space Retail Space Single Family Residential Units Multifamily Residential Units (b) 15ü,00Q sq.fI. 71,770 sq.ft. 514 units 134 acres Net New Employment & Population Estimates Service Density Employment Residents PopulatIon 300 sq-fUemp (Q SOO 0 250 300 sq-ftJemp. (f) 239 0 120 2.58 personsIHH(g) 0 1,326 1,326 2.55 persons/HH{g) 0 342 342 Total 739 1,668 2,037 Notes: (a) Califomia EDD Census of Employment and Wages. (b) ABAG Population and Housing Projections. (c) StlfVice Population = Residents + 1/2 Employees. (d) Standard Density Buildout Scenarios reflect feasible development programs for six study sites in Cupertino. These development programs conform to existing General Plan policies, zoning regulations, and development agreements. Scenarios are based on BAE assessment of current marltet conditions and, where possible, expressed interests of property owners/prospective developers. Scenarios do not necessarily reflect the maximum level of development allowed under the General Plan and development regulations. (e) Low Density Buildout Scenarios reflect feasible development programs for six study sites in Cupertino. These development programs reflect proposed initiatives to limit development height and density, and increase development setbacks. Scenarios are based on BAE assessment of likely development programs given current marltet conditions and, where possible, expressed interests of property owners/prospective developers. Scenarios do not necessarily renect the maXÎmum level of development allowed under the proposed initiatives. (f) Sq.ft. of space per employee are based on planning assumptions used by the City of Cupertino. (g) Persons per HHs is derived from U.S. Census PUMS data. Sources: Califomia Employment Development Division ES 202 Census of Employment and Wages. 2003: Projections 2003, Association of Bay ma Govemments; 2000 U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Sample: BAE, 2004. f«-ID Revenues On the revenue side, the Fiscal Impact Model estimales the net additional revenue to the General Fund lhat would be generated by development at the study siles through additional sales taxes, property taxes, property transfer taxes, business license fees, utility taxes, franchise fees, and motor vehicle in-lieu (MVIL) fees. This analysis uses a number of different techniques to eslimate increased revenues, Generally, BAE applies currenl per employee, household, or service population revenues to projected growth to estimate future revenue. Other projections are more specialized, such as those for sales taxes, property taxes, and property transfer taxes. Note that the analysis does not include one-time revenues or costs, such as impact fees or capital projects, and focuses solely on ongoing annual revenues and costs. This is because in Cupertino, as in mosl olher California cities, it is expected that new development will pay for the capilal facilities it requires up-fronl through participation in existing improvement districts, construction of facilities, and/or mandated impact fees. Sales Taxes The Slate of California allocates sales and use laxes to the City of Cupertino equal to one percent oflocallaxable sales that occur within the City limits, BAE estimates lhe amounl of sales taxes revenues that would by received by the City as a result of new development by analyzing the following sources of sales tax revenue: retail spending at new outlets, additional retail spending wilhin lhe City related to new residents and employees, and additional non-relail sales (e,g., business-to-business sales) related to businesses expansion, Development programs for certain study sites include space for relail that would generale taxable sales. Most notably, the developmenl program for Site I, the Vallco Rosebowl, includes 100,000 square feet of regional retail space under both density scenarios, Appendix C-3 shows BAE estimates of sales per square foot for new retail establishmenls based on published dala. Rather than translate these sales directly into new revenues for the City, BAE nels oul sales that are likely to be "captured" from other stores already operating inside the City. BAE eslimates that 50 percent of retail sales at new developments would be new to the City. This number assumes that well-targeled retail space would capture a significant share of any local dollars currently leaving lhe City in favor of other relail outlels such as Valley Fair and Sanlana Row. As a second source of new sales lax revenue for the City, development at lhe study sites would bring new residents, and consequenlly additional purchasing power, to the City, As show in Appendix C-3, BAE applies 90 percent of Cupertino's average per capita , taxable retail sales from 2000 10 2002 to the estimaled population of net new residents , The latest complete year for which data is available from California Board of Equalization is 2002. BAE averages per capita retail sales across three years due to large year-ta-year fluctuations during the recent period. 44 1tt-l( for each development scenario to estimate the amount of new sales that would occur in the City based on population growth. BAE conservatively assumes the remaining 10 percent of rei ail sales generaled by new households would occur outside lhe City limits. As a third source of new sales tax revenue, development of office and relail space al the study sites would lead 10 increased employment within the City. Employees typically make some amount of lax able retail purchases where they work, This analysis assumes 235 employee workdays a year, and an average of $6.50 in daily employee expenditures within Cupertino. Finally, office space development on lhe study sites can be expected to generate non- retail taxable sales (e,g., business to business transactions). BAE estimates the non-retail taxable sales on a per employee basis. The analysis divides the average citywide non- retaillaxable sales from 2000 to 2002 by lhe citywide non-retail employees to detennine lhe tolal per employee non-retail taxable sales generalion rale. As non-retail sales can vary dramatically between various types of finns, BAE also assumes, as a conservative measure, thai only 50 percent of the per employee non-retail sales would occur. Proposilions 57 and 58, passed in the most recenl election, jointly approve lhe "Triple Flip" financing stralegy, scheduled to begin on July 1,2004, The Triple Flip reduces cities' share of the 7.25 cenlsldollar state sales tax from 1.00 cenllo 0.75 cenls, and uses this revenue as debt service for bonds to address the state budget deficii. The Triple Flip then makes local jurisdiclions whole by replacing lost sales tax, dollar-for-dollar, with property tax from countywide Education Revenue Augmenlalion Funds (ERAF). The ERAF monies previously allocated to schools will be backfilled wilh other slale general fund revenues, Forty California cities have filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on State Constitutional grounds to block the Triple Flip component that reduces the local sales tax by a quarter-ceni. As of June 2004, the outcome oflhis process remains was still pending. For lhe purposes of this sales lax revenue analysis, lhe Triple Flip is not assumed to have a material effeci. In theory, local jurisdictions are reimbursed for lost sales tax revenue from ERAF funds and effectively suffer no net impaci. As a result, BAE assumes that going forward the City will conlinue to receive funds equal to one percenl of laxable sales within Cupertino. Based on the assumplions oullined above, Appendix C-4 presenls the eslimated net new sales lax revenue that would be generated by development on the sludy sites. BAE estimales lhat the slandard density development scenarios would generale a lotal of approximately $623,000 in net new sales lax revenue for the City each year. In comparison, under changes to the General Plan contained in the proposed initiatives, the 45 1a..-12.. low density development scenarios would generate a total of $356,000 of net new sales . I lax revenue per year, or approxlmalely $267,000 less revenue. Property Tax Following sales laxes, property taxes are the second largest source of General Fund revenue for the City, Each year property owners in Sanla Clara County must pay a tax equal 10 one percenl of assessed value, The City General Fund receives a 2.2 percenl allocation oflhe one percenl basic property tax; lhe remaining property lax revenues go to special districts for purposes including schools, fire prolection, open space acquisition, and library services. Property tax revenues increase as a direct result of new development through increases in parcel value. Appendix C-5 shows BAE's eslimate of increased property lax revenue 10 lhe City based on development scenarios for each oflhe six study sites. This analysis includes three components. BAE obtained existing assessed value infonnation from the City, in order to net out existing property tax revenue. Generally, the County Assessor's office detennines assessed valuation each year based on the sales price of real estale lhat has been sold, or the statutorily pennirted annual increase in assessments for properties that have not changed ownership. Proposition 13 limits annual assessment increases for properties that have not been sold or improved to the smaller of lwo percent or the rate of inflation, BAE assumes that each of the study sites will be sold prior to development, triggering a reassessment ofland value. BAE estimales current markelland values based on recent sales and information supplied by landowners and local developers; meanwhile BAE estimates the value of improvements based on costs of construction for office and . retail space and recenl comparable sales for residential development. Increased property lax revenues are estimated by calculating lhe City's 2.2 percent share of the one percent base basic property tax. Based on these assumplions, Appendix C-5 presents lhe estimaled net new property tax revenues that would be generated by development on the study sites, BAE estimates lhat the standard density development scenarios would generate approximately $274,000 in nel new sales tax revenue for the City each year. In comparison, the low density development scenarios would generate a total of$153,000 ofnel new property tax revenue annually or approximately $120,000 less revenue. ' Property Transfer Tax When real estate is sold within the City of Cupertino, the County Recorder's office collects a property transfer lax, From this tax, the City receives $0.55 per $1,000 in value. New development can be expected to generate property transfer taxes whenever property is sold. , Figures are in current 2004 dollars. . BAE uses costs of construction to estimate the value of , Figures are in current 2004 dollars. 46 1~-)) Appendix C-6 shows BAE's estimate of the average annual property transfer tax revenue associated with new development on the study siles, During most years sites do not generate any property lransfer taxes, but when properties are sold they generate a lump sum of tax revenue, BAE uses the following assumptions about ownership turnover for various type of development to estimate the average annual transfer tax revenues: office and relail space are sold once in twenty years; residential units are sold once in eighl years, BAE estimates that lhe standard densily scenario would generate a total of approxirnalely $79,000 of average annual property lransfer tax revenue versus $43,000 for the low density scenario, a difference of approximately $36,000. Business License Tax Revenue In order to operale within the City of Cupertino, businesses pay an annual business license tax based on gross receipts, It is very difficulllo accurately eslimate future business license tax revenues since gross receipts can vary greatly, depending not only on lhe size of a business establishment, bul also on the types of aclivilies undertaken, BAE uses the current per employee business license tax revenue to project the future increase in revenue for each development scenario based on estimated on-site employment. As shown in Appendix C-7, this analysis indicates thallhe slandard and low density scenarios would generate the same amount of business license tax revenue, approximalely $16,000 per year. Franchise Fee Revenue The City of Cupertino collects fees from service providers, including gas, electric and cable TV utility companies, and lhe local solid waste collection service. These entilies pay franchise fees to be able 10 provide services within the City and operate within lhe public rights-of way , Franchise fees are calculated as a percentage of revenues ; therefore, as the number of customers for these services grows, franchise fee revenue also grows. Without the ability to direcily estimate the amounls of revenues lhal new development will generate for the ftanchise holders, BAE uses average per employee and per household fees to estimate increases in each franchise fee source. Based on this melhodology, the standard density scenario is expected to generate a total of approximately $122,000 in franchise fee revenue per year compared 10 $69,000 for the low density scenario, a difference of $52,000 (see Appendix C-8), Utility Tax Revenue The City of Cupertino receives tax revenues related to the use of utilities by households and businesses within the City. Similar 10 the calculation offranchise fee revenue, BAE uses average per employee and per household revenues to estimate increases in ulility taxes. Based on this methodology, the slandard density scenario is expected 10 generate a total of approximately $135,000 in net utility revenue per year compared 10 $82,000 for the low density scenario, a difference of $54,000 (see Appendix C-9). 47 ¡a.-7L¡ Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees In place of imposing a property tax on motor vehicles, the Stale of California charges an "in-lieu" fee on vehicle registrations. The in-lieu fee is equal to two percent of the vehicle value. The State collects these fees annually and allocates a portion back to local governmenls based on the size of the local population (residents only). To estimate future revenues, BAE applies the currenl per-capita Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee (MVIL) revenue figure to the projected increase in population for each study site. In recent years, lhe Slate government has considered actions that would affecl the distribution ofMVIL fees to local government BAE assumes that the current dislribution methodology will continue into the future or will be replaced by a similar revenue source. As shown in Appendix C-IO, the standard densiiy scenario is expecled 10 generate approxirnalely $131,000 in MVIL fees per year compared to a nelloss of$12,000 under the low densiiy scenario, a difference of$143,000. Revenue Summary In summary, under the standard density scenario, revenues are greater than under the low density scenario, particularly related to revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, and motor vehicle in-lieu fees. In total, General Fund Revenues from the study sites under the standard densiiy scenario would be $1.2 million annually compared to $625,000 under the low densiiy scenario, a difference of $619,000 annually, 48 '7~-I) III r: o .. c. E ::I III III « " ::I r: " > " 0:: >< .. f- III " "ii en ;.; U >< :¡; r: " c. c. « ~Ég ¡AI.OZ;; E " 8 " " " 0. c."' III u: ... ,ªñ) tj. ¡¡a:::ã'CI) ~~m~ E ~ (¡j I/) er:::oo-S! -;:~~ .!! ~ z 15 ~&~& ~ ~... ~ ~ (II 55 ~ CQ~f:!.... I- CU (, ~ -ccna..<::.. 2!~-g~ 1'11-......... .§ ~ ~ E t;t;t;13 wwwUJ ~O., ..~~ NlÓLt) "'-" .. . ~ " .2 rn-m'6 cnlV_c::: Qlt: II) Q ii Q) e a.. (I)~.a Ltj Q % 'g ~ ::ë E IV ::... : w ~.2 lII....ill Q. I- tf~~ $ U) cu... >.0 & ~ ~ ~- ¡ ~ ~ § (!) 0 ~ ê =~«o::( ~$ $ ~ o (t rn (I õ.EEE Et;ti~ WLUWUJ >-mc(I'§_~_~~~ N.- 0 0'1- QI .-\0..... ~ e :;;- ~ ~ ~ I- ~ .. Ng~~~~ g O_N_N_O'J P) Nit) N 0'1 a;:; rõl1Hh to<) '" <0 ;:t E°r--~*co ~g~N~~ gf~~ ~ N '" .. <Ô ~ ~ '" go'" 08;:\ NN'6 "'~ M_ e; '" '" ¡;;*gs ~g",- ~ ~ ø " ... '" . QI "* ~ ã> CI) ~ I9:m "C U) £ ec: ! ~ Q) ~ c?l.~ iii ~ = i ~ QI~ 19 a.1- e>'::::' Q):J..... '<I'J a::: (,) ~ ~'*§.!9.9:E "t'I en ~ "g.ë ~ .~ -"" 0: QI ~ 5.... ~ æ a::a:::~£c..Cl -gooo~-g fti·!;; !:: ç......... et:t::t:('I(\) " 1i1i1i,§,ê III :J :J :J III II} WOüULUlU ~<O~ "''''''' ",,,,., cDlLicõ ~N~ '" ~ ;:t 0"'.... 0<0.... ON., r---M-05 ~Nb9 <Ó .. .. O<O~ 0"'''' 0"''' 61Ó eel' ;nNb9 Ñ M .. '" gl.t)<'"> ooæ C"i a:J- oj ~Nb9 .,; ;; '" :ê " ø I!. " .Q ... c. '" E . cUJ :E......,;;,æ ~E.mo. ~ :ß f;'; ._ 81 a. ~ ~-~""= ~:m=-m e:a::.!9a:: o ' IV , Z § ar ð "Cz§~ .sgz"2 Ë:eë1å .. 2i ê:§ III :J :J tt.I WOOLu ~ c. · · " · c o OJ ø " .0 æ " ø æ " æ ¡¡: i " E c. o . > " -0 . " c 1;- -0 t! ~ ~ ã. 5) ~ " .~ ~ :5 I ~ g CI) «í ":3: 'õ.s cu ~ 0 ~ c:.s c ~ I m·~ ~n3~ ~~ ..!!! ~ 0 > ;:, 8~-8 ~B E E ~ "ci 'u o 0 ~ ë:ß J: s..... ~ (Þ-¡ij U).s ~ ó..c ~ en ~ æ en:é 5. g %:B d.I ~~ ~.!!! 'E E is' :5 d.I C :J J!I ~UI 0.. "~-¡ijêU«l:Jõ~ ~ÖÕ"'CUen.... ~..... en~:Q oS ¡¡¡ ~ ~j~uj~55- O~Od.l....ÖU~ g'6'~:5.eo~_ ï5..«IO£æ3NO c. C d.I ..... d.I ::>' r/') <ft ° $ ê¡j :J >. aUl 0 iii..c"~§~-ð§~ ~ d.l1;í c·¡¡¡ d.I <5 1; (þ tí 8."S; E ~£~"~~i~~ ..c:E2:-go-cd.lw "~~~d.lo¡¡¡E« ê '""':' ~N ~ g-r:D "- ¢=; 8 d.I ¿ ~ Q) cP .e g d.I 0 d.I > "- (I) -. (I >.".;:¡ C ~ æ ~f&£3%~õ.....m ¡g~ffiE~ëffiE ~ . " ~ 8 E J~ m ~ ~ L1I æ 1;'"~ -gæ~~õc.o..~ E Q. =11) ="'C 0 E 2: c15 Q. (I æ en UI ~ o (I en 0 en «I C "9.~~~CC~"E8 (:IS m ì: :J.æ :J.e «I iri (I - .... ~.!!! z¡ = II! d.lccz¡;Z«(I)«e,'3<r.: õ-o-___ .-- z~5a~E.~SS .. C> ° '" " " ;;: ~ " '" õ c .2 " ." o · · '" g ° '" · ~ " " "è' Q '-i ° ° '" ê o 'æ ." " " ,¡¡ Õ "E ~ '" " "Ë g " " ¡,; 2 11; oS -0 C " ~ c " .0 :s g '" ~ 5) " 0> .S c. 8- ¡5j õ ~;g 5)0 0'" ..u.i ~~ ~ fñ 0" Q " ¡¡j E n " > o 0 ",C!J 1 tZ - ì& "10 m ~ õr::~:; I- - - ~ '" ~ ~Iô~('\ QlO;<)O'>N ~C'\I~N U) ~. " ¡I il ¡¡ ~I J!! .. E '" U) w .. " " .. > .. II: " .. ... .. .. ;¡ U) "f u " :¡; " .. . _10 ~ ~ ,SOC")(\ _aMo.n U)ô o . ~ '" .;- -"- ~ ~ :l:ß~ ~ .Q~ 16 ~.~ """ a: . . . . . . zzz mwø zzz -0: ~~~~~ (DN~r--~ fir::;;:;-;i~ ID,.....,CD.t.l1.(» ........NIOC\Î ...............10 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ MCO'""M..... 1;)- ~ ~ff;l;-~- \1).........00.... .....-!:!;Ñ!:!;{"j- !:!; ... ~ o o ~ ~g~~~ N "'<0 ~- gQ- r-.. '<t_~ 119- '<I"llf ~~ ~ '" o N a~~~~ ~ '"' ~ ~- ~ '" oï ~ ~ .. '" ~ ~areare '" '" (Do ~_ ;: ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~- a~~~:g ~ '"' Iri 10- m m o " <no ':!-" ~ .. OM M..... t-... g1ór;;~~ 6 0"": o.n' r-...: 1.0 MCOo.n.... NLl)OOlQ;) u:i....¿ Ñ ",,: ..... &'!I-t04C\ ~ .. ~ . ~ îõ.!Y ~~ :ë..9! 13 ~.g II I't~(/CI) I-t-,*.!! :ß~u(J)-g Ïõ~.ß!<1I~ tl]Q)~:ä1- ..9!æ~~Ìii .gø~l-~ ~ cb , = t-wë,!!!::: l)'Q)Q)Q) 'ffi ã.:!;! ';- <: Q)E~§t a:::wo::z<: o ~ N ..; N ~ ~ Slo m ~ ~ r::_~:g_ t: w ~ - ~ ... ~ '" ~I°q:-M IIIMmco ~Nt04tR- (/)00'- N '" ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~Io 0 0 CþtA-OtR- == It) U) ~ ~ ~ ~ .; m ~ "'1°0 Ñ 0104...0> " - U) ~ .. :!! '"' ~ ~Io 0.. CD tl'l-Io't N " .. U) '" "' m Ô ~ ~ Nlo 0 ~ QI......M " ~ U) ,: ~ .. :: .; '" N ~ _10 ~.. IIIOM.- =:0(")'<1" fh6...... o ;;; · â · , o ~ · a: · · l- · · " U) · · Z ';; Z · ¿ u -"- · u ~ :1$2 ~Q~ 1G Ei~ oowoo · . . · . . zzz â3ã:iã:í zzz · ~~~~~ <D NO'> r-I.O (...fr-:....:~IO- 10 r--.... 10 0 \D.....NI,l)IO ....:....: !Ii fá 10- ..........ER-<") ~ ~ .. ~~~~Ñ MCOIOM~ "':"'C\I-""'-o> OO'<tOM(Q LO.....OJCOr--. -.i!:!;Io't!:!;....- !:!; ~ ~~~~:3: N "'<0 ~- ~-oô r-- 'V_~ Vt ~~ aa~g~ o " c:ó co- <0 <0 <0. '" ~ ~ OOr--Of'.,.. tfl&'!l-<DIo't<o .. '" ~ ~ N N .. .. 00....0..... tfltA-.....&'!I-.... m ~ ai c:ci ~ .., m m t',.r ~ .. .. 0(")«).....0 o t<>(D C":I(¥ omr--u::JC'\ f¡;fgfig g- ('\ 100 enr--. !J;J-~"<t-C'i(¥f ~ ...,.IA-C\I .. .. ~ . ~ "¡¡j~ ~~ :c~ ~ ..0 . ~~øC/) 1-~~..9!: ~i"tJ~-g "¡¡jiV.&()~ U)æ~ij¡....;. ~æ~~-¡¡¡ ~'-?~~~ )( () 1= ~~"E S 3:: c <U () Q) $ a.~ ¿ ~ <u E cu C Q) t:r.Wt:r.Z<: "' ~ o :t ~ ~ Slo ~ 0<0<0 I- ~o. "'<0 N ~ <0.., ~~ - m ~ '"' " ~ ~l~~ . ~ m ~~(£ cn..¡r-: ..,'" ~~ ~ m N '" "' ~ "'I~ ~ omm ~('\N cnC'iC'i ~ ~ W~ .. ~ ~ ~ "'I'"' ;0 $enco ._ ..... (C/ cncô«i m_ ~ .. ~- m ~ ~ '" ~ ~I" m o..~ :!::.......... tn.....·('\· ~~ m .. ~ .,; ::! ~ ';;1;\ ~ :!::enM tncio> ~N ~~ N m m '"' ~ N ~ _I" N ,S.....en ._..... en tnŒ:)-.....- "'"' NN ~~ . . â · , o · > · a: · l!!- · · " (/ · · Z · Z :¡¡ , o ~ . · ~ a: 0 · ~ · . zOO W ~ Zz ~Qj ~Z ~ :~ ~ ~5i uO $ ~ "'~ ~ '"' ~ N ~ o '" "' ::f ~ o ~ '" i;¡ ::: N ~ o ::¡ ... ~ "' ~ "'- N ~ ~ :! ~ ~ · · , o · > · '" ~ Z ';; Z .= · u o e :1! õ ~ · " ~ õ o .2 11 .Q " · . ~ 0 ; .2 -;;~ · 0 0= o m · . ~J9 :c.~ j¡:cu ~g. ~~ ·0 ~ :' () u£ .~ 8 g> e-e ~£ £;:ß ~¥5 ,0 u- ~a3 - ~ ~, 0.0 Õ .5 :; I!:! "2 ~; ~~ .0 :C,S · 0 . 11.~ .g õ ~ l'ac;c:: 53 ~ ~ iJ .... I!:! "S 8.;¡¡ o . 0 =§g~ .c.!!!- õ~;i o U~ cCUf'.: :,¡;¡cuo .g- 2.9 iJ ~ I!:! ~I!:!~ ~ . ~ .2'stn ~õ~ .!1Q)O ~~~ I-~.... .. m~:ß !!cnug ~ íÕ~a3 . , o . > e 11 g o N W ;\ Ö o '2 · ~ , () õ '" (} " " :3 " N ;¡ .go , '" "0 1 " " · E " m ~ · o ~ o · o u: ö o '2 · ~ , () õ '" (} g N ¡!j " N " m 8 < o .~ o · ! o , < ~ · 0: · · u 5 o '" (a-'-n c. · ~ ~ " w · · c · > ~ · · ... ~ · · o ~ ~ ,; · ~ c · · · < .. 00. " , , 8.8.[8- <:I <:I <:I <:I . 00 " 00 "'~g a~ , - ~ !!=- 'Eo¡ · . o . · . .0 O:::"¡;; · . ::::0::: ~ .~ · E ~¡~~ 00::: ¡¡j ~ ~I~ ~i m ~" . " .- . .,~ :í _I" ::! ~ ...~ ~[¡¡ "'i "I . " .~ CD "'t::." · · · · · i, .0 " "'~ a o · · " - ~ · ~ o · , o o I · '10 <:I a g g ... ~ 8.8. c>." .. §§ g~ ~ ri~ ~g ~ -- - "I' 0 '00 . .. <:I <:I g ... ;:¡ g ~.:¡::" i .... 00.... "> ~ :: ! ~ ~lg_a"''''8 : '" § ~ ~ ri ~ ~ ~Iaaigg .'= <:I '" ::: VI ~~ ~ i;: ... i: : ~aaa~§_ ¡ ~ = ~ ':i:f .... ...... ;;. "I' 000 ~ ...... g g '" ó ò . - . " i:f t::: ~I~ "'å a 10 00 ¡¡ :"'0"'''' _ 0 ... cj o· Ô ~ ~. 5 :¡ ~; · , > o · · · · · · ;; :e · :; ~ · · , > l\'! ¡. ~ ~ ! ~ ., ::,¡ · ~ :!i! ~ 8 CI ~ ~ :: : .. :;: E ...:: .!~~~e~ ¡ .. = .. ~ ~i:~~'5~ III 00:::<11 :i! .... "10000" ëi on ... ... '" '" I-~; ;:¡ " -Ioo"~ .. ... '" '" ñ :;; :;::'" - :I~ <:I a a ~ "':i ... "100000 ................ .- . II> g ~Iiaag.a " 0 · " 5 ã ".[00'.' ~...... :3 II> S · · · ~ 1 _1000. . .~ ... ~"':iS ::! 11'1 ,...: -i'" - . ~ · > ~ 1 ! · < ¡ · ~ õ . . " õi I := _ a.. ¡ i i .. ·:2<> £.. ~;: ~ 'a ~ ¡¡ ~ ~~ ! u ~ LL '~ ~ !~~~~~ iI:o~¡¡j:i!~ - · , "100000 ÕOOOO<:l I- 0_ 0. 0_ 0. "'. 00000 <:> <:I '" c:> ... ~;~~i' ......"''''... --- · - "10 <:> 0 <:I ... .~ ... g. g.'" g " <:I <:I <:i o. . ." - ,..¡c; ..- -" " - - - · · :: "100000 .0.........6 ~ <:I co II>~: ! . , " " - - · ..; ; ilaa:i! o 0 " " .,; ..; ~ = - . · :í ªaag:¡q¡: = "''' II> ~-: ~. ~ - - · "10 <:I <:I '" <:I .......... 0 - 00 '" ~ æ- ..:...- " . " " -- : E ~Ia g gag = 00 ... I/) cici ...- o. . o. . ",-.¡ o. "0 " - - - - . , " · > · · · ~ f o , · · · · . . , > ~ - .. ~ i ~ i II .. ¡ :.. ~ ~ ~ ~ " .. ~~ :: " [.. E "" : .. <I) ~~ Ë .. ¡.. _ ~ "t ¡ð~i~~ · z " ~ 5 "100.... N N _ "'.... '" 0 ~2;5i&: · · o - à _I' 0 ,~ .. ....; '" = .... '" ... I/) "'i ~ 5 ~ ~ :I~ 0 i i ~ "':2 ... · ~ ~oo 00 .~...... 00. 111-... '" :i ! ~Iii:ia ;; i :i · ".1000"" ....08...'" ,¡ 5 " " · æ- E _10 0 .~ M.e =... ~ VI ::;~ 08 ~ · > ~ 1 Ë < ¡ · ~ o o o . " 1 , ~~¡ .' , "':2" ~ .. " ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ E ",,:J ;~~~ii !~~~~~ III 0 ø:: tn :::& w · , " , · · · ~ c o g · " :: :¡ :: · " ~ " · ;; " " ã · ! - , " · · · · ~ f o , · ¡ z · z 7tt~7,r ¡I ~ ~ ;. .... g ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ _I"" : : ~ ¡::¡..... iii~::n: ~I" 0 .",,,,... ...."*: iii¡t:g "I"" ~ :::s~ ~;1:;; ~I' -: -.~. . iii:;i¡;:;; "I"" " .! * ~.... iii~li; · ~ E ~ w · · c · > ~ · · ~ ~ · ~ e .. ,¡; U · 'S c · ~ ~ ~ _1-" " ~ ~:<:.;. ...~:;::;; ~- : . . · . , > . . · > . " . > ~ ~ ~ z < . 0; ~ ~ ~~:i · z . ¡¡ ....- CJ -i ~ ~ ~ ¡ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ f · " j w < · g " · , .. Æ " .; ~ ~ · . · " ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ c ~.2 Q..2 _ Co ". __~ ~ ~ ~ [\! ~ ~~~~~ i~#:. ~~*~g. ~ªg; ii;1 ~~ ª~~i s: ~C~~~e ~E~ ~~.!""N::: 8 ! Co ;. g ~ ~ "i ~~~ ;~~ ~~ a~~ ~~! Bl ~g.~~K,ª~ 2~ ~o.§~~~~ §~ ""''''.20;0 C "0 ~5~ê~iõ~~~ ~~~g5.2~c;~~ .. " iL: '" '" - J:! .. .. ~9<>~~~~';.~~ <>:;:.s~~~:::¡8.5: ~~l8.~:~ª"e~ .. ~ " ~ 0 ~ < ~ ~ .,CllII..OOâg§:S :§ ~€B g ¡ o · · · o î " o o " W ~ g. E ~ o · o · i ~ I · I · · " ~ ¡ ~ o · 1 i c · " o · ~ o o B " o o " ~ .. õ I o · ! ~ : ~ · 7c{-71 ( 1;j E ., III W ( ::I c: ( > ( II: >< '" I- ~ oS! III c: E I- ( o ~ II. cD o >< :¡; c: ( <I: "1°0000 ÕOOtflOO I-~~ :;-â ~~ ~~ ~~ ~-~ ~ - .."., <01°0000 :êwgtfl88 rI) I.r)' Ñf'.,,' " ..- - "'" tfl Il}-I,Ò .... "'1°0000 CIIOtfltfltflC :!::O <:) U)~ lÔ " " ... .. ,.: ... ;;; ~ooooo tfltflt.9°C ._ 0 <:::I ci 0' ;g;¡; a:) 0';)' "" ..... ~Ioooo§ ,!tfltfltflO ._ 0 (I) -.:r-"t'- - - "'-'" ~ -. ..... ~OOOO§ tflER-tflO ._ 0 U) ~-~ - - de .... ..... _100000 ,!tflgtfl8¡S o g g~- " "'''' ~ C"Ítrf Z;;,; .c · " {!. - of! . c ~ I- o · · 13 ~ o co .§ 1ii -" 1õ ~ ~(ijÌij ~~ê &~" ~ ~ . ~~E~~ a. Q. ftI = I,) U)CJ)LL.E~ :3¡S=ÆJ!_ ê 1E'¡; g''3 ~ c(oa::i:ñ::2:~ o :c · · · x ~ , .g, . c ~ £! <0 .. o '" " ... .. "' '" ,.; ... ;;; ~ ... " '" ,.; .. ... ~ '" 0_ - ... ... o of '" ... .. o .. .,; ... ~ · o c · > · '" " · I- - of! · c · ;: " o c c '" · '" ~ · > '" Slggggg OOOtOOIO I- I.Ô I,()- ri ('\- 1.0' [;;~~~8 ;;~~~ ....... <0100000 tPtflOOtflc :!:: 0«1 to U) I,()-ui ~- "" "' ~.. .. tfl N- C\Ì .. "., ~I~ " ... ;;; ooo~ tfltfltflè) ~. .. ;;; ~aoooo cPtfltfloV)o ._ to 10 CD- <0- ~ - '" '" C"'Î ('1' '" '" .. "., ~ooooo Q)tfltflOtflc ._ '<t_..,. ~ -- "' "' .. .. ... ... "'Iooooc QltfltfltflOc ;'!:: 00 (I) (,ft'\!' "'"' .... ~..,.- ..:;¡ ¡coaoo tflO 0 tflo 0.. .. ci a;,- co' ",M .. ""' '" -N- "'t"' ...~ - .. ... x ~ , .g, . c ~ £! 13 ~ î c 2 ~ m ~ ~~ìii "C ë:;:, ïi¡ dI c:: ~~~ B 8 ~~ ~ ItI ctI E >. ~ c.. a. ftI = Q) U)CI)LL.E~ B:æ ~~:æ ~ð&Æ~~ .c " . I- - of! . c ~ I- o o '" '" of .. ... "1<00<0 õ~~~ I- - - R "''''<0 ""M .. .. ... .. '" ". ... ¡...... "'"'''' .-:: N_'<t_""R U)(t},......... .. .. ... - M 0_ ... ¡_~O aI(O')C")~ ._ 0 0 en....".....- .. .. .. "' - :i ... ¡""M CIIcnL/>'O:I' :!:,.........o M'C"iÔ ..~~ .. .. ... .. <0 ~ ':I~~~ æI~-~:g .. '" .. '" ... ;;; ~..."'.. CPO'<t'" :=,....0:>.... N-C/J-M' '" ~... .. .. '" '" .. ,.: ... i1\"'''' :ê '<t_~_æ .." .. .. · ~ . ~ o c ~ . > ~ ~ 0 a::: c: = tij ~ :::I o . c c'" . ¿-æ:ï ~~rx ~ ¿ ~ ~ ( z '" "'- z.!!Q ._ ~ z ê", .= ~.~ f: "0 C C æ ~ 1! -g~~ J'! b'- <n~o · o c ~ > · '" " · I- - of! · c ~ I- " o c c '" · '" ~ · > '" · · .g, · c "' . o :>.'= .iij 'iš ~ ~ 2 § ìïí ~ æco :¡ "'ffi;>,'O Q,) o¡'¡21ij~~ ~§æ2(1~ ..0"5.:2 ¡ij.!!:! co õ§g:2"[~§ ~~~¡¡¡~~~ c.~~!S~õg! .§.!;eo.:!i"'êCo Q,) ~ II) Q,) ~ 0 -0 g B rn""º : 0_ .e.e!Eã)gJelfl (þ 0 .... .... ~ .... Q,)5ÕÕÕ,g8. iiiõ~~~(O~ 1---0 ...50 ~~ "'... ~(I)Æ ~ ~:§:§: Q .!!! 1! .¡, · c .ê õ ~ · ~ m "" <3 · ~ o ë ~ B ~ .c "0 ~ "§ ~ c ~ '" · ~ x J'! .; o o '" W '" "' o c " 8. o ü Õ "" <3 "' ~ o o <n 1a.-110 Appendix Co7: Business License Revenue Estimate CURRENT BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REVENUE Current Revenues (2002~2003) 2003 Local Employment Estimated Revenue Per Employee $522.047 24,249 $21.53 "STANDARD DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) Mtl Site 2 :illo.1 ~ .s..i!.ti .s..i..ttl Is1!J!! Net New Employees 333 500 (94) 739 Estimated Net New Business license Revenue $7,176 $0 $0 $0 $10,764 ($2,026) $15,915 "LOW DENSITY" BUILD OUT SCENARIO (a) Mtl ~ ~ ~ ~ £ittl Is1!J!! Net New Employees 333 500 (94) 739 Estimated Net New Business License Revenue $7,176 $0 $0 $0 $10,764 ($2,026) $15,915 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDOUT SCENARIOS Standard Density Average Annual Revenues Low Density Average Annual Revenues Difference in Net New Revenues Mtl $7,176 $7,176 $0 ~ $0 $0 $0 fu1L3 $0 $0 $0 ~ $0 $0 $0 ~ $10,764 $10,764 $0 £ittl ($2.026) ($2.026) $0 Is1!J!! $15,915 $15,915 $0 Notes: (a) See Table 1 for description of buildout scenarios. Sources: California Employment Development Division ES 202 Census of Employment and Wages. 2003; BAE, 2004. '1t1.. ~8'1 Appendix C-8: Franchise Fee Revenue Estimate CURRENT FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 2002-2003 Service Average Revenues Population Revenues Fees from Commercial Users PG&E - Gas $37,575 24,249 employees $1.55 per employee PG&E - Electric $404,851 24,249 employees $16.70 per employee Los Altos Garbage $595,558 24,249 employees $24.56 per employee Gal Water $4,648 24,249 employees $0.19 per employee Other $205,851 24,249 employees $8.49 per employee Commercial Subtotal $1,248,483 24,249 empJoyees $51.49 per employee Fees from Residential Users PG&E· Gas $81,710 19,237 households $4.25 per household PG&E - Electfc $174,252 19,237 households $9.06 per household Los Altos Garbage $404,707 19,237 households $21.04 per household Gal Water $18,272 19,237 households $0.95 per household Other $248,490 19,237 households $12.92 per household ResidenUal Subtotal $927,431 19,237 households $48.21 per household Total Citywide Franchise Fees $2,175,914 'STANDARD DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) Service Population Estimate JIiItl Jill!.1 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS ~ I£!!! Employees 333 500 (94) 739 Households 205 609 29 602 87 1,732 Estimated Franchise Fees PG&E - Gas $1,387 $2,587 $123 $3,407 $775 $224 $8,502 PG&E - Electric $7,422 $5.516 $263 $7,265 $8,348 ($783) $28,031 Los Alios Garbage $12,499 $12,812 $610 $16,872 $12,280 ($481) $54,593 Gal Waler $259 $578 $28 $762 $96 $85 $1,787 Other $5,478 $7,867 $375 $10,360 $4,245 $325 $28,648 Total Estimated Franchise Fees $27,045 $29,360 $1,398 $38,665 $25,743 ($650) $121,561 "LOW DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) Service Population Estimate Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 .$!!U SiteS SiteS I2!!! E~ees 333 500 (94) 739 Households 162 522 11 (79) 32 648 Estimated Franchise Fees PG&E·Gæ $1,205 $2,217 $47 ($336) $775 ($10) $3,898 PG&E - Electric $7,033 $4,728 $100 ($716) ".348 ($1,281) $18,212 Los Altos Garbage $11,595 $10,982 $231 ($1,662) $12,280 ($1,638) $31,788 CalWater $218 $498 $10 ($75) $96 $12 $757 Other $4,922 $6,743 $142 ($1,020) $4,245 ($385) $14,646 Total Estimated Franchise Fees $24,972 $25,166 $530 ($3,809) $25,743 ($3,302) $69,301 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDQUT SCENARIOS Standard Density Net Annual Fees Low Density Net Annual Fees Difference in Net New Revenues Site 1 $27,045 $24,972 $2,073 Site 2 $29,360 $25,166 $4,194 Site 3 $1,398 $530 $B58 Site 4 $38,665 ($3,809) $42,474 SiteS $25,743 $25,743 $0 SiteS ($650) ($3,302) $2,652 Total $121,561 $69,301 $52,260 Notes: (a) See Table 1 for description of buildout scenarios. Sources: Califomia Employment Development Division ES 202 Census of Employment and Wages, 2003; Projections 2003, Association of Bay Area Governments; Revenue Comparison Chart 2002-2003, City of Cupertino, Finance Department; BAE. 2004. tla.-lJ1... Appendix Cog: Utility Tax Revenue Estimate CURRENT UTILITY USERS TAXES 2002-2003 Service Average Revenues Population Revenues Taxes from Commercial Users PG&E" Gas $79,686 24,249 employees $3.29 per employee PG&E " Electric $858,578 24,249 employees $35.41 per employee Other $687,454 24,249 employees $28.35 per employee Commercial Subtotal $1,625,718 24,249 employees $67.04 per employee Taxes from Residential Users PG&E - Gas $173,284 19,030 households $9.11 per household PG&E - Electric $369,541 19,030 households $19.42 per household Other $397,721 19,030 households $20.90 per household Residential Subtotal $940,546 19,030 households $49.43 per household Total Citywide Franchise Fees $2,566,264 "STANDARD DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) Service Population Estimate Site 1 ~ Site 3 Site 4 ~ ~ Total EmplCTy'ees 333 500 (94) 739 Households 205 609 2' a02 a7 1,732 Estimated Utility User Tax PG&E - Gas $2,962 $5,546 '264 $7,303 $1,643 $483 $18,201 PG&E - Electric $15,783 $11,826 '563 $15,574 $17,703 ($1,642) $59,808 Other $13,734 $12,728 '60' $16,762 $14,175 ($849) $57,156 Total Estimated Utility Users Taxes $32,480 $30,100 $1,433 $39,639 $33,521 ($2,009) $135,165 LOW DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) Service Population Estimate .s..wu Sl.ttl Site 3 Site4 SiteS ~ I2!!J. Employees 333 500 (94) 739 Households 162 522 11 (79) 32 64B Estimated Utility User Tax PG&E - Gas $2,571 $4,753 $tOO ($719) $1,643 ($18) $8,330 PG&E - Electric $14,948 $10,137 $214 ($1,534) $17,703 ($2,710) $38,758 Other $12,836 $10,910 $230 ($1,651) $14,175 ($1,999) $34,500 Total Estimated Utility Users Taxes $30,354 $25,800 '544 ($3,905) $33,521 ($4,127) $81,588 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDQUT SCENARIOS Standard Density Net Annual Taxes Low Density Net Annual Taxes Difference In Net New Revenues ID!!..1. $32,480 $30,354 $2,125 l2Iol $135,165 $81,588 $53,577 Site 2 $30,100 $25,800 $4,300 Site 3 $t,433 $544 $890 Site4 $39,639 ($3,905) $43,544 SiteS $33,521 $33,521 $0 .s.tl!L! ($2,009) ($4,727) $2,718 Notes: (a) See Table 1 for description of build out scenarios. Sources: California Employment Development Division ES 202 Census of Employment and Wages, 2003; Projections 2003, Association of Bay Area Govemmerlls: Revenue Comparison Chart 2002-2003, City of Cupertino, Finance Department; BAE, 2004. I rJ... ~ '13 Appendix C-10: Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Revenue Estimate MOTOR VEHICLE IN-LIEU FEE REVENUE (b) Current Revenues (2002-2003) 2003 Cupertino Residents Current Per Capita Revenues $3.401,547 53,098 $64.06 . STANDARD DENSITY" BUILOOUT SCENARIO {a) Estimated Revenues from Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 ~ ~ Site 6 I2J!! Net New Residents 523 1,553 74 2,045 222 4.417 Total Revenues $33,488 $99,484 $4,737 $131,012 $0 $14,212 $131,012 "LOW DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO {a) Estimated Revenues from Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Sl!!...1 ~ SJ!tl Site 4 SiteS iillti I2!!l Net New Residents 41. 1,331 2. (192) 83 1,668 Total Revenues $26,775 $85,272 $1,818 ($12,311) $0 $5,289 ($12,311) DIFFERENCE BElWEEN BUILOOUT SCENARIOS Standard Density Net Annual Fees Low Density Net Annual Fees Difference In Net New Revenues Site 1 $33,488 $26,775 $6,713 .slttl $0 $0 $0 ~ $4,737 $1,818 $2,919 ~ $131,012 ($12,311) $143,323 SiteS $0 $0 $0 ~ $14,212 $5,289 $8,923 !Q!!! $131,012 ($12,311) $143,323 Notes: (a) See Table 1 for description of build out scenarios. (b) As of January 2001, the stale legislature reduced MVll Fees by 67.5 percent However, since this reduction, the state has been ~backfilling" lost revenues to local jurisdictions. This analysis assumes thai the backfilling program will continue. Sources: Revenue Comparison Chart 2002-2003, City of Cupertino, Finance Department: BAE 2004. ~ a. -p cr Expend itures New development in the City also often necessitate new expendilures. The following section explores lhe estimaled costs impacts of developmenl scenarios for lhe six study sites. Law Enforcement Costs The City of Cupertino contracts with lhe Sanla Clara County Sheriff's Office for police services. This arrangement allows lhe City 10 access a large pool of resources while saving on costs related 10 managing its own police department BAE spoke with the Captain of the Cupertino Sheriffs Station and examined lhe City's Law Enforcement Contract with Sanla Clara County to evaluale lhe polentiallaw enforcemenl cosl impact of the development scenarios for lhe six study sites, As presenled in lhe Contract, costs are shown on an hourly basis and include salary and fringe benefits costs as well as a prorated share of equipment and materials costs and departmental overhead. BAE worked with the Cupertino Captain to idenlify additional police hours that would be required to serve fulure growth. With 34,598 hours of police lime or 17 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) beat officers contracted for in fiscal year 2004-05, lhe City of Cupertino maintains a ratio of 0.25 beat officers FTEs per 1,000 members of the service population. As the service population increases related to new development, lhe Captain believes the number of beat officers will need to increase commensurately to maintain current service levels. Appendix C-ll provides an eslimale oflhe number of additional FTEs that will be required under each developmenl scenario. The standard density scenario is associated with a larger service population and a greater demand for law enforcement services. Additional costs, including salary, benefits, equipment, and departmental overhead associated wilh the slandard density scenario are approximately $292,000 annually, compared to $124,000 for the low density scenario, a difference of$168,000, The Sanla Clara County Sheriff's departmenl incurs other costs of service in Cupertino related to supplemental traffic patrols, investigative hours, and other special services, The Captain believes thai current staffing of lhese assignments is sufficient to maintain the same level service even as the City approaches buildout under lhe General Plan. Fire Costs Fire Services in the City of Cupertino are provided by lhe Sanla Clara County Fire Department Funding for lhe Department is entirely separale from lhe Cupertino General Fund, with lhe Department receiving revenues lhrough a dedicaled share of property tax revenues, As a result, lhere are no City General Fund cost implicalions related to increased demand from new development, Library Costs Like the Fire Department, the County Library receives most of its operating reven ues through a dedicated share of property tax revenues. Two exceptions 10 this arrangemenl 58 7Cl-fj are that the City has recently paid for lhe completion of a new library building, which the Library rents trom the City, and has paid for cerlain staff costs at the library in order to expand the library hours of operation. The City Treasurer and the County Librarian do not expect the City's library related cosls 10 increase as a result of future growth. Moreover, they note that the decision 10 continue funding extended hours at lhe library will be made by the City Council independent of the amount of future growth in the City, Parks and Recreation Costs BAE spoke with the Director of Parks and Recreation as well as various departmental slaff members to evaluate the potential cost impact of developmenl scenarios for the six study sites. For a number of reasons, the Director and her staff indicated that there would not be significant new Parks and Recreation costs related to development of the study sites. The City operales a number of parks and community centers, The Director believes lhal current facilities will be adequate to accommodate growth as envisioned in the General Plan and does not anticipale building new facililies in response 10 future growth." The Department operates a number of cultural and recreational programs, These include classes, youth, teen and senior programs, public concerts and civic gatherings, and sports leagues. The Department indicated that while some programs are operating at full capacity, these programs presently serve both residents and non-residents. In order to accommodate future growth in resident population and maintain services at their present level, the Departmenl will adjusl enrollment policies 10 give first priority to residents, In so doing, the Department believes it will be able to accommodate future population growth without increasing service costs, Other programs (e.g., sports leagues) are self- funding with the exception of certain staff cosls lhal are unlikely to change due 10 new development at lhe study sites. The Department operates lhe Cupertino Sports Center, This facility operates similarly 10 a private health clubs, receiving operaling revenues lhrough membership dues, with only a small subsidy from lhe General Fund to cover a portion of lhe facility's debt service, Increases in lhe service population are expected 10 translale into increased membership and positively impact the operalional budgel for the facility and strengthen its financial position. Nonetheless, the overall impact of increased memberships generated by development on the study sites is expecled to be relatively small and is not likely to have much if any impact on lhe General Fund. " The City has an expressed goal -of having at least three acres of Public Park and open space per 1,000 residents. With approximately 200 acres of parks and open space and 52,000 residents, at present the ratio is approximately 3.85 acres per 1,000 residents. Even with an additional 5,000 residents as envisioned under the General Plan the City will still have approximately 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The Parks and Recreation director indicated that while the City may eventually transition Blackberry Fann, a 33-acre golf and recreation area, from a self-supporting, fee-use facility into a General Fund supported park facility; this decision would be done as a policy choice rather than in direct response to population growth. 59 Î a - fL, Public Works Costs BAE inlerviewed the director of Public Works as well as division managers and olher staff members to evaluate the potential cosl impact of development scenarios for the six study sites. The budget for the departmenl is divided between various divisions: administration, environmental programs, engineering services, the service center, grounds management, streets, facilities, and transportation. A related expenditure item is pavemenl management. While lisled in lhe Capital Improvemenls Program, the pavement management program may be thought of as an ongoing expenditure overseen by !he Public Works Department. For several divisions, lhere are no General Fund cost impacts anticipaled related to future growih, while for olher divisions, the Department anticipates cost increases relative to the growth in the service population. The director and division managers do not anticipate cost increases for the administration, environmental programs, service center, grounds maintenance, facilities maintenance or general services divisions. In the case of these divisions, the director and division managers consider current staffing levels sufficient to meet any increased demand for services related to future growih as allowed under the general plan, In the case of the grounds maintenance, facilities maintenance, and general services divisions, managers expect any additional wear and tear on grounds, facilities, and streetlights associated wilh future development 10 be de minimis. Slaff do nol believe there will be a material increase in the need for maintenance related to future growth as envisioned in lhe General Plan. Other divisions do anticipate costs increases related to future. The engineering services, streets, and transportation division provide services related to the design, maintenance, and planning oflhe transportation system. With increased development, the Departmenl expects increased demands on the transportation system and increased costs. BAE worked with the assistanl director for the Departmenl to idenlify budget items for these divisions with costs likely to increase related to future growih as show in Appendix C-12, BAE divides costs between the existing service population to detennine costs on per employee and per resident basis. Using lhese cost bases, BAE eslimates!he additional costs thai would be associated with development on !he study sites, Based on this melhodology, !he standard density scenario is expected 10 generate approximately $66,000 in new costs per year, compared to costs of $14,000 under lhe low density scenario, a difference of$52,000. Community Development Department The Community Development Department provides a number of services primarily to new development including planning and building inspection services. As of July 1, 2004, the Department will begin 10 charge fees thai are intended to cover the cost of providing such services. As a result, ongoing costs associated with the Development Services Departmenl are not modeled in this analysis, It should be noted that if development activity is less than anticipated during future years, the fee structure instituted on July 1,2004 will not fully recover cosls and fees may need to be adjusled upward accordingly. 60 7 a. - r, General Government General Government includes a number of City Departments that provide services to support the overall operations of the City of Cupertino, These include Council and Commissions, Administration (City Manager, Legal Services), Public Infonnalion, and Administrative Services (Economic Development, Accounting, Business Licensing, City Clerk, Human Resources, Code Enforcement, elc.). BAE interviewed lhe City Treasurer, who is also the Director of Adminislrative Services to detennine the impact of future growth on the expenditures for General Government services. The Treasurer indicated that cun-ent budgeted staffing levels are adequate to provide a consistent level of service as the City grows toward build-out. The Treasurer does not expect expenditures on General Government services to increase as a result of growth on the study sites. Expenditure Summary Under the standard density scenario, costs are higher than under the low density scenario, particularly relaled 10 cosls of law enforcement, As shown in Appendix C-13, lolal General Fund expenditures under the standard density scenario would be $358,000 annually compared to $138,000 under the low density scenario, a difference of $219,000 annually, Summary of Fiscal 1m pact Analysis Bolh lhe slandard and low density developmenl scenarios are projected 10 resull in a net increase in revenues to Cupertino's General Fund. However, the low density scenario generates nolably less revenue than the standard density scenario, For the six study sites, total annual net revenues for the standard and low density scenarios are projected at $887,000 and $487,000, respeclively, a $400,000 difference (see Appendix C-13), Therefore, foregoing the expected revenue oflhe standard density scenario represents a lost opportunity to assure the continuing health of Cupertino's General Fund. 61 7q-rr " - .. E '" .. w - .. o u - c: " E " " ~ .E c: w ~ .. oJ . ~ ~ U )( '5 c: " Q. « . õ> ~ .., M o .. ~ "' 9 v o o " e . u "' e ;; . '" . <O- N <0<0 ~M oj V N ~ .. 0; u "' o v~ ~N 0. c: <0 <0 0; u .", We t1;í - 0 ~'" ~æ I::~ 2.2 ..!!1;í 5.'" o C !l. .2 .~ ~ ~ ~ . 0 <no. o . c .~ :e c:: . . ~<n c3S õ Îii .~~ '-'0 7;jt; o 0 "''-' "1m ~~ ':I~g ~ ~ '--N ~Io ~~ ~ ~ c o ~ S ~ o ~ o o o j :I::¡ ~M · · · c o ~ S · ~ :ß2~ .2~8 E ~ .~ wo:::~ · . . · . . zzz 4í ¡; Õ zzz ~<O ~ v~ v'''¡ o ~ N ~ ~ v v 00 N'~ vv ~~ M M ~~ ""."'. Mm N~ ~<O o N v o o <0 o o ;; o N o o ø M o ~ o .:J e- "- · ." " o. · · Z ~ · õ · "e o. Ñ N o oj ø N ~ ~E "' <0 <0 Õ ~ ~;¡¿~ ;:; ~ N ..; ~ ~ ¡I ~ ~ ;;; ~ ~ .. N ~ ~ ¡I Ñ ~ ~ .. ~ i õ ~ ~ .. m ~ i ;:; ~ o oj .. ~ jM~~ M~~ M"~ · · · c o ~ S . ~ <P!!æ ~c .9 -8 8 E'~ .~ W"'''' . . . o . 0 ZZZ <PQ 011 ZZZ :I · o '-' · u ~ · ., · ~ ~ <OM <00 "':Ñ NN ø ø ~ ~ N N ;;;;;; (").("). ~ o o o <0 o o ~ o 9 o o V M o ~ o E o E ~ o .. > o o " ~ o ;; u " ;¡o e o u ~ ~ M .. ~ ~ ~ ~ oj ~ ;:; ~ N ..; ~ ~ N ~. ~ Ñ M ~- ~ ~ ~ N_ ~ ~ õ ~ <0 ..; M ~ :I · o " · u .~ · '" "1--- _NO.... ON........ I- 0. (")......~ NV~ mN<O N ~!:!-~ <01--- ~~ø <1)101001 =\0.......,. (J) - - . ON m - ~~ ~~- ~I;:;;:;O Q""Il)_ :t:'NN ., - - ~~ EE ..I;;; ~;:; Cþ.....NQ æ r--_r--_~ ..~~ N~M ~ ~- ~ ~ MI--- NNO OII....MCI;I ~""I"-..... en - - ~ "~N ~~~ NI--- ov~ 41""......., =.....NOO U) . - . V_M mm_ ~~~ _1--- MO" GI(Df'-G'I ':010<") II) - . . N ~ <0 .. M~ !!.~- . " <3 :! " . iij <II 0 ê8~ c _ . « . , , c o c C Z c « .::-~- ,ii ~ ~ ~ >-.5 a.~ Q 'E ê t) ~~f § ~ ~ <n~o v o o N · o >- -. u · ¡¡: .; .0 0; c o u · " o " .. ~ o c .0 .ë- u · o ~ -" -" o c " · ~ , '-' õ z- <3 o 5 ~ c · · ;;; <3 · E · <n Õ ~ E , o '-' c o o ~ o '" õ £: c o '-' E o E o ~ -" c W · · ~ ~ o · o ~ ~ o. " o B <n o ." " o. o c " · ~ o '-' o c jj g.~ '-'0 N ~w ~« ,'" 0";; "'0 o " · e- o iti G 0'" ~:§: 7ct-rc) Appendix C-12: Public Works Cost Estimate COSTS IMPACTED BY FUTURE GROWTH Enaineerina Services Engineering Design Inspection Service TransDortation Traffic Engineering Traffic Signal and Maintenance Streets Street Maintenance Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Maintenance Street Sign Markings Graffiti Removal Caoitallmorovements Pavement Management Total FY 2003.04 ($684,728) ($105,855) ($385,201) ($384,295) $219,292 $757,012 $422,971 $33,500 1$750000\ ($877,304) CALCULATION OF COSTS ON SERVICE POPULATION BASIS Current Service PODulation Employee Service Population Resident Service Population Total Service Population Number 12,125 51,909 64,034 Cost Allocation by Land Use Commercial Residential 2002·2003 Costs ($166,114) ($711,190) Percent 18.9% 81.1% 100.0% Total Population 24,249 employees 51,909 residents Average Costs ($6.85) per employee ($13.70) per household "STANDARD DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) ~ ~ Mtl §j!tl Mtl Mti IoIiI Net New Employees 333 500 (94) 739 Net New Residents 523 1,553 74 2,045 222 4,417 Net New Commercial Based Costs ($2,283) $0 $0 $0 ($3,425) $645 ($5,064) Net New Residential Based Costs ($7,162) ($21,277) ($1,013) ($28,019) $0 ($3,040) ($60,511) Service Costs ($9.4451 {$21.277} ($1.013) ($2'.019) ($3,425) ($2.3951 ($65,575) "LOW DENSITY" BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) ~ ~ Mtl §j!tl Mtl Mti IoIiI Net New Employees 333 500 (94) 739 Net New Residents 162 522 11 (79) 32 64' Net New Commercial Based Costs ($2,283) $0 $0 $0 ($3.425) $645 ($5,064) Net New Residential Based Costs ($2,220) ($7,152) ($151) $1,082 $0 ($438) ($8,878) Service Costs ($4,503) {$7.152} ($151) $1,082 ($3,425) $206 {$13.9421 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDOUT SCENARIOS Standard Density New Costs Low Density Net Annual Fees Difference In Net New Revenues ~ ($9,445) ($4,503) ($4,943) ~ ($21 ,277) ($7,152) ($14,125) ~ ($1,013) ($151) ($8621 IoIiI ($85,575) ($13,942) ($51,632) ~ ($28,019) $1,082 ($29,102) Mtl ($3.425) ($3,425) $0 Mti ($2.395) $206 ($2.601) Note: (a) See Table 1 for description of build out scenarios. Source: Adopted Budget 2003-04, City of Cupertino; Public Works Transportation Division; BAE 2004. ~tt ~9() Appendix C-13: Fiscal Impact Summary "STANDARD DENSITY' BUILDOUT SCENARIO (a) Revenue Sources Sa!esTax Property Tax Property Transfer Tax Business License Tax Franchise Fee MVILFees Total Projected New Revenue EXDendltures Law Enforcement PublicWOric.s Paric.sand Recreation City Council/Commissions Administration PubliC Information AdminislrativeServices Community Development Library Fire Total Projected N_ Expenditures Net New Revenue Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS SIt86 T""" $248,176 $150,954 $7,188 $198,793 $52,297 ($34,151) ~623,260 $32,641 $73,689 $3,509 $143,990 $8,454 $11,259 $273,542 $8,404 $22,107 $1,053 $43,197 $1,031 $3,254 $79,046 $7,176 $0 $0 $0 $10,764 ($2,026) $15,915 $27,045 $29,360 $1,398 $38,665 $25,743 ($650) $121,561 $33,488 $99,484 $4,737 $131,012 $0 $14,212 $131,012 $356,933 $375,594 $17,885 $555,657 $98,290 ($8,103) $1,244,335 ($42,063) ($9.445) ($51,509) $305,424 ($94,750) ($4,512) ($124,778) ($15,253) ($21,277) ($1,013) ($28,019) ($3,425) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (c) Expenditures funded fhrough direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) Expenditures funded through direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) ($116,027) ($5,525) ($152,797) ($18,678) ($13,060) ($10,665) ($2,395) ($292,022) ($65,575) ($357,596) $259,561 $12,360 $402,860 $79,611 ($21,163) $888,738 ....l','.II::I,,"'.,.'.:JIII..r.II....,II::I.1,.,.j[.'''1 Revenue Sources Site 1 SUe 2 Site 3 Site 4 SiteS Site 8 T""" Sales Tax $237,992 $129,389 $2,759 ($18,681) $52,297 ($47,691) $356,065 Property Tax $30,824 $63,162 $1,561 $43,847 $8,454 $5,272 $153,120 Property Transfer Tax $7,859 $18,949 $468 $13,154 $1,031 $1,458 $42,920 Business License Tax $7,176 $0 $0 $0 $10,764 ($2,026) $15,915 Franchise Fee $24,972 $25,166 $530 ($3,809) $25,743 ($3,302) $69,301 MVILFees $26,775 $85,272 $1,818 ($12,311) $0 $5,289 ($12,311) Total Projected New Revenue $335,598 $321,938 $7,136 $22,201 $98,290 ($40,999) $625,009 EXDendltures Law EnfDrcement Public WOrks Paric.s and Recreation City CounciltCommissions Administration PUbliclnfonnation Administrative Services Community Development Library Fire Total Projected New Expenditures Net New Revenue 'III~::I::II:~::II~III::III :t::lll.",.::I::I.1.:UII..[.11....,..::II~",:." SId Den. Scenario Net New Revenues Low Den. Scenario Net New Revenues Difference In Net New Revenues ($35,670) ($4,503) ($40,173) $295,425 Site 1 $305,424 $295,425 $9,998 ($81,214) ($1,732) $11,725 ($15,253) ($7,152) ($151) $1,082 ($3,425) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (b) No new costs projected based on future growth (c) Expenditures funded through direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) Expenditures funded through direct allotment of property tax revenue (d) ($88,365) ($1,882) $12,808 ($18,678) ($1,960) ($2,167) $206 ($124,310) ($13,942) ($138,252) $233,571 $5,254 $35,008 $79,611 ($42,959) $486,757 Site 2 $259,567 $233,571 $25,996 Site 3 $12,360 $5,254 $7,106 Site 4 $402,860 $35,008 $361,851 SiteS $79,611 $79,611 $0 Site 6 ($21,163) ($42,959) $21,797 T""" $886,138 $486,757 $399,981 Not~ (a) See Table 1 for description of build out $cenarios. (b) Treasurert Director of Administrative Services indicates thaI for the department/division current budgeted staffing levels are sufficient to serve City at complete buildout (c) As of July 1, 2004 the Community Development Department will transition to a fee schedule designed to fully recover costs of providing services. Under the Low Density Buildout Scenarios, certain fees may have to increase in order to fully recover costs associated with a lesser volume of development. Assuming that fees will be periodically adjusted to assure that they fully recover costs, the proposed initiatives will have a neutral impact on Ihe cost to the General Fund of operating the Community Development Department (d) Library and Fire services are provided by Santa Clara County and are paid for thr ough a direct allotment of property tax revenue Fundingfor theses services is separate from the Cupertino General Fund. Sources: City of Cupertino; BAE, 2004 1~ -91 Appendix D: List of City/County Personnel Consulted Name Sieve Piasecki, Director Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Colin Jung, Senior Planner Carol Atwood, Director Therese Smith, Director Ralph Qualls, Director Glenn Goepfert, Assistanl Director Bob Rizzo, Manager Lavenia Millar Carmen Lynaugh Carol Augustine John Hirokawa, Captain DeDartmentlDivision Community Development Department Community Development Department Community Development Department Administrative Services Department Parks and Recreation Department Public Works Department Public Worksl Transportalion Division Public W orksl Service Center Public Worksl Environmenlal Programs Public Worksl Projecl Management Deputy Treasurer Sanla Clara County Sheriff's Department 65 1o....-fL GOLDFARB & LIPMAN The Law Offices of M David Kroot Lee C. Rosenthal John T. Nagle Polly V. Marshall Lynn Hutchins Richard A. Judd Karen M. Tiedemann Thomas H. Webber John T. Haygood Diarme Jackson McLean Michelle D. Brewer Jennifer K. Bell Carolyn A. Gold Robert C. Mills Isabel L. Brown Claudia J. Martin William F. DiCamillo Rafael Mandelman Margaret F. Jung Emily B. Longfellow Heather J. Gould Amy De Vaudreuil Retired Steven H. Goldfarb Barry R. Lipman Oakland 510836-6336 510836-1035 FAX San Francisco 415 788-6336 Los Angeles 213627-6336 1300 Clay Street Ninth Floor City Center Plaza Oakland California 94612 June 16,2004 To Cupertino City Council From IV-- Richard Judd, Lee Rosenthal, and Rafael Mandelman, Goldfarb & Lipman RE Proposed Height, Setback and Residential Density Initiatives This memorandum summarizes our review of three initiatives which have been circulated for signature in the City. The City directed us to prepare an independent analysis. As a result, the conclusions in this memorandum are strictly those of the authors. The opinions of City staff or officials have not been conveyed to us and may differ from ours, Our most troubling conclusions are that the density initiative is likely to put the City's existing general plan Housing Element in conflict with State law, and that the density initiative is also likely to conflict with California Government Code §65863, Another serious concern is that the density initiative would be inconsistent with the City's existing Housing Element; such an inconsistency within the general plan is not allowed under Government Code §65300.5, Al1 these concerns may be remediable, by amending the Housing Element (and, if necessary, other parts of the general plan), In each case, we rely on the factual conclusion of Freitas + Freitas, the City's Housing Element consultant, that the density limitation initiative specifically would reduce the number of units that could be built on specific sites identified in the City's Housing Element, so that sufficient sites would no longer be available to accommodate the City's ABAG-assigned share of regional housing need, particularly for very low income households. A, Housing Element Statute Government Code §65583 requires every local Housing Element to identify adequate sites for housing to provide for existing and projected needs of households at al1 economic levels (including very low income), The State Department of Housing 394\04\179779.1 jt{ -1y City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 2 and Community Development ("HCD") determined that the City's current Housing Element met those requirements, based on a site inventory included in the Element. The Freitas + Freitas report concludes that the density initiative's reduction of allowable density on sites relied on in the existing Housing Element inventory would cause the Element not to meet statutory requirements. A legally inadequate Housing Element would open the City to legal challenge, and to consequences which could include invalidation of its general plan and/or suspension of development approvals. B, Government Code §65863 Government Code §65863(a) requires every city to ensure that its Housing Element inventory of sites can accommodate the city's share of the regional housing need throughout the Housing Element planning period (at this point, for Cupertino, through June 2007). As noted above, Freitas + Freitas has concluded that the City will not be able to accommodate its housing need on the sites in its Housing Element inventory at the densities allowed by the density initiative. Section 65863 is likely to be found applicable to initiatives, despite several lines of argument which could be made to the contrary, To the extent found to violate §65863, the initiatives would be invalid, but the remainder of the general plan would probably not be affected. C. General Plan Consistency Assuming that Freitas + Freitas' conclusion is correct, the initiatives would, in amending other provisions of the City's general plan, cause those provisions to become inconsistent with language in the Housing Element-language not changed by any of the initiatives-conimitting the City to policies to accommodate housing need at all income levels. In other words, the initiative provisions would create an internal inconsistency within the plan. This would render the general plan technically invalid (under Government Code §65300.5), again opening the City to a challenge seeking to invalidate the general plan and suspend development approvals. D. Options to Address Potential Legal Invaliditv Ultimately, the legal validity of the three initiatives can only be determined by a court. There are at least two ways in which the City might act proactively. First, the City could bring pre-election legal action concerning the initiatives. Second, the City could amend its Housing Element and, as necessary, other general plan provisions to try to eliminate the basis for legal challenges. 1. Pre-Election Lawsuit Any pre-election legal challenge would have to overcome the general rule that: "it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiati ve measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral 394\04\179779,1 7 a. ~'l) City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 3 process by preventing the exercise of the people's franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity." Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal.3d 1,4. While courts will preempt initiati ves in exceptional cases, a court in this case may well prefer to defer review for two reasons. First, assessing the potential conflicts between the initiatives and state statutes requires considering the relevant facts. A court would rather not review factual questions until after an election. Second, the City might take steps to eliminate or modify general plan provisions, including Housing Element provisions, to make them consistent with the initiatives. A court might wait to see if the City takes such action. ll, Amending General Plan to Resolve Conflicts Generally, in a legal challenge to a legislative enactment (such as an initiative), the relevant legal provisions are those in effect when a court rules on the challenge, See, !Uk, Building Industry Ass'n v, Oxnard (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 1,3. If the Cupertino initiatives were to pass, that rule would allow any resulting curable legal deficiencies to be remedied by amending other sections of the City's general plan or zoning ordinance before or after passage of the initiatives, and before a court decision, However, the City's ability to do this is open to some question. The California Supreme Court expressly refused to consider post-passage changes which were adopted to protect an initiative zoning ordinance against legal challenge, in Lesher Communications v. Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 531. The Lesher rule for zoning ordinances rests on the principle that the general plan is supposed to be a coherent "constitution" for local land use, and should not be either overridden or turned into a patchwork by zoning ordinance amendments which then force general plan amendments to achieve consistency. Arguably, this principle does not apply to initiatives, like those in Cupertino, which amend the general plan itself, Also, because general plans are often lengthy, detailed documents, a requirement that every general plan initiati ve resolve all inconsistencies would in practice significantly limit the public's ability to amend a general plan by initiative, However, there are also cases which hold that: (1) an'initiative general plan amendment cannot leave too much work to be done subsequently by a City Council- that the initiative must do more than establish a governing concept while leaving implementation of specific amendments to a city council; and (2) a general plan may not achieve consistency simply by stating that one plan provision takes precedence over others (Part V of each of the initiatives does something like this). Also, a footnote in DeVita v, City of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763,794 (n, 11), notes that special scrutiny may be applied to an initiative which potentially conflicts with the locality's Housing Element. 394\04\179779.1 Ie{ -7'& City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 4 Given the number of legal issues involved, it is difficult to predict whether the Cupertino City Council would be allowed to protect the legal validity of the initiatives by post-election general plan amendments. If, on the other hand, the Council takes action before any election-perhaps in the form of general plan amendments which would take effect only if one or more of the initiatives pass-it appears likely (though still not certain) that a court would take those amendments into account, on the basis that internal general plan inconsistencies would never come into effect. We reviewed several issues in addition to those discussed above, but did not find similar potential legal deficiencies, The areas reviewed included Evidence Code §65302,8 (requiring certain findings in growth control ordinances), state density bonus law, the state "anti-NIMBY" statute, discrimination law, potential takings without just compensation, and various redevelopment and development agreement-related matters concerning Valko. Analysis of these issues, and a further explanation of the issues discussed, is contained in a more detailed report to the City. 394\04\179779.1 7~rfl The Law Offices of GOLDFARB & LIPMAN M David Kroot Lee C. Rosenthal John T. Nagle Polly V. Marshall Lynn Hutchins Richard A. Judd Karen M. Tiedemann Thomas H. Webber John T. Haygood Dianne Jackson McLean Michelle D. Brewer Jennifer K. Bell Carolyn A. Gold Robert C. Mills Isabel L. Brown Clauclia J. Martin William F. DiCamillo Rafael Mandehnan Margaret F. Jung Emily B. Longfellow Heather J. Gould Amy De Vaudreuil Retired Steven H. Goldfarb Barry R. Lipman Oakland 510836-6336 510836-1035 FAX San Francisco 415 788-6336 Los Angeles 213627-6336 1300 Clay Street Ninth Floor City Center Plaza Oakland California 94612 June 16,2004 To City of Cupertino From r'\ ( Richard fudd, Lee Rosenthal, and Rafael Mandelman, Goldfarb & Lipman RE Proposed Height, Setback and Residential Density Initiatives This memorandum responds to three questions concerning three initiatives which have been circulated for signature in the City. We understand that the City will use this response in preparing a report under Elections Code §9212. The three questions are: 1. Do the initiatives conflict with state or federal law?! 2, Would complying with the initiatives require the City to violate any legal obligation? 3. Would adoption of the initiatives create internal inconsistencies within the City's general plan, or conflict with the Valko development agreement, the Community Redevelopment Law or. the consent decree in Cupertino Citizens for Affordable Housing v. All Persons Interested in the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Valko Redevelopment Project? I You also ask whether the conflict(s), if any, would make it illegal for the City to put one or more of the initiatives on the ballot. The City has no legal duty to challenge the substance of the initiatives and may place them on the ballot if all technical requirements are met. The courts will, under limited circumstances. order that an initiative not be placed on the ballot based on its content ~.~, San Francisco Fortv-Niners v. Nishioka (1999) 75 Ca!. App. 4" 637, 650, holding that an inilialive may be blocked '"to prevenllhe circulalion of undisputed falsehoods'"). The analysis below discusses whether the City would have reasonable grounds to challenge lhe initialives before a vote, if il chose to do so. However, we know of no California case which holds that a local official has a legal dUly to determine the lawfulness of the content of an iniliative. '"As courts have stated repeatedly and clearly, local governments have the purely ministerial duty to place duly certified initiatives on the ballot." Save Stanislaus Area Farm Economv v. Board of Suoervisors of the County of Stanislaus (1993) 13 Ca!. App. 4" 141, 148. 394\04\179524.2 7 t{ -1 t City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 2 The most troubling conclusions reached in our analysis are that the density initiative is likely to put the City's existing general plan Housing Element in conflict with State law, and thatthe density initiative is also likely to conflict with California Government Code §65863, These two points are discussed under Question I, sections A and B, below, Another serious concern is that the density initiative would be inconsistent with the City's existing Housing Element; such an inconsistency within the general plan is not allowed under Government Code §65300.5, This is discussed under Question 3, section A, below, Both the conflicts with state law and the general plan inconsistency may be remediable, by amending the Housing Element, as discussed under Question 1, section D(ii). QUESTION 1 (Conflict with State Law) The initiatives, particularly taken together, are arguably inconsistent with three state laws: the Housing Element statute (Government Code §§65580 et seq.), Government Code §65863 and Government Code §65302.8. In each case, existence of an inconsistency depends on analysis of the effect of the initiatives. Freitas + Freitas, the City's Housing Element consultant, has determined that the density limitation initiative specifically would significantly reduce the number of units that could be built on the sites relied on in the City's Housing Element to accommodate the City's share of regional housing need, In particular, Freitas + Freitas has found that reduced densities under the initiative would affect the sites relied on to accommodate the City's share of housing need for very-low income households, so that the City would no longer be able to accommodate its share of housing need, This finding leads to the legal conclusion that the City would not be complying with Housing Element law, It would also support a conclusion that the City was not complying with Government Code §65863, Finally, it would lend some support to an argument that the density initiative, at least, is invalid under Government Code §65302,8, A. Housing Element Statute Government Code §65583 requires every local Housing Element to identify adequate sites for housing to provide for existing and projected needs of households at all economic levels (including very low income). Section 65583(a)(3) requires that the Element contain an inventory of vacant and underutilized housing sites in the jurisdiction, and, if the inventory does not identify adequate sites for all income levels, Government Code §65583(c)(I)(A)(i) requires that the local government establish a program to remedy the deficiency and provide sufficient sites which are available "by right." The State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") determined that the City's current Housing Element met the inventory requirement. based on the inventory included in the Element. The Freitas + Freitas report leads to the conclusion that, if the density initiative passes, reduction of allowable density on sites in the existing Housing Element 394\04\179524.2 1 t{ -1'1 City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 3 inventory would cause the Element not to meet the statutory inventory requirement cited in the preceding paragraph. Government Code §65588 requires that the City review its Housing Element "as frequently as appropriate" to evaluate its effectiveness. Creation of an inadequacy in the inventory of developable sites would likely be found to affect the effectiveness of the City's Housing Element. Concerned citizens or other third parties could challenge the adequacy of the Element. If brought on behalf of affordable housing such a challenge could be brought without regard to the usual 90-day statute of limitations (under Government Code §65009(d», Lack of a legally adequate Housing Element opens the City to serious legal consequences identified under Question 3, section A below. HCD does not have express statutory authority to initiate review of a Housing Element under these circumstances, and does not typically review the adequacy of previously approved Housing Elements unless an amendment is proposed to the Element itself. Nonetheless, HCD also has in the past reopened its own review of a previously certified Housing Element when circumstances changed. B. Government Code §65863 Government Code §65863(a) requires every city to ensure that its Housing Element inventory of sites can accommodate the city's share of the regional housing need throughout the Housing Element planning period (at this point, for Cupertino, through June 2007), Section 65863(b) prohibits any city "administrative, quasi-judicial or legislative action" which would reduce the density of any parcel on which HCD relied in determining the adequacy of a city's site inventory, unless the city finds that the inventory would remain adequate, The density initiative would reduce the density of parcels in the Cupertino inventory. The Freitas + Freitas analysis concludes that the City will not be able to accommodate its housing need on the sites in its Housing Element inventory at the densities allowed by the density initiative, Section 65863 is likely to be found applicable to initiatives, despite several lines of argument which could be made to the contrary. Initiatives typically exercise the same legislative power as a city council could exercise, and are subject to the same limitations, See,~, Legislature v. Deukmeiian (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 658, 674-675, stating that the initiative power cannot be used to enact a statute which the legislative body lacks power to enact. Case law has exempted initiatives from some requirements which the courts found would altogether prevent exercise of the initiative power. Associated Home Builders of the Greater Eastbav v. Citv of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582, 588, for instance, found that initiati ve zoning amendments are not subject to statutory notice and hearing requirements, which would effectively deny voters the power to enact such 394\04\ 179524.2 /t{-f()() City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 4 legislation by initiative,2 Typically, how eyer, the requirements found inapplicable are procedural, as in the Livermore case, not substantive like Government Code §65863. Some initiative cases have also distinguished action by local governments' elected governing bodies from action by initiative. However, these cases largely concern whether the power of initiative may be exercised at all-not with excusing voter-approved initiatives, in areas where initiatives are permitted, from meeting substantive statutory requirements. Also, in any event the case law holds that a statute will be held to apply solely to governing bodies only if there is a clear showing of legislative intent to that effect. DeVita v, County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763, 780, It is unlikely that §65863 would be found applicable only to governing bodies,3 Because §65863 is directed at specific local government actions which reduce residential densities, the remedy for violation of §65863 would probably be different than for violation of the Housing Element statute. Although there is no reported legal authority on this point, any initiative provision(s) found to violate to §65863 would probably be invalidated without invalidation of remainder of the City's general plan and without suspending the City's general authority to approve development. C. Government Code &65302.8 Government Code §65302,8 provides that any general plan amendment "which operates to limit the number of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis" (emphasis added) must contain findings which "justify reducing the housing opportunities of the region." The findings: "shall include all of the following: (a) A description of the city's or county's appropriate share of the regional need for housing, (b) A description of the specific housing programs and activities being undertaken by the local jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302 [referring to the provisions of the Housing Element]. (c) A description of how the public health, safety, and welfare would be promoted by such adoption or amendment. (d) The fiscal and environmental resources available to the local jurisdiction." 2 This reasoning has been extended to statutory findings requirements, as further discussed in the next section of this memorandum. J In light of time limitations, and to minimize unnecessary expense, we have not obtained or reviewed legislative history materials concerning §65863. which might cast light on its legislative intent. If litigation arises or is imminent over application of §65863 to the Cupertino initiatives, it might be prudent to secure legislative history materials. 394\04\179524.2 1 C{ -rDl City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 5 The three initiatives, each in Part II, contain identical findings (consisting in each case of four sentences), which do not mention either the city's share of the regional need for housing, or specific programs and activities being undertaken through its Housing Element. If §65302.8 applies, the findings would almost certainly be invalid. For two reasons, it is doubtful that §65302.8 applies. First, the initiatives, separately or together, do not directly limit the number of housing units which may be constructed, and in particular do not create an annual limit. Based on the Freitas + Freitas analysis, it appears that the density initiative does "operate" to limit the number of housing units which may be constructed in the City, but it does not necessarily do so on an annual basis, We have found no reported case law which gives reliable guidance as to whether §65302,8 would apply to a measure which would operate to limit the overall number of housing units, but would not place a specific restriction on any . I 4 partlcu ar year. More decisively, case law casts considerable doubt on whether statutory requirements targeted specifically to findings, like §65302.8, apply to initiatives. In Building Industrv Ass'n of Southern California v. Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 810, 823-824, the California Supreme Court found that the findings requirements of Government Code §65863,6 (see fn, 4) did not apply to an initiative because it was not "logical or feasible" to place a findings requirement on voters, and because applying that statutory findings requirement would "place an insurmountable obstacle in the path of the initiative process. , , ," Building Industrv Ass'n v, Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 277, 295 (interpreting Government Code §65589.5, discussed below) reads this holding to relieve initiatives from statutory findings requirements in general. D. Options to Address Potential Legal Invaliditv Ultimately, the legal validity of the three initiatives can only be determined by a court. There are at least two ways in which the City might nonetheless act on its own initiative to affect the initiatives' ultimate validity. First, the City could bring pre- election legal action concerning the initiatives, Second, the City could amend its Housing Element and, as necessary, other general plan provisions to try to eliminate the basis for legal challenges along the lines described in sections A and B above. 1. Pre-Election Lawsuit Any pre-election legal challenge would have to overcome the general rule that: "it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral 4 Two other statutes with similar goals apply only to ordinances that "directly limit" the number of units that can be built (Evidence Code §669.5, which has been held to apply to initiative ordinances), or which by their terms, limit the number of housing units on an annual basis (Government Code §65863.6). Those two statutes do not appear to apply to the Cupertino initiatives. 394\04\ 179524.2 It\. -fðl City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 6 process by preventing the exercise of the people's franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity." Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 1,4, However, case law also recognizes that: "If an initiative ordinance is invalid, no purpose is served by submitting it to the voters." Citizens for Responsible Behavior v, Superior Court (1991) I Cal. App, 4th 1Ol3, 1023. The courts may bar an initiative which exceeds the voters' power from the ballot (Atascadero v. Dalv [1982] 135 Cal. App, 3d 466,469- 470), and an initiative which is pre-empted by state law may be kept from the ballot on this basis (City and County of San Francisco v. Patterson [1988] 202 Cal. App, 3d 95, 102). A city's pre-election legal action concerning a proposed initiative may be simply the city's attempt to get guidance in advance as to whether an initiative will be effective, avoiding a long period of uncertainty, expense and conflict which would otherwise result after an election. The Cupertino density initiative, in particular, presents potential conflicts with state Housing Element law and Government Code §65863 which would be direct and would go to the central purposes of the state statutes, Those factors would lend credence to a pre-election challenge. However, two other factors make it, on the whole, more likely that a court would decline to block the density or other initiatives from the ballot. First, assessing the potential conflicts between the initiatives and state statutes requires considering the relevant facts.s While we certainly imply no disagreement with the Freitas + Freitas factual analysis, a court is likely to be reluctant to take any pre-election action against an initiative if the court would have to rely on facts which are subject to dispute, Instead, a court would prefer to defer review until after an election. Second, it is possible that, if the initiatives pass (or even before), the City might take steps to restore the sufficiency of its inventory of sites, or to adopt a program to do so, and to eliminate or modify other general plan provisions, including Housing Element provisions, inconsistent with the initiatives, In light of that possibility, a court might again prefer to defer review to see what action the City takes, if any. u, Amending General Plan to Resolve Conflicts Generally, in a legal challenge to a legislative enactment (such as an initiative), the relevant legal provisions are those in effect when a court rules on the challenge, See,~, Building Industry Ass'n v, Oxnard (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 1,3. If the Cupertino initiatives were to pass, that rule would allow any resulting curable legal deficiencies to 5 This memo focuses on the density initiative, as does the Freitas + Freitas analysis. It may be that the setback and/or height initiatives could have similar effects on the potential to develop housing in the City, but we do not attempt legal review of such potential effects here, absent a faclual foundation. Bay Area Economics has provided a separale report to the City, which does more broadly discuss the initiatives' effect on development feasibility, but does not conclude that the setback and/or height initiatives would conflict with any policy or requirement of the City Housing Element or general plan. 394\04\179524.2 1a. -{OJ City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 7 be remedied by amending other sections of the City's general plan or zoning ordinance before or after passage of the initiatives, and before a court decision. However, the City's ability to do this, particularly after passage of the initiatives (if approved) is open to some question. The California Supreme Court expressly refused to consider post-passage changes which were adopted to protect an initiative against legal challenge, in Lesher Communications v. Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 531. That case involved an initiative that the court determined was a zoning ordinance (the city argued that it could also have been construed as a general plan amendment). The initiative would have limited development until Walnut Creek met certain traffic levels of service, After the initiati ve was adopted, but before the court's decision, the Walnut Creek City Council amended the city's general plan in an effort to make the initiative and the general plan consistent. The court refused to consider those changes, holding that the initiative zoning ordinance was invalid when adopted, because it was inconsistent with the general plan at that time, and that the zoning ordinance could not be legally resuscitated by later general plan changes, So far as we have been able to find, no case extends Lesher's conclusion, relating to zoning ordinances, to initiative general plan amendments which might be invalid at the time of adoption because they create inconsistencies within a general plan, The Lesher rule for zoning ordinances rests on the principle that the general plan is supposed to be a coherent "constitution" of local land use, and should not be either overridden or turned into a patchwork by zoning ordinance amendments which force general plan amendments to achieve consistency. Arguably, this principle does not apply to general plan amendments themselves, Also, because general plans are often lengthy, detailed documents which address related subjects in a number of places, a requirement that every general plan initiative resolve each instance of inconsistency in any general plan provision would in practice significantly limit the public's ability to amend a general plan by initiative, On the other hand, Marblehead v. Citv of San Clemente (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1504 holds that an initiative general plan amendment cannot leave too much work to be done subsequently by a City Council-that the initiative must do more than establish a governing concept while leaving implementation of specific amendments throughout the general plan to a city council. Also, Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704 holds that a general plan may not achieve consistency simply by stating that one plan provision takes precedence over others. (Part V of each of the initiatives does something like this, by providing that the initiative is a general plan addendum which supersedes any present or future contrary provision elsewhere in the general plan, but Part V does not refer specifically to inconsistencies within the general plan, as the Kern County general plan invalidly did in the Sierra Club case,) 394\04\179524.2 It{ -10 Y City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 8 Depending on the extent of subsequent changes ultimately needed to integrate the initiatives into the Cupertino General Plan,6 a court might find those changes substantially equivalent to treating the initiatives as a governing concept and/or a precedence clause, and might not allow the subsequent changes to make the initiatives legally consistent with the rest of the general plan, Finally, a footnote in DeVita v, City of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763, 793 (n. 11), notes that special scrutiny may be applied to limit the public's right to amend a general plan by initiative where the amendment would conflict with the locality's Housing Element. If applied in Cupertino, such scrutiny might lead a court to allow less latitude for subsequent City Council changes to implement the initiatives. Given the number of legal issues involved, the potential complex interrelationships among those issues and the absence of controlling authority, it is difficult to predict whether the Cupertino City Council would be allowed to protect the legal validity of the initiatives by post-election general plan amendments, If, on the other hand, the Council takes action before any election-perhaps in the form of general plan amendments which would take effect only if one or more of the initiatives pass-it appears likely (though still not certain) that a court would uphold those amendments, on the basis that internal general plan inconsistencies would never come into effect. E, Other Laws 1. Density Bonus Law Government Code §659l5 requires California local governments to allow a density bonus and other incentives to housing developments which include certain percentages of affordable, senior or moderate income condominium units, An Oceanside growth control initiative was invalidated partly on the grounds that it conflicted with this density bonus law. Building Industry Ass'n v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 744. However, the Oceanside initiative differed from Cupertino's initiatives, and its density bonus-related analysis would not provide a basis to invalidate the Cupertino initiatives. The Oceanside measure contained a numerical limit on new construction each year, from which affordable units were exempt, except that any project using a density bonus was not exempt. Ibid., 27 Cal.App.4th 744, 750. This meant not only that seeking a density bonus triggered a limitation which would otherwise not apply to a project with affordable units, but also that bonus units could be built only if those units received their own additional allotments under the initiative, After a trial, the trial court ruled that the evidence showed that the initiative discouraged developers from 6 OUf review of existing provisions of the Cupertino general plan has been limited to the existing Housing Element, so this memo does not assess the scope of all plan changes needed to achieve consistency. 394\04\179524.2 1a. -(OJ Cily of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 9 proposing projects which would use density bonuses, and the appellate court held that this was a conflict with the density bonus law. The Cupertino initiatives contain no numerical limit, let alone one which would purport to give the City discretion to refuse allotments for state law-required density bonus units. Particular interpretations of the Cupertino initiatives might conflict with the state density bonus statute. However, it is unlikely that a court would presume such an interpretation. If the initiatives pass, the City could then address interpretation issues in light of statutory requirements. 11. "Anti-NIMBY" Law Government Code §65589,5 limits local government discretion in approving or disapproving a "housing development project", A housing development project is defined as a use which consists entirely of residential units or is a mixed-use development consisting of residential and neighborhood commercial uses, Section 65589.5 should therefore not apply to adoption of the initiatives, because the adoption decisions would not be project approvals, If one or more of the initiatives are adopted, and are not successfully legally challenged, and the City makes any necessary zoning ordinance changes to conform to the adopted initiative(s), §65589.5(d)(6) would generally permit the City to base its decisions on subsequent housing development project applications on the adopted initiative(s), 111. Other Laws, Including Laws Prohibiting Discrimination The initiatives may also raise questions under a variety of federal and other state law, including a variety of statutes and constitutional principles prohibiting discrimination. Elections Code §9212(a)(2), for instance, specifically mentions as a possible subject of a report on an initiative California Government Code §65008, which prohibits a number of forms of discrimination in planning and zoning actions. Section 9212 also mentions Government Code §§65913 et seq" which generally requires local zoning and subdivision standards to be appropriate for housing affordable to lower and very low income households, In addition, local land use regulation, including initiatives, is constitutionally required to be reasonably related to the public welfare, including the welfare of those outside the locality, under the broad rule of Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582. While the proposed Cupertino initiatives may have disparate effects on members of groups which are protected from discrimination-including, under some statutes, lower income households-none of the initiatives is expressly directed at any such group. Also, none of the initiatives expressly limits the amount of residential construction, None of the newspaper articles we have reviewed, nor our discussions with City staff who have been present when initiative proponents have made statements about the initiatives, has identified any statement that the initiatives are 394\04\179524.2 1a'-(o~ City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 10 expressly directed at any particular group, Any finding of discrimination concerning the initiati ves would therefore be based on either the inference that they are directed at protected groups, or the inferences that they will limit residential construction and, in so limiting construction, impermissibly affect protected groups. Any finding that the initiatives violate Government Code §65913.1 or are not reasonably related to the public welfare would require establishing facts about the effects of the initiatives. At this point, based on the information available to us, we cannot speculate on whether there would be substantial basis for such inferences, OUESTION 2 (Could Citv Lawfullv Comply with Initiatives? A. Compliance in General. Generally, whether the City can lawfully comply with the initiatives, if passed, will be determined by whether the applicable initiative provisions have been challenged and found invalid, on one of the bases discussed in response to Question 1 above or on some other basis. If one or more of the initiatives pass, the City will largely find itself in the position of implementing them unless and until legally challenged. If initiative provisions are legally challenged, the City's compliance will thereafter be controlled by the court proceedings. To the extent initiative provisions are found invalid, the City's obligation to comply will end. Development applications considered while the legality of the initiatives is unsettled may nonetheless present challenges, If a court orders the City not to act pending a final court decision, the City's course will be clear, If court proceedings are pending, but the court has not either prohibited or authorized proceeding with development applications, the appropriate course for the City will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. A wrong decision could subject the City to an attorneys' fee award if overturned by a court, particularly if the City's decision is to approve development and the approval is then challenged by representatives of the public entitled to fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. B, Potential Unlawful Takin&>:s Federal and California constitutional provisions against taking of private property without compensation may also force the City to confront potential initiative defects, in the course of acting on development applications, where the City must act without court guidance. Adhering to initiative provisions could thereby lead to an alleged taking, and a claim of financial liability against the City. Takings case law is complicated, and not entirely consistent. In the most general terms, a city is potentially liable to a property owner if city regulation of development or use of the owner's property either advances no legitimate public purpose or deprives the property owner of substantially all reasonable economic use of the owner's property. 394\04\179524.2 'iff. --fb7 City of Cupertino June 16, 2004 Page 11 The initiatives address density, building height and setbacks-subjects which are typically regulated by zoning and whose intended goals are usually acknowledged to be legitimate. It is therefore unlikely that a court would invalidate the initiatives as advancing no legitimate public purpose, except perhaps when applied to an unusual situation with extraordinary results, It is a more reasonable possibility that the initiatives could, in some cases, deprive owners of reasonable economic use, We cannot in this memorandum, and in the absence of facts concerning specific cases, identify and analyze individual situations in which the initiatives, potentially in combination with other zoning rules, would deprive property owners of reasonable economic use. The following general comments may be useful. The setback initiative appears most likely of the three to potentially restrict new development so drastically that takings questions could arise, There are likely to be fewer cases where the height initiative will so constrain development opportunities that it will raise serious takings claims, and even fewer (if any) which result from the density initiative, A 36-foot height limit should generally permit development up to either two or three stories, depending on design requirements, according to the Bay Area Economics ("BAE") report. This should usually be a substantial enough potential use to avoid takings liability in a mostly suburban setting, such as Cupertino, although the BAE report notes that mixed use projects may be more adversely affected than others, With respect to density, residential densities up to 15 units per acre are considerably higher than have usually triggered takings scrutiny. The setback initiative appears to have somewhat greater potential to severely restrict new development on small lots, particularly shallow lots with lengthy street frontages, comer lots and lots which have other constraints which exacerbate the effects of a 35-foot minimum setback. The initiative exceptions for one-to four-unit buildings are likely to preserve development opportunities for many small residential lots, but the BAE report notes that mixed-use and some larger residential projects may be more impacted. We have not reviewed the variance provisions of the City zoning ordinance, but it may be possible to resolve such situations by allowing variances, as the lots in question would probably meet the hardship and unusual circumstances criteria of typical variance provisions, If the variance provisions as they stand would be difficult to apply to such situations, they could be amended. 394\04\179524.2 1A. -( of City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 12 QUESTION 3 (General Plan Consistency, Valko Agreement and Consent Decree, Redevelopment Law and Plan) A, General Plan Consistencv Assuming that Freitas + Freitas' conclusion is correct, the initiatives would, in amending other provisions of the City's general plan, cause those provisions to become inconsistent with language in the Housing Element-not changed by any of the initiatives--committing the City to policies to accommodate housing need at all income levels. In other words, the initiative provisions would, by blocking achievement of other Housing Element policies, create an internal inconsistency within the general plan. This would render the general plan technically invalid (under Government Code §65300,5), which would have the following significant consequences: (i) The general plan itself could be judicially challenged, The remedies for a successful challenge include, in the discretion of the court, not only requiring amendment of the general plan to make it internally consistent, but, under Government Code §65755, suspending development approvals, either in specific categories or, if the court believed stronger measures were necessary, suspending discretionary approvals in general. (ii) Any of the many land use and other actions - such as subdivision approvals and use permits - that can only be taken after a finding of consistency with the general plan could be challenged by opponents of the individual action, The required finding of consistency may be invalidated if the underlying general plan is invalid, In addition, the lack of a certified Housing Element could cause the City to lose eligibility for funding under state programs. Some of the programs for which lack of a certified Housing Element would be a factor include the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee's Single Family Home Program, the California Trade and Commerce Agency's Infrastructure State Revolving Fund Program, the California Housing Finance Agency's HELP Program, as well as the following programs of the Department of Housing and Community Development: · CaIHome Program BEGIN Program State Home Investments Partnership Program Workforce Housing Program State Community Development Block Grant Program Local Housing Trust Fund Program · · · · · 394\04\179524.2 1«-rD7 City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 13 We haye not investigated the extent to which the lack of a certified Housing Element would weigh against the City qualifying for funding under specific programs. Loss of funding under such programs would occur only if HCD removed the City from its list of local governments with certified Housing Elements; as noted above, there is no express statutory authority for such a removal but we believe that HCD has at least occasionally exercised such authority in the past. As discussed above under Question I, section D(ii), it may be possible to remedy general plan inconsistencies by City Council-adopted general plan amendments. Once inconsistencies were eliminated, by invalidation of initiative provisions or conforming general plan amendments, the City's authority to approve development and its funding eligibility could be restored. B. Redevelopment Law and Plan: Consent Decree The proposed initiative measures do not appear to conflict with the Settlement Agreement dated February 22, 2002 between the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency, the City and plaintiffs who had filed a lawsuit challenging the City's adoption of a redevelopment plan for the Vallco project (the "Redevelopment Agreement"), The Redevelopment Agreement imposes certain obligations on the Redevelopment Agency that go beyond those that would otherwise be imposed on the Agency under the Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL"), The Settlement Agreement requires the Agency to set aside and spend 25% of the tax increment it receives to increase and improve the supply of low and moderate income housing in the City, The CRL requires only that 20% of the tax increment be expended for low and moderate income housing. The Settlement Agreement requires that the additional 5% set aside for low and moderate income housing be expended to provide affordable housing for extremely low income households, i.e" households whose median income does not exceed 30% of area median income, The CRL does not require that any funds be targeted to extremely low income households. The Settlement Agreement also requires that at least five units of affordable housing be constructed for each 100,000 square feet of new commercial development in the Vallco redevelopment project area that is constructed with financial assistance from the Agency, The CRL requires that 15% of the housing constructed in a redevelopment project area be affordable to low and moderate income households but has no requirement that affordable housing be produced in conjunction with or as the result of commercial development in a redevelopment project area. The three proposed initiatives do not prevent the Agency's compliance with the Redevelopment Agreement. As described above, the focus of the Redevelopment Agreement is the allocation of more funds for, and construction of, more affordable housing than would otherwise be required under the CRL. There is nothing in the 394\04\179524.2 Ie( -( ff) City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 14 initiatives that directly precludes the Agency from providing affordable housing or spending money for affordable housing, Although the initiatives do not directly prevent the Agency's compliance with the Redevelopment Agreement, the restrictions in the initiative could create substantial barriers to the Agency's obligations under the Redevelopment Agreement and its other affordable housing obligations under the CRL. By limiting heights and densities of buildings and mandating setbacks for buildings, the initiatives are likely to make the production of low and moderate income housing more expensive and difficult. By increasing costs and limiting densities, the initiatives could result in fewer affordable housing units being developed that might have occur if the initiatives are not adopted. C, Vallco Development Agreement The Vallco development agreement (effective August 15, 1991) expressly entitles the developer to proceed with development during the term of the agreement under City general plan provisions in effect on its effective date (except that, under §2.8.1 of the development agreement, changes not in conflict with the approved development are allowed). The California development agreement statute is expressly intended to authorize "vesting" development approvals against changes in local law in this way (see Government Code §65866), The initiatives, if passed, should therefore not change the general plan provisions applicable under the development agreement in ways materially adverse to the planned development. However, because the agreement has a fifteen year term, beginning on the effective date, entitlement decisions made after August 15,2006 would be subject to the initiatives, if the initiatives have then passed and remain in effect. D. Existing Redevelopment Plan The proposed initiatives do not explicitly conflict with the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Plan"), The Plan in Section 401 specifies that land uses permitted in the area governed by the Plan will be those permitted by the general plan as it currently exists or is amended in the future, Other provisions of the Plan require that development be in compliance with the general plan and various City ordinances and regulations. See, ~, Section 408 (Construction), Section 410 (Limitation on the Number of Buildings), Section 411 (Number of Dwelling Units), Section 412 (Limitation on Type, Size, and Height of Buildings), Section 414 (Signs), Section 421 (Building Permits). The requirements of the initiati ves would be future amendments of the general plan that are made applicable to development in the area governed by the Plan by the provisions of the Plan itself, Under judicial precedents, a city initiative ordinance that prevents a redevelopment agency from implementing the redevelopment plan may be invalid as applied to development in the area governed by the redevelopment plan, See Kehoe v, City of Berkelev, (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 666 (city initiative ordinance preventing 394\04\179524.2 7 ({ -/ { ( City of Cupertino June 16,2004 Page 15 demolition of buildings could not be applied to prevent demolition of buildings in redevelopment project area where redevelopment plan itself contemplated demolition of buildings), However, in this case, the initiatives do not appear to prevent the redevelopment of the Valko shopping center that was contemplated to be carried out under the Plan. The initiatives also do not categorically prevent the development of any use in the area governed by the Plan. By limiting heights, setbacks and densities, the initiatives may alter or constrain how the contemplated redevelopment is carried out, but those kinds of alterations or constraints would not be a sufficient conflict with the Plan so as to invalidate the initiatives, That is especially the case here given the language in the Plan that specifically states that all development will be subject to the general plan as it currently exists or is amended in the future, CONCLUSION We would be happy to provide further information or analysis concerning any of the issues discussed above, As noted at the beginning of this memorandum, the most serious legal questions raised by the initiatives arise under the Housing Element statute and Government Code §65863, and there is also a serious potential for legal questions arising from inconsistencies between the initiatives and other City general plan provisions, 394\04\179524.2 '1tl - (/ d-. ..I '1 t(.\~ /, ~-"...-.-' . City Hall 1 0300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 kimberlys@cupertino.org CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No, ~ Meeting Date: November 1, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Receive the Certification of Sufficiency for three initiative petitions and adopt the initiatives into law, or set an election date, BACKGROUND On September 9, 2004, the proponents filed petitions related to building setbacks, building heights, and housing density. All three petitions contained sufficient signatIues to qualify for the ballot, and the Registrar of V oters has prepared Certificates of Sufficiency, On October 4, the City Council listened to public comments and ordered a final report pursuant to Elections Code 9212 regarding potential impacts of the initiatives, The City Council now has the following options: A, Adopt the initiatives, without alteration, by November 11, 2004, B, Submit the initiatives without alteration to the voters, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 140S, at the next general municipal election on November 8, 200S, The deadline for arguments would be August 11 and the deadline for rebuttals would be August 18, 200S, C, Submit the initiatives without alteration to the voters, at a special election on February 8, 200S, The deadline for arguments would be November 16 and the deadline for rebuttals would be November 23, 2004, FINANCIAL IMPACT OF ELECTIONS Option B would result in a single, consolidated election in November 200S, to vote on the initiatives and to fill three Council seats, The estimated election cost for the calendar year would be $300,9S8, Printed on Recycled Paper c¡b-I November 1, 2004 Page 2 Option C would result in a February 2005 election for the initiatives and a November 2005 election for City Council. The estimated election cost for the calendar year would be $608,742. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: I. Receive the Certificates of Sufficiency for all three initiative petitions 2, Call for a consolidated election to be held on November 8, 200S, to fill three Council seats and to consider General Plan amendments related to density, building heights, and building setbacks, Submitted by: Approved for submission: ¿/. ,L /'fA.n1j.¿k4 ~7l.. Kimberly SmitJ10 City Clerk JkJ{µ ~ David W, Knapp City Manager Attachment I: Three Certificates of Sufficiency of Petition Attachment 2: Draft resolution calling for a consolidated election on November 8, 200S Attachment 3: Draft resolution calling a special election, density initiative Attachment 4: Draft resolution calling special election, building height initiative Attachment S: Draft resolution calling special election, building setbacks initiative cc: Proponents Edward Britt, Norman Hackford, and Gerald Cooley 7 b-.2.. ATTACHMENT 1 County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters 1555 Berger Drive. Building 2 San Jose, California 951 12 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1147. San Jose. CA 95108 (408) 299-VOTE (8683) (866) 430- VOTE (8683) FAX (408) 998-7314 www.sccvote.org September 20, 2004 Ms. Kimberly Smith City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Initiative Petition Related to Building Heights Dear Ms. Smith: The initiative petition submitted to our office on September 9, 2004 contained 4,864 signatures, The petition needed 3,319 valid signatures to pass, based on the 15% requirement of the registered voters in the City of Cupertino pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215, We performed a random sampling of 500 of the total signatures utilizing petition guidelines issued by the Secretary of State. Based upon this sampling, the petition had a projected number of 4,805 valid signatures, which is 98,8% of the number of valid signatures required to pass. Therefore this petition has passed, If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (408) 282-3051. q~i;æn<~ Election Division Coordinator County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete MCHugh. James T. Beall. Jr.. Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter Kutras. Jr. ~ .- 1h-J CLERK'S CERTIFICATE TO INITIATIVE PETITION I, JESSE DURAZO, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereby certify: That the City Of Cupertino Initiative Petition Related To Building Heights has been filed with this office on September 9, 2004. That said petition consists of 351 sections; That each section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors of this county; That attached to this petition at the time it was filed was an affidavit purporting to be the affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between which the purported qualified electors signed this petition; That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the signatures upon that section, that all of the signatures were made in his or her presence, and that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief each signature to that section was the genuine signature of the person whose name it pu rports to be; That after the proponent filed this petition I verified the required number of signatures by examining the records of registration in this county, current and in effect at the respective purportive dates of such of signing, to determine what number of qualified electors signed the petition, and from that examination I have determined the following facts regarding this petition: 1. Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent (raw count) 4.864 2, Number of signatures verified 500 a. Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 494 b, Number of signatures found NOT SUFFICIENT 1, NOT SUFFICIENT because DUPLICATE ---º- --º IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 16th day of September, 2004. Jesse Durazo Registrar of Voters (SEAL) B)1t1{i~ÞÓÄ JOBc09 qb- I.( Petition Result Breakdown Signatures Required Raw Count Sample Size Sigs Checked Sigs Not Checked Sigs Valid Sigs Invalid Duplicated Non-duplicate Invalids 3919 4,864 500 500 o 494 6 o 6 Percent of Sigs Checked Percent of Sample Size 98.8 % 1.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 98.8% 1.2% 0.0 % 1.2% ~.t'~.·100--ESJ!jßíïj¡j(~~~IL. . ". ".... ", ¡¡Win _ ~...... . " ..... .. .... _. .. ...!) '" . -...". - ',- ,'",' .f". -; --"'-". Approved Approved 494 98.8 % NotReg Not Registered 3 0.6% OutOtois! Out of District 0.2% RegDiffAdd Re9istered at a Different Address 2 0.4% PCMR040 - Petition Result Breakdown Prinled: 9/16/2004 7:49:33AM b Page 1 of 1 9 ~s- JobB80 Classi1ication by F,ace JobB81 ','./ater C!ualit)i JobB82 Transporta.tionAllocation of Sales JobB83 Election Da/Voter P,egistralion JobB84 LH Open Space & Public Recreation Init JobB85 LH Ref Against Ord Passed by City Coucil JobB86 Cit/ of PA,-F~ef ,A,gainst Ord #4779 JobB87 City of Sunnyv'ale-Eminent Domain JobB88 City of Sunnyvale-Building Heights JobB89 City of Sunnyvale-Implementation of Plan JobB90 City of Palo ,A.lto Water Fluoridation JobB91 P,ecall of Gov Davis. JobB92 #988 State Budget P,elated Taxes & Res JobB93 #1 008 Overt.urn Health Care Cov Req Job894 # 1 003 Children's Hospital Job895 # 1 005 EledionsPrimaries JobB96 #1 007 Mental Health Expansion JobB97 #1 01 0 Emergency & Medica.! Services JobB98 #1 016 Unfair Business Competiton Laws JobB99 #1 015 Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law' JobC01 # 1 027 Tribal Gaming-Renegotiation JobC02 #1 029 m~A, Samples JobC03 #1 031 Local G',j Funds & Revenue JobC04 #1 021 Stem Cell Research JobC05 #1 046 Tribal Gaming-Exclusive Gaming R JobC07 SCCo Compulsa¡y Binding ,Ä,rbitration JobC08 City' of Cu ertino-Setba.cks .,. I II - .. hi'iiiAflBh ffiS%'r1 ,1 h-ltL County of Santa Clara Regislrar of VOlers 1555 Berger Drive, Building 2 San Jose, California 951 12 Mailing Address: P.O, Box 1147, San Jose. CA 95108 (408) 299-VOTE (8683) (866) 430- VOTE (8683) FAX (408) 998-7314 www.sccvote.org September 20, 2004 Ms. Kimberly Smith City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Initiative Petition Related to Density Dear Ms. Smith: The initiative petition submitted to our office on September 9, 2004 contained 4,828 signatures. The petition needed 3,319 valid signatures to pass, based on the 15% requirement of the registered voters in the City of Cupertino pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215, We performed a random sampling of 500 of the total,signatures utilizing petition guidelines issued by the Secretary of State, Based upon this sampling, the petition had a projected number of 4,647 valid signatures, which is 98.0% of the number of valid signatures required to pass. Therefore this petition has passed. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (408) 282-3051. S.lncerely, , j~ly1J/1ít~jkn~ MagglJj4%., . Election Division Coordinator County of Santa Clara Boardof Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh. James T. Beall, Jr., Liz Kniss county Executive: Peter Kutras. Jr. !fi,) - ¡ 1b-7 JOBc10 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE TO INITIATIVE PETITION I, JESSE DURAZO, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereby certify: That the City Of Cupertino Initiative Petition Related To Density has been filèd with this office on Septernber 9, 2004. That said petition consists of 353 sections; That each section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors of this county; That attached to this petition at the time it was filed was an affidavit purporting to be the affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between which the purported qualified electors signed this petition; That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the signatures upon that section, that all of the signatures were rnade in his or her presence, and that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief each signature to that section was the genuine signature of the person whose narne it purports to be; That after the proponent filed this petition I verified the required nurnber of signatures by examining the records of registration in this county, current and in effect at the respective purportive dates of such of signing, to determine what nurnber of qualified electors signed the petition, and from that examination I have determined the following facts regarding this petition: 1. Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent (raw count) 4,828 500 2. Number of signatures verified a. Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 490 b, Number of signatures found NOT SUFFICIENT -1Q ---º- 1, NOT SUFFICIENT because DUPLICATE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 16th day of September, 2004. Jesse Durazo Registrar of Voters (SEAL) '~ 7P ' k7 ~YWi 1~~ , rjfi' y 9h-t Petition Result Breakdown Signatures Required Raw Count Sample Size Sigs Checked Sigs Not Checked Sigs Valid Sigs Invalid Duplicated Non-duplicate Invalids 3919 4,828 500 500 o 490 10 1 9 Percent of Sigs Checked Percent of Sample Size 98.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 98.0% . 2.0% 0.2 % 1.8% --=.¡.i3W11t~UA~Çr.'i!I..ll_.II/II..I¡¡¡!lII!II¡II.IiIlIfIII!lIIi."~--. '", ^. . .... , '" %11...... __Bf . . Awi' '_ . _. ",P~ .c. ',_ ,', .. ~ . ¡·.1 _ ' .. __..__... . ,-.-" _ _, ........i;(., - ',' '" ' Approved Approved 490 98.0 % NotRe9 OutOfDist Duplicate NoResAdd Not Registered Out of District Signed more than once No Residence Address Given 6 1.2% 0.2% 0.2% 2 0.4% PCMR040 - Petition Result Breakdown Printed: 9/16/2004 7:49:44AM Page 1 of 1 9b-1 JobBßIJ C\assiflcatlon by ?,ace JobEi81 Vv'ater Quality' JobB82 Trar,,'porte.tion..þ'lIocation of Sales JobB83 Election DeyVoter Registration JobB84 LH Open Space & Public P,ecreation Init JobB85 LH Ref Against Ord Passed by City' Coucil JobB86 City' of PA-P,ef .A.gainst Ord #4779 JobB87 Cit' of Sunnyvale-Eminent Domain JobB88 City' of Sunn)Nale-Building Heights JobB89 City' of Sunnyvale-Implementation of Plan JobB90 City' of Pelo Alto Water Fluoridation JobB91 P,ecall of Gov Davis JobB92 #988 State Budget Fielated Texes & Res JobB93 #1 008 Overturn Health Care Cov R.eq JobEi94 # 1 003 Children's Hospital JobB95 # 1 005 ElectionsPrimaries JobB96 #1 007 Mental Health Expansion JobEm #1 01 0 Emergency ,~, Medical Services JobB98 #1 016 Unfair Business Competiton Laws JobB99 #1 015 Limite.tions on "Three Strikes" Lav,! JobC01 # 1 027 Tribal Gaming-Renegotiation JobC02 #1 029 DI\IA Samples JobC03 #1 031 Local G'v~ Funds & Revenue JobC04 #1 021 Stern Cell Research JobC05 #1 046 Tribal Gaming-Exclusive Gaming JobC07 SCCo Compulsary' Binding Arbitration JobC08 Ci~! of Cupertino-Setbacks JobC09 City of Cu ertino-Buildinq Heiqhts I .- 7þ-f/) County of Santa Clara Registrar of Volers 1555 Berger Drive, Building 2 San Jose. California 95 I 12 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1147. San Jose. CA 95108 (408) 299-VOTE (8683) (866) 430- VOTE (8683) FAX (408}998-7314 WWW.sccvole.org September 20, 2004 Ms. Kimberly Smith City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Initiative Petition Related to Setbacks Dear Ms, Smith: The initiative petition submitted to our office on September 9,2004 contained 4,775 signatures. The petition needed 3,319 valid signatures to pass, based on the 15% requirement of the registered voters in the City of Cupertino pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215. We performed a random sampling of 500 of the total signatures utilizing petition guidelines issued by the Secretary of State. Based upon this sampling, the petition had a projected number of 4,636 valid signatures, which is 98.8% of the number of valid signatures required to pass. Therefore this petition has passed. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (408) 282-3051. Sincerely, C/h~&!~i~~&nwfL ~~ggy sinim Election Division Coordinator. County of Santa Clara "Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh. James T. Beall. Jr., Liz Kniss County Executive: Peter Kutras. Jr. g) .- 1 Þ'-II JOBc08 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE TO INITIATIVE PETITION I, JESSE DURAZO, Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereby certify: That the City Of Cupertino Initiative Petition Related To Setbacks has been filed with this office on September 9, 2004, That said petition consists of 350 sections; That each section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors of this county; That attached to this petition at the time it was filed was an affidavit purporting to be the affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between which the purported qualified electors signed this petition; That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the signatures upon that section, that all of the signatures were made in his or her presence, and that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief each signature to that section was the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be; That after the proponent filed this petition I verified the required number of signatures by examining the records of registration in this county, current and in effect at the respective purportive dates of such of signing, to determine what number of qualified electors signed the petition, and from that examination I have determined the following facts regarding this petition: 1. Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent (raw count) 4.775 500 2, Number of signatures verified a. Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 494 b. Number of signatures found NOT SUFFICIENT ----º- 1. NOT SUFFICIENT because DUPLICATE -1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I haye hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 16th day of September, 2004, (SEAL) Jesse Durazo Registrar of Voters (A,," ~- eM By: / ¡Ij)Ø., I ?i1. , De"Í' 7b-l".L Petition Result Breakdown Signatures Required Raw Count Sample Size Sigs Checked Sigs Not Checked Sigs Valid Sigs Invalid Duplicated Non-duplicate Invalids 3919 4,775 500 500 o 494 6 1 5 Percent of Sigs Checked Percent of Sample Size 98.8% 1.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 98.8 % 1.2% 0.2 % 1.0% ~1&ii-j,i~~~j;.BJ_~~1 Approved Approved 494 98.8 % NotReg Not Registered 3 0.6% OutOfDist Out of District 2 0.4% Duplicate Signed more than once 0.2% PCMR040 - Petition Result Breakdown Printed: 9/16/2004 7:49:16AM 9b~"3of1 JobB80 Classification by Race ,JobB81 '\Nater Quali!;! JobB82 TransportationAllocation of Sales JobB83 Elec1ion Day\!01er P,egistrô.tion JobB8~ LH Open Space & F'ublic F;ecrea1ion Init JobB85 LH Ref A.gainst Ord Passed by City JobB86 City of PA-P,ef Agains1 Ord #~779 JobB87 City" of SunnY.lale-Eminent Domain JobB88 City" of Sunnyvale-Building Heights JobB89 City of Sunnyvale-Implementation of Plan JobB90 Ci~j of Pa.lo .A.lto INater Fluoridation JobB91 F~ecall of Gov Davis JobB92 #988 State Budget Related Taxes & ResE JobB93 #1 008 Overturn Health Care Cov F:eq JobB9~ # 1 003 Children's Hospital ,lobB95 # 1 005 Elections.Primaries JobB96 #1 007 Mental Health Expansion JobB97 #1 01 0 Emergency & Medical Serv'ices JobB98 #1 016 Unfair Business Competitor-, Laws JobB99 #1 015 Limitations on 'Three Strikes" Let'AI JobC01 # 1 027 Tribal Gaming-F,enegotiation JobC02 #1 029 m,A Samples JobC03 #1 031 Local Gvt Funds & P,evenue JobCO~ #1 021 Stem Cell Research JobC05 #1 0~6 Tribal Gaming-Exclusive Gaming R JobC07 SCCo Com ulsary Bindin A.rbitration JobC09 City" of Cupertino-Building Heights JobC1 0 City of Cupertino-Density 1 £.-1 '-I , A TT ACI-IM~~T ~ RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CALLING FOR A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 200S, REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION WITH OTHER NOVEMBER ELECTIONS, AND REQUESTING THAT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND CANVASS THE VOTES WHEREAS, November 8, 200S, is the date set by law for general election for three seats on the city council and any city measure(s); and WHEREAS, the city clerk is enjoined by law to take all steps necessary for the holding of said election; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: I. A general municipal election is called for November 8, 200S, to fill the three city council seats now occupied by council members Sandra James, Dolores Sandoval, and Patrick Kwok. 2, An election will also be held on November 8 to consider an initiative related to density, The text of the General Plan amendment related to housing density is attached as Exhibit A. 3, An election will also be held on November 8 to consider an initiative related to building heights, The text of the General Plan amendment related to building heights is attached as Exhibit B, 4. An election will also be held on November 8 to consider an initiative related to building setbacks. The text of the General Plan amendment related to building setbacks is attached as Exhibit C, S, Arguments in favor or against the proposed measures shall be filed with the City Clerk by Thursday, August 11, 200S, at S:OO p,m, Arguments are limited to 300 words, 6. Rebuttals to arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Thursday, August 18, 200S, at S:OO p,m, Rebuttals are limited to 2S0 words, 7, The City of Cupertino requests that the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County conduct the elections and canvass the returns, The Registrar shall be reimbursed for all costs incurred by said services; 9b-r j Resolution No, Page 2 8, The City of Cupertino requests that said elections be consolidated with other November elections and that this governing body consents to such consolidation; 9. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certifY to the adoption of this resolution and to transmit a copy hereof so certified to the Registrar of Voters and to the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, 10, The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish a notice of election within the time and in the manner specified in the California Elections Code, 12111, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _ day of _, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 1 b-r ~ ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to the General Plan Concerning Housing Density Part II: Purpose and Findings The people ofthe City of Cupertino find and declare as follows: 1, The Cupertino City Council ITequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center, 2. The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife. 3. Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people ofthe city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements of that growth, 4, Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of mixed-use facilities and/or residences shall limit the density to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per net acre, As used herein, "net acre" refers to the area of a site contained within the pröperty lines, excluding any portion of a site within the right of way of a public street. An exception to this provision may be granted only if first approved by city voters in an election, Part IV: Exceptions A. Val1co Park The Vallco Park Plarming District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i,e, Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter, The Vallco Park Plarming District is exempt from the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of mixed-use facilities and/or residences shall limit the density to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per net acre, 7 b -(7 B. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex, as defined as of I February 2004, are exempted ITom the limitations in this amendment. C. Existing Buildings Existing buildings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (1) they do not exceed their original housing densities or (2) they comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the fuwe, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election, Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, Part VII: Additional Requirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or an existing law, rrom imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. 1 b-f ð ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit B Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to the General Plan Concerning Building Height Part II: Purpose and Findings 1, The Cupertino City Council ITequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center, 2. The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife, 3, Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people of the city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements of that growth, 4, Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require building heights not to exceed a maximum height oß6 feet. The height is measured ITom grade level to the highest point of the building structure, An exception to this provision may be granted only if flIst approved by city voters in an election, Part IV: Exceptions A. Vallco Park The Vallco Park Planning District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i,e, Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter, The Vallco Park Planning District is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require building heights not to exceed 45 feet. The height is measured ITom grade level to the highest point of the building structIue, ~b~/9 .B. Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is the area within 500 feet of the centerline of Wolfe Road, starting at the point 500 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard on its southern end and extending northward to Highway 280. . The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that building heights not exceed 45 feet. C. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, as derrned as of 1 February 2004, are exempted from the limitations in this amendment. D. Existing Buildings Existing buildings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (1) they do not exceed their original heights and setbacks or (2) any added portions of their structIues comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the future, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election, Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder ofthis amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. Part VII: Additional Requirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or any existing law, ITom imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. . 9 b - 26 ATTACHMENT Z Exhibit C Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to General Plan Concerning Setbacks Part II: Purpose and Findings The people of the City of Cupertino find and declare as follows: I, The Cupertino City Council ITequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center. 2, The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife, 3, Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people ofthe city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements ofthat growth, 4, Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require buildings to have minimum street setbacks of35 feet, or the distance determined ITom a 1.5 to 1 slope line ratio measured ITOm the nearest curb line(s) of adjacent public street(s), whichever is greater, An exception to this provision may be granted only if first approved by city voters in an election, Part IV: Exceptions A. Vallco Park The Vallco Park Planning District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i,e, Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter, The Vallco Park Planning District is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that buildings have minimum street setbacks in accordance with 1 to 1 slope line ratios measured from the nearest curb line(s) of a public street(s). <) b- l / B. Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is the area within SOO feet ofthe centerline of Wolfe Road, starting at the point SOO feet north of Steyens Creek Boulevard on its southern end and extending northward to Highway 280, The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that buildings have minimum street setbacks in accordance with I to I slope line ratios measured ITom the nearest curb line(s) of a public street(s), C. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, as defined as of I February 2004, are exempted from the limitations in this amendment. D. Existing Buildings Existing buildings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (I) they adhere to their originally authorized setbacks or (2) any added portions of their structures comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the future, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election, Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. Part VII: Additional Requirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or any existing law, ITom imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. o¡b-:u.. ATTACI-IM¡;NT ~ RESOLUTION 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THAT A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING DENSITY BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8 2005, AND REQUESTING THAT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND CANVASS THE VOTES WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute, a petition has been filed with the legislative body of the City of Cupertino, signed by more than 15% of the number of registered voters of the City, to submit a proposed General Plan amendment related to housing density to a vote of the people; WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Registrar of V oters examined the records of registration and has certified that the initiative petition is signed by at least 15% of the registered voters; and WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed General Plan amendment; WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to submit the proposed General Plan amendment to the voters at a special municipal election to be held within 88 to 103 days of the order of election, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: A. Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, a special election is called and ordered to be held in the City of Cupertino, on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 B, The text of the General Plan amendment related to housing density that will be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A. C, Arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 5:00 p,m, Arguments are limited to 300 words. D, Rebuttals to arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, November 23,2004 at 5:00 p,m, Rebuttals are limited to 250 words, E, The Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County is authorized to conduct the election and canvass the returns, and shall be reimbursed for all costs incurred by said services 7b-2J ResolutIon No. 04-_ Page 2 E. The city clerk is authorized and directed to certify to the adoption of this resolution and to transmit a copy so certified to the Registrar of Voters and to the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, F. The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish a notice of election within the time ITame and in the manner specified in Elections Code Section 12111, Publication of Notice of Measures To Be Voted on at Municipal Election, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _day of November, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino c¡b-21.f ATTACHMENT 3 Exhibit A Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to the General Plan Concerning Housing Density Part II: Purpose and Findings The people of the City of Cupertino find and declare as follows: 1. The Cupertino City Council ITequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center. 2, The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife. 3, Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people ofthe city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements of that growth, 4, Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of mixed-use facilities and/or residences shall limit the density to a maximum of IS dwelling units per net acre, As used herein, "net acre" refers to the area of a site contained within the property lines, excluding any portion of a site within the right of way of a public street. An exception to this provision may be granted only if first approved by city voters in an election, Part IV: Exceptions A. Vallco Park The Vallco Park Planning District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i,e, Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter. The Vallco Park Planning District is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of mixed-use facilities and/or residences shall limit the density to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per net acre, 7b-~ 1:) B. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex, as defined as of I February 2004, are exempted ITom the limitations in this amendment. C. Existing Buildings Existing buildings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (1) they do not exceed their original housing densities or (2) they comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the future, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election, Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, Part VII: Additional Requirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or an existing law, ITom imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. c¡lD- 2-10 A TT AC\-\M~NT 4 RESOLUTION 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THAT A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2005, AND REQUESTING THAT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND CANVASS THE VOTES WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute, a petition has been filed with the legislative body of the City of Cupertino, signed by more than 15% of the number of registered voters ofthe City, to submit a proposed General Plan amendment related to building heights to a vote of the people; WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Registrar of V oters examined the records of registration and has certified that the initiative petition is signed by at least 15% of the registered voters; and WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed General Plan amendment; WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to submit the proposed General Plan amendment to the voters at a special municipal election to be held within 88 to 103 days of the order of election, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: A. Pursuant to the requirements ofthe laws of the State of Cali fomi a relating to general law cities, a special election is called and ordered to be held in the City of Cupertino on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 B, The text of the General Plan amendments related to building height that will be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A, C. Arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 5:00 p,m. Arguments are limited to 300 words, D. Rebuttals to arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, November 23,2004 at 5:00 p,m, Rebuttals are limited to 250 words, E. The Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County is authorized to conduct the election and canvass the returns, and shall be reimbursed for all costs incurred by said services qh-27 Resolution No. 04-_ Page 2 E. The city clerk is authorized and directed to certify to the adoption of this resolution and to transmit a copy so certified to the Registrar of Voters and to the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, F, The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish a notice of election within the time frame and in the manner specified in Elections Code Section 12111, Publication of Notice of Measures To Be Voted on at Municipal Election. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _day of November, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CJb- u ATTACHMENT 4 Exhibit A Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to the General Plan Concerning Building Height Part II: Purpose and Findings I. The Cupertino City Council ITequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center, 2, The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife, 3, Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people of the city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements of that growth, 4. Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require building heights not to exceed a maximum height of36 feet. The height is measured ITom grade level to the highest point of the building structure, An exception to this provision may be granted only if flIst approved by city voters in an election, Part IV: Exceptions A. Vallco Park The Vallco Park Planning District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i,e, Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter, The Vallco Park Planning District is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require building heights not to exceed 45 feet. The height is measured ITom grade level to the highest point of the building structIue, 7b-2-{ B. Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is the area within 500 feet of the centerline of Wolfe Road, starting at the point 500 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard on its southern end and extending northward to Highway 280, The Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that building heights not exceed 45 feet. C. Residential Single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, as defined as of 1 February 2004, are exempted from the limitations in this amendment. D. Existing Buildings Existing buildings may be rebuilt, undergo alteration, or be expanded, provided that (I) they do not exceed their original heights and setbacks or (2) any added portions oftheir structures comply with the limitations in this amendment. Part V: Existing Law This amendment shall be an addendum to the general plan and shall supersede any contrary provision to the general plan and any ordinance now in effect, or ever adopted in the future, except that voters may directly repeal or alter this amendment in an election, Part VI: Severability If any provision of this amendment, or application of any such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this amendment to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. Part VII: Additional Requirements Nothing in this amendment prevents the Cupertino City Council, or any existing law, ITom imposing stricter limitations on the issuance of building permits than provided for in this amendment. qb - ')D A TT ACHM¡;NT 5 RESOLUTION 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THAT A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING BUILDING SETBACKS BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 200S, AND REQUESTING THAT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND CANVASS THE VOTES WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute, a petition has been filed with the legislative body of the City of Cupertino, signed by more than IS% of the number of registered voters of the City, to submit a proposed General Plan amendment related to building setbacks to a vote of the people; WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters examined the records of registration and has certified that the petition signature is signed by at least IS% of the registered voters; and WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of the adoption ofthe proposed General Plan amendment; WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to submit the proposed General Plan amendments to the voters at a special municipal election to be held within 88 to 103 days of the order of election, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: A. Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, a special election is called and ordered to be held in the City of Cupertino, on Tuesday, February 8, 200S B, The text of the General Plan amendments related to building setbacks that will be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A C, Arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at S:OO p,m, Arguments are limited to 300 words, D. Rebuttals to arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at S :00 p,m. Rebuttals are limited to 2S0 words, E, The Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County is authorized to conduct the election and canvass the returns, and shall be reimbursed for all costs incurred by said services q ~~ ] I Resolut:on No, 04-_ Page 2 E. The city clerk is authorized and directed to certify to the adoption of this resolution and to transmit a copy so certified to the Registrar of Voters and to the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County F, The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish a notice of election within the time ITame and in the marmer specified in Elections Code Section 12111, Publication of Notice of Measures To Be Voted on at Municipal Election PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 13th day of February, 2001, by the following vote: Vote Members ofthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 7b~72. ATTACHMENT 5 Exhibit A Part I: Title and Effect Amendment to General Plan Concerning Setbacks Part II: Purpose and Findings The people of the City of Cupertino find and declare as follows: I. The Cupertino City Council ITequently approves amendments to the General Plan and permits developments which are turning our city into more of an urban center, 2. The recent and rapid increase in building heights and densities is significantly changing our small town character and negatively impacting our quality oflife, 3. Continued rapid growth is also a concern to the people ofthe city because it would affect the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities to meet the requirements of that growth, 4. Sensible growth management, such as is contained in this initiative amendment, will help ensure more responsible growth and help preserve the suburban character of Cupertino, Part III: Growth Controls Subject to the exceptions listed below, permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require buildings to have minimum street setbacks of 35 feet, or the distance determined from a 1,5 to 1 slope line ratio measured ITom the nearest curb line(s) of adjacent public street(s), whichever is greater. An exception to this provision may be granted only if first approved by city voters in an election, Part IV: Exceptions A. Vallco Park The Vallco Park Plarming District is defined as the area between Wolfe Road and Tantau Road, and between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, This area includes those portions of the streets themselves (i,e, Wolfe Road, Tantau Road, Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard), which make up its perimeter. The Vallco Park Plarming District is exempt ITom the limitations in this amendment except that permits for additions, alterations, and/or new construction of offices, commercial properties, industrial facilities, hotels, residences and/or mixed-use facilities shall require that buildings have minimum street setbacks in accordance with 1 to 1 slope line ratios measured ITom the nearest curb line(s) of a public street(s). 1 b- J' 3 . I ..~. /1 I .\ ~~~ '-"/" . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPEIQ1NO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM ID AGENDA DATE November L 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Resolution No. 04- LJ:5 J , approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for street lights on Willowbrook Way, north of Bollinger Road, pursuant to Ordinance No, 1925, BACKGROUND Over the last couple of years, a number of residential property owners and neighborhood residents voiced objections to the City Municipal Code requirement that City standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights be installed along their street ITontages as a condition of their residential building permits. In general, these property owners felt that their neighborhoods were of a rural or semi-rural character that would be compromised if the normal concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, and streetlight improvements were applied, On October 20, 2003, after receiving ITom such property owners a number of requests for exceptions to the City requirements, City Council adopted Ordinance No, 1925, amending the City Municipal Code by establishing criteria to be used for designating certain streets or neighborhoods as rural or semi-rural in nature. Such a designation allows modified street improvement standards for local streets that are not covered under the hillside development provisions of the Code. Certain findings concerning neighborhood consensus, safety, and drainage form the basis of the criteria, There have been 16 applications (including the present one) under the ordinance so far, of which six have been completed and approved. Property owners along the fi'ontages of Willowbrook Way, shown as Area 16 on the attached map, have circulated a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi- rural in order to waive the typical City streetlight requirements, The typical streetlight requirements call for high-pressure sodium vapor cobra head lamps on 30-foot metal poles to be installed along City streets at about 150 to 200-foot spacings. As required, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of the semi-rural designation necessary to modify the streetlight requirement. Since there are no streetlights currently on Willowbrook Way, which is a short cul-de-sac, and the neighborhood accepts that condition, it does not appear that simply waiving the streetlight requirements would contribute to any particular problem within this area, Printed on Recycled Paper ID-I FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04- Y 33, approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for streetlights on Willowbrook Way, north of Bollinger Road, pursuant to Ordinance No, 1925. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. (,J.. (.J if ~apP Director of Public Works City Manager fD-J... DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-433 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A SEMI-RURAL DESIGNATION FOR WILLOWBROOK WAY, WHEREAS, property owners along the ITontages of Willowbrook Way have circulated a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi-rural; and WHEREAS, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of waiving streetlight requirements for this street, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby approves a semi-rural designation with respect to streetlights for Willowbrook Way, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15t day of November 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 10 - 3 l." Il)del)b 'rook L.êIl)e Q) Q) > > ï= '- 0 0 C/) C/) Q) Q) +-' +-' ro ro +-' +-' C/) C/) W W +-' C/) ro W ~of'.Q G<¿'~ ?;o\'Ü~ ~ N Area 16 (D - L( , ~: i.~ ..F'---- .µ,,,., : - . City Hall 1 0300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Telephone: (40S) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPErQ1NO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLlC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM \ \ AGENDA DATE November L 2004 SUBJECT Adoption of Resolution No. 04- L/3Y: approving the Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Los Altos Garbage Company, dated December 4, 1995, to provide weekly, single stream recycling and yardwaste collection for Cupertino residents. BACKGROUND On June 17,2004 the Council authorized staff to negotiate an amendment to the franchise agreement with Los Altos Garbage Company to provide weekly single stream recycling and yardwaste collection. The collection will be semi-automated, with the driver getting in and out of the truck at each household. The City will provide wheeled carts for both garbage and recycling, Carts for yardwaste collection are already in use. The amendment provides new definitions for bulk waste, recyclable materials and standard containers and makes language changes to Section 3 of the agreement to reflect weekly service as opposed to every other week service in addition to clarifying existing conditions. Other more specific changes are described below: Bulk Goods Collection Rate: City staff has pursued negotiations with LAGCO to reduce the fee charged to residents for bulk goods pickup. Bulk goods are those that are too large to be managed by one person and collected on an on-call disposal day. They include large furniture items such as couches and cabinets, appliances such as washers and dryers, refrigerators and televisions. The current rate is $35 for the first item and $30 for each additional item. LAGCO had agreed to reduce their cost to $20 for each additional item. Staff is proposing that the City subsidize the charges to the residents such that the fees be $25 for the first item and $15 for each additional item; plus an additional $15 for each item containing Freon (down ITom $50 per item) and $15 for each TV (down ITom $20), It is estimated the additional cost to the City to subsidize these bulk goods pickup rate would not exceed $25,000 armually, This rate places the cost ofthis service more in line with rates offered in San Jose, Printed on Recycled Paper I (-I The following Table reflects the comparison of the rate schedules for bulk goods: Current Rate LAGCO Proposed City Subsidized Rate Rate First item $35 $35 $25 Each additional item $25 $20 $15 Freon Q:oods $50 $50 $15 TV $20 $20 $15 Optional Fuel/Air Oualitv: When Los Altos Garbage Company (LAGCO) submitted their proposal, they had offered the City the option of using biodiesel fuel. The proposed fuel is comprised of20% vegetable oil and 80% diesel fuel. At the time oftheir proposal, the two fuels were roughly the same price. The cost of biodiesel has now risen to 8 cents per gallon above the cost of diesel fuel. This equates to an estimated $10,000 annually for all trucks servicing Cupertino. In the meantime, the California Air Resources Board has adopted a rule to reduce the emissions allowed ITom solid waste collection vehicles, As required by this rule, the following number of vehicles must be replaced or retrofitted with filters that reduce particulate matter by 85%, in the following timeITame and showing the approximate annual costs: 2004- 10% of the LAGCo Fleet - $13,000 2005- 25% of the LAGCo Fleet - $19,500 2006- 50% of the LAGCo Fleet - $32,500 2007- 100% ofthe LAGCo Fleet - $65,000 LAGCO is now proposing that vehicles ITom 1994 or newer be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters that reduce particulate matter by 85% versus 40% when an alternate fuel such as biodiesel is used, In the long run, staff believes that the City would be better served by using the particulate filters rather than the more expensive fuel. One-time costs for retrofitting residential and commercial collection vehicles, which may be passed on to the city per language in the ITanchise agreement, are $9,000,00 per vehicle for a total of$130,000, Miscellaneous Clarifications The City and LAGCO have agreed to include a revised list ofliquidated damages in the contract in such cases where the company fails to collect wastes, follow regulations, operate equipment properly and respond to complaints and problems, Liquidated damages were referenced in the original agreement, but were not attached to the agreement. The information describing the current on-call disposal and recycling day collection services has been updated to reflect the current practice, Recvcled Items (¡-1... The agreement now includes a list of items that can be collected for recycling by LAGCQ, Should any changes occur in the future, only this exhibit will need to be changed, not provisions of the Agreement. This list includes all items that can be recycled, It should also be noted that household batteries; alkaline, nickel cadmium, nickel iron, nickel metal hydride and copper zinc are included for collection starting with the new program. SCHEDULE February/March 200S - LAGCO will deliver solid waste carts to customers by geographical routes, New service will commence the week following the receipt of the cart by the Resident. March/April200S - LAGCO will deliver recycling carts to customers by geographical routes, New single stream recycling service will commence the week following the receipt of the cart by the Resident. Residents will be given the option of keeping their recycling bins to use for storage or worm compo sting or having them collected by the garbage company, Staff is researching options for reuse for those that are collected. COSTS/FISCAL IMPACTS: The following is a summary of costs previously presented to the Council at the June 17 Council meeting, The summary now includes the additional $2S,000 for the costs ofthe bulk goods proposal and the $130,000 for the retrofitting of the fleet with particulate filters: Carts for garbage and recycling (including delivery) Program costs over the life of the contract (S yrs 10 mos,)* Outreach Contamination monitoring Contingencies Bulk goods subsidy Total $ 1,18S,000 $ 2,070,000 $ ISO,OOO $ SO,OOO $ 120,000 $ 130,000 $ 2S,OOO $ 3,730,000 Funds are available ITom the Resource Recovery Fund to finance the program (numbers are estimates) : Estimated End of Year Balance Reserve set-aside for Unknown Enviroumental issues/impacts Set-aside for Cleanup reimbursement to the General Fund Reserve for payment of Library FF&E $ 6,300,000 (I,SOO,OOO) (2,000,000) (700,000) Estimated Uncommitted Balance $ 2,100,000 * At this end of year balance level, the fund grows at an annual rate of approximately $SOO,OOO so there is some flexibility in financing the program over a S 1/2 year period, (( - 3 There is an additional fiscal impact of$25,000 above the amount projected in June 2004, for the subsidy to the bulk goods rate and $130,000 for the retrofitting of the fleet with particulate filters. The total cost ofthe single-stream, weekly recycling and yardwaste program through the end of the ITanchise agreement in October 2010 is $3,730,000, This amount can be funded ITom the Resource Recovery Fund, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No, 04- '1l.1., authorizing the City Manager to execute and negotiate the second amendment to the Franchise Agreement between Los Altos Garbage Company and the City of Cupertino, 2. Approve the use of$3,730,000 ITom the Resource Recovery Fund for this program over a 5 Yz year period. Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~U~Uf:f- Director of Public Works W David W. Knapp City Manager rf -L( RESOLUTION NO. 04-434 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCillSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND LOS ALTOS GARBAGE COMPANY, INC, The City Council ofthe City of Cupertino does ordain as follows: ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITIONS [Insert New] Section 1.3, Bulky Wastes, "Bulky Wastes" means individual items that weigh more than 50 pounds, or are too large for one person to manage easily, Bulky wastes include large furniture items (such as couches and cabinets) and appliances (such as washers, dryers and microwave ovens), Bulky wastes also include refrigerators and air conditioners (with Freon), televisions sets and computer monitors for which a separate charge is applied to collection, [Renumber subsequent Sections under Definitions] [Replace] Section 1,19, Recyclable Materials, "Recyclable Materials" means those items designated in EXHIBIT C ofthis Agreement; which are separated by residents and businesses ITom other discards for the purpose of returning them to economic use, and set out for collection in an approved container, 1.25, Standard Container. Standard Container means any container provided by Company for storage and collection of solid waste, recyclables or compostables (including yardwaste), A Residential Standard Container means plastic wheeled cart of approximately 32-gallon, 64-gallon, or 96-gallon capacity, distributed by Company for use by residents, A Commercial Container means plastic wheeled cart of approximately 32-gallon, 64-gallon, or 96-gallon capacity, or metal bins of ITom I to 6 cubic yard capacity, approved by the City Manager and provided by Company for use by businesses for solid waste collection services. (1- )' Resolution No, 04-4~4 ARTICLE II - GENERAL CONDITIONS AND TERM OF FRANCHISE Section 2,9, Notices: If to Company: Los Altos Garbage Company 6S0 Martin Avenue Santa Clara, CA 9S0S0 ARTICLE III. COMPANY SERVICES [Replace) Section 3,1,( c), Curbside Recycling - Company shall provide residential Customers with appropriate Standard Containers into which such Customers may segregate and discard Recyclables, Company shall collect and remove recyclables ITom such Containers weekly, on the same day as Solid Wastes are collected, Company shall collect extra recyclables set out next to the Standard recycling container, if such recyclables are properly containerized. Recyclable Materials included for collection are listed in Exhibit C, Company and City shall work together to minimize the contamination of the recyclables set out for collection by residents, The City shall promote recycling and discourage residents from including non-recyclable items in with their recyclables, Company shall instruct drivers to notify residents when the recyclables they set out are contaminated, Section 3,1.(e), On-Call Disposal Day Services - Two times per year, Franchisee will provide On-call collection services to each Residential Service Recipient, upon request. Franchisee shall provide the services described in EXHIBIT D of this Agreement. Franchisee shall handle all materials received in a manner that will allow the maximum amount to be recycled, or otherwise diverted ITom landfill. Section 3,1.(g), Additional Services (g,I,) Mixed Recyclable Collection, Company shall provide Mixed Recyclable collection, removal and hauling services to commercial businesses, Company shall charge for such services the rate provided in Exhibit B. Approved Schedule of Rates, Sorting fees associated with this service shall be the responsibility of Company, (g,2,) Commercial Cardboard Collection, Company shall provide commercial cardboard collection, removal and hauling services to commercial businesses, Sorting fees associated with this service shall be the responsibility of Company, (g.3,) Yardwaste Collection, Company shall provide each residential Customer a 96-gallon wheeled Container into which Customers may segregate and rI-(p Resolution No, D4-414 discard Yardwaste, Company shall collect and remove Yardwaste ITom such Containers weekly, on the same day as Solid Wastes are collected, Acceptable yard wastes materials are listed in Exhibit C, (g.4,) Multi-Farnily/Hillside Recycling Program, Company shall provide a recycling program similar to that described in Section 3.1 (c and g.3) of this Agreement to certain multi-family, hillside and / or "difficult to service" units, subject to standards to be mutually agreed upon between the parties, Delete (g.5,) Residential Mixed Paper Collection Section 3,5 (e.) - [delete first sentence) C8Ø13an~' DRall r9j!la9i !i¡la 9r ¡¡9':9ra 9R aU C\lsteøuu G9RtaÎR8t=8 iæRl9diatsl-:; Bitsr 81Rfit:,'iØg tlt9 eQ.1tUJ anà sRiW! r8~air Sf faldage, at its 8Jí}J8REì8, an~p 98Rtæø9rs àamag8à a£1 a nwak 8£ its aanàlæg tÀ8F98f, R8A1lal ....:8Qf anà t9Rf ¡¡¡¡¡¡9j!t9à. Company shall restore [Replace) Section 3,5 (h,) - Company shall collect large items including: a) White goods (appliances) which do not contain Freon b) White goods (appliances) which contain Freon (refrigerators and air conditioners) c) Computer monitors and television sets d) Worn and damaged furniture and household furnishings (such as carpet) e) Reusable (undamaged) household goods, toys and textiles to be donated to a non-profit service organization Company shall collect bulky items within one week of service request by resident. Company shall charge for such services the rate provided in Exhibit B, Approved Schedule of Rates, [Add) Section 3,5 (i,) Company shall reduce vehicle exhaust emissions by purchasing or modifying vehicle engines to run on bio-diesel fuel; or otherwise make changes to achieve comparable exhaust emission reductions, [Replace) Section 3,6, Standardized Containers, Standardized Containers for residential service shall be wheeled plastic carts, distributed by Company for use by residents, Company shall distribute one container each for solid wastes, recyclables and yardwaste to each residential Customer. (r-Î Resolution No, 04-434 The solid waste containers shall be approximately 32-gallon, 64-gallon, or 96-gallon capacity, Solid waste carts shall be gray, Recycling carts shall be 64-gallon capacity, Recycling carts shall be blue, Yardwaste carts shall be 96-gallon capacity, Yardwaste carts shall be tan!brown, Standardized Containers for commercial businesses shall be either plastic wheeled carts of approximately 32-gallon, 64-gallon, or 96-gallon capacity, or metal bins of ITom 1 to 6 cubic yard capacity, distributed by Company, Company shall maintain, repair and replace, at Company's option, all Standardized Containers at no charge to the Customer. Company may refuse to collect and remove solid wastes, recyclables or yardwaste from any cart with a total weight of more than 150 pounds for the cart and included materials, or if the cart is overflowing, provided that Company informs Customers of the reasons for such refusal. ARTICLE IV SERVICE RATES AND ADJUSTMENTS [Add to end of Section 4.5] Future Rate Adjustments do not include any compensation adjustment for the provision of Standardized Containers to Customers, or for loss in revenue received ITom the sale of Recyclable Materials. ARTICLE XIV MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS [Add] Section 14.11. Additional Provisions Additional agreements and procedures relating to operations and costs are described in Exhibit E and incorporated by reference as part of this agreement. EXHIBITS A - E Exhibits A through E are hereby incorporated by reference, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes said amendment to the ITanchise agreement, effective immediately, /1-/ Resolution No, 04-4~4 IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute said amendment on behalf of the City of Cupertino, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1 st day of November 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members ofthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino (1-; \ .......1 "'~' ti.1 ~ /1 ~,- ->,.p~ F CUPEIQ1NO . Parks and Recreation D~artment STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number I).. Agenda Date: November 1,2004 SUBJECT Approve an application for grant funding to rehabilitate swim and tennis facilities at the Cupertino Sports Center. BACKGROUND Funding is available under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 for development and improvement of fitness facilities. One of the goals of the program is to improve access to fitness programs, particularly where there is a concentration of youth, The Cupertino Sports Center has been renovated and is receiving increased usage, The appurtenant facilities - bathhouse, pool and tennis courts - are also in need of upgrade, Staff is seeking Council authorization to apply for funds to improve them. This particular grant offering is rare in that it emphasizes funding to renovate existing facilities. Competition for theses funds is great and staff cannot be certain of the outcome of the application, The range of possible funding is $75,000 to $1,000,000, FISCAL IMPACT The City will be required to commit a 25 percent match, Should grant funds be received, the match would need to be taken ITom the City's Park Fund, The Park Fund is supported by development fees, There would be no impact to the City's General Fund, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council, by resolution, authorize application to the State Urban Parks and Healthy Communities Grant Program, -'. ty-r''L/ Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department Approved for submittal to the City Council: ~ Respectfully submitted: David W, Knapp, City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper IJ:.~I DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04- 435 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE STATE URBAN PARKS AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT 0 2002 FOR CUPERTINO FITNESS FACILITY ENHANCEMENTS WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to eligible Applicants; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the State Urban Parks and Healthy Communities Program and the grant Project shown above within the State, setting up necessary procedures, and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State, and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cupertino City Council hereby: I. Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds ITom the State Urban Parks and Healthy Communities Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002; and 2, Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and 3, Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and 4, Certifies that the Grantee has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the Project, the required Match; 12-~ Resolution No. 04- 435 5. Certifies that the Project conforms to the recreation element of any applicable city or county general plan; and 6, Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of November ,2004, bv the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino g:\parks and recreation admin\sports center\grant\resolution.doc !~ - J