CC 11-16-04
F
CUPEIQ1NO
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - REGULAR MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
6:45 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation for Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. (No documentation in
packet).
2. Proclamation honoring Dr. Fred W. Schwertley for his many years of community service.
(No documentation in packet).
3. Proclamation honoring the PG&E crews that responded to the City's power outage. (No
documentation in packet).
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council ftom making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
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.
November 16,2004
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
4. Approve the minutes ftom the October 18 and November I City Council meetings.
5. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for October 29 and November 5,
Resolution Nos. 04-437 and 04-438.
6. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for November 5, Resolution No. 04-439.
7. Declare weeds on certain properties a nuisance, and set a hearing date for January 4,
Resolution No. 04-440.
8. Approve applications for an Alcoholic Beverage License:
a) Oakmont Market, 19944 Homestead Road (Oakmont Square Shopping Center)
b) Alexanders Steakhouse, Inc., 10330 Wolfe Road (Vallco Fashion Park)
9. Accept a City project performed under contract for City Center Park Project/Cali Mill
Plaza, Project No. 2003-9313, Robert A. Bothman, Inc. (No documentation in packet).
10. Adopt a resolution approving an Improvement Agreement for Chih-Heng Wei and Jeng-
Rong Shaw, husband and wife, as community property, 21089 Greenleaf Drive, APN
326-08-031, Resolution No. 04-441.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Consider amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl
Ordinance), Application No.(s) MCA-2003-02, EA-2002-19, City of Cupertino,
Citywide. (This item was continued ftom 11/1/04):
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 (Rl) of the Cupertino Municipal Code"
12. Consider Application No.(s) EXC-2004-l5, U-2004-0l, ASA-2004-02, EA-2004-02,
Pinn Brothers, 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard (formerly Adobe Lounge), APN No. 369-
03-001 :
a) Grant a negative declaration
b) Approve an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side
yard setback
November 16, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Page 3
c) Approve a use permit for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29
units) development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building
d) Approve architectural and site approval for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet)
and residential (29 units) development
13. Consider Application No.(s) Z-2004-02, EA-2004-l5, Tiep Nguyen, 22570 San Juan
Road, APN No. 342-18-020:
a) Grant a negative declaration
b) Approve the rezoning of a 1.31-acre parcel fÌ'om RHS (Residential Hillside to
RHS-2l (Residential Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet)
c) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1950: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino rezoning of a 1.31 acre parcel fÌ'om rhs
(residential hillside) to rhs-2l (residential hillside minimum lot size 21,000 square
feet)"
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. Confirm the status of the regular City Council meeting of December 21, or schedule a
meeting between December 15 and 22 for Architectural and Site Review of the Vallco
"Rosebowl" project.
NEW BUSINESS
15. Review the bids and award the contract for the Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and
Sidewalks, Project No. 2004-05, to JJR Construction, Inc., in the amount of $473,000.00,
and approve a contingent amount of up to $27,000.00, for additional work that may be
identified and approved by the Director of Public Works, for a total of $500,000.00.
16. Adopt a resolution approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for
sidewalk and streetlights, but not for curb and gutter, on Camino Vista Drive, Dubon
Avenue, and Prado Vista Drive, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 1925, Resolution No. 04-442.
17. Adopt a resolution approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for
streetlights and sidewalk on Randy Lane and Larry Way pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925,
Resolution No. 04-443.
18. Auction of Surplus Property-Oak Valley lots, APN Nos. 342-58-011, 342-59-002, and
342-59-013. (No documentation in packet).
November 16, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Page 4
19. Adopt a resolution approving the use of archived facsimile signature for payments ftom
the City's deposit account with Wells Fargo Bank, Resolution No. 04-444.
20. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1951: "An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino Amending Section 2.24.020 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to
Add Signature Authorities on Payments Made by the City."
21. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1952: "An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 2.04.030 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to
change the City Council regular meeting place to the City Council Chamber, Cupertino
Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue."
22. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1953: "An ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino Amending Section 2.08.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
regarding the Order of Business for Regular Council Meetings."
23. Report regarding Poppy Way street improvements.
24. Confirm the amended date of Thursday, December 2 at 7:15 p.m. for the Council
swearing-in ceremony and reception in the Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. (No
documentation in packet).
ORDINANCES
STAFF REPORTS
25. The next General Plan hearing is a community forum with the Planning Commission on
Monday, December 6, fÌ'om 7:00-9:00 p.m., in the Cupertino Community Hall Council
Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue. (No documentation in packet).
COUNCIL REPORTS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Council goals update and evaluation of the City Manager fÌ'om 5-7:30 p.m. on
Monday, November 22 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.
-~-------_.- ----~.--_.._._-------._-_._----------
I F
CUPEIQ1NO
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Monday, October 18, 2004
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council
members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none.
Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City
Attorney Charles Kilian, Public Works Director Ralph Qualls, Community Development
Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, Web Specialist Nidhi
Mathur, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation ftom The Health Trust regarding flu vaccinations in Santa Clara County.
Cynthia York ftom the Health Trust of Santa Clara County gave an update on the status
of flu vaccinations in Santa Clara County. She distributed a brochure giving information
about the Health Trust.
2. Presentation ftom former Teen Commissioner Danh Trang regarding a disabilities
conference he attended in Washington DC.
Mayor James introduced Danh Trang and congratulated him on being selected to the
governing board of the National Youth Leadership Network. Trang gave a PowerPoint
presentation on the National Youth Leadership Network (NYLN) conference. The
organization is a youth-led organization that strives to make youth with disabilities self-
sufficient. He gave the web site address as www.nyln.org.
Item number 3 was taken up after oral communications.
if-I
October 18, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 2
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Marsha Hovey reported on the October 14 disaster drill
that was held as party of countywide exercise for the 15th anniversary of the Loma Prieta
earthquake. She asked for more volunteers ftom the community to be part of Cupertino's disaster
response.
POSTPONEMENTS
City Clerk Kimberly Smith noted that item number 15 was postponed to November 1.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
City Clerk Kimberly Smith noted a handout on the draft Field Use Policy for item number 8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Julia Miyakawa, board member of the Cupertino Tournament of Bands (TOB), expressed
concern over the increase in fees for their event. She said that other community events such as
Oktoberfest and the Cherry Blossom Festival received fee waivers.
Margaret (peggy) Griffin, TOB Volunteer Coordinator and Cupertino High School Band Booster
President, talked about the cost involved in holding the Tournament of Bands event and asked
for a fee waiver. Lowenthal asked for staff to provide a fairness analysis of what the TOB is
paying versus what other events are paying. James said that the City is now charging back any
out-of-pocket expense back to the event coordinators.
Mary Souza, Chair of the Social Justice Outreach Commission at St. Jude the Apostle Episcopal
Church, invited the community to a meeting at St. Jude's on Sunday, October 24 ftom 9-12:30,
to greet representatives of 20 non-profit agencies.
Barbara Rogers discussed the history of mayoral succession in Cupertino, and distributed a
printed history. She said that Council is responsible for the election of its officers, and with 3
exceptions, the succession in Cupertino has been based on seniority and the number of votes
received in the election.
Edward (Ned) said that at the last meeting Council member Sandoval had told the Concerned
Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) that they should have turned in their petitions with 10% signatures
to qualify for the November 2004 ballot. He said that the November 2004 election is a statewide
election, without municipal issues, and 10% qualifying petitions would have gone on the
municipal election in November 2005, so they continued to collect signatures up to 15%, which
allows the Council to call for a special election or adopt the measures without an election. He
suggested Election Code 4004, which allows cities to hold elections by mail, and urged Council
to hold the election as soon as possible or to consider the mail-in ballot.
City Attorney Charles Kilian clarified that mail ballots can only be used in the context of filling a
Council vacancy, and that law did not apply to elections on measures.
[.!-cZ
October 18, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 3
Rusty Britt said that the CCC wants sensible growth in Cupertino and announced community
meetings with the CCC on October 21 and October 27.
Mayor James took up item number 3 next.
3. Presentation to the Parks and Recreation Director of two Helen Putnam Awards,
including the Grand Prize in the category of Internal Administration for the Balance or
Bust Board Game, and the Award of Excellence in the category of Planning and
Environmental Quality for the Stevens Creek Corridor, awarded by the League of
California Cities.
Rebecca Elliott, representing the League of California Cities, said the jury selected
Cupertino's "Balance or Bust" board game as the Helen Putnam Award of Excellence
grand prize, and "Stevens Creek Corridor, What's Your Vision?" in the category of
Planning and Environmental Quality. Elliot presented Mayor James with the awards.
Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith thanked her Administrative Assistant Marie
Miller and other staff as well as the participants.
Rebecca Elliott also urged a yes vote Proposition lA, which protect local government
ftom any further raids on their revenues by the State.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
recommended. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
4. Approve the minutes ftom the October 4 City Council meeting.
5. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for October 1 and 8, Resolution Nos. 04-
420 and 04-421.
6. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for October 8, Resolution No. 04-422.
7. Adopt a resolution approving the destruction of records ftom the Finance and Planning
Departments, Resolution No. 04-423.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above)
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None
L{- 3
October 18, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 4
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. Adopt the revised Field Use Policy recommended by City Council subcommittee.
Parks and Director Therese Smith gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the
background of the policy, and explained how the draft policy differs ftom the existing
policy.
Rob Wells, President of Cupertino National Little League, thanked the staff for working
so hard on behalf of the kids, and said he supports the policy.
Jeff Heer, President of De Anza Youth Soccer League, apologized that their group had
been under the 51 % residency requirement, and said there was no intent to deceive
anyone. He said they are committed to meeting the requirement and discussed the
approaches that are being taken to do so. He said the League supports the policy
presented by staff.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt the Field Use Policy with an
amendment to the language on paragraph 3, page 8-5 to read as follows: "An organization
providing a unique recreational opportunity, such as one serving special needs youth, may
be assigned a special priority status following review of their offering by the Parks and
Recreation Commission and approval by the City Council, including use of fields on
Sunday." Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
9. Approve the General Plan hearing schedule.
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the staff report.
Council members discussed ways to notice the General Plan hearings, including:
· Provide signup pages (paper or computer) at community meetings, and include an
email category as an option
· Encourage written input throughout the process
· Announce the hearings at Council meetings; list them on the agendas and the City
Channel
· Send postcard reminders citywide, not just to affected property owners, prior to
Planning Commission and Council meetings
· Send notices to Tsing Tao Daily and World Journal
· Include the topic in the Cupertino Scene each month and in all city newsletters
· Start meetings at 6:00 p.m. or later.
Web Specialist Nidhi Mathur noted that staff would be implementing a computer list
serve signup in the next few weeks.
L( - L(
October 18, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 5
LowenthaVSandoval moved and seconded to accept the General Plan hearing schedule as
follows, including the above noticing suggestions. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal,
Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None:
· October 26 - Planning commission - Overview of General Plan Documents
· Planning Commission Community Meetings 7-9 p.m.
o November 15, Senior Center (for residents west of Highway 85)
o December 6, Community Hall (for residents east of Highway 85)
o Meetings are open to all persons; west and east divisions are flexible and are
meant to help focus geographical issues unique to these areas
o City Council will be invited as observers
· Planning Commission Public Hearings
o January 11 - Land Use - Development Allocation I
o January 25 - Land Use - development Allocation II (with Housing
Commission and Fine Arts Commission)
o February 8 - Land Use - Remaining Land Use issues, including General Plan
Changes for specific properties
o February 22 - Circulation with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
o March 8 - Environmental Resources, Health and Safety (with Public Safety
Commission)
o March 22 - Preliminary amendments to Task Force Draft and Draft
Environmental Impact Report
o April 26 - Recommend approval of Draft General Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Report to City Council members highlighted the
activities of their committees and various community events.
· City Council Public Hearings
o May 17 - First hearing
o June 7 - Second hearing
o June 21 - Approve Final General Plan and Environmental Impact Report
NEW BUSINESS
10. Approve the taxicab rate for Jorawar Singh ftom Orange Cab Co.
Lowenthal/Wang moved and seconded to approve the taxicab rate. Vote: Ayes: James,
Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
11. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Human Resources Manager to sign an application and
agreement with the California Public Employees' Retirement System to amend Medicare
coverage, Resolution No. 04-424.
Kwok/Lowenthal moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-424. Vote: Ayes:
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
L(-,-~
October 18, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 6
12. Receive an update on the potential purchase/operation of the Blue Pheasant by Ray
Shafazand, and set a public hearing for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and zoning
change on a portion of City property on Stevens Creek Boulevard, specifically the Blue
Pheasant Restaurant and appurtenant parking ftom the General Plan designation of Public
Park/Recreation, to Planned Commercial (or another zone as deemed appropriate by the
City Council).
Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith reviewed the staff report and explained that
the Council had previously authorized a public hearing in April 2003 for a GP A and
zoning change for the current owners, but that the applicant had never followed through.
City Attorney Charles Kilian explained the litigation against the current owners for
breaking their lease. He said that Council could still proceed with this application because
the issues are different. Kilian said that in order for the lease assignment to be valid,
several things much happen; 1) Change both the General Plan and the zoning district; 2)
Issue a use permit allowing the restaurant to be open until 2:00 a.m.; 3) Council must
accept the assignment of the lease; 4) Re-negotiate the lease, including rent.
Applicant Ray Shafazand said he currently owns a restaurant/lounge/nightclub in San
Pedro Square in San Jose, one in escrow in Palo Alto, one in escrow in Burlingame, and
one in San Mateo that just closed escrow. He highlighted his business plan for the
restaurant, including parking issues, security, cover charge, menu, and entertainment. He
said that once the process is approved, he would speak to the neighbors and address any
of their concerns.
Kilian said that under the current amendment procedures, the initiates the process by
setting a date for a public hearing. James suggested that at the Council goals update
session they consider changing the process so applicants would go directly to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing, because the current process is confusing to
the public.
Tom Maiello, Phar Lap Drive, said he is a member of the Oakdale Ranch Homeowner's
Association, and said he was opposed to the project. He listed his concerns about
insufficient parking; overflow parking onto Phar Lap and adjacent cul-de-sacs, noise, and
the appropriateness of operating a restaurant/night club in a residential area.
Albrecht Schoy, Phar Lap Drive, said that the parking continues to be an issue around his
house because the permit parking stops at the corner. He said that he received a flyer on
his door about the meeting the day before, and that it wasn't enough notice.
James responded that everyone would be noticed about the public hearing if Council
approved the initiation process tonight, and that Council has recommended that the
applicant meet with the neighbors.
L(-¿'
---~._----~._----."'-.--~----.'.---.----"-~.--.--
October 1 B, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 7
Bill Kuncz, Phar Lap Drive, said that the Blue Pheasant has been an asset to the
neighborhood, and he was in favor of Council approving the initiation process for the
public hearing. He said he liked the idea of a paid valet.
Council discussion followed. Richard Lowenthal referred to recent rumors about the
project and said that the Blue Pheasant would not become a Teen Center; the City doesn't
intend to sell the property; and the City didn't try to force out the current leaseholder, but
actually renewed the lease for 5 years with a 5-year extension. Council members also said
that the city should work with the business owner to be sure the local ordinances are
followed; neighborhood concerns should be addressed before beginning the hearing
process; and expand any notices to include the entire neighborhood.
Patrick Kwok said he wanted to maintain the suburban character of Cupertino and not
allow the business to stay open until 2:00 a.m. He preferred that the hearings be
combined with the General Plan public hearings, but would reluctantly go along with the
majority ofthe Council ifit decided to move forward with the hearings on this item.
Steve Piasecki explained that the applicant would need to first meet with the neighbors,
probably for several months, before coming to a hearing before the Planning
Commission.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to authorize a set of public hearings on a
zoning change and General Plan Amendment for the Blue Pheasant. Vote: Ayes: James,
Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
13. Set a public hearing for a General Plan Amendment for a city-owned parcel on Stevens
Creek Boulevard, specifically the Stocklmeir property, ftom General Plan designation of
Agricultural/Residential to Public Park/Recreation.
Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith reviewed the staff report.
Kwok/Sandoval moved and seconded to set a public hearing for a General Plan
Amendment on the Stocklmeir property. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal,
Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Piasecki responded that a General Plan Amendment/rezoning process takes about 4-5
months to complete, and that the hearings could possibly begin in December.
14. Adopt a resolution approving the final map for Phase III of the Civic Park development,
Resolution No. 04-425.
Lowenthal/Wang moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-425. Vote: Ayes:
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
L(-;
October 1 g, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page B
15. 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-
426.
This item was postponed to November 1.
16. Adopt a resolution regarding the Santa Clara Valley District Watershed Protection
Collaborative, Resolution No. 04-427:
a) Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a reimbursement agreement
with the Santa Clara Valley Water District in the amount of $465,930.00 for the
District to fund the efforts of the Watershed Protection Collaborative
b) Authorize the Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute an agreement in
an amount not to exceed $465,930.00 with CONCUR, Inc for the administration
of the Watershed Collaborative Process, on condition of approval of the
reimbursement agreement by the City and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
Public Works Director Ralph Qualls reviewed the staff report.
KwokILowenthal moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-427. Vote:
Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
ORDINANCES
STAFF REPORTS
17. Report on Tilson Avenue.
Public Works Director Ralph Qualls reviewed a slide show of Tilson Avenue
photographs. He listed the following conditions: The property is owned by the high
school district and is not needed by the City for any purpose; sidewalks are completed on
the improved side ofthe street where all the homes are; the north side is not a Safe Routes
to School and was not part of the grant funding program; the cost to improve the other
half of the street would be $500;000 as a stand-alone project and the street-paving funds
are committed to the City's Pavement Management Program for streets throughout the
City; and nuisance issues reported are the responsibility of the District. He said staff
recommends nothing that the City should be doing in the way of expense or activity. He
suggested settling the issue at the district level.
Council received the report, and directed staff to prepare a formal letter ftom the City
Manager to the Superintendent regarding problems on Tilson Avenue.
L(_J
October 1&,2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 9
18. Receive status report on General Fund Revenue and Expenditures. (No documentation in
packet) .
Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood distributed a handout regarding general
fund revenue and expenditure trends, which compared the cash basis fÌ'om last year to this
year through September 30, 2004.
Council received the report.
Public Works Director Ralph Qualls reminded everyone that this would be the last meeting in the
City Hall Council Chambers, and that the November I meeting would be in the new Council
Chamber in the Community Hall.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events
including the following: The grand opening events for the Library and Community Hall and the
local restaurants that will be donating food; the domestic violence walk-a-thon on Speak Up and
Save Lives; the Self-Help walk-a-thon for the elderly; the St. Joseph Cupertino School Talent
Contest; the new Elephant Bar opening; Oktoberfest; that Santa Clara Library ranked number
one in the nation in libraries of its size for service quality and cost effectiveness, even with staff
reductions because of funding cuts; a new ATM machine in the Cupertino Post Office; the first
Northern California Cricket Tournament; the Diwali Festival; the Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Projections 2005 hearing on housing; congratulations to 16 Cupertino residents who graduated
fÌ'om the CERT program; the Indian Cultural event at Flint Center; and a town hall meeting with
Governor Schwarzenegger.
CLOSED SESSION
19. Negotiations for purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property - Government Code
Section 54956.8 regarding the De Anza Cupertino Aquatics (DACA) lease. (No
documentation in packet).
At II :08 p.m. the Council recessed to a closed session. At II :30 p.m. it reconvened in
open session, and the City Attorney announced that no action had been taken.
L( -1
October 1 g, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 10
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:30 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Monday, November I at 5:30 p.m. for
Telecommunications Commission interviews, Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino.
Kimberly Smith, City Clerk
For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at
www.cupertino.org.Click on Agendas & Minutes/ City Council! Packets.
Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your
convenience fÌ'om our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings.
Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased fÌ'om the Cupertino City
Channel, 777-2364.
L( -(D
--_.._---.-._-
CUPEIQ1NO
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Adjourned Meeting
Monday, November 1, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
At 5 :35 p.m., Vice-Mayor Kwok called the meeting to order in Conference Room A of City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue.
ROLL CALL
City Council members present: Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council members Richard
Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: Mayor Sandra James.
INTERVIEWS
1. Conduct interviews for two unscheduled vacanCies on the Telecommunications
Commission.
Council members interviewed David Clark, Andrew Radle, Rakesh Kumar, Douglas
Herda, Eric Klein, Natan Ziv, Shishir Mukherjee, and David Chan. Andrew Radle and
Eric Klein were appointed to terms ending 2007.
RECESS
Council was in recess fÌ'om 6:42 to 6:47 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:47 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the new Council Chamber in the
Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLLCALL
City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council
members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none.
L(- r (
November 1,2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 2
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS
2. Overview of the new Community Hall features and uses.
Public Works Director Ralph Qualls described the features of the new community hall
and how it can be converted ftom a council chamber to a banquet facility or a community
meeting room.
The City Council members talked about the success of the grand opening festivities for
the library and community hall. They thanked all the donors and also thanked the
restaurants that provided ftee refteshments on Saturday, which was attended by over
4,000 people.
Mayor James reordered the agenda so that Oral Communications and Consent Items were moved
to the end of the agenda.
POSTPONEMENTS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Consider amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl
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 (R1) ofthe Cupertino Municipal Code."
Mayor James announced that Council would receive public comment on this item, and
then continue it to a later date for Council discussion and action.
Senior Planner Peter Gilli reviewed the staff report and explained that the Rl regulations
control how tall a building can be and what the setbacks are in the residential zone. He
said in 1999, Council made amendments to the ordinance to reduce mass and bulk of new
construction in neighborhoods, limit the second-story area, limit single-story heights,
create a design review process, and set a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 45%. He
explained that the FARis the amount of building area divided by the size of the lot in
square feet.
L( -I ~
November 1, 2004
Cupertino CIty Council
Page 3
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Dr., urged Council to keep Rl intact. She said that changing the
Rl would allow a return to the type of monster homes that her Rancho Rinconada sought
to avoid by annexing to Cupertino. She also asked Council to retain story poles.
Dennis Whittaker said that the City is being contradictory when it seems to be
downsizing the homes of single-family dwellings, while allowing the remainder of
Cupertino to expand upwards and outwards. He said he was in favor of greater than 35%
for a second story to allow for a more comfortable home.
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed amendment and increased
second story square footage.
Jack Hubby (retain story poles)
Orrin Mahoney
Mark Burns, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Yvonne Hampton, Oak View Lane (delete story pole requirement)
Roy Hampton, Oak View Lane (delete story pole requirement)
Susan Louie, Woodberry Drive (delete story pole requirement)
yitom Yan (but opposed any limitation described as a percentage)
Don Mackenzie
Council concurred to continue this item to November 16,2004.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None
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 ftom October 4),
and adopt the petitions as law or adopt a resolution setting an election date.
Jonathan Stern, vice president of Bay Area Economics, said that the ordinances would
result in fewer incentives for developers to build in Cupertino, and reduced
competitiveness for new office development (which in turn would affect the high value
businesses that Cupertino tries to attract), and reduce employment growth. Stern said that
Cupertino's share of the regional economy, which has been growing over the last decade,
would very likely not grow at the same rate or perhaps even start to shrink as a share of
the regional economy.
Simon Alejandrino, Bay Are Economics, said that the height limits in the proposed
measures would not allow for multi-family units over retail or office uses except in the
Vallco planning area. He said this could lead to higher-priced homes because the lower
density would mean less supply, as well as a limit on affordable housing developments
C( - 13
November 1, 2004
Cupert:no City Council
Page 4
because of the density restrictions. He said that the measures could potentially increase
property values because of higher home prices, but the total amount of property taxes
coming to the City would be reduced because of fewer units built.
Alejandrino said that the measures would lead to a net positive fiscal impact on the City
General Fund, but overall revenues would be lower because of the reduced number of
units and reduced square footage to be built, which would lead to reductions in sales taxes
and other revenue sources.
Alejandrino said that there would be a neutral fiscal impact on the schools. He explained
how the different school districts receive their funding, and said that it is possible that
high-density projects would have a more positive fiscal impact than low-density projects.
He said that Cupertino Union School District officials indicated they can accommodate
any projected new students as part of the General Plan and these proposed measures, but
it was important to note that specific schools might be impacted more than others, which
may force increased busing and higher costs. He said that the Fremont Union High
School District anticipates that it will be over capacity even without any new students
because of a large number of middle school students coming through the system.
Alejandrino said that under both the current conditions and the proposed measures, the
high school district would go over capacity, but the number of students generated is
roughly comparable.
Lee Rosenthal, Goldfarb and Lipman, explained that the housing element must identify
adequate sites with proper zoning, services and utilities to satisfy the community's
housing goals and needs, which include the community share of regional housing. He
said that the initiatives would decrease in density to 15 dwelling units per acre, and make
it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the goals because there is not enough land or
density allowed. Rosenthal said that the initiatives may result in a housing element that
did not comply with state law, and consequences may include lawsuits challenging the
General Plan and the housing element, or the challenging of individual applications for a
permit. He said that a court could chose to shut down all development in the City
pending the City taking action to correct the General Plan. In addition to the court action,
the City could lose funding ftom various State programs. Rosenthal listed some of
remedies, which included the court invalidating the initiatives, or allowing the City to
amend the General Plan. He said the question is whether it would be possible for the City
to make changes to the General Plan and the housing element that would compensate for
the loss of potential units.
Rosenthal also discussed Government Code Section 65-863, which prohibits a city ftom
taking any action to reduce the density of sites that are relied on in a General Plan
housing element to meet the City's needs requirements. The only way the City can act to
reduce that density is if there's a concomitant increase or decrease in the availability of
other sites in order to make up for the loss of density. He said that this is a new statute,
and it is unknown how the courts will enforce it.
If-fl!
November 1, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 5
Rosenthal said there would be no direct conflict between the redevelopment plan and the
initiatives, although in certain limited cases, the City may not be able to apply its General
Plan or ordinances to a redevelopment plan area if there's a direct conflict. Rosenthal also
said the initiatives would not conflict with that settlement agreement, but to the extent
that the initiatives limit heights, densities, and setbacks, and make development of
affordable housing more expensive, that would mean fewer funds to spend on the
redevelopment plan and housing.
Melanie Shaffer-Frietas, housing element consultant, said current housing element was
certified by the State in 2002 to be in conformance with state law. She said that if the
initiatives are passed, there would be an overall reduction in the City's housing capacity,
and Cupertino would not longer be able to show an ability to meet the regional housing
need allocation, particularly for very-low, low- and moderate-income housing. She said
that some of the adopted goals would also be affected, including: (I) Expand the supply
ofresidential units for all economic segments; (2) Develop housing that is affordable for
a diversity of Cupertino households; (3) Conserve and enhance residential
neighborhoods. She discussed alternative strategies, including identifying additional sites
in the Vallco Park Planning District and allow changed General Plan designations to
permit greater density residential use as well as encouraging the conversion of industrial
to residential uses in some other planning districts such as the North DeAnza Boulevard,
Bubb Road, and Monta Vista districts. She said that less effective strategies would be to
revise the below market rate program to include a greater percentage or have deeper
targeting.
The City Clerk reviewed the staff report, and said that the City Council must receive the
certification of sufficiency for the initiative petitions and then either adopt initiatives into
law or set an election date. She said that staff recommended a consolidated election in
November, to vote on both the Council seats and the initiatives, and the estimated cost of
that election would be $300,958.
Charles Ahem, Miller Avenue, said he was opposed to a hasty election because this slate
of conservative initiatives permanently restricts the future of Cupertino and voters need to
consider how their short-term choices may affect future generations. He added that a
special election would also have a very low voter turnout.
Dennis Whittaker read the first part of a letter to Council, which said that the petitions
had been signed by more than 15% of the registered voters and should be resolved by a
vote of the people as soon as possible. He said that if the vote were delayed the issue
would persist as malignant, contentious dispute. He also said that the special election
costs are justified, and that the City is claiming it has insufficient funds for a special
election, but is spending money on consultants and studies.
Rusty Britt continued reading the letter, and said that if the council decides to delay the
vote for more than a year, Concerned Citizens for Cupertino (CCC) is planning to file for
writ of mandate, and she eXplained their interpretation of the election code wording. She
l(-/J
November 1,2004
CupertIno CIty Council
Page 6
said that councilman Lowenthal had urged petition signers to retract their signatures but
only a negligible number, if any, of the signers recanted their signatures
Ned Britt continued reading the letter, and said that it would have required at least 500
retractions to reduce the signature count below 15%. He said that if the matter goes to
court, the CCC would point out that the City Council has taken active opposition to the
initiatives, and council members have repeatedly refused to compromise with CCC. He
asked for a special election to vote on the initiatives.
Jack Hubby said that CCC does not represent him and they did not ask for a special
election in the petition even after the staff advised them how to do so when preparing
their petition. He said he was in favor of a November 2005 election, thereby saving the
city over $300,000.
Jano Banks talked about his pride in being a Cupertino resident, and described how he
and his family had spent a day strolling through the City. He said he felt the General Plan
allows for a reasonable amount of growth, and he would rather have the taxpayers'
money spent on keeping the library open seven days a week instead of on a special
election.
E. J. Conens said he was a concerned citizen of Cupertino and that the Council should
stop stalling and hold a special election.
Robert Levy, Wilkinson Avenue, said he did not think anyone has yet asked for an
analysis of the difference between the administrative draft and the task force draft
regarding housing. He talked about the definition of affordable housing, and said the
Council should stop dragging their feet.
Mark Burns, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber
supported voting on the initiatives in November 2005. He said more study is needed, and
the reports given tonight show the vast negative potential on the city, the economy and
ultimately the community.
Tom Hugunin, La Roda Court said that he had participated in collecting the 4,000
signatures, which may represent 15% of the vote, and he urged that Council call a special
election.
Bob McKibben said he felt that the analysis Bay Area Economics was biased because it
was titled potential economic disadvantages and did not address potential advantages. He
noted that other parts of the report referred to data provided by city staff and developers,
and discussions with key informants. He said that 70%-90% of those contacted by CCC
signed the initiatives, so there are many more than 15% of the population in favor.
Orrin Maltoney, Miramonte Road, said Cupertino is a model community, and although it
is not always perfect, the answer is not to adopt overly restrictive laws that limit the
elected officials' ability to adapt to changing situations.
i..( --- ( (ç
November 1, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 7
Steve Andrews said he did not sign the petition, although he was asked to do so several
times. He said he was told it would not cost the City any more money, and that it would
not require a special election. Andrews said he would applaud the City Council for
saving the taxpayers the cost of a special election.
James Black, spoke in favor of voting on the initiatives in November 2005, and. felt more
time was needed to consider the information presented this evening.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt the staff recommendation to receive
the certificates of sufficiency and call a consolidated election for November 8, 2005.
Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Lowenthal/Wang moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-436, requesting a
consolidated election on November 8 to vote on three council seats and three initiatives,
and setting the argument deadline for August 11, 2005 and the rebuttal deadline for
August 18, 2005. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
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 ftom October 18).
Public Works Director Ralph Qualls reviewed the staff report.
SandovallKwok moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-433. Vote: Ayes:
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
II. 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.
Public Works Director Ralph Qualls reviewed the staff report.
Patrick Kwok explained that he had previously voted no on this matter, and would do so
again because he felt new programs should not be added in times of budget crises.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-434. Vote: Ayes:
James, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: Kwok. Absent: None.
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.
L(-f7
_..,.,--_.,--~-_..._._-_._-_."..,--_..__._.____~.~_____..0-
November 1, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 8
Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood reviewed the staff report.
Kwok/Lowenthal moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-435. Vote: Ayes:
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None.
13. Mayoral succession and date of Council reorganization:
a) Discuss the mayoral succession
Sandoval explained that even though there are patterns that have been followed,
there is no official practice or policy. She said that rather than discriminating
against Council members who are elected in a year when there are three seats to
fill, a less discriminatory approach would be to have each Council member have
the opportunity to serve as Vice-Mayor and Mayor before another Council
member serves a second time.
Council discussed past protocol and alternative scenarios, and agreed that there
was insufficient time to develop a new policy before the next swearing-in
ceremony took place.
Orrin Maltoney, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said that the
Chamber supports keeping the traditional process, which is more stable for the
community. He also spoke for himself and said that a formal process is needed,
but that it should be put off to the future so that it wouldn't affect the current
Council members.
Homer Tong said that if a person is elected to Council, even though they are a
third-vote-getter, they deserve to be Mayor at least once in the process. He said
that regardless of the approach the Council decides on, it would be good to have
an understanding that the Vice-Mayor would move on to be Mayor.
Mark Burns, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, urged the
Council to concentrate on the important issues at hand, not the modification of a
tried and true process that is the tradition and custom of mayoral succession in
Cupertino over the last 50 years. He noted that there have been only 3 exceptions
to the tradition, which involved the health of a Councilmember, and the terming-
out of Council members. He said none of those exceptions apply in this case.
b) Schedule date to elect new mayor and vice-mayor, and to hold a reception for the
outgoing mayor.
Council members concurred to schedule the Council reorganization for Monday,
December 6, at 6:00 p.m.
ORDINANCES - None
4-(1
November 1, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 10
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public Works Director Ralph Qualls showed an diagram of the street and explained the
improvements. He said that when the project went through the Planning Commission and City
Council, there were a number of actions that the City took to protect this single-family
neighborhood, including saving the trees and restricting the Poppy Way ftontage to the single-
family homes. He said that the only things that have changed are the actions that were taken to
protect the neighborhood.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the Poppy Way curb alignment:
· Jane Kamvar, Poppy Way
· Allen Zhao, Poppy Way
· Irene Lin, Wildflower Way
· Siu Kung, Poppy Way
· Edmund Huie, Poppy Way
· Greg Maleski, Poppy Way
· Monir Zandbergs, Flower Court
· Jim Hunts, Poppy Way
· Lloyd Lin, Wildflower Way
Their comments included:
· Object to waiting a year before being allowed to petition for tree removal and 36-foot
wide street
· Most residents were surprised about the curb and signed a petition in opposition
· Asked the Council to put this issue on the next agenda
· The trees should fit in with the rest of the trees in the neighborhood, and these do not
· Safety, not trees, should be of more concern, and the narrow street is unsafe, especially at
night
· Prefer consistent street width over a sidewalk
· Residents had been told that a future developer would remove the fence obstruction and
put in curbs and sidewalks in line with the existing curbs and sidewalks
· The new curb not as visible as the original white fence
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events
including the following: Future funding of the library and potentially losing more hours if the
current tax is not renewed by the voters; the High School Foundation fundraising dinner at
Dynasty Restaurant; Visits ftom the two Sister Cities, and that both now have a student exchange
program; the new Rio Adobe restaurant; and requesting a proclamation for Hunger and Homeless
Awareness Week.
L(-J-û
November 1,2004
Cupertino City Council
Page 11
City Clerk Kimberly Smith announced that the community was invited to a meeting to discuss
the General Plan, which would be held on Monday, November 15 fÌ'om 7:00-9:00 p.m. in the
Senior Center.
CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURNMENT
Kimberly Smith, City Clerk
For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at
www.cupertino.org.Click on Agendas & Minutes/ City Council! Packets.
Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your
convenience fÌ'om our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings.
Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased fÌ'om the Cupertino City
Channel, 777-2364.
tf -cJ !
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-437
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 29,2004
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy ofthe 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 rrom the funds as hereinafter set
forth in Exhibit "A".
CERTIFIED:
c.~
Director of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this l6thdayof NOvember, 2004, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the Citv Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
)- {
10/28/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/25/2004" and "10/29/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
1020
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
611282 V
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL
CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL
CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
611376
611377
611378
611379
611380
611380
611381
611381
611381
611381
611382
611382
611383
611384
611385
611386
1020 611387
1020 611387
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
611388
611389
611390
611390
611390
611390
611390
611391
6113 92
10/22/04 354
ISSUE DT ______________VENDOR_____________ FUND/DEPT
10/29/04 M200S
10/29/04 2982
10/29/04 29
10/29/04 1795
10/29/04 2469
10/29/04 2469
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
1519
1519
1519
1519
J CRAWFORD & ASSOCIATES 5806349
A.A.R.P. 5506549
ABLE UNDERGROUND 1108507
LYNNE DIANE AITKEN 5706450
ALL CHEM SUPPLY CO INC 5208003
CAROL AUGUSTINE
CAROL AUGUSTINE
AUTREY SUPPLY CO INC
AUTREY SUPPLY CO INC
AUTREY SUPPLY CO INC
AUTREY SUPPLY CO INC
SAP AUTO PARTS
SAP AUTO PARTS
1104100
1104100
1108315
1108312
1108314
1108303
6308840
6308840
BATTERY SYSTEMS
BARKOFF CONTAINER & SUPP 5208003
6308840
BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS
BRIDGE WIRELESS
1104300
1108503
BROWING~FERRIS INDUSTRIE 5208003
BROWING-FERRIS INDUSTRIE 5208003
CARTER, JUSTIN
CALIFORNIA SAFETY & CLEA 6308840
1100000
CASH
CASH
CASH
CASH
CASH
CHEUNG, MICHELLE
CHRIST, RHONDA
RUN DATE 10/28/04 TIME 09;40;51
10/29/04
10/29/04
968
968
10/29/04 3154
10/29/04 720
10/29/04 100
10/29/04 2063
10/29/04 2895
10/29/04 2895
10/29/04 124
10/29/04 ME2005
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
146
146
146
146
146
10/29/04 M
10/29/04 M
1106343
1106200
1106344
5706450
5806349
580
580
---~~DESCRIPTION------
SPORTS,FUN & GAMES
(30) 55-ALIVE COURSE
CLEARED DRAIN
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
CONTAINERS A25048
GASB 45 PUBLICATION
TRAINING 10/25,26
GOAL LINE PAINT
GOAL LINE PAINT
GOAL LINE PAINT
GOAL LINE PAINT
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
SUPPLIES
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
RADIO REPAIRS
VOLUME AUG2004
VOLUME SEPT2004
GLOVES A26623
REPLACE LOST CK 71311
P. CASH
P.CASH
P.CASH
P CASH
P.CASH
10/04-10/26
10/04-10/26
10/04-10/26
10/04-10/26
10/04~10/26
Refund; Check
Return
Refund: Check - FALL E
SALES TAX
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
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cß-/
PAGE 1
AMOUNT
-606.00
300.00
125.00
140.00
211.35
15.00
500.70
515.70
767.31
767.31
767.31
767.30
3069.23
94.65
46.68
141.33
552.95
110.85
187.40
46.80
110639.31
107903.96
218543.27
211.88
7.60
61. 96
5.00
18.99
9.41
158.73
254.09
750.00
180.00
~ FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
<)-.2
10/28/0' CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: traDsact . trans_date between "10/25/2004" and "10/29/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ------~-------VENDOR---------~--- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 611393 10/29/04 187 MARYJ CRAWFORD 5806349 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 606.00
1020 611394 10/29/04 2929 CSMFO 1104000 DUES FOR 2005 ATWOOD 0.00 100.00
1020 611395 10/29/04 1579 CUPERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108503 G-33 RENT NOV2004 0.00 217. 00
1020 611395 10/29/04 1579 CUPERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC llOSSO! G-34 RENT NOV20Q4 0.00 217. 00
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 434. 00
1020 611396 10/29/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1104510 DOT PHYSICAL M.LABRIE O. 00 55. 00
1020 611396 10/29/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1104510 DOT PHYSICAL MABUTAS 0 .00 55. 00
1020 611396 10/29/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP B P. TOGNETTI O. 00 16. 00
TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 126. 00
1020 611397 10/29/04 1306 CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTR 4239222 CUSD MOP 369-31-033 0 .00 300. 00
1020 611398 10/29/04 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 9. 99
1020 611398 10/29/04 19. CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108321 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 151. 68
1020 611398 10/29/04 19. CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5606640 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 67.74
1020 611398 10/29/04 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108501 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 12.28
1020 611398 10/29/04 19. CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108504 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 156. 10
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 397.79
1020 611399 10/29/04 1034 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATIO 1101500 NO. CA COURT RULES 0 .00 278. 00
1020 611399 10/29/04 1034 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATIO 1101500 DAILY JOURNAL RENEWAL 0 .00 679. 81
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 957. 81
1020 611400 10/29/04 3177 NINA DARUWALLA 1104400 SERVICE 10/21-10/27 0 .00 200. 00
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 JANITORIAL OCT2004 .00 6244 .50
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108407 RESTOCKING SUPPLIES .00 1018. 96
1020 611401 10/29/04 Z09 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108303 RESTOCKING SUPPLIES o. 00 1500.11
1020 611401 10/29/04 Z09 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108302 RESTOCKING SUPPLIES .00 750.07
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108315 RESTOCKING SUPPLIES 0.00 750. 07
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 JANITORIAL OCT2004 0.00 2399. 88
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108503 JANITORIAL OCT2004 0.00 2008. 63
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 JANITORIAL OCT2004 0 .00 2228 .38
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108508 JANITORIAL OCT2004 o. 00 141 .53
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 RESTOCKING SUPPLIES 0.00 4500. 39
1020 611401 10/29/04 Z09 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108511 JANITORIAL OCT2004 0 .00 1163 .89
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108505 JANITORIAL OCT2 0 04 0 .00 3535 .12
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5708510 JANITORIAL OCT2004 0.00 5311. 03
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 JANITORIAL OCT2 0 04 0 .00 346.84
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 JANITORIAL OCT2 0 04 0 .00 714.28
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606620 SPECIAL SERV SEPT04 0 .00 3394.12
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606640 JANITORIAL OCT2004 0 .00 901.29
1020 611401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606620 ADDITIONAL CLEANING 0 .00 321. 37
1020 511401 10/29/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 OVERCHARGE 0 .00 -1906. H
TOTAL CHECK .00 35324 .12
1020 611402 10/29/04 850 DIDDAMS AMAZING PARTY ST 1106343 DANCE SUPPLIES 22532 0.00 36. 61
RUN DATE 10/28/04 TIME 09:40:51
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
5-3
10/28/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD, 4/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/25/2004" and "10/29/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
1020
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
611403
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
611404
611405
611406
611407
611408
611409
611409
611410
611411
611411
611411
611411
611412
611412
611412
611412
611413
611414
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
611415
10/29/04 3093
ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT
5706450
10/29/04 228
10/29/04 1434
10/29/04 239
10/29/04 3147
10/29/04 3068
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04 268
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
2361
2361
2476
2476
2476
2476
281
281
281
281
10/29/04 3132
10/29/04 ME2005
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
Q . C . DOUGHTY
DUBAY'S TIRE SERVICE INC 6308840
EDWARD S. WALSH CO. 1108303
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1108505
MARTHA ENGBER 5706450
ARTHUR J. BROTHERTON 1108312
FIRST BANKCARD
FIRST BANKCARD
1103500
1101000
FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108303
M M
M M
M M
M M
I POWER EQUIPMENT
I POWER EQUIPMENT
I POWER EQUIPMENT
POWER EQUIPMENT
GARDENLAND
GARDENLAND
GARDENLAND
GARDENLAND
GATHERS, BRIAN
SOPHIE GIARETTA
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
GRAINGER INC
RUN DATE 10/28/04 TIME 09:40:52
1108503
1108503
1108503
1108503
1108303
6308840
6308840
6308840
1108201
5706450
1108303
2708405
1108303
1108303
6308840
6308840
6308840
1108504
1108830
5708510
1108503
1108503
1108503
1108303
1108503
-----DESCRIPTION------
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
AUTO REPAIRS
BACKFLOW REPAIR KITS
SUPPLIES
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
FENCE RENTAL A26617
STATEMENT OCT2004
STATEMENT OCT2004
KEY/LOCK SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES 20103
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
SPRAY LICENSE/GATHERS
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
PARTS/SUPPLIES A27221
PARTS/SUPPLIES 27125
PARTS/SUPPLIES A26630
PARTS/SUPPLIES A27221
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
PAGE 3
AMOUNT
568.00
1074.35
1376.18
81.78
350.00
300.00
157.30
63.33
220.63
124.39
66.18
42.66
242.44
242.44
593.72
48.98
302.68
102.01
29.02
482.69
60.00
304.00
419.82
26.74
533 .87
24.21
29.12
140.20
286.04
53.48
106.22
67.18
153.20
19.23
333.55
79.73
120.89
2393.48
'7-C(
10/28/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4
ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 4/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA; transact. trans ~date between "10/25/2004" and "10/29/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 611416 10/29/04 2630 GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOC 6204550 W.COMP ADMINSTRATION O. 00 1653.75
1020 611416 10/29/04 2630 GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOC 6204550 BILL REVIEW 9/2004 O. 00 1738.79
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 3392 .54
1020 611417 10/29/04 2116 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 2709450 PAVEMENT MGMNT UPDATE 0 .00 2218.50
1020 611418 10/29/04 3211 HARTFORD-PRIORITY ACCTS 110 LIFE IN SUR. OCT2004 0.00 5357.25
1020 611418 10/29/04 3211 HARTFORD-PRIORITY ACCTS 110 AD&D OCT2004 O. 00 892.88
TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 6250.13
1020 611419 10/29/04 329 HERNING UNDERGROUND SUpp 1108830 CRISTY BOXES A26618 0 .00 175 .69
1020 611419· 10/29/04 329 HERNING UNDERGROUND SUPP 1108830 CRISTY BOXES A26618 0 .00 280. n
TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 456.60
1020 611420 10/29/04 2612 RONALD HOGUE 5506549 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR O. 00 200.00
1020 611421 10/29/04 1898 HORIZON 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 495. 11
1020 611421 1'0/29/04 1898 HORIZON 1108314 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 495. 10
1020 611421 10/29/04 1898 HORIZON 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 495. 11
1020 611421 10/29/04 1898 HORIZON 1108315 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 495. 10
1020 611421 10/29/04 1898 HORIZON 1108407 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 380. 34
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 2360. 76
1020 611422 10/29/04 341 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 3408. 00
1020 611423 10/29/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 87 .27
1020 611423 10/29/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108314 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 87 .27
1020 611423 10/29/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108302 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 87 .27
1020 611423 10/29/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108315 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 87.26
1020 611423 10/29/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 87. 27
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 436. 34
1020 611424 10/29/04 M2005 INTERSTATE POLE INDUSTRI 1108501 FLAG SUPPLIES 0.00 93. 09
1020 611425 10/29/04 1981 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 1106448 BARRACADES A25S39 O. 00 608. 00
1020 611426 10/29/04 M KANG. IN KYUNG 580 Refund; Check - FALL E 0 .00 143.00
1020 611427 10/29/04 1166 KERLEY'S HUNTING & FISHI 1108303 WADERS A26631 0.00 85.72
1020 611428 10/29/04 1630 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INC 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 8148.00
1020 611429 10/29/04 1972 KIMBALL-MIDWEST 6308840 RETURNED SUPPLIES 0.00 -47 .7'
1020 611429 10/29/04 1972 KIMBALL-MIDWEST 6308840 SUPPLIES A26626 0.00 332. 72
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 284. 98
1020 611430 10/29/04 2335 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES 4209544 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0.00 11730. 76
1020 611431 10/29/04 372 KINKO'S INC 2708403 SUPPLIES 20393 0.00 8.53
1020 611432 10/29/04 3067 KMVT 15 1101031 PUBLIC ACCESS SEPT04 0.00 3494.16
RUN DATE 10/28/04 TIME 09:40:52
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
)-)
10/28/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD, 4/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA; transact.trans_dar.e between "10/25/2004" and "10/29/2004"
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
ISSUE Dr ______________VENDOR_____________ FUND/DEPT
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
611433
611434
611435
611436
611437
611438
611439
611440
611440
611441
611442
611443
611444
611445
611446
611446
611446
611447
611447
611447
611447
611447
611448
611449
611450
611451
611452
10/29/04 382
10/29/04 ME200S
10/29/04 3228
10/29/04 400
10/29/04 M
10/29/04 1463
10/29/04 3011
10/29/04 2554
10/29/04 2554
10/29/04 3246
10/29/04 2726
10/29/04 465
10/29/04 2183
10/29/04 3139
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
484
484
484
DAYTON PRINTING INC.
LA BRIE, MARC
LYJA LEVAS
LIFETIME TENNIS INC
LUN, SUSAN
5506549
1108201
5706450
5706450
580
MANNING, COLLEEN
MAACO AUTO PAINTING & BO 6308840
5706450
MCMASTER-CARR
MCMASTER-CARR
MOOREHEAD PUBLISHING
** MOSS & BARNETT
1108501
1108321
1104400
MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108314
1101031
MPLC:MOTION PICTURE LICE 5506549
NEIGHBRHD HSG SVC SILICO 1107405
NEW PIG
NEW PIG
NEW PIG
CORP
CORP
CORP
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
493
493
493
493
493
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
RONALD OLDS
PACIFIC COAST FLAG
PAPA
PAPERDIRECT INC
1108005
1108005
1108005
1107405
1107405
1108201
1107503
1107405
1103500
1108501
1108201
PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 1108101
1103300
RUN DATE 10/28/04 TIME 09:40:52
10/29/04 1190
10/29/04 1039
10/29/04 1952
10/29/04 520
10/29/04 526
-----DESCRIPTION------
NOV/DEC NEWLETTERS
SPRAY LICENSE/LA BRIE
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
SERVICE 9/27-10/21/04
Refund: Check - FALL E
AUTO REPAIRS
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
EMERGENCY PLAN LOGO
SERVo FRANCHISE RNWL
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
PICTURE LICENSING FEE
TEACHER HOUSING SEPT4
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
A26616
A26616
A26616
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
REF: 261475593001
PREVENTIVE MAINT.
SUPPLIES
SPRAY CLASS (4)
PROCLAMATIONS
BMP SHEETS
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
.00
0.00
0.00
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
PAGE 5
AMOUNT
681.98
60.00
315.00
20976.96
108.00
1897.40
58.49
194.88
26.28
221.16
886.57
344.50
35.18
187.00
1666.66
95.14
431. 93
30.85
557.92
68.19
68.19
64.12
89.83
-68.19
222.14
920.00
59.58
220.00
177.87
70.90
)-~
10/28/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/25/2004" and "10/29/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
1020
CASH AceT CHECK NO
611453
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
611454
611455
611456
611457
611458
611459
611460
611461
611462
611463
611464
611465
611466
611466
611467
611468
611469
611469
611469
611470
611470
611471
611472
611473
611473
611473
611473
ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT
6308840
10/29/04 690
10/29/04 545
10/29/04 546
10/29/04 3149
10/29/04 1810
10/29/04 509
10/29/04 2802
10/29/04 3236
10/29/04 2833
10/29/04 2876
10/29/04 959
10/29/04 1026
10/29/04 628
10/29/04 633
10/29/04 633
10/29/04 2875
10/29/04 659
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
2810
2810
2810
PENINSULA FORD
JEFF PISERCHIO
PITNEY BOWES INC
MELISSA PITTILLO
5606640
1104310
5706450
PW SUPERMARKETS INC
PLAYGROUND BY DESIGN, IN 1108303
5806349
QUANTUM DESIGN
GREG RIMANICH
THEA RUNYAN
1103600
1104400
5706450
SAN JOSE BUSINESS JOURNA 1104000
1104000
THE MERCURY NEWS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 1102100
1104510
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 1108601
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5806349
RICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE C 1104310
SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 5806449
SMART
SMART
SMART
& FINAL
& FINAL
& FINAL
10/29/04
10/29/04
2320
2320
SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL
SNAP~ON INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALTY TRUCKS
MARTHA MARIA STEINER
SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET
SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET
SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET
SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET
RUN DATE 10/28/04 TIME 09:40:52
10/29/04 667
10/29/04 2513
10/29/04 1406
10/29/04 1406
10/29/04 1406
10/29/04 1406
1106344
5806249
1106343
6308840
6308840
6308840
5506549
6308840
6308840
6308840
6308840
-----DESCRIPTION----~-
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
SERVICE 10/13-10/26
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
SUPPLIES
PRESCHOOL SPLY 25801
OCT2004 HOSTING FEE
MRC REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
RENEWAL
11/16-1/24/05
MBRSHIP FEE FY2004/05
LAW ENFORCEMENT OCT04
TRNMNT BANDS 10/09
DANCE 10/15
H3720300010 NOV2004
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
SUPPLIES A26457
SUPPLIES A26457
SUPPLIES A25764
SHOP TOOLS A25567
SHOP TOOLS A25567
MUD FLAPS 20282
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC
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
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
PAGE 6
AMOUNT
120.16
1995.00
591.00
480.00
28.08
37.09
1500.00
1416.30
360.00
74.95
37.89
6180.00
507771.50
489.38
336.72
826.10
1057.60
1546.00
103.42
9.07
56.68
169.17
24.96
25.17
50.13
21.65
320.00
9.70
98.96
13.33
14.61
)-7
10/28/0'
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "10/25/2004" and "10/29/2004"
.FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
TOTAL CHECK
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
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
611474
611475
611476
611476
611476
611476
611477
611478
6U479
611480
611481
611482
611483
611484
611485
611486
611487
611488
611489
611490
611491
611492
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT
611493
TOTAL FUND
TOTAL REPORT
ISSUE Dr --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT
10/29/04 1825
10/29/04 2187
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
10/29/04
701
701
701
701
10/29/04 M
10/29/04 1647
10/29/04 310
10/29/04 M
10/29/04 746
10/29/04 745
10/29/04 M
10/29/04 3216
10/29/04 M2005
10/29/04 M2005
10/29/04 M2005
10/29/04 M2005
10/29/04 792
10/29/04 M2005
10/29/04 3225
10/29/04 2786
10/29/04 799
RUN DATE 10/28/04 TIME 09:40:52
SUPERIOR FRICTION
T.C.S.A.
TARGET STORES
TARGET STORES
TARGET STORES
TARGET STORES
!RAN, MAl
U S POSTMASTER
VERIZON WIRELESS
VIDYASAGAR, AARATHI
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS
VMI INC
WARNER, SANDRA
ANDREW WILLYOUNG
WONG, GILBERT
WONG, GILBERT
WONG, GILBERT
WONG, GILBERT
LILY WU
YANG, BRUCE
ANITA YEE
6308840
2708405
5806349
5706450
5706450
1106343
580
1106100
1104400
580
6308840
4239222
580
5506549
1100000
1100000
1100000
1100000
5706450
110
5706450
ZANKER ROAD LANDFILL
YUAN CHIH DANCE OF AMERI 5506549
5208003
~----DESCRIPTION------
BRAKE PARTS A26632
MBRSHP RNWL (5)
SUPPLIES 25897
SUPPLIES 25467
SUPPLIES 25415
SUPPLIES 22531
Refund: Check - FALL:
ANNUAL RNWL PRMT 341
870248283 10/16-11/15
Refund: Check - FALL
SHOP SUPPLIES A26633
AMX TOUCH PANEL
Refuod: Check - FALL E
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
CK 73455 3/12/04
CK.73907 4/09/04
CK 74354 5/07/04
CK 66786 4/11/03
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
REFD ENCROACH BOND
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
COMPOST DLVRY 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
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 7
AMOUNT
136.60
251. 76
120.00
20.85
23.79
38.80
59.21
142.65
47.00
150.00
45.28
55.00
183.13
4200.10
180.00
240.00
98.55
49.27
98.55
98.55
114.00
500.00
140.00
240.00
100.00
875912.48
875912.48
875912.48
5-{
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-438
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
NOVEMBER 05, 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 ITom the funds as hereinafter set
forth in Exhibit "A".
CERTIFIED:
~~a ~;J
Director of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of Novemhi!r: ,2004, by the following vote:
Vote Members ofthe City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
>-1
11/04/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
1020
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
611359 V
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
l020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
611397 V
611494
611495
611496
611497
611498
611498
611498
611499
611500
611501
611502
611503
611504
611505
611505
611505
611505
611505
611506
611506
611507
611508
611508
611509
611509
611509
611509
611509
10/22/04 M200S
ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT
5506549
10/29/04 1306
11/05/04 4
11/05/04 96
n/OS/04 2469
11/05/04 M
11/05/04
11/05/04
U/05/04
968
968
968
TOUR CORPORATION
CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTR 4239222
4239222
A T & T
CAROL AUGUSTINE
ARROWHEAD MTN SPRING WAT 5606620
1104100
BAGE, KSHAMA
BAP AUTO PARTS
BAP AUTO PARTS
BAP AUTO PARTS
BATTERY SYSTEMS
BELLAFRESCA FOODS
580
6308840
6308840
6308840
6308840
5806349
BURNS, KITTY
BEST ROOFING AND WATERPR 4209227
5506549
CALIFORNIA CAD SOLUTIONS 6109853
THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
CARBONE, DIANA
CARIAGA, LOURDES
CARIAGA, LOURDES
CASH
CASH
CASH
CASH
CASH
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08;35;21
11/05/04 720
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04 3233
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04 2682
11/05/04 127
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
132
132
132
132
132
11/05/04
11/05/04
1476
1476
11/05/04 M
11/05/04 2232
11/05/04 2232
11/05/04 149
11/05/04 149
11/05/04 149
11/05/04 149
11/05/04 149
1103500
1108508
1108407
1108314
1108509
1108321
110
110
580
110
110
1104400
1100000
1101000
1104000
6308840
-----DESCRIPTION-~----
VAMPIRE TOUR 10/29
CUSD MOP 369-31-033
SEPT2004 STATEMENT
BOTTLED DRINKING WTR
EXPENSES 10/25,26,27
Refund; Check - REFUND
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
PUMPKINS A26455
RE-ROOFING/BLUE PHSNT
VAMPIRE TOUR 10/29
MAPGUIDE APPL/HOSTING
PROGRAMMING NOV2004
9/22-10/20
9/22-10/20
9/22-10/20
9/22-10/20
9/25-10/25
FOUNTAIN
ARCHITECT REVIEW
ARCHITECT REVIEW
Refund; Check - Return
SSGARNSMNT
CSGARNSMNT
P.CASH 10/26-11/03
P.CASH 10/26-11/03
P.CASH 10/26-11/03
P.CASH 10/26-11/03
P.CASH 10/26-11/03
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 1
AMOUNT
-450.00
-300.00
39.06
65.13
75.00
100.00
28.48
55.08
36.89
120.45
70.25
124.25
70430.40
450.00
5200.00
253.34
46.64
3517.95
2843.55
139.60
26.20
6573.94
1000.00
770.60
1770.60
300.00
103.84
306.50
410.34
50.42
-0.10
55.00
22.70
10.00
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
'7 -(f)
11/04/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2
ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - no - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 611509 11/05/04 149 CASH 4239222 P.CASH 10/26-11/03 o. 00 17. 83
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 155. 85
1020 611510 11/05/04 2125 CASHIER-DEPT OF PESTICID 1108408 LICENSE RNWL JENSEN o. 00 60. 00
1020 611511 11/05/04 3089 CEITRONICS, INC. 4239222 CC&L AUDIOVISUAL PRJ. o. 00 225572. 14
1020 611512 11/05/04 1057 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC no '"FLEX DEP/240125 o. 00 15l. 92
1020 611512 11/05/04 1057 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC no '"FLEX HLTH/240125 o. 00 771.03
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 922.95
1020 611513 11/05/04 1820 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC no FSA ADM OCT2004 o. 00 63.00
1020 611514 11/05/04 1156 CHA no CHA 0 .00 117.00
1020 611515 11/05/04 M CHANG, WILLIAM 580 Refund: Check FALL E 0 .00 13 .00
1020 611516 11/05/04 M CHAO, CHARLIE 580 Refund: Check - Return 0 .00 300 .00
1020 611517 11/05/04 1612 BARRIE D COATE no ARBORIST REVIEW o. 00 440 .83
1020 611518 11/05/04 2794 COLLEGIATE PACIFIC 5706450 SUPPLIES A25692 o. 00 20l. 78
1020 611519 11/05/04 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT no '"COLONIAL/E7013899 0.00 283. 08
1020 611519 11/05/04 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT no COLONIAL/E7013899 0.00 363 .17
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 646 .25
1020 611520 11/05/04 3100 COM CAST 5708510 11/06-12/06 0 .00 91 .90
1020 611521 11/05/04 2857 CONCUR INC 2159620 SCVWD MEETINGS o. 00 15471. 00
1020 611522 11/05/04 2447 CONSOLIDATED PLASTICS CO 5208003 32 GALS BRUTE CONTAINE o. 00 675 .52
1020 611523 11/05/04 3032 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SER 4239222 WELD INSPECTION CC&L 0 .00 168.00
1020 611524 11/05/04 183 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC no GEOLOGIC REVIEW 0 .00 1983.75
1020 611524 11/05/04 183 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC no GEOLOGIC REVIEW o. 00 402. 50
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 2386 .25
1020 611525 11/05/04 197 CTC FUNDING, LLe 1101500 ATTORNEY/RENT NOV04 o. 00 3225. 00
1020 611526 11/05/04 M Coleman, William 550 Refund; Check - Class 0 .00 BO. 00
1020 611527 11/05/04 201 DAPPER TIRE CO 6308840 FY 2004 2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 340 .66
1020 611528 11/05/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108303 COST OF LIVING INC. 0.00 119. 27
1020 611528 11/05/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108407 COST OF LIVING INC. 0.00 119. 27
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 238. 54
1020 611529 11/05/04 1838 DELL MARKETING L.P. 6104800 SUPPLIES 15598 o. 00 408.87
1020 611529 11/05/04 1838 DELL MARKETING L.P. 6109856 LATITUDE 0800 512 MBRA o. 00 3951.44
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35;21
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
)- /I
11/04/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE J
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - llO - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION--~--- SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 611529 11/05/04 1838 DELL MARKETING L.P. 1107405 LATITUDE 0800 512 MBRA 0.00 28 . 95
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4389 .26
1020 611530 11/05/04 21' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA ll08602 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SAFETY 0.00 131. 52
1020 6ll53l 11/05/04 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES A26458 0.00 112. 96
1020 611532 11/05/04 223 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 2308004 STREET SWEEP OCT2004 0 .00 8456 .40
1020 611532 ll/05/04 223 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 STREET SWEEP OCT2004 o. 00 425. 00
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 8881. 40
1020 611533 11/05/04 1434 EDWARD S. WALSH CO. 2109612 MANHOLE HOOK A26636 o. 00 92.56
1020 611534 11/05/04 242 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 SIT/9320-0014-5 0 .00 14777. 24
1020 611535 11/05/04 243 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 SDI/776-5260~0 0 .00 1196 .'88
1020 611536 11/05/04 2077 ESRI 6104800 ARCVIEW PRIMARY MAINT o. 00 1041 .25
1020 611537 11/05/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 COURIER SERV R27149 o. 00 12 .32
1020 611537 11/05/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 COURIER SERVICE 0 .00 12. 83
1020 611537 ll/OS/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 COURIER SERV R25363 0.00 14 .58
1020 611537 11/05/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1101070 COURIER SERVICE o. 00 17.60
TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 57 .33
1020 611538 11/05/04 M2005 FEES, SCOTT 4239222 CC&L SUPPLIES o. 00 775 .35
1020 611539 11/05/04 2493 FIRST AMERICAN 6104800 RENEWAL 2004-05 WITH 5 o. 00 8195.88
1020 611540 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108502 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 38 .37
1020 611540 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1104400 OCT2004 STATEMENT .00 176 .56
1020 611540 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 10 .32
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 225 .25
1020 611541 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101000 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 208.05
1020 611542 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108503 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 161. 00
1020 611542 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108504 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 152 .39
1020 611542 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108502 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 70.35
1020 611542 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5708510 OCT2004 STATEMENT .00 574.73
1020 611542 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108314 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 31 .38
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 989 .85
1020 611543 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5506549 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 129. 00
1020 611544 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 4239222 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 360.00
1020 611544 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806349 OCT2004 STATEMENT o. 00 100.42
1020 611544 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806249 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 71.38
1020 611544 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5706450 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 187. 96
1020 611544 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106360 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 60. 53
1020 611544 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106647 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 16 .60
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
)-/~
11(04(04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact .trans date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR-------~----- FUND/DEFT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 796.89
1020 611545 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103600 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 1654 .95
1020 611545 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5506640 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 56 .95
1020 611545 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1104000 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 63. 60
1020 611545 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 6104800 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 805. 38
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 2580. 88
1020 611546 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108101 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 1143. 34
1020 611546 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108505 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0.00 '73 .88
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1217 .22
1020 611547 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806649 OCT2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 153 .07
1020 611548 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 4239222 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 573.95
1020 611548 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5208003 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 265 .70
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 839. 65
1020 611549 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108511 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 107 .10
1020 611549 11/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108506 OCT2004 STATEMENT O. 00 25 .95
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 133 .05
1020 611550 11/05/04 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108502 REKEY SCHLAGE IC CORES O. 00 1090. 29
1020 611550 11/05/04 268 FOSTER BRaS SECURITY SYS 4239222 REKEY SCHLAGE IC CORES 0.00 3081 .51
1020 611550 11/05/04 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108501 LOCK/KEY SUPPLIES O. 00 259.32
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 4431.22
1020 611551 11/05/04 281 GARDENLAND 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 25.36
1020 611551 11/05/04 281 GARDENLAND 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 47.05
1020 611551 11/0S/04 281 GARDENLAND 5606620 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26021 O. 00 137.69
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 210.10
1020 611552 11/05/04 ME200S GEISSHIRT, GARY 1108201 SPRAY LCNSE GEISSHIRT O. 00 60.00
1020 611553 11/05/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 6104800 BACKUP PRO MS PUBLISHE O. 00 753.43
1020 611553 11/05/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 6104800 SYMANTEC GHOST 8. 0 ENT 0.00 535.84
1020 611553 11/05/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 5208003 PLANAR SYSTEM ACROBAT 0.00 40.58
1020 611553 11/05/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 6104800 PLANAR SYSTEM ACROBAT O. 00 876.27
1020 611553 11/05/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 5208003 PLANAR SYSTEM ACROBAT .00 542.89
1020 611553 11/05/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 6104800 PLANAR SYSTEM ACROBAT 0.00 65.51
1020 611553 11/05/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 6104800 PLANAR SYSTEM ACROBAT 0.00 15.37
1020 611553 11/0S/04 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. S208003 PLANAR SYSTEM ACROBAT 0.00 9.53
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2839.42
1020 611554 11/05/04 298 GRAINGER INe 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe 0 .00 250 .49
1020 611554 11/05/04 298 GRAINGER INe 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 43 .50
1020 611554 11/0S/04 298 GRAINGER INe 1108501 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe 0 .00 48 .77
1020 611554 11/05/04 298 GRAINGER INe 1108501 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 46 .16
1020 611554 11/0S/04 298 GRAINGER INe 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 34.87
1020 611554 11/05/04 298 GRAINGER INe 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe 0.00 22. 78
1020 611554 11/05/04 298 GRAINGER INe 1108830 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe 0.00 124 .68
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
5"-/3
11/04/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans~date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
1020 611554
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
611555
611555
611555
611555
611555
611556
611557
611557
611557
611558
611559
611560
611561
611561
611561
611561
611561
611561
611561
611561
611561
611561
611561
611562
611563
611564
611565
611566
611567
611568
611569
ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT
11/05/04 298
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
2531
2531
2531
2531
2531
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
3026
3026
3026
11/05/04 2906
11/05/04 ME2005
11/05/04 3111
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04 343
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
334
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04 1934
11/05/04 2285
11/05/04 M
11/05/04 2238
11/05/04 M
11/05/04 2882
GRAINGER INC
1108504
GURSHARN SIDHU
GURSHARN SIDHU
GURSHARN SIDHU
GURSHARN SIDHU
GURSHARN SIDHU
5606620
5606620
5806649
4209227
4209227
HANIF, DEENA
5600000
HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST 110
HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST 110
HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST 110
HEMBREE, TODD
1108408
TONY VASQUEZ
1104510
HOBEE'S DE ANZA
1101000
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 5606640
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 5606620
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 2708403
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108501
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 5606620
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 2708403
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 2708405
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108312
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108503
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108314
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 5606640
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110
INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS PU 1108005
JIM'S REFRIGERATION
5606620
KATHRYN KELLY JOESTEN
1106265
JU, SZEWEI
580
K.C.COMPRESSOR WORKS INC 1108501
KESTERSON, DENICE
580
ROBERT A. KIM
4239222
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
-~---DESCRIPTION------
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT
OVERHEAD WIRE REPAIRS
MCCLELLAN/REPAIRS
BLUE PHEASANT RESTAURA
BLUE PHEASANT RESTAURA
PART.REFD/ANNUAL PASS
UNREP 1539-0004
OE3 1539-0005
CEA 1539-0006
LICENSE RNWL HEMBREE
TRAVEL COORDINATOR AD
MAYOR'S BRKFAST 10/19
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
PARTS/SUPPLIES
*ICMA
26017
26019
20134
26625
26020
20136
20317
13080
20384
20106
26017
SAFETY ALERT/RENEWAL
REFRIGERATION REPAIRS
SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
Refund: Check - FALL E
CHAMPION HR315 D-8CC C
VIDEOTAPING/C. PLAZA
Refund: Check - FALL E
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
0.00
0.00
PAGE 5
AMOUNT
229.92
801.17
3650.00
2675.00
650.00
1350.00
6100.00
14425.00
382.00
3979.29
4197.58
6004.08
14180.95
60.00
402.00
123.86
-16.18
266.70
49.67
101.29
199.26
44.25
14.04
18.87
53.94
43.08
152.39
927.31
6544.54
117.00
560.00
137.50
26.00
4412.27
13.00
800.00
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
5-1L(
11/04/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK RÉGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "J.J./0J./2004" and "J.J./05/2004"
FUND - 110 ~ GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
611570
611571
611572
611573
611574
611575
611576
611577
611577
611578
611579
611580
611581
611582
611583
611583
611583
611583
611583
611583
611583
611583
611583
611583
611584
611584
611585
611586
611586
611586
611586
ISSUE DT --------·-----VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT
11105/04 1972
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04 2999
11/05/04 2912
11/05/04 2356
11/05/04 1599
11/05/04 2567
11/05/04 471
11/05/04 471
11/05/04 302
11/05/04 3109
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04 1358
11/05/04 2488
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
KIMBALL~MIDWEST
6308840
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04 M2005
11/05/04 501
11/05/04 833
11/05/04 833
11/05/04 833
11/05/04 833
KUBOTA, UlNA
1103300
LESCO
1108312
LUCKY I & I PORTABLE SER 5208003
LYNX TECHNOLOGIES
6109853
MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK
1104510
MISDU
110
MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPAN 6308840
MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPAN 6308840
NATIONAL DEFERRED CaMPEN 110
NATIONAL ELEVATOR CO. IN 5708510
NETZEL, JIM
110
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMEN 6308840
POWERPLAN
6308840
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE DEPOT
1104400
1104000
1104300
1104530
1107503
1107301
5806249
1108201
5806249
1104310
OLD COUNTRY ROOFING
OLD COUNTRY ROOFING
1100000
110
OPERATING ENGINEERS #3
110
PER S
PER S
PER S
PER S
110
110
110
110
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
-----DESCRIPTION------
SUPPLIES A26638
SISTER CITY BBQ REIMB
FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC
RENTAL
04/05 BASEMAP MAINT.
EMPLYEE ASSIST. NOV04
J TRYBUS 385960533
SUPPLIES A26634
REPIAR SPLY A25513
*NAT'L DEF
MAINTENANCE NOV04
DEV MAINT FEE REFUND
SOLAR PANELS A26635
FUEL CAP 20284
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PERMIT FEES REFUND
PERMIT FEES REFUND
UNION DUES
PERS OE3
PERS EM/OE
PERS SPEC
PERS BUYBACK
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
0.0'0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
PAGE 6
AMOUNT
317.08
465.04
147.38
92.01
3025.00
944.62
221.50
178.67
181.65
360.32
16635.04
15.00
829.72
106.22
54.43
249.65
124.99
43.43
175.46
53.59
.12
59.18
142.73
52.43
338.41
1245.99
266.76
1. 90
268.66
685.35
3180.74
3180.74
152.19
471.53
f)-/J
11/04./04.
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
611586
611586
611586
611587
611587
611588
611588
611589
611589
611590
611590
611590
611590
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611591
611592
611593
611594
611595
611595
ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------+ FUND/DEPT
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04 833
11/05/04 833
11/05/04 1039
11/05/04 1039
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04 515
11/05/04 1952
11/05/04 1952
11/05/04 526
11/05/04 526
833
833
833
2444
2444
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
513
PER S
PER S
PER S
PER S
PER S
PACIFIC COAST FLAG
PACIFIC COAST FLAG
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
no
no
no
no
no
1108501
1108501
1108830
1108101
1104400
1108602
1108506
4239222
5708510
1108314
1108504
1108511
1108505
1108315
5208003
5606620
5606640
1108506
1108507
1108407
1108501
1108503
1108303
1108312
1108602
1108830
PAPA
PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501
1108407
PAPA
1108201
PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222
PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 110
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
-----DESCRIPTION------
PERS EMPLY
PERS BUYBACK
PERS 1959
PERS 1959
PERS EMPL Y
FLAG SUPPLIES
FLAG SUPPLIES
9/22-10/20
9/22-10/20
WIRELESS
10/01-10/28 OES
10/01-10/28
9/28-10/26 4H
8/31-9/29 LIBRARY
8/27-10/28
B;27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
8/27-10/28
SERVICE CALL 10/06
ANNUAL DUES (8)
RNWL S.TOGNETTI 12199
CC&L PH2 IMPROVE PLAN
IMPROVE PLANS
SALES TAX
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
.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
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PAGE 7
AMOUNT
16992.56
123.70
110.67
24212.13
2.00
216.60
218.60
836.46
543.31
1379.77
17848.48
-1l0.93
17737.55
117.15
29.05
46.69
5825.46
6018.35
5830.46
309.96
7497.82
431. 22
3223.33
310.60
7.84
1519.44
196 .63
163.73
1219.53
2527.27
7261.22
1585.90
3736.75
220.28
2311.86
53.73
38407.57
376.65
280.00
35.00
9.53
25.49
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
)-/&
11/04/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 611595 11/05/04 526 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 110 IMPROVE PLANS 0 .00 200.59
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 235.61
1020 611596 11/05/04 1494 PENNY SAVER 5208003 IN COLUMN DISPLAY 9/22 o. 00 751.26
1020 611597 11/05/04 533 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG 110 PERS LTC/2405 o. 00 104.42
1020 611598 11/05/04 M PFISTER, ANNY 580 Refund: Check - FALL E o. 00 12.00
1020 611599 11/05/04 2529 PREMIER WORLD TOURS 5506549 S.ANTONIO TRIP FINAL 0 .00 323.35
1020 611600 11/05/04 2661 PROFESSIONAL TURF MGMNT, 5606640 MAINTENANCE OCT2004 o. 00 15022 .67
1020 611601 11/05/04 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1106342 SUMMER CAMP SUPPLIES 0 .00 7 .58
1020 611602 11/05/04 3236 GREG RIMANICH 1104400 MRC EXPENSES 0.00 1165.74
1020 611603 11/05/04 842 ROBERT A BOTHMAN INC 4259313 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0 .00 61223. 94
1020 611604 11/05/04 2482 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 K.STAMES W/E 10/15 0 .00 536 .50
1020 611604 11/05/04 2482 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 K.STAMES W/E 10/22 o. 00 1480 .00
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 2016.50
1020 611605 11/05/04 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108508 ANT BAIT o. 00 125 .00
1020 611605 11/05/04 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108501 RODENT BAIT 0.00 180. 00
1020 611605 11/05/04 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108503 RODENT BAIT 0.00 180 .00
1020 611605 11/05/04 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108505 RODENT BAIT 0 .00 180. 00
1020 611605 11/05/04 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108504 RODENT BAIT 0 .00 180 .00
1020 611605 11/05/04 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108506 RODENT BAIT o. 00 180.00
TOTAL CHECK o. 00 1025.00
1020 611606 11/05/04 1230 SAFECHECKS 1104100 A/P CHECK STCK (1500) o. 00 292 .88
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/23-10/25/04 0 .00 652. 84
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0 .00 81 .95
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 8/20-10/22/04 0 .00 90 .51
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 o. 00 123 .80
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 o. 00 151.18
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 o. 00 44.31
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 .00 42. 35
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 o. 00 18. 89
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 o. 00 15 .24
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 .00 19. 15
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 .00 54 .08
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 .00 553. 93
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 .00 192 .23
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 9/23-10/25/04 .00 811.20
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 98 .95
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 9/23-10/25/04 .00 295. 05
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/20-10/21/04 0 .00 124. 91
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108408 8/23-10/22/04 0 .00 226 .66
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
Ç-/7
11/04/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT -------·------VENDOR------------- FUND/DE?T -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 91.72
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 121. 05
1020 511511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 78.04
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 8/20-10/22/04 0.00 248.62
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 1409.46
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 36 .49
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606640 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 1819 .44
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 9/27-10/27/04 0.00 9. 00
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 166. 02
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 119 .09
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 9/23-10/25/04 O. 00 543 .35
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 9/22-10/25/04 0 .00 1172. 94
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/30-10/29/04 0 .00 182 .23
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/27-10/29/04 O. 00 345.30
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/27-10/29/04 O. 00 121. 83
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 8/30-10/29/04 0 .00 1960. 09
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 8/30-10/29/04 O. 00 1051. 27
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 8/20-10/22/04 O. 00 276 .71
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 8/27-10/29/04 0 .00 233.72
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/20-10/22/04 0 .00 78 .72
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 8/20-10/21/04 O. 00 22.66
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 8/20-10/21/04 0 .00 169.29
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/30-10/29/04 .00 50.24
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 8/20-10/22/04 SIMMS 0.00 80.74
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108505 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 512.07
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108505 9/27-10/27/04 0.00 9.00
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/20-10/21/04 0.00 156.90
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108502 9/27-10/27 LIBRARY 0.00 51. 33
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 9/27-10/27/04 0.00 51.33
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 9/22-10/22/04 0.00 120. 89
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 9/22-10/22/04 0.00 888 .57
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 4239222 9/22-10/22/04 0.00 114 .92
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/22-10/25/04 0.00 826.92
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 9/22-10/25/04 0.00 172.59
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 9/22-10/25/04 0.00 2853.29
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 9/22-10/25/04 0.00 114.92
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/22-10/25/04 0.00 999.86
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/22-10/25/04 0.00 1051. 57
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/22-10/25/04 0.00 1220. 61
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/27-10/29/04 0.00 277 .69
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 9/27-10/25/04 O. 00 51 .33
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 9/22-10/25/04 O. 00 1594 .47
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 9/22-10/25/04 0 .00 84 .05
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 .00 37. 78
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 O. 00 37. 78
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 9/23-10/25/04 0 .00 44 .31
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0 .00 11 .33
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/20-10/21/04 0 .00 23 .42
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 151. 18
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 O. 00 24 .76
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0 .00 18 .89
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
Ç-(f
11/04/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "1.1/01/2004" and "11./05/2004"
FUND 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 95.53
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 9/27-10/27/04 0.00 51.33
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 26.71
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 9/27-10/27/04 0.00 9.00
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5506620 9/23-10/25/04 ,0.00 12.09
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108505 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 73.53
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 18.89
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 48.22
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 135.20
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 123.00
1020 61.1611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 37.78
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 9/23-10/25/04 O. 00 592.23
1020 511511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 9/23-10/25/04 O. 00 121.05
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 9/23~10/25/04 0 .00 1407.50
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 9/23-10/25/04 O. 00 637.19
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108503 9/23-10/25/04 0 .00 177.75
1020 511611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 9/23-10/25/04 O. 00 111. 27
1020 611511 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 253. 99
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 224 .67
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108507 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 85 .86
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/23~10/2S/04 0.00 281 .37
1020 511611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 277.46
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108302 9/23-10/25/04 0.00 472.97
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/23~10/25/04 0.00 113.33
1020 611611 11/05/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 9/27-10/27/04 0.00 9. 00
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 30885.13
1020 611612 11/05/04 1249 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 5208003 COUNTY WIDE HOUSEHD HA O. 00 10259.30
1020 611512 11/05/04 1249 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 5208003 COUNTY WIDE HOUSEHD HA O. 00 1591..01
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 11850.31
1020 611513 11/05/04 258 SANTA CLARA COUNTY no v ORTEGA 563312780 O. 00 588.00
1020 611614 11/05/04 1636 SANTA CLARA CTY SHERIFF 1104510 AUG2004 FINGERPRINTS O. 00 212.00
1020 511615 11/05/04 1337 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS 1108005 FYOS 1ST/2ND QTR FEES 0.00 35049.00
1020 611615 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 5806249 COPY PLAN 7/20-10/20 0.00 1243.93
1020 611616 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 5805349 COPY PLAN 7/20-10/20 O. 00 1036.61
1020 611516 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 5706450 COPY PLAN 7/20-10/20 O. 00 310.98
1020 611516 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1104310 COPY PLAN 7/20-10/20 0 .00 1969.55
1020 511616 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 5806449 COPY PLAN 7/20-10/20 O. 00 621. 96
TOTAL CHECK O. 00 5183.03
1020 611617 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1103300 1-5062379 8/02-11/04 O. 00 1. 95
1020 611517 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1101200 1-5062379 8/02-11/04 0 .00 13.80
1020 611617 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1107301 1-5062379 8/02-11/04 O. 00 370.20
1020 611517 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1104310 1-5052379 8/02-11/04 O. 00 5605.76
1020 611617 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1108101 1-5062379 8/02-11/04 0 .00 67.95
1020 611617 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1104000 1~5062379 8/02-11/04 0.00 3. 30
1020 611617 11/05/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1106100 1-5062379 8/02-11/04 0.00 1. 50
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08;35:21
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
)~!1
11/04/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
TOTAL CHECK
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
TOTAL CHECK
1020
1020
1020
611618
611619
611619
611619
611619
611620
611621
611622
611623
611623
611623
611624
611625
611626
611626
611627
611628
611629
611629
611629
611629
611629
611629
611630
611630
611631
611632
611533
ISSUE DT -----------~--VENDOR-----~-~----- FUND/DEPT
11/05/04 2057
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04 2439
11/05/04 2830
11/05/04 3020
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04 662
11/05/04 667
11/05/04 3171
11/05/04 3171
11/05/04 677
11/05/04 2451
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04
11/05/04 1993
11/05/04 2226
11/05/04 1154
511
511
511
511
2810
2810
2810
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
700
700
SBC PACIFIC BELL
6109856
SBC/MCI
SBC/MCI
SBC/MCI
SBC/MCI
1108503
1108501
6104800
1108507
SERVICE STATION SYSTEMS, 6308840
SHELDON OF LOS ALTOS
1103300
SIGNS GRAPHICS
1106265
SMART & FINAL
SMART & FINAL
SMART & FINAL
5706450
5506549
5806349
SNADER AND ASSOCIATES IN 1103500
SPECIALTY TRUCKS
6308840
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1104310
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1104310
STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110
SURFCONTROL, INC.
6109856
SVCN
SVCN
SVCN
SVCN
SVCN
SVCN
1104300
1104300
1104300
1104300
1104300
1104300
TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303
TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303
TREASURER OF ALAMEDA COU 110
UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY T 2708405
UNITED WAY OF SANTA CLAR 11 0
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:21
-----DESCRIPTION------
QUOTE MS030504 HDWRE M
#9969248
#0213488
#0215331
#5170211
9/01-10/27
10/01-10/31
10/01-10/31
9/01-10/27
COMPLIANCE TESTING
COUNCIL PICTURES
LOBBY DIRECTORY BUILT
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
A26295
7265
A26456
MONITOR WITH RACK MOUN
SWITCH 20283
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
"PERS DEF
VIRTUAL CONTROL AGENT
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC
A LOPEZ JR 566398126
SIGN BLANKS A26640
UNITED WAY
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
~ FINANCIAL ACCOUNTINq
PAGE 11
AMOUNT
6064.46
3689.00
14 .67
588.71
~ 588.71
2.82
1194.91
450.00
1845.66
4087.51
162.70
72.17
45.22
280.09
3655.14
25.67
394.68
1086.40
1481.08
4128.56
2879.23
209.00
115.50
52.25
44.00
38.50
41.25
500.50
244.21
53.20
297.41
253.84
169.90
99.00
ç- 2J)
11/04/04
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/01/2004" and "11/05/2004"
FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT
-----DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
1020 611634 11/05/04 738 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00
1020 611635 11/05/04 M VENKATESH, LALITRA 580 Refund: Check - FALL: 0.00
1020 611636 11/05/04 750 VISION SERVICE PLAN (CA) 110 INSURANCE NOV2004 0 .00
1020 611637 11/05/04 745 VMI INC 1103500 RACKMOUNT KIT 16492 o. 00
1020 611638 11/05/04 779 WEST-LITE SUPPLY eo INe 1108504 LIGHTING SUPPLIES 0.00
1020 611638 11/05/04 779 WEST-LITE SUPPLY co INe 1108505 LIGHTING SUPPLIES 0 .00
TOTAL CHECK 0 .00
1020 611639 1l/OS/04 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00
1020 611640 11/05/04 M WIPFLER, BARBARA 580 Refund: Check - FALL E .00
1020 611641 11/05/04 M West, Michael 550 Refund: Check - San An 0.00
1020 611642 11/05/04 799 ZANKER ROAD LANDFILL 5208003 YARDWASTE SEPT2004 0 .00
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT o. 00
TOTAL FUND 0.00
TOTAL REPORT 0.00
RUN DATE 11/04/04 TIME 08:35:22
- FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
PAGE 12
AMOUNT
4872 .84
63.00
2074.74
96 .34
116.92
81.72
198.64
503.37
264.00
971.75
13576.18
768530.65
768530.65
768530.65
)- .2)
RESOLUTION NUMBER 04-439
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
November 5, 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
$ 396,134.27
Less Employee Deductions
$(112,248.57)
NET PAYROLL
$283.885.70
Payroll check numbers issued 78083 through 78306
Void check number(s)
CERTIFIED: ~ û(l.-JUJ t) ()~
Director of Ad imstratlve ServIces
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th 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
~~(
RESOLUTION NO. 04-440
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DECLARING WEEDS ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO
PROPOSED REMOVAL
WHEREAS, weeds are growing in the City of Cupertino upon certain streets,
sidewalks, highways, roads and private property; and
WHEREAS, said weeds may attain such growth as to become a fire menace or
which are otherwise noxious or dangerous; and
WHEREAS, said weeds constitute a public nuisance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino as follows:
1. That said weeds do now constitute a public nuisance;
2. That said nuisance exists upon all of the streets, sidewalks, highways, roads and
private property more particularly described by common names or by reference to
the tract, block, lot, code area, and parcel number on the report prepared by the
Agricultural Commissioner and attached hereto;
3. That the 4th day of January, 2005, at the hour of 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter can be heard, in the Council Chamber in the Community Hall, City
of Cupertino, is hereby set as the time and place where all property owners having
any objections to the proposed removal of such weeds may be heard;
4. That the Agricultural Commissioner is hereby designated and ordered as the
person to cause notice of the adoption of this resolution to be given in the manner
and form provided in Sections 9.08.040 ofthe Cupertino Municipal Code.
7-1
_.._~~--- ----~---_._._-- ..-- ----~-_._.-
Resolution No. 04-440
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the city Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th 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
l-;¿
ZIP
-
GA 30348
CA 95014-2435
CA 95014-0106
CA 95014-0121
CA 95115-005
CA 95014
CA 95008-6418
CA 95008-6418
CA 94404-3506
CA 95603-5859
CA 95014-1301
CA 95014-1617
CA 95014-1615
CA 95014-1657
95008-0729
CA 93635
CA 94087-3914
CA 95014-1144
CA 95014-1132
CA 95747
CA 95747
CA 95015-2935
CA 95014-4238
CA 95014-4829
Page 1
2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE
19333 VALLCO PY 316-20-085 TANDEM COMPUTERS INC POBOX 105005 ATLANTA
10344 N PORTAL AV 316-29-006 MEMON AJAZ AND NASREEN 19765 DRAKE DR CUPERTINO
22081 CAROLINE DR 326-03-017 YING BING HAND YUK F 22081 CAROLINE DR CUPERTINO
10715 PENINSULAR A V 326-03-044 HERRITT DAVID H AND WATTS 10715 PENINSULAR AV CUPERTINO
326-07-035 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE
21089 GREENLEAF DR 326-08-031 BROCKINGTON KIMBERLY A ET AL 10079 SAIGA WY CUPERTINO
21115 GARDENA DR 326-08-058 BROWN MAURICE F AND MONA T 1506 OBURN CT CAMPBELL
21127 GARDENA DR 326-08-059 BROWN MAURICE F AND MONA T 1506 OBURN CT CAMPBELL
21139 GARDENA DR 326-08-060 YU YUKY ET AL 440 BODEGA ST FOSTER CITY
21151 GARDENA DR 326-08-061 CARR JOHN N 11060 MONTANA DR AUBURN
21163 GARDENA DR 326-08-062 CHAN WALLACE C AND HELENE W 21326 AMULET DR CUPERTINO
21177 GARDENA DR 326-08-063 VONGAMPAI WISIT AND CHUTIMA 21177 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO
21047 GARDENA DR 326-08-084 JACOBS JOHN W AND WILMA L 21047 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO
I 21061 GARDENA DR 326-08-085 LlU TOM T AND CHRISTINA S 21144 LAURETTA DR CUPERTINO
I N FOOTHILL BL 326-15-096 METTE WILLIAM D 1420 MCBAIN AV CAMPBELL CA
10045 CRESCENT RD 326-16-078 JACKSON ELEANOR A 2142 BLUE RIDGE AV LOS BANOS
i
I 10255 HILLCREST RD 326-16-087 GIGNAC WILLIAM J AND KEDER 1172 ASHCROFTWY SUNNYVALE
i
I
I 21820 MONTE CT 326-19-083 OLSON MAY A TRUSTEE 21820 MONTE CT CUPERTINO
21852 GARDENVIEW LN 326-19-095 SHANKAR RAVI D AND RENUKA R 21852 GARDENVIEW LN CUPERTINO
I (LAND ONLY) 326-20-039 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
I (LAND ONLY) 326-20-040 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
I 10494 ANN ARBOR AV 326-28-020 LO HENRY C AND ANGELINE W POBOX 2935 CUPERTINO
20941 ALVES DR 326-30-005 ZHAO JUN AND XU YUAN YUAN 21068 WHITE FIR CT CUPERTINO
, 20790 HANFORD DR 326-30-065 VAN BUREN DONALD P AND 21660 RAINBOW CT CUPERTINO
-......J
,
U -
25 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program
ZIP
CA 95014-1875
CA 95051-1608
CA 94024-7434
CA 94303-3543
CA 94024-7440
CA 95014-1619
CA 94024-5235
CA 95014-1619
CA 95014-1319
CA 95014-1303
CA 9511 5-005
CA 9511 5-005
CA 95115-005
CA 95070-6528
CA 95015
CA 95115-005
CA 95115-005
CA 95014-5063
FL 33305-2424
CA 95014-3985
CA 95014-3904
95014-3939
CA 95014-1174
CA 95014-3937
Page 2
2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE
- .
10467 GLENCOE DR 326-30-106 DAMASK ROBERT T 10467 GLENCOE DR CUPERTINO
20903 DUNBAR DR 326-30-162 YEH CHI Y AND CHUNG H 2200 SAN ANTONIO PL SANTA CLARA
21179 GARDENA DR 326-40-001 NGAI HARRISON AND MARY 22295 HARTMAN DR LOS ALTOS
21189 GARDENA DR 326-40-002 LlN SHEN-AN 2441 CHABOT TR PALO ALTO
21201 GARDENA DR 326-40-003 POSNER MARTIN AND THAO 22351 STARLING DR LOS ALTOS
21219 GARDENA DR 326-40-004 CALLEJAS ALEJANDRO ET AL 21219 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO
21239 GARDENA DR 326-40-005 CHUA H T AND JESSIE TRUSTEE 12410 BARLEY HILL RD LOS ALTOS
21261 GARDENA DR 326-43-036 NGUYEN TRUNG VAN AND 21261 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO
10705 GRAPNEL PL 326-43-055 NGUYEN THANH V AND BUI MY 10705 GRAPNEL PL CUPERTINO
10706 AMULET PL 326-43-062 WILEY ROBERT J AND FELlPA 10706 AMULET PL CUPERTINO
STOKES AV 326-49-034 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE
STOKES A V 326-49-035 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE
STOKES A V 326-49-039 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE
22449 STEVENS BL 326-50-078 CONTRO R MICHAEL AND DEBBIE L 12296 FARR RANCH RD SARATOGA
21090 HAZELBROOK DR 326-55-031 RYMIK DEVELOPMENT CORP POBOX 1941 CUPERTINO
342-12-030 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE
STEVENS BL 342-12-055 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE
10141 LEBANON DR 342-14-005 AKVN INVESTMENTS LLC 1060 WEST HILL CT CUPERTINO
10264 LOCKWOOD DR 342-14-037 JONES ROBERT D SR TRUSTEE 2308 NE 18TH AV WILTON MANORS
10530 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-16-059 KOLSKI ALICE F TRUSTEE 10530 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO
22600 ALCALDE RD 342-16-111 YU XIAOBING AND JIA YIPING 22600 ALCALDE RD CUPERTINO
10739 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-17-036 KING MARY P TRUSTEE & ET AL 10739 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO CA
342-17-087 SAN JUAN ROAD ASSOCIATES 21710 STEVENS CREEK BL CUPERTINO
10611 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-17-095 HUNTS SUSAN E ET AL 10611 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO
.--.....J
!
-
-Z 49 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program
2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIP
.
10739 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-17-100 KING MARY P TRUSTEE & ET AL 10739 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3939
22570 SAN JUAN RD 342-18-020 HENRY J & LILLIAN E SEVERIN 15 N MARKET ST SAN JOSE CA 95113-1207
10521 SAN FELIPE RD 342-22-073 KING MARGARET 0 TRUSTEE 10521 SAN FELIPE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3967
22821 MERCEDES RD 342-22-090 OGI DARRELL H ET AL 22821 MERCEDES RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3919
10645 CORDOVA RD 342-22-099 OGRADY BRIAN J AND THERESA M 853 CAMPBELL AV LOS ALTOS CA 94024-4838
10645 CORDOVA RD 342-22-100 OGRADY KEVIN F 31 OCEAN HEIGHT NEWPORT COAST CA 92657
10645 CORDOVA RD 342-22-101 OSANN KATHRYN TRUSTEE 62 EMERALD IRVINE CA 92614
10625 CORDOVA RD 342-22-103 HO ROSANNA H TRUSTEE 10625 CORDOVA RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3911
22766 ALCALDE RD 342-44-008 GRACIA RICHARD 2 ET AL 22766 ALCALDE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3905
10500 SAN FELIPE RD 342-44-017 PURUSHOTMA PETER AND 10500 SAN FELIPE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3978
(LAND ONLY) 342-45-001 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 RDWOOD CITY CA 94065
10379 KRISTA CT 342-45-002 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
10414 MELISSA CT 342-45-019 SU ANTHONY TUNG YAT AND MAN 10414 MELISSA CT CUPERTINO CA 95014-2620
10397 AVENIDA LN 342-45-041 DING INGANTIUS Y AND JOSEPHINE 10397 AVENIDA LN CUPERTINO CA 95014-3946
10427 AVENIDA LN 342-45-043 DEACON THOMAS E AND OBI NATA 10427 AVENIDA LN CUPERTINO CA 95014-3946
10437 AVENIDA LN 342-45-044 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
(LAND ONLY) 342-50-019 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 REDWOOOD CITY CA 94065
STEVENS BL 342-63-001 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE CA 95115-005
22530 RICARDO RD 356-01-008 WONG JIMMY HENG-FATT AND 22530 RICARDO RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-5412
10960 MIRAMONTE RD 356-01-019 FORD DANIEL T AND HOLSTEGE 10960 MIRAMONTE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3974
10885 MIRAMONTE RD 356-01-036 NAMVAR PARVIZ I 10885 MIRAMONTE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-0000
10889 MJRAMONTE RD 356-01-037 CHEN JOHN Y AND KUO HEATHER H 10889 MIRAMONTE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-0000
22581 RICARDO RD 356-01-058 REPUBLIC PROPERTIES INC 935 RIVERSIDE AV UNIT 1 PASO ROBLES CA 93446
22571 RICARDO RD 356-01-059 REPUBLIC PROPERTIES INC 935 RIVERSIDE AV UNIT 1 PASO ROBLES CA 93446
--.J
'- -
"-1 73 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program Page 3
ZIP
-
CA 95014-5411
CA 95014-4714
CA 95050
CA 95014-4822
CA 9501 4-4822
CA 95014-4810
CA 95014-4810
CA 95014-4810
CA 95014-4811
CA 94024-6903
CA 95125-2521
CA 95014-5912
CA 95747
CA 95014-4208
CA 95008-1530
CA 95014-2960
CA 95014-4314
CA 95014-2955
CA 95014-4305
CA 95014-4313
CA 95014-2955
CA 95014-4307
CA 95014-4269
CA 95014-4360
Page 4
2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE
-
22561 RICARDO RD 356-01-060 REPUBLIC PROPERTIES INC 22551 RICARDO RD CUPERTINO
21971 COLUMBUS AV 356-14-037 GREIF RICHARD K TRUSTEE 21971 COLUMBUS AV CUPERTINO
10881 SANTA DR 356-15-005 KURSAR EDWARD R AND NANCY C 2144 ROYAL DR UNIT 8 SANTA CLARA
REGNART RD 356-23-001 BILLARD DOROTHY L TRUSTEE & ET 21710 REGNART RD CUPERTINO
21710 REGNART RD 356-23-057 BILLARD DOROTHY L TRUSTEE & ET 21710 REGNART RD CUPERTINO
21925 LINDY LN 356-25-014 KNOPP JOHN AND KAREN 21925 LINDY LN CUPERTINO
21949 LINDY LN 356-25-026 MOXLEY PROPERTIES CUPERTINO 21949 LINDY LN CUPERTINO
21951 LINDY LN 356-25-027 SANTORO MARK R 21951 LINDY LN CUPERTINO
22028 LINDY LN 356-27-007 DOZIER JOHN P AND PEGGY A 22028 LINDY LN CUPERTINO
10207 ORANGE AV 357-15-036 CHOU JIN-FENG AND LILLIAN 1972 ANNETTE LN LOS ALTOS
10056 ORANGE AV 357-17-058 MARCI WILLIAM III 1934 ELLEN AV SAN JOSE
21696 NOONAN CT 357-19-072 HOLMES DAVID M 21696 NOONAN CT CUPERTINO
BUBB RD 357-20-028 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
7705 LILAC WY 359-04-002 HUANG WEI CHIEH AND CHANG 7705 LILAC WY CUPERTINO
10040 BIANCHI WY 359-07-021 WEI HRONG ET AL 1857 W CAMPBELL A V CAMPBELL
20567 SUNRISE DR 359-10-016 HAN YU-WEN K TRUSTEE 20567 SUNRISE DR CUPERTINO
10566 JOHN WY 359-18-006 CHAN PAULINE G 10566 JOHN WY CUPERTINO
20592 MC CLELLAN RD 359-18-010 CHANG LANCE C AND MELODY F 20592 MC CLELLAN RD CUPERTINO
10583 FELTON WY 359-18-015 CHI SHING 10583 FELTON WY CUPERTINO
10574 FELTON WY 359-18-024 CHEN RICHARD Y AND HSIU-SHENG 10574 FELTON WY CUPERTINO
20616 MC CLELLAN RD 359-18-048 HARDEMAN MELODY FETAL 20616 MCCLELLAN RD CUPERTINO
7614 DE FOE DR 359-25-032 SIMON ROBERT AND HUYNH NGON 7614 DE FOE DR CUPERTINO
940 S STELLING RD 359-25-041 REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH OF 940 S STELLING RD CUPERTINO
7515 DE LA FARGE DR 359-26-023 CHEN ERIC JENHUNG AND TU 7515 DE LA FARGE DR CUPERTINO
~
r--- -
~97 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program
ZIP
-
CA 95747
CA 95747
CA 95014-4932
CA 95747
CA 95014-4911
CA 95014-4950
CA 95747
CA 95014-4906
CA 95014-4951
CA 95014-4966
CA 95747
CA 95747
CA 94304-1323
CA 95747
CA 95014-5134
CA 95014-5150
CA 95014-5150
CA 95014-5204
CA 94583
CA 95014-5206
CA 95014-0000
CA 95112
CA 95014-4824
CA 95014-4517
Page 5
2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE
BUBB RD 362-01-025 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
CRANBERRY DR 362-02-048 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
7952 PUMPKIN DR 362-03-005 LAMA PATRICIA MET AL 7952 PUMPKIN DR CUPERTINO
CRANBERRY DR 362-04-058 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
1109 STAFFORD DR 362-06-008 MCKNIGHT JOHN G AND BRIGITTE H 1109 STAFFORD DR CUPERTINO
1194 ELMSFORD DR 362-09-003 BANDY FREDERIC SAND 1194 ELMSFORD DR CUPERTINO
362-09-026 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
7852 BELKNAP DR 362-10-042 SUBAGIO PUTU H 7852 BELKNAP DR CUPERTINO
1211 STAFFORD DR 362-11-031 KARUPPANCHETTY PALANIAPPAN 1211 STAFFORD DR CUPERTINO
1240 BUBB RD 362-11-050 HING STEVEN M AND APRIL L 1240 BUBB RD CUPERTINO
362-16-037 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
362-19-033 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
362-31-030 ALMASI SHAHRIAR AND AZITA ET AL 965 LAUREL GLEN DR PALO ALTO
S STELLING RD 366-09-028 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE
STAUFFER LN 366-09-044 VARR ANTHONY J TRUSTEE 11505 SUNSET SPRING CT CUPERTINO
11209 STAUFFER LN 366-09-048 MARDESICH CONNIE A 11209 STAUFFER LN CUPERTINO
11229 STAUFFER LN 366-09-050 CHEN SHO-MO AND LlU ROSARY J 11229 STAUFFER LN CUPERTINO
1392 S STELLING RD 366-17-103 FRANKOVICH ROBERT J TRUSTEE 1392 S STELLING RD CUPERTINO
7308 RAINBOW DR 366-19-076 SARON GARDENS LLC 2527 CAMINO RAMON BLVD SAN RAMON
1540 S STELLING RD 366-24-052 DANIEL EDMOND M AND LAYLA 1540 S STELLING RD CUPERTINO
11650 REGNART RD 366-33-007 REGNART HERBERT W TRUSTEE 11650 REGNART RD CUPERTINO
21650 RAINBOW CT 366-38-007 ZANOTTI DAVID M 1645 OLD BAYSHORE RD SAN JOSE
22325 REGNART RD 366-39-001 JACKSON JAMES E AND PATRICIA R 22325 REGNART RD CUPERTINO
10375 LINDSAY AV 369-12-012 TUNG CHARLES C 10375 LINDSAY AV CUPERTINO
...J
\- -
-.J 121 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program
ZIP
-
CA 95014-4574
CA 95014-4631
CA 95014-4536
CA 95035-6636
CA 95014-4560
CA 95014-4560
CA 95014-4549
CA 95014-4453
CA 95014-4410
CA 95014-0000
CA 95112
CA 94023
CA 94309-2422
CA 95032-3607
CA 95014-3601
CA 95014-3645
CA 94040
CA 95014-3646
CA 95014-3807
CA 95014-3601
CA 94086
CA 94309-2422
CA 90036
CA 95014-3814
Page 6
2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE
10510 OAKVILLE AV 369-13-001 MARCOTTE RICHARD A 10510 OAKVILLE AV CUPERTINO
6387 BOLLINGER RD 369-19-006 QUIROZ JOSE AND SANDRA ET AL 6387 BOLLINGER RD CUPERTINO
815 MILLER A V 369-19-035 ESPIRITU DORA I 10792 W ESTATES DR CUPERTINO
893 BLAZINGWOO AV 369-20-011 TSIANG LELlN 2167 SEACLlFF DR MILPITAS
898 EAST DR 369-24-004 CALLAHAN KENNETH P 898 EAST ESTATES DR CUPERTINO
870 EAST DR 369-24-009 LEE KENNETH K AND CECILIA 0 870 EAST ESTATES DR CUPERTINO
862 BETTE AV 369-24-048 MULLEN DANIEL W 862 BETTE AV CUPERTINO
10792 FARALLONE DR 369-34-006 WEST RICHARD H 10792 FARALLONE DR CUPERTINO
20091 LA RODA CT 369-34-030 JAMES E C AND COLLEEN P 20091 LA RODA CT CUPERTINO
19337 PHIL LN 375-05-027 RIVERA LlDA L ET AL 19337 PHIL LN CUPERTINO
19160 STEVENS BL 375-07-001 GREEN VALLEY CORP 777 N FIRST ST UNIT 5TH SAN JOSE
10210 STERN AV 375-12-001 WANG HELEN TRUSTEE PO BOX 261 LOS ALTOS
10200 STERN AV 375-12-002 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO
10430 STERN AV 375-14-021 CAPITAL FINANCE 16368 LAVENDER LN LOS GATOS
10280 MORETTI DR 375-15-013 MARTINEZ RICHARD D AND 18831 BARNHART AV CUPERTINO
10305 WUNDERLICH DR 375-16-020 FIROOZBAKHSH BABAK ET AL 10305 WUNDERLICH DR CUPERTINO
10335 WUNDERLICH DR 375-16-023 TRAN-NGUYEN ROSE 1704 MIRAMONTE AV UNIT 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW
10330 WUNDERLICH DR 375-17-011 ALAM MUZAFFAR AND SHAKRA 10330 WUNDERLICH DR CUPERTINO
10385 CALVERT DR 375-17-027 MARTINEZ RICHARD D AND 10385 CALVERT DR CUPERTINO
10395 CALVERT DR 375-17-028 MARTINEZ RICHARD D AND 18831 BARNHART AV CUPERTINO
18725 TILSON AV 375-18-001 GREEN THEODORE A AND GRACE 2070 NORIEGA AV UNIT #9 SUNNYVALE
10361 JOHNSON AV 375-18-039 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO
10574 STERLING BL 375-23-028 PILlAVIN MICHAEL 171 N GARDNER ST LOS ANGELES
10424 JOHNSON AV 375-26-049 WONG DAMON AND IRENE LAI 10424 JOHNSON AV CUPERTINO
~
\
4 145 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program
ZIP
CA 95014-3817
CA 95135-1614
CA 95066-3337
CA 95003
CA 95014-3607
CA 94309-2422
CA 95124
CA 95170
CA 94309-2422
CA 94086-9148
CA 94587
CA 95031
Page 7
2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE
- -
10660 JOHNSON AV 375-28-022 HANSEN CHRISTINE I 10660 JOHNSON AV CUPERTINO
10820 MINETTE DR 375-31-031 KIM NAM HAND YOUN S 3018 HIGH MEADOW LN SAN JOSE
10780 MINETTE DR 375-31-035 REICHLEY EMILIA C 552 BEAN CREEK RD UNIT SCOTTS VALLEY
10700 MINETTE DR 375-31-043 KATZEN DANIEL H ET AL 477 VISTA DEL MAR APTOS
10660 CARVER DR 375-32-017 LAINE LINDA AND JEAN 10660 CARVER DR CUPERTINO
10630 CARVER DR 375-32-020 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO
10827 MINETTE DR 375-32-057 WILLIAMS MARILYN A 2100 CURTNER AV STE C SAN JOSE
18900 NEWSOM AV 375-35-007 KUS JOE P.O. BOX 700366 SAN JOSE
10627 CULBERTSON DR 375-36-027 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO
10645 CULBERTSON DR 375-36-029 SANCHEZ YOLANDA I AND TONY J 1228 VALERIAN CT SUNNYVALE
6125 BOLLINGER RD 375-38-010 PETERSON KURT AND RHONDA D 34872 HERRINGBONE WY UNION CITY
910 MILLER AV 375-41-011 FOLEY MARY ANNE PO BOX 21 LOS GATOS
~
\ -
--.';) 156 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program
'r~¡
'1
. ti ì\~!
~
/ I
.
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Phone (408) 777-3312
Fax (408) 777-3366
CUPEIQ1NO
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ! 0-
AGENDA DATE II-I/P-Dlj
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License.
BACKGROUND
1. Name of Business:
Location:
Type of Business:
Type of License:
Reason for Application:
Oakmont Market
19944 Homestead Road (Oakmont Square Shopping Center)
Store
Off-Sa1e Beer and Wine
Person to Person Transfer
RECOMMENDATION
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use, and staff has no
objection to the issuance of the license.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
~
C~ddY Worde I, c(::~
Jh(
David W. Knapp, City Manager
G:planninglmisc/oakmont
Printed on Recycled Paper
a...
~-/
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
APPLICA nON FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
State of Caljfornja
ABC 211 (6/99)
TO: Departmenf of Alcoholic Beverage Control
100 Paseo de San Antonio
Room 119
San Jose. CA 95113
(408) 277-1200
DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: SAN JOSE
First Owner: DOMALA MADHA VI
Name of Business: OAKMONTMARKET
File Number: 419820
Receipt Number: 1491919
Geographical Code: 4303
Copies Mailed Date: October 26, 2004
Issued Date:
Location of Business: 19944 nOlVIESTEAD RD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
County: SANTA CLARA
Is premise inside city limits?
Mailing Address:
(If different from
premises address)
Yes
Census Tract 5081.01
Type of license(s): 20
Transferor's license/name:
389912 / NGUYEN TO THI Dropping Partner:
Yes
No
License Type Transaction Type Fee Tvpe Master Dup Date
20 OFF-SALE BEER ANI PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF NA y 0 10/26/04
20 OFF-SALE BEER ANI ANNUAL FEE NA y 0 10/26/04
20 OFF-SALE BEER ANI STATE FINGERPRINTS NA N 4 10/26/04
Total
Fee
$50.00
$220.00
$156.00
$426.00
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No
Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. or regulations of the
Department pertaining to the Act? No
Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an altachment which shall be deemed part of this application.
Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the
qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the
provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: October 26,2004
Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says; (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an
executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that
he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other
than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for
which this application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an
agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or
establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may
be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department.
Applicant Name(s)
DOMALA MADHA VI
DOMALA VENU
GUITI SUNIL KUMAR
Applicant Signature(s)
..~L
'~.
¥<"'\
--
!J~ ).
State of California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
APPLICA nON FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
ABC 211 (6/99)
TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage
100 Pas eo de San Antonio
Room 119
San Jose. CA 95113
(408) 277-1200
DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION:
First Owner:
Name of Business:
Location of Business~
County:
Is premise inside city iimits?
Mailing Address:
(If different from
premises address)
Type of license(s): 20
Transferor's license/name:
Control
File Number: 419820
Receipt Number: 1491919
Geographical Code: 4303
Copies Mailed Date: October 26, 2004
Issued Date:
SAN JOSE
DOMALA MADHA VI
OAKMONT MARKET
19944 HOMESTEAD RD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
SANTA CLARA
Yes
Census Tract 5081.01
389912 / NGUYEN TO THI Dropping Partner:
Yes_
No
Fee
License Tvpe Transaction Type Fee TVDe Master Dup Date
20 OFF·SALE BEER ANI PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF NA Y 0 10/26/04
20 OFF·SALE BEER ANI ANNUAL FEE NA y 0 10/26/04
20 OFF·SALE BEER ANI STATE FINGERPRINTS NA N 4 10/26/04
Total
$50.00
$220.00
$156.00
$426.00
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? N D
Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. or regulations of the
Department pertaining to the Act? No
Exp!ain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application.
Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the
qualifications of a licensee. and (b) that he w'1I not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the
provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: October 26, 2004
Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (1) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an
executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application. duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that
he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other
than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for
which this application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or 10 fulfill an
agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or
establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may
be withdrawn by eÍlher the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department.
Applicant Name(s)
DOMALA MADRA VI
DOMALA VEND
GUITI SUNIL KUMAR
Applicant Signature(s)
~...--
I
,i
T~
11.1 ~,
,,/r'-
, ì
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
(408) 777-3212
Fax" (408) 777-3366
CUPEIQ1NO
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
gb
AGENDA DATE n ~ fb -()'-/
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License.
BACKGROUND
1.
Name of Business:
Location:
Type of Business:
Type of License:
Reason for Application:
Alexanders Steakhouse, Inc. (Vallco Fashion Park)
10330 Wolfe Road
Restaurant
On-Sale General for Bona Fide Public Eating Place
Person to Person Transfer
RECOMMENDATION
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license.
Prepared by:
c~"y~OZde&
Submitted by:
RJL
David W. Knapp, City Manager
G:planning/misc/abcAlexanders
Printed on Recycled Paper
fb-/
Department of !-\lcoholic Beverage Control
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LlCENSE(S)
ABC 2\\ (6/99)
State of California
TO: Department' of Alcoholic Beverage Control
100 Pas eo de San Antonio
Room 119
San Jose. CA 95113
(408) 277-1200
DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION:
File Number: 420204
Receipt Number: 1493323
Geographical Code: 4303
Copies Mailed Date: November 4, 2004
Issued Date:
First Owner:
Name of Business:
SAN .lOSE
ALEXANDERSSTEAKHOUSEINC
ALEXANDERS STEAKHOUSE INC
County:
Is premise inside city limits?
Maiiing Address:
(If different from
premises address)
lwno W01.FF. RO
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
SANTA CLARA
Yes
Census Tract 5081.02
L0c~tion of Busin~ss:
Type of license(s): 47
Transferor's license/name:
286038 /PIATTI RESTAUR Dropping Partner:
Yes_
No
License Tv De Transaction Type Fee Tvoe Master Dup Date Fee
47 ON·SALE GENERAL J PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF P40 Y 0 11/04/04 $1.250.00
47 ON-SALE GENERAL I ANNUAL FEE P40 y 0 11104/04 $758.00
47 ON-SALE GENERAL I PREMISE TO PREMISE lRANS P40 Y 0 11104/04 $100.00
47 ON-SALE GENERAL J STATE FINGERPRINTS NA N 2 11/04/04 $78.00
TOlal $2,186.00
Have you ever been convicted of a fel~ny? No
Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the
Department pertaining to the Act? No
Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions 011 an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application.
Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the
qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the
provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: November 4, 2004
Under penalty of perjury. each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an
executive officer of the applicant corporation. named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that
he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other
than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the licensees) for
which this application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an
agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or
establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may
be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department.
Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s)
ALEXANDERS STEAKHOUSE INC
SPP. 211 SignRtnrp PR~P
,fb~2
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Stale of California
APPLICATION SIGNATURE SHEET ("SIGN ON")
w This form is to be. used as the signature page for
applications not signed in the District Office.
. Read instructions on reverse before completing.
All signatures must be notarized in accordance with
laws of the State where signed.
i 1. QVvNERSHIPTYPE(Checkone)
o Sole Owner
o Partnership
o Husband & Wife
o Partnership-LId
[2] Corporation
o Limited Liability Company
o Other
2 FilE NUMBER (if any)
3. LICENSE TYPE
4. TRANSACTION TYPE
Type 47
5. APPLlCANT(S) NAME(Last, first. middle)
ALEXANDER'S STEAKHOUSE INC
o Original
o Exchange
o Person to Person Transfer
o Premise 10 Premise Transfer
o Other
6. APPLICANTS MAILING ADDRESS (Street adjressIP.Q. box, aty, stale, zip code}
;CDS40 (l\CCL-t:;(...{...!W tW. út.PU..T ¡riO, CA q~OI4-
10330 Wolfe Road, Cupertino. CA 95014
7. PREMISES ADDRESS (Street address, city. zip code)
APPLICANT'S CERTIF/CA nON
pavment of a loan or to fullìl1 an agreement entered into more than
niñety (90) days preceding the day on \vhich the transfer
application is filed with the Department, (b) to gain or establish a
preference to or for any creditor or transferor, or (c) to defraud or
mjure any creditor or transferor; (5) that the transfer application
may be withdrawn by either the app1icant or the liccns..;c with no
resulting liability to the Department.
I understand that if I fail to qualify for the license or withdraw lhis
application there will be a servIce charge of one~fourth of the
license fee paid, up to $100,
Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears
below, certifies and says: (I) He/She is an applicant, or one of
the applicants, or an executive officer of the applicant
corporation, named in the foregoing apE.lication, duly authorized
to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he/she has read
the foregoing and knO\y> ~hc contents thereof and that c:¡~'h of the
above stalements therem made arc true; (3) that no person other
than the applicant or appJicants has any direct or indirect interest
in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the
license(s) for which this application is made; (4) that the transfer
application or proposed transfer is not made to (a) satisfy the
SOLE OWNER
, PRINTED NAME (,,>t. ('''', m"Io) I ~NATURE I DATE SIGNED
PARTNERSHIP/LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Signatures of general partners only)
9 PARTNER'S PRINTED NAME (Last. first, middle) SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
X
PARTNER'S PRNTEO NAME (Laa, fllSt, middle) SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
, X
PARTNER'S PRNTED NAME (la!!, first. middle) SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
X
CORPORATION
úV 1°Eh~~E.1~:;~) 1\1~',(~
I ;NA TURE
TITLE
I DATE SIGNED
p- tf~ vf?
~ President 0 Vice President 0 Chairman of the Board
;P0h~E;l'J~~)y Ji~-L1fl~ I~NA~ -
TITLE
ø Secretary 0 Ass!. Secretary 0 Chief Financial Officer 0 Ass!. Treasurer
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
11. The limited liability company is member..run 0 Yes 0 No (If no, complete Item #12 below)
12 NAME OF DESIGNATED MANAGER. MANAGING MEMBER OR DESIGNATED OFFICER (Last, first, middle) ABC INITIALS/DATE (ABC use only)
I DATE SlG¡"'¿IF / ò4
13, MEMBER'S PRINTED NAME (Last. first, middle)
DATE SIGNED
MEMBER'S PRINTED NAME (last. first, IT'iddle)
I ;NATURE
I ;NATURE
"SIGN ON"
ABC-211..SIG (2/03)
DATE SIGNED
¡b-3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
On October 8, 2004
before me, D. PATRICK
(Name, Title of Officer)
personally appeared JAMES ALEXANDER CHEN AND JENNY JIUN-LlNG CHEN
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person Is)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity lies I, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or ti,e entity upon behalf of which the person(sl acted, executed the
instrument.
my hap4nd official seal.
ary Public)
¡---------
@ D. PATRICK
_ commiS8ion.1~
¡. Notary Public ~ CaHfomia ~
j . Santa Claro County 1
My Convn. Ð:pi"", $ep 6, 2006
-----------_b.___
(This area for notarial seal)
fb- y'
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
ABC 2\ \ (6/99)
State of California
TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage
100 Paseo de San Antonio
Room 119
San Jose. CA 95113
(408) 277-1200
DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION:
Control
File Number: 420204
Receipt Number: 1493323
Geographical Code: 4303
Copies Mailed Date: November
Issued Date:
4, 2004
First Owner:
Name of Business:
SAN JOSE
ALEXANDERS STEAKHOUSE INC
ALEXANDERS STEAKHOUSE INC
Location of BU'ìinE's'S'
10110 WOLFE RD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
SANTA CLARA
County:
Is premise inside city limits?
Mailing Address:
(If different from
premises address)
Yes
Census Tract 5081.02
Type of license(s): 47
Transferor's license/name:
286038 / PIATTI RESTAUR Dropping Partner:
Yes
No
License Type Transaction Tvpe Fee Type Master lliu! ~
47 ON-SALE GENERAL] PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF P40 Y 0 11/04/04
47 ON-SALE GENERAL] ANNUAL FEE P40 Y 0 11/04/04
47 ON-SALE GENERAL] PREMISE TO PREMISE TRANS P40 Y 0 11/04/04
47 ON-SALE GENERAL] STATE FINGERPRINTS NA N 2 11/04/04
Total
Fee
$1.250.00
$758.00
$100.00
$78.00
$2.186.00
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No
Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the
Department pertaining to the Act? No
Exp!¡¡in any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application.
Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the
qualifications of a licensee. and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the
provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: November 4, 2004
Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants. or an
executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that
he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other
Ihan the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect imerest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the licensees) for
which this application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an
agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or
establish a preference to fIT for any creditor Dr transferor or to defr:wd or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) mat the transfer app1jcation may
be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resuhing liability to the Department
Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s)
ALEXANDERSSTEAKHOUSEINC
~PP 111 SignAfnrp PAgP
fh--Ç"
State of California
APPLICATION SIGNATURE SHEET ("SIGN ON")
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
This for:;'! ;s to be used 35 the signature page for
appllcatlo~S not signed in the District Office.
Read instructions on reverse before completing.
All signatures must be notarized in accordance with
Jaws of the State where signed.
-----...------...- ----- .._---~_...~.
2 ¡'::i...:: '<U~,H::~ -~ 2;:lY)
3 l:CEhSE TYPE
,
Type 47
: ,. OVloNERSHIP TYPE (Chad<; one)
I 0 Sole Owner
I 0 Partnership
ì 0 Husband & Wife
I 0 Partnership-LId
I 4. TRANSACTION TYPE
ì
I
I
o Corporation
o Limited Liability Company
o Other
o Original
o Exchange
o Person to Person Transfer
o Premise to Premise Transfer
o Other
--------..-------..-
5 AP"'UCANT(S, ~'AME ¡Last f,rsl. middle)
ALEXANDER'S STEAKHOUSE INC
____ ..___ ____m____ _.___..___,__..~.__.._
6 APPliCANTS MAILING ADDRESS (Street aOJressiPO, box city, state, Zip code)
;wS40 ((1.CCL-E-L-L-tW IW. CU.PU-TlrlO, CA 15'014-
------_..._.----------~-
7 PREMISES ACCRESS (::'_<'e\ address, city. zp COde)
10330 Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA 95014
------ -..---....------------
APPL/CANT'S CERTlFICA TlON
Under p~l]a1ty of perjury, each pC'rs~m whose ,signature appc~rs
bdo\\', ccrt]Í1cs and says: (1) He/She ]s an applicant. or one at
the applicants. or an executive officer orthe applicant
corporation. named in thc foregoinu apTIlication. duly authorized
to make thIs application on its beluflC (2) that he/she has read
th,-,,':'fJ,\1Π;\1',,\ :';:1'(\\\'_' ~h' j1j'TCr,ts thereof ~m,! tbnl c:Kh (.' the
abO\..: Sl<Jle!l1ents thcr"::1Il maJ~ an.: true; \3) that no person other
than the appj¡cant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest
in the applicant or applicant's bus mess to be conducted under the
license(s) for which this application is made: (4) that the transfer
application or pr0e.0sed transfer is not made toJa) satisfy the
SOLE OWNER
payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than
niñety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer
application is filed with die Departmen!.> (b) to gain or establish a
preference to or for any creditor or transteror, or (c) to defraud or
IIljure any creditor or transferor; (5) that the transfer application
may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the liœns-.:c \\ lth no
resulting liability to the Department.
I understand that if! fail to qualify for the license or withdraw this
application there will be a service charge of one· fourth of the
lIcense fee paid, up to $100.
8, PRINTED N,'\MË (last. first niddle)
i SIGNATURE I DATE SIGNED
X
PARTNERSHIP/LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Signatures of general partners only)
---_..__._---~--~-
9. PARTNER'S PR,NTED NAME (Last, first. middle) I SIGNATURE
Ix
I SIGNATURE
,X
! SIGNATURE
Ix
__ __.___.__n
--------.-.--.--.-..---.
-- ._--~--_..-
PARTNER S FRNTED NAME (LaS:, first, middle)
------~--
PARTNER'S PRNTEO NAME (LaS:. first. middle)
DATE SiGNED
DATE SIGNED
DATE SIGNED
/ )ÇfPresident 0 Vice President 0 Chairman of the Board
l/'G~E;L'J~~}V JiM-Lifl?) I~NA~
rv-, TITLE ~
_ _~ Secretary 0 Ass\. Secretary 0 Chief Financial Officer 0 Ass\. Treasurer
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
---_.- .---_._-
"CORPORATION
/iO thTEDNA\iEJ"r"'m'ddlol /Ì1t::')(~
()./ _ __~V1_L_~e~___
TITLE
I SIGNATURE
IX
rfl~
I DATE SIGNED
p- tf~ ¿;>~
-
I OATE SIG/Ó/ ~ / ð4
_....--
ABC INITIALSIDATE (ABC use only)
11. The limited liability company is member·run
..---.---.-....- .----------.---.,---.-
DYes ONo (If no. complete Item #12 below)
12_ NAME OF DESIGNATED MANAGER, MANAGING MEMBER OR DESIGNATED OFFICER (Last. first, middle)
13 MEMBERS PR!NTED NAME (last. firs!, middle)
DATE SIGNED
-.----
I ~NATURE
¡SIGNATURE
Ix
---_.--_.--_.-------~
MEMBERS PRINTED NAME (Last, first, nlddle)
----.---...------ -_.,--
DATE SIGNED
ABC-211-SIG (2/03) "SIGN ON"
'6 h-Ic
.' -. .. \
STATE ÖF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
On October 8. 2004
before me, D. PATRICK
(Name, Title of Officer)
personally appeared JAMES ALEXANDER CHEN AND JENNY JIUN-LlNG CHEN
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(sL or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
~"-'-----'-~_...Ð.'-'__
D. PATRICK
_ - Commission" 1368868 t
~ ,~ -ó'J\:Y Notary PubHc ~ California ~
ij.- . >
), ~<E. ' Santa Clara County i
1 " My Coovn. E>+>ires Sep 6, 2006 t
-----------......-.......--
(This area for notarial seal)
rb-;
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-441
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS, CHIH-HENG WEI AND
JENG-RONG SHAW, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY,
21089 GREENLEAF DRIVE, APN 326-08-031
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement
agreement between the City of Cupertino and developers, Chih-Heng Wei and Jeng-Rong Shaw,
Husband and Wife as community property, for the installation of certain municipal
improvements at 21089 Greenleaf Drive, 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 16th 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
/0-1
Resolution No. 04-441
Page 2
EXHIBIT "A"
SCHEDULE OF BONDS, FEES, AND DEPOSITS
DEVELOPMENT:
Chih-Heng Wei and Jeng-Rong Shaw
LOCATION:
21089 Greenleaf Drive
APN 326-08-031
Street Improvement Category:
A. Faithful Performance Bond: $ 13,643.00
THIRTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY-THREE AND 001100 DOLLARS
B. Labor and Material Bond: $ 13,643.00
THIRTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY-THREE AND 00/100 DOLLARS
C. Checking and Inspection Fee: $ 2,385.00
TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS
D. Development Maintenance Deposit:
ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS
$ 1,000.00
E. Storm Drainage Fee: Basin 2
THREE HUNDRED SIXTEEN AND 461100 DOLLARS
$ 316.46
F. One-Year Power Cost:
SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS
$ 75.00
G.
Street Trees:
By Developer
H.
Map Checking Fee:
N/A
I.
Park Fee: Zone II
N/A
J.
Water Main Reimbursement Fee:
N/A
K.
Maps and/or Improvement Plans
As specified in Item
21 of agreement
/o-~
J~··t·~.~·..·.·:..,:.·.·1
, ,~\
:~, ::,y"
.\ .' /".:i'
.~
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (401\\ 777-'\'\'\'\
CITY OF
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. JL
DATE: November 16, 2004
SUMMARY:
Consider arnendments 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:
On November 1, 2004, the Planning Commission recommendation for the R1
Ordinance was introduced to the City Council. The Council took public input
and continued the itern.
Enclosures:
Staff Report from November 1,2004, with attachments
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
Approved by:
~
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
}I-/
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. 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 R1 Ordinance Arnendment
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 surnmarized as follows:
1. Limit second story area to no rnore 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.
Rl 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
" - d,.
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 Arnendment. Some residents stated that the
rules were not strict enough, sorne 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.
Ke¡¡ 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
/1-3
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 Commission 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 "rnitigated 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 perrnitted 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.
11-4
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 o (C x 0.35) E F (E x 0.50) G
Nel2nd
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.
** 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 lirnit 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 maximum 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 setbacks 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.
11-.5'
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
rnethods 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 rernain at the Design Review
Comrnittee.
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
combination 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.
I/-b
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:
Exceeding a 45% Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The 45% limit on FAR is a fundamental component of the R1 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
Cornmission 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 R1 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 R1 Ordinance states that new construction on
slopes greater than 30% shall trigger the need to meet both the R1 and RHS
regulations.
Construction in the hillsides of the City is rnore sensitive than developrnent 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 Planning Commission in the Scope of Work. The
Comrnission 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 rnade
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 R1 and RHS regulations.
Removal ofSvecific Language for Vague Language
At the final Planning Commission meeting on this amendrnent, a Commissioner
proposed striking out language in the guideline section of the ordinance (Section
19.28.060 C(l)(a)) that states:
"new constnlction should 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"
11-7
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 rernoved 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 (rnore 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:
//-ó
MCA-2002-03
Page 9
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6281
Exhibit 1: Model Ordinance
Exhibit A: Current R1 Ordinance (Chapter 19.28)
Exhibit B: Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendations (2003, 2004)
Planning Commission Documents and Summaries
Exhibit C: Scope of Work
Exhibit D: R1 Ordinance Schedule
Exhibit E: R1 Principles
Exhibit F: Specific Decisions
Process Flow Charts
Exhibit G: Design Review Process
Exhibit H: Current R1 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
11-9
MCA-2002-03
Page 8
Table 2
Proposed Fees for New Review Processes
Fee
$1,915
Fee
$963
e
$1,339
$1,339
$1,339
$1,339
$549
** Note: all applications have a $200 noticing deposit and a $191 environmental review fee
· The Minor Residential Permit fee matches the current Fence Exception fee.
· The Two-Story Permit Level I fee matches the Director's Minor Modification fee.
· The Two-Story Permit 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 Commission 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:
,
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Steve Piasecki
Director of Cornmunity Development
//-/0
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-
F AMIL Y RESIDENCES.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit 1 as arnended.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
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:
I sl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Isl Taghi Saadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G :\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\MCA-2003-02 reso.doc
1/-1/
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 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 19.28
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RIR-l-) ZONES
Sections:
19.28.010
19.28.020
19.28.030
19.28.040
19.28.050
19.28.060
Purposes.
Applicability of FRegulations.
Permitted HUses.
Conditional HUses.
8ite-dDevelopment f'Regulations (Site).
Development re!!ulations (Buildin!!). Lot eon rage, building setbaelcs, height
restrietion5 and privaey mitigation measures f-er ntJDaeees50ry buildings
and strHetures.
19.28.070 Landscape Requirements.
19.28.08019.28.IJ7IJ Permitted yYard eEncroachments.
19.28.090 Minor Residential Permit.
19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit.
19.28.1] 0] 9.28.IJ8IJ Exceptions for preseriptive design regulations.
] 9.28.IJ9IJ Residential design approval.
19.28.12019.28.1I () Development FRegulations-Eichler (Rl-e~).
19.28.13019.28.1IJ5 Development FRegulations-(Rl-aR-l-a).
19.28.11IJ Proeedure for exeeptions and residential design approyals.
]9.28.12IJ Solar design.
19.28.14019.28.13IJ Interpretation by the Planning Director.
19.28.11IJ ,'.ppendix ,A. Landseape Mitigation Mea5ures.
19.28.150 i\ppendix B Release of Pri...aey Proteetion Measures.
19.28.1óIJ f.ppendix C Privaey Proteetion Planting ,\ffidavit.
19.28.010 Purposes.
R I 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)
I
/ /- /ól..
A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods;
B. Ensure provision oflight, 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, §l (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 R I R-+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 Rl R-+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 aceessory to pormit reEJuirements eontained 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;
H,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;
hK. 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 his/her designee shall
administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking
and proximity requirements;
K,l.. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (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 II, 2004)
2
/ / -/3
19.28.040 Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the Rl R-I-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 ITom 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)~ 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 facility that fall into the following categories: that is not
required to obtain a license by the Stale, Cmmty a:;ency or department and has six
or less residents, not includin:; the proyiders, provider family or staff;
a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State. County agencv
or department and has six or less residents. not including the providers.
provider familv or staff;
b. Facilitv that has the appropriate State, Countv agencv or department license
and seven or greater residents. not including the provider tàmily or staff: is
a minimum distance offive hundred feet from the property boundarv of
another residential care facility:
c. Facilitv that is not required to obtain a license by the State. Countv agencv
or dcpartmcnt and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider
family or staff. is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the
property boundary of another residential care facility:
1.Residcntial care facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department
license and seven or t,"Teater residents. not including the provider family or staff,
is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property !loHndary of afJOther
residential care facility;
5.Residential eare facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County
agency or dopartmant and has soYa!! or greater rosidel'lts, not i!!cludin:; the proyider
family or statT, is a minimHm distan£Ø of fiye hllRdred foet from the property boundary
of another residen:ial care facility;
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004)
3
/1-1'-1
6,4. 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 8ite-Development Regulations (Site).
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations.
1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet)
following the RIR-+ zoning symbol. Examples are as follows:
Minimnm
Lot Area
Zoning in Square
Symbol Number Feet
Rl 2. 5,000
R1R-+ 6 6,000
R1R-+ 7.5 7,500
RIR-+ 10 10,000
RIR-+ 20 20,000
The minimum lot size in an R 1 zone is six thousand square feet.
2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A( I) oftlÜs section,
Section 19.28.050.'\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 ftont-yard
setback line, except in the RI-5 district where the minimum lot width is fiftv feet.
C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater.
1. 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-+ 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, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1-992)
Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004)
4
//-6
D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and pe1111Ít
number issued) on or before Januarv 1.2005 may proceed with application processing
under the ordinances in effect at that time.
19.28.060 Development Re!!ulations (Buildio!!).Lot Coverage, Building Setbael,s, Height
Restrietions and Priyaej' Mitigation Measures f-er Nonaeeessorj' Buildings and Struetures.
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent ofthe net lot area.
An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs. patios. porches
and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls.
B. Floor Area Ratio. The obiective of the nom area ratio (FAR) is to set an olltside
(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 project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
1. The maximum floor area ratio of al1 structures on a lot shall be fortv- five
percent./\n)' new single story houGe, or singJe stor)' addition to an existing hoase
ma)' not cause tae floor area ratio of all stmctures OR the lot to exceed furt)' five
percent.
l.An)' RBW two stor)' house, or second stor)' addition to aR existing house, æa)' not
caome the floor area ratio of all structmes on thc lot to eJ(cced thirty five perceRt,
unless discretioRar)' desigB approval is first o'etaiBed from the Design Review
Committee IJHrsaant to 8ectioR 19.28.090. IH Ho eveRt shall sach floor area ratio
cxceed f-ort)' five percent of the net lot area.
3.The floor area of a secoRd story Ghal1 not exceed thirty five percent ofthe existing or
proposed first stor)' or six h,mdred square feet, whichcvor is greater.
2. The maximum floor area of a second storv shall be fitìv percent of the existing or
proposed !irst story noor area. or eight hundred square feet. whichever is greater.
3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet. measured from the noor to the top
of the roo!~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 cOllnt as second story
floor area: otherwise. the area wil1 count as first floor area.
b. A no or area allowance ofseventy-tìve square feet shal1 be provided for
two-story projects to pa11iallv otIset the stairway area that would
otherwise be counted under subsection B(3) of this section.
C. Design Guidelines.
1. 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 Deyelopment shall review the project and shall determine
that the fol1owing items are met prior to issuance of building permits:
a. The mass and bulk of the design sflalJ-should be reasonably compatible
with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New COHstmetion shall Rot
bo disproportionateJ)' Jarger than or out of scale witH tHe neighborhood
pattern ill terms ofbHilding forms. roof pitches, eave heights, rid;;e
hei;;hts, aRd entry featme heights;
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
5
/f-/(¡)
b. New construction should be harmonious in scale and design with the
predominant nei ghborhood pattern.
Ð,c. The design &!tal!-should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior
walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces;
&cd. For projects with three ear garages oriented tø the public right of way,
the 'Nail plane of the third space shall be set back a minÜtll±ffi of two feet
from the wall plane of the other t'.vo spaces, or shall incorporate a
tandem s]3ace. There &!tal!-should not be a three-car wide driveway curb
cut.
e. No more than fiftv percent of the front elevation of a house should
consist of garage area.
L Long, un articulated. exposed second storv walls should be avoided since
it can increase the apparent mass of the second storv.
g. The cun-ent pattem of side setback and garage orientation in the
neighborhood should be maintained.
h. When possible. doors. windows and architectural elements should be
aligned with one another verticall y and horizontally and symmetrical in
number, size and placement.
I. Porches arc encouraged.
. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set
back more.
k. All second story roofs should have at least a one- foot roof overhang.
2.If the Director does not find that tHe proposal is gellerally consistent witH tHis
section, then an application must be made for desi),'ll approval from the Desi::;n
Re\'Íe'N Committee ]3umuant to Section 19.28.090.
D. Setback-First Story (l'!onaccessory Structures).
1. Front Yard. The minimum ftont 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 setbaelrs must be no less than ten feet. The other side yard setback Itlust
be no less than five feet.
Notwithstanding the aeo'ie, a lot less than sixty feet in width and less than six
thousand square feet shalll-lave a minimum side yard setback of fiye feet on each
side yard. In instances ""It ere aa addition is proposed to an existin::; building
havin;; both side yard setbacks leGs than ten feet, the wider setback shall be
retained and the Harrower setbaclc mast be at least five feet. I-n the case of a
comer lot, a minimum side yard setback of twelve f{Jet on the street side of the lot
is reqHired.
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
fect.
b. For interior lots in the R 1-5 district. the side yard setbacks are five feet
on both sides.
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004)
6
/1- 17
C. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be
consistent for all side ym-ds between the front property line and the rear
property line.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. The rear setback may
be reduced to teA fect if, after the reèuctioA, tbe usable rear yarè is not less than
twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line.
a. With a Minor Resièential Permit subiect to Section 19.28.090, the rear
setback may be reduced to ten feet i( after the reduction. the usable rear
yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the
Ii'ont setback line.
4. Garage. The front tàce ora garage in an Rl district shan be set back a minimum
of twenty feet from a street property line.
a. For proiects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way,
the wall plane of the third space shan be set back a minimum of two feet
from the wan plane of the other two spaces.
E. Setback~Second Floor (Þ!oRaccessory 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 tÌ'om any property
line. The minimam side setbacks are ten feet, provièeè that in tHe case of a flag
lot, tHe miAimum setback is twenty feet from any 3roperty line, anè in the case of
a comer lot, a minimum oft'l.eh'e feet from a street side pfSpOrty line and t'NOAty
feet from any rear property line of an existing, developeè single family dv..elling.
3. In the case of a corner lot. a minimum setback is twelve feet ftom a street side
property line and twenty feet from any rear propertv line of a single-family
dwelling.
3 .Setback Surcharge. I. setback distance equal to fifteen feet shall be added in '""hole
or in any combiRation to the front and side yard setback requirements specified iR
subsecticm £2 ofthis section. A rniRimHm of five feet of the fifteen feet SHall be
applied to the sièe yard(s).
1.I,ccessory BHildings/Stnl6tmes. Chapter 19.80 governs set-backs, coverage and
other stanèards for accessory stmctures.
5.The height of seconè story walls are regHlaleè as follows:
a.Fifty percent of tHe total perimeter lCR¡;th of second story walls shall Rot
have exposeè wall heights ¡;reater than six fœt, and shall Howe a
minimum two foot high overlap of tHe adjoining tirst story roof against
the second floor wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset
a minimHm of fom feet from the first story eJ[terior ',':all plane.
b./\.ll seeonè story wall heights greater than siJ[ feot, as moasared fTOm the
second story finisheè floor, are reqHired to have building wall offsets at
least every twonty four feet, with a minin1Hm tWÐ foot èopth and si¡¡
foot width. The offsets shall comprise the ÜIIlllei¡;ht of the wall plane.
c.,^.!l second story roofs shall have a minÜnum of one foot eaves.
F. Basements.
I. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows anè doors
shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2(04)
7
II-I!
ventilation, except that in the case of a sin~le-story house with a basement. one
lightwell mav 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 Hcight. The height of any principal dwelling in an Rl zone
shall not exceed twentv-eight feet, not including fireplace chimnevs, antennae or
other appmtenances.
2. Building Envelope (One Storv).
a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height of singlc-story
structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must lit into a
building envelope defined bv:
I. A ten-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade measured
at the propeliy line:
2. A twenty-live-degree roof line angle proiected inward at the ten-
foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(l) 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 have a
maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as
measured from natural grade, or UP to twentv feet with a Minor
Residential Permit.
3. Building Envelope (Two Storv).
a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height oftwo-storv
structures must fit into a building envelope defined by:
1. A ten-foot high vertical line measured ftom natural grade at the
propeliy line:
2. A fortv-five degree roof line angle proiected inward at the ten-foot
high line re!erenced in subsection G(3)(a)( I) of this section.
4. Second Story Wall Heights. Fitìv percent of the total perimeter length of second
storv walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall
have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adioining first storv roof against the
second storv wall. 'The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum
of four feet from the first story exterior wall plane.
a. The Director of Community Development mav approve an exception to
this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D.
5. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entrv feature height shall be fourteen feet.
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004)
8
//-1'1
6. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council mav prescribe that all buildings
\vîthin a designated area be liInited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen
feet) by aftixing an '"i" designation to the Rl zoning district.
G./\dd¡tional Site RequiremeRts.
I.Height.
a.Maximum Bailding Height. The height of any priHcipal c\.welliHg iH aHR 1
zone shan not eJ:ceed twenty eight feet, Rot irwluding tìreplace
chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances.
b. The mm¡jHwm eKtel10r wan height aBd lmilàing height on siRble story
stmctHres aRd single story sections ofty.o story stmctares mast fit iRto a
building Clwclope detìlwd by:
¡.i\ I\velve foot high vel1ical1iRe measured from natural grade aRd
located five f€et fron~ prÐperty lines;
ií./. twenty tìve degree roef line aRgle projected inward at the t'Nelve
foot HigH line referenced in sabsection F1bi of this section.
Notwithstanding the above, a gable eRd of a roof ene10sing aH attic space
may have a mmeinmm wall Height sf I\veaty fcct to the peal, of tHe roof
as measured from natmal grade.
2.Heights e)[ceeding twenty feet shall be subcj ect te the setback regu1atioRs in
subsection E of this section.
3..'\!'eas Restricted to One Story. Tl~e City Council ma:l prescril3e that all bHilàings
within a desigaated area be limitcd to one story in height (not cKeeeding eighteen
feet) by affi)[illg to the R 1 zoning district, tHe desigaation "i"; pro,.ided hoy,'ever,
tHat the limitation may be removeà througH use permit approval, as proviàed in
Section 19.2S.010B by tHe PlaBIling Commission.
1. The mm¡jmHlR entry feature height, as meas~¡red frem finish grade to the top of the
wan plate, shall be fOHrteen fect.
5.1'10 blank singlc story side walls longer thaI! sí)[teel! feet shall face a public right of
y..ay withoHt at least one efthe fonewing: (a) at least eRe offset with a minimum
t'NO foot depth and sܡ foot width; the offset shall comprise the full height of the
wall plane; (b) windoy,' of at least thirty inches by thirty inches; (c) entry f-cature
leading to a àeor; (d) trellis with lar,àscape screelliBg.
Ð.E)[ceptions for Hillside ,',mas. Notwithstafidinb aRY provisions of subsection PI of
this section to the contrary, the Plarnling COlllli1.ission may make aÐ e)[ception for
heights to exceed twenty eight feet ander certail! circumstances:
a.The su\}ject property is in a hillside area and has slopes often percent or
greater;
b.Topegraphical featares of the subject property make ¡¡n exception to the
standard height restrictions necessary or desirable;
c.ln no case, shall the maximum heib'ht exceed thirty feet for a principal
d'selling or twenty feet f{)r an accessory builàil!g or d',velling;
d.1n no case, shall the maximHlll height of a structHre located on prominent
ridgo1ines. on or above the roll!' handred finy feot CORtOHl' exceed twenty
feet in height.
H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with yiews into
neighb0l1ng residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Pennit subiect
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
9
11- -;'0
to Section 19.28.090 in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of
the penl1it reQUirenlellt is not to reclUire complete visual protection bu.t to address privacy
protection to the greatest extent whjle still allowing the construction and use of an
outdoor deck. This section applies to second-storv decks, patios, balconies, or any other
similar unenclosed features.
I. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the fì'ont setback for'
the principal dwelling.
2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fitìeen feet.
3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty feet.
I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied
for a stmcture utilized for passive or active solar purposes provided that no such
structure shan infringe upon solar easements of adjoining property owners. Any solar
structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter
may be allowed onlv upon issuance of a Minor Residential Pennit subiect to Section
19.28.090.
H.Privacy Protection Requirements.
I.Required Laadseape Plantia;;.
a.Requirement. In Dràer to adàress privacy protectioa and the reduction in
visible buiJding; mass of new two story homes and adàitieas, tree aad/or
shmb plantillg; is required.
b.Planting; Plan. /1. builàiag pennit application f{)r a aew two story hOtlso or
a second story addition shall 130 aceompanied by a plantiag plan which
identifies thc location, species aad canopy diameter of existiag trees or
shmbs subject to staffapproyal. New trees or shmbs shall be requireà
on the applicaat's property vfÍthia a cOile ofvisiofl defiaeà by a thirty
degree angle from the side "yifldow jæ'abs of all secofld story winàows
(Exhibit 1). New trees or sh.'1ibs are aot required to rcplace existing
trees or shrubs if an Internationany Certified .^.rborist or Liceased
Landscape i\íchitect verifies that the eJ[isting trees/shntBs are consistent
with the intent of .^cppenàiJ[ ,^c. f,ppIicants for aew two story homes and
additions must plant a tree in fÌ'oat ofne...,' secoRd stories ia the front
yard setback area unless there is a eeaflict "vith the tree canopies of the
public street tree (Appendix .'\, page 2). The pIantiag; is reE Hireà oa the
applicant's property, unless the options listed in subseetioa Fld of this
section is applied. This option does aot apply to the front yard tree
plaating requiremeat.
c.Planting Reqtliremeats. The minimurn size of the pro Joseà trees shall be
twoaty four iach 130)[ and eight foot aÜHiHl',1ffi planting height. The
minimum size of the shn:Bs shall be fifteen galloa and six foot plaatiag;
height. The planting must be able to achieve a partial screening within
three years from plaatiag. The speeies and plaating; distance betweea
trees shall be governed by ,^.ppBadix ,'\. The trees or shmbs shall be
planted prior to issual1ce of a final occupanc)' perB1it. An affidavit of
plaating is required in order to obtain the final occupancy permit
(.^.ppeHài¡¡ C).
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
10
11-2..1
d.Options. ìNhere plaRting is required, the afJplieaRt ¡'Hay fJlæ.t on the
affected I'roperty owners lot in lieu oftheir own lot or tho atTested
property owner may modify the nambers of s~lrubs or trees, their t)13es
and loeations by submitting a waiyer to the Community Development
Department along with the Building pel1Hit U\ppendix B). This option
does not apply to the reqaired tree planting in iront yards.
e..'\pplicability. This rcquiremcnt s~lall apply to second story windows and
decks with vie':is into neighboring residential yards. Skylights, windows
with sills more than five feet above the finished seeond floor, windows
with pernlanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished second
floor, and obscured, non openable windows are not required to I'rovide
privaey I'rotectioE plaRt:ns.
fMainteEaI'lee. The required plants shall be maiHtained. Landscape planting
maintenanee incbdes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to
yield a growth rate expected for a pmiicular species. '.¥here required
plantiHS dies it mUGt be rej3laced within thirty days with the size aHd
sl'eeies as deseribed iH f,ppendiJl .'\ of this ehal'ter and an updated
planting plan shall be provided to the ComlIHmity Development
Department. The affeeted property owner with privaey proteetioH
planting 01'1 his or her OWE lot is not required to maintain the
landscapiHg. (Ord. 1868, (I'art), 2001; On!. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord.
1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ore!. 1831, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999;
Ord. 1799 § 1,1998; Ord. 1781, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993;
Ore!. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. f,
(part), 1992)
19.28.070 Landscape Requirements.
To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual m¡iss 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. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new two-story homes. second-story decks.
two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story decks or existing
windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring
residents. Skvlights, windows with sills more thml1ive feet above the finished second
floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers UP to six feet above the finished second
floor, and obscured, non-openablc windows are not required to provide privacy
protection planting.
B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-stOry house or a second story addition
shaH be accompanied bv 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-degree angle on each side window iamb. The trees or shrubs shall be
planted prior to issuance of a t¡nal occupancy permit.
a. New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if
an Intemationally Celiifïed ArbOlist or Licensed Landscape Architect
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004)
11
/ /-.;{^
verities that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics ofprivacv
planting_species, subiect to approval bv the Director of Communitv
Developmcnt.
b. Affected propcliv owner(s) mav choose to allow privacv planting on their
own propertv. In sllch cases, the applic,mt must plant the privacv
screening prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Waiver. Thesc privacv mitigation measures mav be modified in anv wav with a
signed waiver statement from the affected propertv 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 sccond stories in thc front yard setback area. The tree
shall be 24 inch-box or larger. with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of
Communitv Development can waive this front-vard tree if there is a conflict with existing
mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-ol~wav.
D. Species List. . The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowcd privacv planting
trees and shmbs. The list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and
shmbs, expected canopv or spread size, and planting distance between trees.
E. Covenant. The propertv owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara Countv
Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of existing
vegetation as privacv planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection fÌ'om the
Building Division. This regulation does not appl y to situations described in subsection
B(l )(b) of this section.
F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance
includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to vield a growth rate expected
for a particular species.
G. Replacement. Wherc required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within
thirty davs with privacv tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is
determined to be infeasible bv the Director of COnllilllnitv 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 Rcsidential Pcrmit and conforms to the following: to no less
than three feet from tHe property line if the applicant obtains written consent from tHe
adjoining property O'Nner thereby affected and receives approval fÌ'om tHe Director of
C01HB1Hnity Development. Only one sach extension shall be pel'fHitted for the life of
sHch building. This section applies to the first story only aRd shall not be construed to
allmv the further extension of an encroaclunent by an)' building, wHich is the resHlt of
the granting of a variance or e;¡ception, either before or after SHCH property become part
of the City.
I. The extension or addition mav not furthcr cncroach into anv rCCluired setback and
the height of the existing llon-confonning wan and the extended wall mav not be
increased.
2. The maximum lengt[1 of the extension is ÜJìeen feet.
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
12
/ / - ~3
3. The extension of any wall plane of a first-story addition is not pel111itted to be
within three feet of any property line.
4. Only one such cxtensi.on sha]] be permitted for the life of such building.
5. This section applies to the tirst story only and shal1 not be construed to al10w the
further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the
granting of a variance or exception, either before or aHer such property become
part of the Citv.
B.The extensioR or addition may not further encroach iFlto any reqHired setback; e.;;., a single
story may be e)[teRded aloRg an e)¡jstiRg five foot side yard setback even thoHgh the side
yard does Rot eqHal ten feet. However, in no case shal1 any ,vall plane of a first story
addition be placed e10scr than three feet to any property line.
&.8. 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
threefeet 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)
19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits.
Proiects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with this
section. The purpose of this process is to proyide affected neighbors with an opportunitv to
comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their propertv or 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 of real property (as shown in the last tax
assessment toll) that are adiacent to the subiect property, ine1uding properties across a
public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment bv a detern1ined action
date and shal1 include a copy of the development plans. eleven inches by seventeen
inches in size.
B. Decision. After the advertised deadline tor public comments. the Director of Community
Dcvelopment shal1 approve. conditionallv approve. or dcnv the application. The pcrn1it
can be approved only upon making al1 of the fol1owing findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, anv 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 wil1 not be detrimental
to the public health. safety or welfare.
3. The proposed project is hannonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood.
4. Adverse visual impacts on adioining properties have bcen reasonably mitigated.
C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commission. applicant and any member of
the public that commented on the project shal1 be notiJìed of the action by first class mail
and electronic mail. Any interested par1y may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter
] 9.136, except that the Planning Commission wi]] make the tinal action on the appeal.
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 11,2004)
13
/ / - é).L-/
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 expires for anv reason. the Minor Residential Permit shall become
null and void. The Director of Community Development may l(rant a one-year extension
without a public notice if an application for a Minor Moditìcation to the Minor
Residential Pennit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the
extension is provided.
E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development.
a Minor Residential Pernlit can be processed concuTI'ently with other discretionary
applications.
19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit.
Two-story additions or two-story new homes require a Two-Story Residential Pernlit in
accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a Hoor area ratio under 35% shall require
a Levell Two-Story Residential Permit, while a two-storv project with a Hoor arca ratio over
35% shall require a Level II Two-Story Residential PemTit.
A. Notice of Application (Level n. Upon receipt of a complete application. a notice shall be
sent by first class mail to all owners ofrecord of real property (as shown in the last tax
assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property. including pro(Jerties across a
public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action
date and shall include a COpy of the development plans. eleven inches by seventeen
inches in size.
I. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the
subiect site that is clearJy visible from the public street. The notice shall be a
weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a
five-loot 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 brief description of the proposed proiect. the content of which shall
be at the sole discretion of the City:
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
d. A deadline lor the submission of public comments. which shall be at
least fOUlieen days after the date the notice is posted;
e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the front of the house. at
least eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. The Citv shall atmrove
the illustration or rendering prior to posting.
B. Notice of Ap¡Jlication (Level Il). Upon receipt of a con¡plete application, a notice shall
be sent by first class mail to all owners ofrecord of real propertv (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 by a deternlÍned action
date and shall include a copv ofthc development plans, elevcninches by seventccn
inches in size.
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
14
/ /-;:).5"
1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice consistent with
subsection A(l) of this section, except 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 Community
Development shall approve. conditionallv approve, or deny the application. The pel111it
can be approved only upon making all of the following findings:
I. 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 pennit will not resnlt in a condition that is detrimental or
injurious topropertv or improvements in the vicinity. and will not be detrimental
to the public hea1lh, safety or welfare.
3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood.
4. Adverse visual impacts on adioining properties have been reasonablv mitigated.
D. Notice of Action. The Citv Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of
the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action bv first class mail
and electronic mail. Anv interested partv mav appeal the action pursuant to Chapter
19.136, except that the Platming Commission will make the final action on the appeal.
E. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unless a building permit is tì1ed and accepted bv the
Citv (fees paid and control number issued) within one vear of the Two-Story Permit
approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was
specificallv prescribed bv the conditions of approval. In the event that the building
permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story PCl111it shall become null and void. The
Director of Communi tv Development mav grant a one-year 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-Story Pemlit can be processed concUlTentlv with other discretionary applications.
19.28.11019.28.1)81) Exceptions for Preseriptive 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
19.28.12019.2£.100 may be granted as provided in this section.
A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community
Development Department shall set 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
of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred
feet ofthe subiect property. Properties that are adjacent to the subiect site. including
those across a public or private street, shall receive a reduced scale COpy of the plan set
with the public notice.
B. Decision. After closing the public hearing. the decision-maker shall approve.
conditionallv approve, or deny the application based on the findings in this section. Anv
interested party can appeal the dccision pursuant to Chapter 19.136.
C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted bv the City
(tèes paid and control number issued) within one vear of the Exception approval, said
approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specifically
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004)
15
/ /- d.0
prescribed by the conditions of approvaL In the event that the building permit expires
for anv reason. the Exception shall become null and void. The Director of Community
Development mav grant a one-veal' extension without a public notice if an application
for a Minor Moditìcation to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and
substantive i ustification for the extension is provided.
D. Findings for Approval
1. Issued by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community
Development may grant excePtions from the prescriptive design regulation
described in Section 19.28.0600(4) upon making all of the following findings:
a. The proiect fulfills the intent ofthe visible second-story wall height
regulation in that the number oftwo-storv wall planes and the amount
of visible second story wal1 area is reduced to the maximum extent
possible.
b. The exception to be granted is one that wil1 require the least
modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum
variance that wil1 accomplish the purpose.
c. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as
viewed from abutting properties.
2. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The Design Review 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 al1 of the
following findings:
a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
b. The proposed development will not be iniurious to property or
improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safetv. health
and we] fare.
c. The exception to be granted is one that wi]] require the least
modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum
valiance that will accomplish the purpose.
d. The proposed exception wi]] not result in significant visual impact as
viewed fÌ'om abùtting properties.
/..Iss'l8d by the Director of ComffiHHity Developmeat. \'.'ith respect to a reEluest f{)r two
story development which does Flat meet the doyelopment requiremeFlts contaiFled iH
Section 19.2g.060H (Privacy ProtectioFt Requirements) aHd Section 19.2g.100C, the
Commlmity Development Director may grant aFt exception to allow two story
developmeHt if the subject developmeHt, based UpOFt substantial evideFlce, meets al1
of the fol1owing criteria:
l.The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictioHG iFlconsistcnt
veith the spirit arrd iAteRt of this chapter.
2.The proposed de'ielopmeRt ",ill Rot be injmious to property or improvements in
the area Ror be detrimental to tho public safety, health and ",velflH'o.
3.The proposed development is othorwise consistent '?lith the City's GeBeral PlaA,
any applioable speoific p]aB, and with the purposes of this chapter.
1.Tl1e adjeiniHg properties are otherwise protected from unreasoBa131e privacy
impacts.
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 1 l, 2004)
16
//-;). 7
B.Issued by the Design Revie'N Committee (Other Prescriptive Design Regulations). The
Design Re'iiew Committee may graHt exceptions fì'om the prescriptive design
regulations describod in Section 19.28.060 and Section 19.28.100 exclusive of
Section 19.28.060G1 (Hillside Building Heights) upon mating all of the following
findings:
I.The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will resalt in
restrictions :neoHsisterrt with tile spirit and intent of this ehapter.
2.1he granting of the exception will not result in a ÐOndition that is materially
detrimental to the pHblie health, safety and welfare.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will reqHire the least modification of the
prescribod design regulation and the minimüm 'iariance that will accolHplish
the purpose.
1. The proposed exception will not resült in sigHificant vis¡;al impaet as vie'.ved
from a!mtting pl'Ðperties.
C.Issued by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building Heights). Not'.vithstanding any
provision of Section 19.28.060 G I to Ü1e contrary, the Planning Commission may
grant an exception for heights to exceed twenty eight feet <lpon mating all of the
following findings:
1.1he subject property is in a Hillside area and has slopes often percent or greater.
~.Topographical featmes of tHe subject property make an exception to the
standard height restrictions necessary or desirable.
3 .In no case shall the maximum height Ðxceed tilirty feet for a principal dVielling
or twenty feet for an accessory bui Iding.
1.In no case shall the maximum height of a structure located on a prominent
ridgeliae, Ofl or above the felH' hundred fifty fuet cOfltour eJweed t'A'enty
eight feet. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (pmi), 2000; Ord. 1811, §
I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999)
19.28.0911 Residential Design /\ppreval.
ill the event that a proposed development of two stories exceeds a thirty five percent floor
area ratio as prescribed in Section 19.28.060B, or in the event that the Director ofCemmunity
Development finds that the proposed two story development does not conform to Section
19.28.0éOC, the applioant shall apply to the DesigH Reyiev. Committee for design apprO'.·al to
allo'oV fer the development; prO'.ided, how eyer, in no eyent shall such application exceed a ferty
fiye pereent floor area ratio. In addition te the public hearing and notice requirements described
in Section 19.28.110, at leaGt teA days prior to the date of the public hearing, the applieaAt shal1
iAstall ster)' poles to outliAethe proposed b,lilding eKterior walls and roof as further desoribed by
procedmes de'idoped by the Director efCommunity Development.
The Design Reyiew Committee may grant a special permit enly HpOA makiBg al1 of the
fol1ov:ing findings:
A.The project ·....ill be consistent with the C<lpertino Con,prehensive General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, zeniHg ordinances and tl,e parposes of this title.
B.The graRtiBg of the special permit will not rßsHlt in a condition that is detrimental or
iBjmiolls to proporty or imprevemeRts in the'. icinity, and wil1 not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare.
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
17
//- ~8'
C.The ]3roposed addition/home is harmorJious iR scale and desigR with the geReral
neibhborhood.
D.The proposed addition/home is generally consistent with design ;;tJidelines de'ieloped by
the Director of Community De'ielopment.
E.The pro]3osed addition/home will Rot resHlt in significant adveroe vis\:lal impacts as viev.'ed
from adjoining properties. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 7000; Ord.
l8~~, ~ I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (pmi), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), ]999)
19.28.12019.28.] 00 Development Regulations-Eichler (RI-e)(R Ie).
R1-eR-k 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] -eR--H!. 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,
1, The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet.
B. Building Design Requirements,
1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roofline ofthe house.
2, The maximum roof slope shall be three-to-twelve~ (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.SecoRd stery buildiag wall offsets described iR Section 19.28.060 E5b are Rot
required for homes in the Rl e ZORe,
5. Section 19.28.060 G( 4) shan be considered a guideline in the R] -e district.
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 of the floor to the top of the wall plate,
C. Privacy Protection Requirements.
1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows. In addition to other privacy
protection requirements in Section 19.28,070 19.2~;'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, § 1 (part), 2000)
] 9.28.]0519.28.130 Development Regulations-(Rl-aR-la)
R]-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 Rl-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 isten thousand square feet.
Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004)
18
/ / - éJ.i
B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard
setback line.
e. 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 feel 700 sq. ft. in area.
2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred square
feet 1,100 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.
1. Front Yard. The minimum fÌ'ont 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.
4.The setback surcharge in Soction 19.2£.060 E(3) does not apply in this distriet.
F. Second-story Regulations
1. Second story decks shall conform to the second-story building setbacks, and
may be located on the front and rear only.
2. The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane.
3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of
three feet fÌ'om 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 W%-ofthe front yard setback area may
be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than
forty percent 4G%-of the front 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 fÌ'om natural grade and located ten
feet from property lines;
2. A twenty-five degree roofline angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high
line referenced in subsection H(2)(la) of this section.
I. Variation from the R1 and Rl-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter
19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district.
J. Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionary review from the
Design Reyiew Committeebased on Section 19.28.100. cxcept that the Design Review
Committee shall approve or deny the proiect at a public hearing based on the findings in
subsection Nt I) of this section.. Diseretionary revie';,' processes shall be based on
Section 19.28.090 of the CHpertino Municipal Code, except 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
II-?;o
Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant
shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project.
1. 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 of the wall plane.
3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) E(5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in the Rl-a
district.
4.SectioflI9.28.060 E(5)(b) shall not apply to the Rl a district.
~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 of the property.
L. Permitted Yard Encroachments.
1. 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 of the 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. Fronl Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When
viewed from 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 stmctural supports, such as posts, for porches are
allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Stmctural
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
20
/ /-3/
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
1. 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 from 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 from 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 ofthe spread noted on the City list.
b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height oftwe1ve .J+feet at the
time of planting.
c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views fÌ'om 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. Desigu Review Findings. Procedures and Process
I.Posted Notiee. for aU Hew eOHstn18tion, the a¡¡plieant shall ins taU a pub lie netiee in
the front yard of the subject site that is dearly visible from the public street. The
notice shaU be a weatherproof sibn, at least two fcet taU and three feet wide
fimlly attached to a five foot post. The notice shaU remain in plaee Hntil an
action Has beef! taken Of! tHe a¡¡plication and tHe appeal period Has passed. The
sign. shall eontaia tHe folloy,ing:
a.The exact address of the property, ifleHe,:,', or the loeation of the
prop8l1y, if the address is not known.
Iou\. brief description of the proposed projeet, tHe content of whicH sHall be
at tHe sole discretion of the City;
c.City contact information for pHblic inquiries;
d,i'.n 11 "¡117" illustratiea of the proposed House '."hen "iewed from the
street. lil cases 'Naere desiga review is required, the illustration sha1l
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
21
//- 3~
13e a perspective rendering aRd shall iRelude the projected aetiofl dale.
Tl:e City shall approve the illustratioH or rondmins prior to POStiflg.
2.,^.djacont single family residelTtial properties shall reccive a redaced scalo copy of
the proposed plan sot WitH tfie mailed Botice.
~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.
19.28.1111 Procedure f-er Exceptions and Residential Design AfJpl'Byals.
.'\.Public Hearing Notice. Upon receipt of aH application for appro'lal, Hle Director of
Community Dcvelopment sfiall set a time and place fDr a public fiearing before the
releva1'1t decisie1'1 malœr and erder t.!J.e 1mblic notice tfiereof. t. 1'1otice of the fieari1'1g sfiall
be sent by first class mail to all OYl1'1erG ofrocord ofrcal property (as SfiOW1'1 i1'1 tfie last tm¡
aGSeSSfl'le1'1t roll) witfiin tflree hUHdred feet of the subject property.
RExpiratioA of a1'1 E][ceptio1'1 or Residential Design t.pprovaJ. A decisioB for approval wfiicfi
has Rot becn llsed witHiR oRe year follo"ving tHe cff-ective date tfiereof, shall become RHll
and void and of RO effect lomless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by
tHe cOBditio1'1s of the exceptio1'1. t.1'1 approval sfiall be deemed to have beeB '\\Ged" wfien
a complete bailding permit applicatioa is submitted to tHe Cfiief BuildiBg Official, aHd
ccmti1'1Hes to progress in a diligent manner. In the e\ ent tfiat tfie bHildiRg permit
applicatioR e)¡pires, the Residential Design t.pproval sfiall become ffilll and 'oid. The
Director ofCommHnity Dove\opmc1'1t may graBt one additional O1'1e year exteBsioR if an
applicatio1'1 is filed before tHe expiration date without furt~ler notice aBd heariBg.
C.DeeÎsion. .'\fter elOSi1'1g the public Heariag, tHe decisio1'1 maker shall approve, cOBditionally
approve, or deny tHe application.
0.,'\11 decisions regarding approvals containcd in this section may be appealed by any
iRterested party ¡mrsuaRt to Cfiapter 19.136. An appeal of the Design Review Committee
decision shall be pl'oeessed in tfie same manner ~:s aR appeal ¡iom tHe deeision of the
Direetor of COlRlRlmity Devolopment.
KEKpiratio1'1 of an Exception or ResideAtial Design ,'\pproval. i\ decision for appro'.al whieh
has Rot been used '",ithin one year folloviing the effective date thereof, shall become n:1ll
and void and of no effeet Hnless a sfiorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by
the conditio1'1s of the e::eeptioB. l.B approval shall be deemed to have becn "Hsed" in the
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
22
1/- 3~
eyeRt of tHe erectioR ofa stnl0ture wHoR sufficieRt buildiRg activity Has occurred and,
eORtiRues to occar in a diligcnt manner. THe Director of Community Dcyclopment may
grant one addit:onal one year extension if an applicatioR is filed before the e][piration
date WithOlfÍ further notice aRd hearing.
F.ConcurreJ-l! l.pplieations. NotwitllstandiR; aRY proyisioR oftllis cHapter to tHe cORtrary, an
a¡3pliclltiOR for Ø],ception or residential design re';iew may, at the discretion of the Direetor of
COll1m~mity Deyelopmerl!, be processed concurrently with other land use approvals. (Ord.
1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1814, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 183'1, (part),
1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999)
19.28.120 Salar Design.
The sotback and lleigHt restrictions provided in tHis chapter may be varied for a structure
utilized f-er passive or active solar purposes, ill R 1 zones, provided tHat !!O sUCH structure shall
infringe apon solar ellscmeRts of adjoining property O'.vners. <''.IlY solm struetlli'e wHieH requires
variation from the setback or hoigHt restriction of this chapter shall be allowed only upon
issuance of a conditional ase permit by the Direetor of Community DevelopmeFlt. (OrEl. ] 860, §
I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, hH..\ (part), 1992)
19.28.14019.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director.
_In R 1 R-+ zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make
reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions ofthis chapter consistent with the
legislative intent 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. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999;
Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
Strike all sections and exllibits after Seetio!! 19.28.130
Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004)
23
/I ~ 3'1
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
19.28.010
CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONES
Purposes.
Applicability of regulations.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Site development regulations.
Lot coverage, building setbacks,
height restrictions and privacy
mitigation measures for
nonaccessory buildings and
structures.
Permitted yard encroachments.
Exceptions for prescriptive design
regulations .
Residential design approval.
Development regulations-Eichler
(R-le).
Development regulations-(R-1a).
Procedure for exceptions and
residential design approvals.
Solar design.
Interpretation by the Planning
Director.
Appendix A-Landscape Mitigation
Measures.
Appendix B-Release of Privacy
Protection Measures.
Appendix C- Privacy Protection
Planting Affidavit.
19.28.010 Purposes.
R -I single-family residence districts are intended to
create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached
dwellings in order to:
A. Enhance the identity of residential 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 co=unity: (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I
(part), 2000: Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A
(part), 1992)
2004 5-2 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 conformance with the provisions of this chapter
and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1860, §
1 (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 R-l 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 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. 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;
1. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility
services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices,
construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards;
1. 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 Co=unity Development or
hislher designee shall 9rlmini.tratively approve large day
care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and
proximity requirements;
29
/ / - .35"
19.28.030
Cupertino - Zoning
30
K. 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)
19.28.040 Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the
R -I single-family residence district, subject to the issuance
of a conditional use permit:
A. Issued by the Director of Community
Development:
I. 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 permineduse. 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 E2 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 facility that is not required to
obtain a license by the State, County agency or department
and has six or less residents, not including the providers,
provider family or staff:
4. Residential Care facility that has the appropriate
State. County agency or department license and seven or
greater residents, not including the provider family or staff,
is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the
property boundary of another residential Care facility;
5. Residential ~are facility that is not required to
obtain a license by the State, County agency or departtnent
and has seven or greater residents, not including the
provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five
hundred feet from the property boundary of another
residential Care facility;
6. 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, § I (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 Site Development Regulations.
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations.
I. Lot area shall correspond to the number
(multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-l
zoning symbol. Examples are as follows:
Zoning Symbol Number
Mìnimum Lot Area in
Square Feet
R-l 6
R-l 7.5
R-l 10
R-l 20
6,000
7,500
10 ,000
20,000
The minimum lot size in an R-I zone is six thousand
square feeL
2. Lots. which contain less area than required by
Section 19.28.050 AI, 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 front-yard setback line.
C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or
Greater.
1. Site plans for all development proposals sha1l
include topographical information at contour intervals not to
exceèd 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 ordirumce, Chapter 19.40. or the R-l
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), 200 I;
Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord.
1834, (part). 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601,
Exh. A (part), 1992)
¡'
/ 1- 30
31
Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones
19.28.060
19.28.060 Lot Coverage, Building Setbacks, Height
Restrictions and Privacy Mitigation
Measures for Nonaccessory Buildings and
Structures_
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall
be forty-five percent of the net lot area.
B. Floor Area Ratio.
1. A11y 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. A11y new two-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,
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. A11y 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 shall be
reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood
pattern. New construction shall 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 shall 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. Atleast 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 shall be retained and the narrower setback
must be at least five feet. In the case of a corner lot, a
minimum side-yard setback of twelve feet on the street side
of the lot is required.
3. Rear Yard. The min;",um rear yard setback is
twenty feet. The rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if,
after the reduction, tbe 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).
1. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-
five feet.
//-31
19.28.060
Cupertino - Zoning
4' rrin.
ofr:set
~
5'
.,
b
b
.6
N
I
2. The m;n;,nnm side setbacks are ten feet,
provided that in the case of a flag lot, the minimum
setback is twenty feet from any property line, and in the
case of a comer lot, 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. Setback 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 minimnm of five feet
of the fifteen feet shall be applied to the side yard(s).
4. AccessoryBuildingslStructures. Chapter 19.80
governs setbacks, coverage and other standards for
accessory structures.
5. The height of second story walls are regulated
as foUows:
a. . 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 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.
.
32
FuI height
.secand
Ioor wall
I
Seaxv:I Floor Plan
.s
E
!?
'"...
.:;;-
"," ,~
E
24"~
}
b. All second story wall heights greater 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 minimnm two-foot depth and six-
foot width. The offsets shall comprise the full height of
the wall plane.
c. All second story roofs shall have a minimum of
one-foot eaves.
1/- 31
33
Sing1e-Family Residentlal (B.-i) Zones
19.28.0641
F. Basements.
I. The number, size and volume of lightwells and
basement windows and doors sha11 be the minimum
reqWred 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 min;mnm side setback for a lightwell
retaining wall sha11 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 landS("aping.
4. Railings for lightwells sha11 be no higher than
three feet in height and shall be located imm..ni.'-Iy
adjacent to tbe lightwell.
S. The perimeter of tbe basement and alllightwell
retaining walls sha11 be treated and/or reinforced with the
most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the
Director of Community Development.
G. Additional Site Requirements.
I. Height.
a. Maximum Building Height. The height of any
principal dwelling in an R-I zone shall not exceed twenty-
eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or
other appurtenanceS.
b. 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
lIJI1ural grade and located five feet from property lines;
ü. A twenty-five-degree roof line angle projected
inward at the twelve-foot high line 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.
~
....
T-of ~.
PIoIo .
=..-...
,........ I
~ I
I;>
;!
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-I zoning district, the designation "i";
provided however, that the limitation may be removed
through use permit approval, as provided in Section
19.28.040B by the Planning Commission.
4. The maximum entry feature height, as measured
from finish grade to the top of the wall plate, sha11 be
fourteen feet.
S. No blank single-story side walls longer than
sixteen feet shall face a public right-of-way without 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 FI of this section to the
contrary, the Planning Commission may make an exception
for heights to exceed twenty-eight feet under certall1
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 maximum 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.
J J- 39
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 shroh 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 shrobs 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 I).
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 F I d of this section is applied. This
option does not apply to the front yard tree-planting
requirement.
c. Planting Requirements. The minimum size of the
proposed trees shal1 be twenry- four inch box and eight foot
minimum planting height. The m;nimlltl1 size of the shrobs
shal1 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 shal1 be governed by Appendix A.
The trees or shrubs shal1 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. Maintenance. The required plants shall be
maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes
irrigation, ferti1ization 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 descnbed 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, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808
(part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998;
Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord.
1630, (part), 1993: Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.070 Permitted Yard Enc:roachmenls.
A. Where a 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 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 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 become part of the City.
B. The extension or addition may not further
encroach into any required setback; e.g., a single story may
be extended along an existing five"foot side-yard setback
even though the side yard does not equal ten feet. However,
in no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be
placed closer than three feet to 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
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, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999;
Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord.
1601, Em. 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.
/1-40
35
Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones
19.28.080
A. Issued by the Director of Community
Development. With respect to a request for two-story
development which does not meet the development
requirements contained in Section 19.28.060H (Privacy
Protection Requirements) and Section 19.28.l00c, the
Community Development Director may grant an exception
to allow two-story development if the subject development,
based upon substantial evidence, meets all of the following
criteria:
I. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result
in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this
chapter.
2. The proposed development will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental
to 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 protected
from unreasonable privacy impacts.
B. Issued by the Design Review Committee (Other
Prescriptive Design Regulations). The Design Review
Committee may grant 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 Heights) upon making all of the followin.g
fmdings:
I. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this
chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit
and intent of this chapter.
2. The granting of the exception will not result in a
condition that is materia1ly detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare.
3. 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.
4. The proposed exception will not result in
significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties.
C. Issued by the Planning Commission (Hillside
Building Heights). Notwithstanding any provision of
Section 19.28.060 Gl to the contrary, the Planning
Commission may grant an exception for heights to exceed
twenty-eight 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 subject property
make an exception to the standard height restrictions
necessary or· desirable.
3. In no case shall the maximum height 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 height 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 stories
exceeds a thirty-five percent floor area ratio as prescribed in
Section 19.28.06OB, or in the event that the Director of
Community Development finds that the proposed two-story
development does not conform to Section 19.28.060C, the
applicant shall apply to the Design Review Committee for
design approval to allow for the development; provided,
however, in no event sha1l such application exceed a forty-
five percent floor area ratio. In addition to the public
hearing and notice requirements described in Section
19.28.110. at least ten days prior to the date of the public
hearing. the applicant shall install story poles to outline the
proposed building exterior walls and roof as further
described by procedures developed by the Director of
Community Development.
The Design Review Committee may grant a special
permit only upon making all of the following findings:
A. The project will be consistent with the Cupertino
Comprehensive General Plan, any applicable specific plans,
zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title.
B. The granting of the special permit will not result
in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity. and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare.
C. The proposed addition/home is harmonious in
scale and design with the general neighborhood.
D. The proposed addition/home is generally
. consistent with design guidelines developed by the Director
of Community Development.
E. The proposed addition/home will not result in
significant adverse visual impacts 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-le).
R-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-le. 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.
/J-t.f(
19.28.100
Cupertino - Zoning
36
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 3: 12 (rise over
run).
3. W cod or other siding material located on walls
facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall
incotpOrate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart.
4. The building design sha1l mcotpOrate straight
architectural lines , rather than curved lines.
5. Second story building wall offsets described in
Section 19.28.060 E5b are DOt required for homes in the R1-
e zone.
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 of the
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 19.28.060H, 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), 2(00)
19.28.105 Development Regulations-(R-la).
Rl-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 Rl-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 minimnm lot
size is ten thousand square feet.
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 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.
I. Front Yard. The minimum front yard sethack is
thirty feet.
2004 S- 2 Repl.
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. Pront Yard. The minimnm front 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.
4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3)
does not apply in this district.
F. Second-story Regulations.
I. Second story decks shall conform to the second"
story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and
rear only.
2. The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-
story wall plane.
3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story
must be offset a minimum of three feet from the frrst -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 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 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:
a. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from
natural grade and located ten feet from property lines;
b. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected
inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in, subsection
H(2)(a) of this section.
1. Variation from the Rl and Rl-a regulations shall
require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district.
J. Design Review. All two-story development shall
require discretionary review from the Design Review
Committee. Discretionary review processes shall be based
on Section 19.28.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code,
except as amended by this ordinance.
K. Design Gnldelines. The guldelines 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 prece-ðP'lCe. Nonconformance with the guidelines shaÍI
be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that
there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project.
1/-, Lf~
36A
Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones
19.28.105
I. Second-story windows. Windows on the side
elevations should be [¡xed and obscured to a height of six
feet above the second floor, should have pennanent 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 [¡nisbed floor,
should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four
feet, with a minimum four-foot depth and ten-fool width.
The offsets should comprise the full beight of the wall plane.
3. Section 19.28.060 E (5)(a) shall be considered a
guideline in the RI-a district.
4. Section 19.28.060 E (5)(b) shall not apply to the
Rl-a district.
5. 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 of the 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 of the
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 attacbed 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 reS]llt of the
granting of a variance or exception, either before or after
such property become part of the City.
2. Architeètural 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 from the street, a
porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in
height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a
proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this
yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of
the Director of Community Development.
2004 S-2 Repl.
a. Posts. Vertical structural supports. such as posts,
for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the
required front setback. Structural 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
encroacb 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 from 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 from mass,
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 m;~;mllm 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 12'
at the time of planting.
c. Front yard tree planting shal1 be placed such that
views from 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 Procedures and Process.
I. Posted Notice. For all new construction, the
applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the
subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The
notice shal1 be a weaJ:herproof sign, at least two feet tall and
three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The
notice shall remain in place until an action bas been taken on
the application and the appeal period bas passed. The sign
shall contain the following:
a. The exact address of the property, if known, or
the location of the property, if the address is not known;
/ /- 43
19.28.105
Cupertino - Zoning
36B
b. A brief description of the proposed project. the
content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City;
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
d. An 11 "x 17" illustration of the proposed house
when viewed from the street. 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 rwo-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 bealth. safety
or welfare.
c. The project is generally compatible with the
established pattern of building fonns, building materials and
designs of homes in the neighborhood.
d. The project is consistent with the City's sing]e-
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. (Ord. 1927, § I (part). 2(03)
19.28.110 Procedure for Exceptions and
Residential Design· Approvals.
A. Public Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of an
application for approval, the Director of Community
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 sent by first
class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown
in the last tax assessment 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 date thereof, shall
become null and void and of no effect uniess a shorter time
period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of
the exception. An approval shall be deemed to have been
"used" when a complete building permit application is
submitted to the Chief Building Official, and continues to
progress in a diligent manner. In the event that the building
permit application expires, the Residential Design Approval
2004 S- 2 Repl.
shall become null and void. The Director of Community
Development may grant one additional one-year extension
if an application 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 appealed by any interested party
pursuant to Chapter 19.136. An - appeal of the Design
Review Committee decision shall be processed in the same
manner as an appeal from the decision of the Director of
Community Development.
E. Expiration of an Exception or Residential Design
Approval. A decision for approval which has not been used
within one year following the effective date thereof. shall
become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time
period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of
the exception. An approval shall be deemed to have been
"used" in the event of the erection of a structure when
sufficient building activity has occurred and, continues to
occur in a diligent manner. The Director of Community
Development may grant one additional one-year extension
if an application is filed before the expiration date without
further notice and hearing.
F. Concurrent Applications. Norwithstanding any
provision of this chapter to the contrary, an application for
exception or residential design review may, at the discretion
of the Director of Community Development, be processed
concurrently with other land use approvals. (Ord. 1868,
(part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1844, § I
(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808, (part),
1999)
19.28.UO Solar Design.
The setback and height resttictions provided in this
chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or
active solar purposes, in R-l zones, provided that no such
structure shall infringe upon solar easements of adjoining
property owners. Any solar structure which requires
variation from the setback or height restriction of this
chapter shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional
use permit by the Director of Community Development.
(Ord. 1860. § I (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 Community
Development shall be empowered to make reasonable
interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this
1/ - Lf'-f
37
Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones
chapter consistent with the legislative intent 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. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834,
(part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A
(part), 1992)
19.28.140
Appendix A-Landscape Mitigation Measures.
PRIVACY SCREENING MATERIALS
I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES
A. Cedrus Deodara-Deodara Cedar
B. Melaleuca Linarifolia-Flaxleaf Paperbark
. C. Pinus Helipensis-Aleppo Pine
D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos-Silverdollar
E. Cinnamomom Camphora-Camphor
F. Arbutus Marina
G. Magnolia Grandiflora-Southem Magnolia
Height
to 80'
30'
40-60'
20-60'
50'
40'
80'
19.28.130
Spread
40' @ ground
12-15'
20-25'
10-15'
50'
35'
40'
Planting
Distance-
Maximum
20'
6'
10'
5'
20'
IS'
20'
The minimum tree size sha1l be 24' box minimnm and a minimum of 8' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A
for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback.
D. 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 Ugustrom-Glossy Privet
H. Laurus Nobilis-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'
8'
5'
10'
10'
10'
10'
The minimnm shrub size shall be IS-gallon minimum and a minimnm of 6' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A
for minimum planting distance 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 shall
be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other planting materials. Documentation shall include
a letter from an Internationally Certified Arborlst or Landscape AIchitect sWing that the materials proposed will meet or
exceed height, spread criteria and growth rate of listed materials and that 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 distance between the required street tree/shrub planting in front yard
setbacks and the City street tree.
//-4S
19.28.140 Cupertino - Zoning 38
CITY STREET TREE Spread Plantin¡: 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'
I. Mayten 30' 15'
J. Melaleuca 30' 15'
K. Eastern Redbud· 30' 15'
L. Brisbane Box· 40' 20'
M. Liquid Amber 40' 20'
N. Carob 40' 20'
O. Geigera 40' 20'
P. Rhus Lancia 40' 20'
Q. Lirodendron 40' 20'
R. Chinese Pistacio· 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. Shammel Ash 50' 25'
BB. Camphor 60' 30'
CC. Zelkova 60' 30'
. Denotes tree currently on street tree list. Other trees previously on list and may cUrTently exist as a street tree.
(Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999)
II-Iff¿;
39
Single-Family Residential (R·l) Zones
19.28.150
19.28.150
Appendix B-Release of Privacy Protection Measur"".
Single-Family Residential Ordinance
Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Family) requires that after September 21, 1998, all new two-story additions or homes be required
to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if the adjacent
affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirement.
/1-if7
19.28.150
Cupertino - ZoDÎIIg
40
Date
Propeny 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)
lI-lf8
41
Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones
19.28.160
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.
Validation. An Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect sha1l certify the design and accuracy
of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven by seventeen copy of the approved planting plan sha1l be attached.
Submittal of this form shall be required prior to final 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, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999)
1/-4"1
42
Cupertino· Zoning
19.28.l6O
Exhibit 1.
30· Angle
" "
Privacy Invasion Mitigation
required in shaded areas
.
Rear
Yard
Window
WII'Idaw
Second Aoor .
I
I·
I'
,
,
I"
,
I.
I
"
.
/I-50
EXHIBIT B
Comparison of Planning Commission
Recommendations for the R1 Ordinance
oct. 2004 Amendment (4-0-1 vote)
Lot Coverage - add 5% for unenclosed roof overhangs
and arches
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.
~~!grJ~cm1;jJ!.~~~ít:q6])tº~.iÆ:
Section 19.28.060 (C) Design Guidelines: Any new
house or addition should be generally consistent with
the desi n uidelines
Feb 2003 recommendation not adopted
Explicitly state high volume area regulation (double-
countin
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
..j~~j..~
side setback for narrow lots
Same as Feb 2003 Amendment
Change first-story side setbacks for all neighborhoods
to a combination of 15 feet instead of 5 and 10
Add minimum ara e setback of 20 feet
Same as Feb 2003 Amendment
Use of rear yard setback exception requires minor staff
a roval
Remove second-sto 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
/I-51
Feb. 2003 Amendment (4-1-0 vote)
Start the building envelope at the side setback line
cc._;¡>!ct"
'~"_~\'I~gr:q !!c
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
Oct. 2004 Amendment (4-0-1 vote)
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.
9Jî~:['iiJ~ .
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 lenglh 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 slaff to give exception for visible second story
walls
IJ -.5 é}..
Work
EXHIBIT C
Planning commission Scope of
recommended by staff and/or the Planning
ity Counc
Approved by C
Staff Recommendation
Type of Change
Regulations affecting the
Commission
Non-Process regulations that staff believes the Planning Commission wishes to study
<. . Minor technical change recommended by the Planning Commission in Feb. 2003
Minor technical changes suggested by staff
Regulation Intent
Allowed Uses
changes
new development -
review process for
None
None
Uses that are considered appropriate for
residential neighborhoods
Uses that are considered app
residential neighborhoods onl
Permits
ropriate for
y with Use
Permitted Uses
Set minimum lot size for development
without a variance
Conditional Uses
Development Regulations
Adjust trigger point for increased
review of hillside projects
Consider minor increase to allow
45% FAR one-story house with
covered porches
None
Process change
Trigger for greater review of
development in R1 hillside lots
sizes
RHS & R1 review for
develo-º-ment on 30% s10265
Minimum lot
Minor technica
chanQe
Set a maximum amount of the lot that
can be covered by buildin9§
process
Part of the overa
review
None
Set a maximum amount of floor area for
the purpose of controlling building mass
Set a trigger point where design review
is necessary to address neighbor
'mpacts
Coverage of 45%
Lot
Area Ratio of 45%
Two-story over 35% triggers
desigrl review
Floor
Process change
Any change should be minor and
mitigated by other mass, bulk
and privacy protection measures
Study item
Limit the mass, bulk and privacy
·mpacts of new two-story development
Second Story Area = 35% of
first stOEL
--
-
,
~
Type of Change Staff Recommendation
Part of the overall process
Process change review
ntent
~s funåamental guidelines to two-
story homes even if it doesn't require
design review
to a
Regulation
Design Guidelines applied
two-story homes
Story Setbacks
Front Setback = 20 feet, side-
facin 15 feet
First
courage
ment
None
Minor technical
change (Feb
2003
space In front of
of life
Provide sufficient
houses
"
';," ,j",-
Side SetbaCk = feet ançf5
feet excègt for narrow lots
Rear Set ack = 20 feet with
provision to reduce to 10 feet
None
Review with Surcharge rule
explore simplified alternatives
Review with Second-Story Side
Setback rule explore simplified
alternatives
Make this not apply to second
story walls that are screened by
the first-sto roof
None
Second Story Setbacks
Front and Rear = 25 feet
Side Setback = 10 feet
item
Study item
None
Minor technica
change
None
houses for light, air, quality of
Provide sufficient space between
second stories and neighboring
properties to reduce mass and bulk
Provide sufficient space to reduce mass
and bulk
Stud
Provide sufficient space to reduce mass
and bulk
Reduce apparent mass and bulk of
second stories
Soften apparent mass and bulk of
second stories
Soften apparent mass and bulk of
second stories
Surcharge = 15 feet applied In
combination to front and side
Limit on Visible Second Story
Walls
Prescribed second story wal
offsets
e,p r~ç:ommendaflon
to, àllowsirígle-story homes to .
havß one .1 0'x1 0' lightwell . ,
:,',x,.. . "c--,", Y. . ',,",' ''_'' ,
(erìèourage singh~-story
development)
',.L-' j
Minor te,chnical;è
change (Feb 1;0
2003)
,.,;_)r'::-}-~2;;}: :*~~):";''f}::-?;:-,:::_::r~w:<--,\:g[J:;''~->_:_'-
l,;iry¡ltingtt¡e I]ghtwellsto mairítáins the
"fully submerg~d'~definition of'<t
.,..:....,:/.:>",..;.. ';": :,:,,',}:':', ":._;>,/>;,, .'>1:<:/:'.:_._:" :""::-';':;;"';;"', "'/'" -'_'" '- , -.."
~~seQ;!~nts ~W~¡VEmt~xce"~sive 9rading
hmit "moat~ effect.
foot
1
Second Story Eaves =
Basement
--
-
\
~
Type of Change Staff Recommendation
None
None
None
Change to remove attic
requirement
Remove - redundant after
addition of Building Envelope
requlation
Minor technica
chanqe
Minor technical
change
None
onsiâer removIng - nas not
appeared to be necessary
Minor technlca!
change
Feb:2003 PC recommendation
to rernove list from ordinance to
allow for easier updatès
Feb 2003 PC recommendation
to specifically,require this ~ .
reference alceadY,inthe Tree
Ordinance, but not R1.
Consider ways
alternatives to
None
item
None
Consider ways to expand or
im rotection of
Study item
Minor technical
change (Feb
2003
Minor technical
change (Feb
·2003) ;"1;
Stud
Regulation ntent
-
Height
Maximum Building Height = 28 Limit the overall mass and bulk of
feet develo ment
Limit the overall mass and bulk to what
is appropriate for single-story
nei hborhoods
Limit the mass and bulk of one-story
develo ment
Allow gable roofs inside building
envelope to allow flexible designs -
uncertain why it matters if the gable end
e is for attic s ace or vaulted ceilin s.
Heights exceeding 20 feet must Require mass that appears two-stories
meet second-sto setbacks to meet second-sto setbacks
Maximum entry height of 14' Reduce mass and bulk of large entries
Miscellaneous
Blank single-story walls tacing
street Avoid plain facades facing streets
Privacy Protection
Planting to block two-story Provide reasonable level of privacy to
views nei hbors
Provide neighbors opportunities to find
Waiver with nei hbor a roval their own solutions
Planting not necessary in Provide reasonable level of privacy to
certain cases nei hbors
Ensure maintenance of a reasonable
Replacement of privacy planting level of privacy to neighbors
--
--
,
~
Staff Recommendation
,,,., .,
Feb 2003 PC recommendation
to remove neighbor approval
requirement and not allow heig ht
to be increased. revent abuse
Type of Change
Minor technical.
. change (Feb
.' 2003
ntent
',·,<,',<\':U:·'.'
;/·'t¡f¢>':;>,
,..,«.,
Allow single-story addifions to legally
built homes with nonconforming side
setbacks'i; .:.
Provide ab
lity to vary from the
regulations in cases where it is
necessary
Provide the city and neighbors wi
opportunity to review mass and bulk
impacts from two story development
Special zoning rules for Eichler
neiqhborhood
Regulation
Miscellaneous
part
ways to improve
rocess review
Consider improvement - part of
Process chan e review
None
, improvement - part of
Process chanqe review
None
None
Process chan
ulations
tions to R1
Exce
re
Residential Design Approva
rocess
(includes
Eichler regulations
Procedures for review
sto ales
Allow exceptions for sOlar energy
structures
Allow the Director to make
nterpretations of the code based on the
ntent
Solar desiqn
Part of process revìew - Improve
or possibly eliminate
Process change
Ordinance, but part of development review process)
Guidelines that must be generally met
for two story projects over a 35% FAR
I nterpretation by the Director
Design Guidelines (not part of the R1
Design Guidelines
--
--
I
~
EXHIBIT D
Planning Commission's Rl Ordinance Schedule
PC date Topic
12-Apr Review "Rl Schedule"
Rl Design Review projects (1999 - 2004)
Feb 2003 PC Recommendation
Regulations from other Cities
Complete Survey Results
Non-survey public input received so far
Commission's Guiding Principles
High volume ceilings
Second Story Area (% of first story)
Second Story Area (minimum allowed size)
Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge
Second Story Wall Offsets
Privacy Planting
Finalize Second Story Setbacks, Offsets, Privacy
Lot coverage, corner 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
26-Apr
10-May
13-May
24-May
14-Jun
28-Jun
12-Jul
26-Jul
9-Aug
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
Review Design Guidelines
23-Aug
13-Sep
27-Sep
11-0ct
Palo Alto presentation - daylight plane, design review, guidelines
Finalize Daylight Plan discussion
Introduce Model Ordinance
Approve Recommendation to the City Council
//-57
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission's Rl Principles
Giefer:
1. 1st - 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 lirnited 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. 1st - 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.
5. Adjust to a changing market.
Saadati:
1. Adjust to changing times. Be flexible on the 1st - 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.
/ J- 5g
First
20'
Story Side Setback
First Story Side Setback
Lots 5' & 5'
Narrow
Lot Coverage 45% + 5% for
overhangs
Saadati, Chen
Giefer. Miller,
Wong
Saadati, Chen
Related to PC Giefer. Miller,
recommendation from 2003 Wong
Saadati. Chen
Giefer. Miller.
Wong
Minor adjustment
Page
of4
Support
Garage
Support
Sco[Je of
Work
Support
Delay discussion of the trigger
point for RHS review of sloped R1
ots until the General Plan
Scope of
Work
Saadati. Chen
Miller, Wong
Giefer
Encourage larger planting in
sensitive situations
Recommend that construction on
lots with average slopes over 20%
Giefer prefers discussing should have to meet RHS and R1
issue now regulations
Remove second-story side
setback surcharge in R1-5
Keep privacy rules, require
recorded covenant, encourage
trees in affected neighbor's
fJroperty
Related to PC
recommendation
IChen. Giefer.
from 2003 Miller. Wong
Saadati
Related to PC
recommendation
IChen
from 2003 Miller,
Giefer,
Wong
Saadati
SUP[Jort
Modify high volume area rule to
double-count all area with floor-to-
roof heights of 16 feet
Related to PC Isaadati
recommendation from 2003 Giefer
Miller,
Wong
current definition to meet the intent
of counting two-story mass and two-
story area.
Chen
ncrease second-story minimum
allowed area to 800 sf.
Not specifically referenced
on scope of work. but the
regulation is part of the
proportion regulation
above.
Saadati
Giefer
Chen
Miller,
Wong
Miller, Wong agree with
an increase. but prefer
1.000 sf.
proportion
Support floor-to-roo eight of 16
feet: This modification corrects the
Support 800 sf.: 1,000 sf would
negate the 50% second-story
ncrease second-story area
fJroportion to 50% of the first story
scope of work, so long as
other mitigation measures
are added
Saadati, Chen
Miller. Wong
Giefer
that this increase will
to future increases
increase. but the ease of
calculating and explaining a 50%
figure is preferred. The difference of
5% is not sijJnificant.
Giefer believes 50% is too
much and is concerned
lead
Minor ange to
regulation authorized by
Planning CommiSSion Specific DecIsions
Action Basis
EXHIBIT F
C)--
\0
)
........
.........
Eliminate story poles in favor of
posted renderings in the front yard
of the subject site
300 foot mailing. adjacent
neighbors get 11 x17 plans:
rendering, site plan and elevations
no floor plans
Part of Design Review
Process review
Saadati, Miller,
Wong Giefer Chen
Saadati.
Giefer, Miller,
Wong Chen
Page 2 of 4
ated by the R1 survey.
upport noticing except it shouTa
'nclude floot plans so neighbors will
Ich windows apply to which
Part of Design Review
Process review
a noticing tool.
Proponents of eliminating
story poles cite safety,
cost, usefulness and ¡Support elimination, but the Council
practicality concerns. See should consider the strong support
PC minutes.
Giefer prefers the
retention of story poles as
Streets
Move Second Story Decks
regulations to R1. make it a
Director's Approval instead of
public hearing
Extension of LN
Building Lines
(remove neighbor approval, limit
length to 15', no height increase,
Director's Approval)
Allow one 10'x10' lightwell for
single-stories with basements
Building Envelope: Gable End
Consisting of Attic Space: Over
17', Director's approval, but does
not have to be attic space
Eliminate regulation requiring
features on Blank Wall Facing
Saadati. Chen,
Scope of Work for attic Giefer, Miller,
issue Wong
Saadati, Chen,
Giefer. Miller.
Minor adjustment Wong
Saadati, Chen.
Related to PC Giefer, Miller.
recommendation from 2003 Wong
Saadati, Chen,
Related to PC Giefer, Miller.
recommendation from 2003
Action
Rear Setback Reduction
Director's Approval
Eliminate 2nd Story Setbacks
Tall 1 st Story Walls
Basis
for
Scope of Work
Related to PC
recommendation
Yes
Saadati, Chen
Giefer. Miller,
Wong
Saadati, Chen,
Giefer, Miller,
Wong
Saadati, Chen,
Giefer. Miller,
from 2003 Wong
No
Absent
Notes
Staff Position
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
C)
-..9
I
-...
--
Convert the second-story wall
offset regulation into a guideline
Page 3 of 4
Chen, Miller,
Wong
Giefer
Giefer prefers to retain
I the offsets as
Saadati requirements
accommodate
story area
Support conversìon sìnce
instances of a project not
the offset, thus a guideline
appropriale
there are
needing
is most
Eliminate the second-story setback
surcharge
Eliminate second-story side
setbacks
Chen.
Miller,
Chen.
Milier.
Giefer,
Wong
Giefer.
Wong
Saadati
Saadati
Utilize Palo Aito's building
envelope for two-story elements:
10' height at property line and a 45
degree angle but retain the single-
story envelope to single-story
elements. but start the single-story
envelope at the same point as the
two-story envei0l'e
Chen,
Miller,
Giefer.
Wong
Saadati
Support: this is not on the scope of
work. but the envelope is basically
equivalent to the current minimum
setback.
Support: this is not on the scope of
work. but lhe envelope is basically
equivalent to the current minimum
setback.
Support: this is not on the scope of
work, but it is reasonable to expect
that setbacks would be reduced to
the larger second-
be
will
Part of Design Review
Process review
Saadati.
Giefer
Miller.
Wong
Support putting guidelines in
ordinance: this is consistent with the
Commission's guiding principles
Chen
the
9.28.060 C
wil
Use Exhibit G as the discretionary
review process
Part of Design Review
Process review
Saadati,
Giefer
Chen
Miller,
Wong
Miller and Wong have Support Exhibit G: has the support 0
concerns with formalized many iocal architects and builders
review of two-story homes since it saves time and money for all
under 35% FAR parties
Action
Basis
-.
~
!
.......
-....
Action
~~¡¡!~!'hbE!f,t~ilii
Create 75 sq. ft.
stairways on two-story homes to
allow offset the double-counting of
high volume area associated with
stairs
Combined first story side setbacks
of 15 feet, with 5 feet minimum
instead of 10 feet on one side and
5 feet on the other
Convert the guideline that a three-
car garage must have a 2 foot
offset on the third garage to a
regulation
Create a guideline that a garage
should be no more than fifty
percent of the front elevation.
Allow for a Director's exception for
visible wall height regulation
Page 4 of4
Saadati, Chen,
Giefer, Miller.
Wong
Saadati, Chen,
Giefer. Miller,
Wong
Saadati, Chen,
Giefer. Miller,
Wong
Support
Support
Support
Saadati, Chen
Giefer. Miller.
Wong
Support: this is not on the scope of
work, but there is no change to the
total side setback.
Saadati
Wong
Miller,
Chen.
Giefer
Chen, Giefer support the
original 50 sq. ft
Support 75 sq. ft.: the additional 25
sq. ft. is substantial. 100 sq. ft. was
discussed as well. which is
somewhat excessive
\6
~
I
-...
--
(#)
Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
Extension Staff
ofLNC ** Neighbor approval f---Þ
--.. approval
bldg. line
Two Story Staff Review for .
under 35% Guideline Building
FAR * conformance Permit
,
L---------------------------____________________I
,
,
Consulting ,
..:.
Architect review DRC ***
Two Story for Design & Staff Story Poles, 300'
over 35% Review for -+ noticing -. (#)
FAR * Guideline
Conformance
I Exceptions I ~ 300' noticing
One Story
CURRENT Rl DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
EXHIBIT G
~
~
I
~
(#) Rear yard setback reduction
17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope
2nd story decks
Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line
(##) Actions can be appealed to the PC ***
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming
*** PC = Planning Commission
Exceptions
Design
Review
Ordinance
300' noticing,
llx17 plans to adj
neighbor
Two-Story
Permit
Level 11:
over 35%
FAR
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
~ Review for
Guideline
Conformance
---.
Story Poles, 300'
noticing, llx 17
plans to adj.
neighbor, posted
notice in front
yard wi colored
perspective
rendering
Two-Story
Permit
Level I:
under 35%
FAR
--.
Staff Review for
Guideline
Conformance
----.
Adjacent noticing
wi llx17 plans,
posted notice in
front yard wi blw
rendering
r
-
Director's
~ Approval
(no hearing)
(##)
Design
Review
Committee
(##)
T
Courtesy
Notice
J
Building
Permit
Minor
Residential
Permit (#)
.1 Adjacent noticing
~ wi 11xl7plaI"\s
One Story
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
EXHIBIT H
':t-
..S¡
,
-...
--
EXHIBIT I
Public Survev - Rl Ord.,Jßce
The Planning Commission is reviewing the Rl Ordinance and would like your iuput! Please fill out
this survey and submit it to City Hall by Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 5 p.m. If you 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 Jate 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 Rl 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 vourself:
I. Are you a: (check all that apply)
o Homeowner in Cupertino
D Homebuilder or designer in Cupertino
o Renter in Cupertino
o Other
2. How many years have you lived in Cupertino?
o 0-4 0 5-9 0 10-14 0 15+
o I do not live in Cupertino
3. Please check all that apply:
D I recently built a new home in Cupertino
o I recently built an addition to a home in Cupertino
o My addition or new home went to a public hearing at City Hall
D I am a neighbor of someone who recently built a new home or addition in Cupertino
o None of the above
4. Please provide your street address below. Only one survey per household will be accepted. (this
information will be strictly confidentialJ-'
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?
o Yes 0 No 0 Not sure
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Information
The Rl Ordinance uses "Floor Area Ratios" (FAR) to limit the size of new single-family residential construction,
The FAR is a ratio of the total area of the building (including the garage, but excluding basements) as a percentage
of the lot size, Homes can have a Floor Area Ratio of 45% of the total lot size, For example, a 2,700 sq, ft house is
allowed on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. Two-story additions or new two-story homes that have aFAR over 35% must go
through a Design Review process and public hearing before the Design Review Committee andJ or Planning
Commission.
/1- 05'
Second Story Area
The Rl Ordinance allows a second-story to be as much as 35% of the first story ofthe house. For a 2,700 sq. ft.
house, the second-story can be a maximum of 700 sq. ft., leaving 2,000 sq. ft. to the first story. In all cases, a
homeowner is allowed to have at least 600 sq. ft. on the second story. Therefore, if you have a 1,000 sq. ft. single-
story house, you can build a 600 sq. [1. second-story addition even though it is more than 35% of the fIrst story area.
7. I believe that the second-story proportion should be: (check one)
DOver 50% of the first story D Less than 35% of the first story
o Between 41% and 50% of the first story 0 Don't increase it - keep it at 35% of the first story
o Between 36% and 40% of the first story
8. 1 believe that the minimum allowed second-story area should be: (check one)
o Over 1,000 sq. ft. 0 Less than 600 sq. ft.
o Between 751 sq. ft. and 1,000 sq. ft. 0 Don't increase it - keep it at 600 sq. ft.
o Between 601 sq. ft. 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. 1 believe that the first-story setbacks should be: (check one)
o Not changed 0 Increased 0 Reduced
o Don't Know / No Opinion
The RI ordinance requires the second-story of a home be set back 25 feet from the front and back property lines and
a total of 25 feet on the sides of the home. An additional setback of 10 feet must be added in any combination to the
front or sides.
10. I believe that the second-story setbacks should be: (check one)
o Not changed D Increased 0 Reduced
o Don't Know / No Opinion
Hei2hts
In general, the Rl Ordinance allows a single-story to be at least 12 feet tall within five feet 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 ten feet of the property line. This regulation is called a "building envelope" or "daylight plane."
11. 1 believe that the heights allowed by the building envelope should be: (check one)
o Not changed 0 Increased 0 Reduced 0 Don't Know / No Opinion
Entry features consist of special roof elements that mark the location of the front door. The roof eave of an entry
feature is limited to a height of 14 feet.
12. 1 believe that the entry feature height should be: (check one)
D Not changed 0 Increased 0 Reduced
o Don't Know / No Opinion
Privacy
The RI ordinance requires planting of evergreen trees or tall shrubs to block views into 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 three to five Years.
13. I believe that the privacy protection requirements should be: (check one)
D Not changed D Increased D Reduced 0 Don't Know / No Opinion
1/- 0(¡;
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 two-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 the Design
Review. Neighbors have the opportunity to provide input throughout 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 input on the proposed project.
·Source: Contractors who build in Cupertino.
14. 1 believe the benefit provided to the neighbors is worth the additional costs to the property owner
associated with the Design Revie.w. (check one)
DStrongly Agree DAgree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree DDon't Know / No Opinion
15. 1 believe there should be Design Review for, (check one)
o Two story homes or additions with aFAR 0 All new homes or additions resulting in
over 35% (currently required) increased square footage
D All two-story homes or additions 0 There should not be design review for anything
As part of the Design Review process, story poles must be constructed on the site; Story poles are wood, metal or
plastic frames with orange mesh that shows the outline of the proposed second-story. Story poles serve as a noticing
tool and as a visualization tool. The story poles generally cost between $1,500 and $3,000.
16. 1 believe the benefit of story poles is worth the cost to the applicant and helps neighbors visualize how the
second-story will appear. (check one)
DStrongly Agree DAgree ODisagree o Strongly Disagree DDon't Know / No Opinion
Noticin~
17. 1 believe the following noticing techniques should be required for projects that go through the Design
Review process' (check all that apply)
o Story poles (currently required)
D Mailed notice sent to all owners within 300 feet of the project site (currently required)
o An 11" x 17" copy of the architectural plans included with the mailed notice to adjacent properties
o A 24" x 36". weatherproof. picture of the proposal posted in the front yard of the project site
o Other
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 not require a Design Review. However, a neighbor would not have an official
opportunity to request changes to the project.
18. I would like to have courtesy notices initiated. (check one)
DStrongly Agree DAgree ODisagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know / No Opinion
11-07
Desien 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 changes that are more restrictive than the ordinance. You can review
the Design Guidelines on the City's website at httD://W\V\V.Clm.Ç.I!ÜJO.Ol:g,-~p..LªnniDg - scroll down to the Design
Guidelines section on the web page and click on the lín.k to "Single Family Review Design Guidelines."
19. Generally, 1 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)
DStrongly Agree DAgree DDisagree DStrongly Disagree DDon't Know / No Opinion
20. Specifically, 1 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 story homes or additions with aFAR 0 All new homes or additions resulting in
over 35% increased square footage
D All two-story homes or additions D Nobody should have to meet 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 rebui1t D 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
!I-hõ
EXHIBIT J
R1 Survey Sumnlaries
Question All Respondants (491)
Type of Respondant (can check more than one)
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
Have you recently built or has your neighbor recently built? (can check more than one)
Second Story Minimum Allowed Area
First Story Setbacks
125
% of Group Total 57% 26%
57% support the current first story setbacks.
story setbacks. 12% support a reduction.
92
% of Group Total 46% 19%
46% support the current second story setbacks.
19% support an increase.
/I-/PC¡
Question
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
All Respondants (4;
51 % support the current building envelope regulation. 22% support a reduction
in the building envelope while 18% support an increase in the height allowed.
126
55% 27%
55% support the current privacy protection rules. 27% support an increase in
lhe privacy proteclion measures while 12% support a reduclion.
What should go to Design Review?
109
39% 23% 23% 15%
39% believe that only two-story projects with F AR'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)
1/-70
Question
18
19
20
21
All Respondants (4,
50
10% 12%
22% disagree.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Responses
% of Group Total
What Should Meet Compatibility Guidelines?
167
14% 36% 32% 18%
36% believe thaI all two-story projects should meet compatibilily guidelines.
32% believe all projects, whether one or two-story should meet guidelines. 18%
beiieve that no projects should have to meet guidelines. 14% believe lhat oniy
two-story projects with FAR's over 35% should meet guidelines.
Neighborhoods in Transition
'¡r~_'
101
% of Group Total 31 % 23% 22% 23%
This question had the most even split. 31% believe thaI if 25% oflhe
neighborhood has been rebuilt. new construction does not have to be
compatible with the original neighborhood. 22% 10 23% each believe that eilher
new construction does not have 10 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 thaI respondents made mistakes when answering
this question. While tabulating the results of lhe 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 lhan 25%) or B (25-49%).
This queslion 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."
/(-71
10
7
6
3
9
8
2
Responses
%of
22
10%
25
2%
1
Tenure
%of
All Respondents (491)
Respondent (can check more
~
Question
Residents that Built Additions
or New Homes (88)
Respondents that Answered
"Yes" for Question 6 (163)
(211)
EXHIBIT K
R1 Survey Summaries by Type of Respondent
Neighbors of Residents that
Built Additions or New Homes
~
\
--
---
18
17
16
15
13
12
11
Question
14
Neighbors of Residents that
Residents that Buill Additions Respondents that Answered Built Additions or New Homes
All Respondents (491) or New Homes (88) ·Ves· for Question 6 (163) (211)
~
" ¡
23
1%
iii
33
16°A:
g 1:Tii!i!
œJ
31 13 ~
'M'
7% 6% 1HI
J£:. ~
~
23 12
11°;; 6%
lliOOJj
29
140/.
~ II
35 12
17°;' 6%
leek mor
'!í!"¡
~
227 176 87
46% 36% ~p¡.
-
lliOOJj ~
50 55 18 11
10% 12% 9% 5%
~
I
-
-
21
20
19
All Respondents (491)
Neighborhood Compatibility
;;0'~~~j{1~tjj4)j¡Í!¡t11
··c··<"..·'·..·;·.,·,. oN!,';
Responses
% of Group Total
Question
Residents that Built Additions
or New Homes (88)
Respondents that Answered
"Yes" for Question 6 (163)
Neighbors of Residents that
Built Additions or New Homes
(211)
.':t
r
I
-
.a > 50%
lib 41-50%
IIiI C 36-40%
Od Keep 35%
.e < 35%
EXHIBIT L
Question 7: Second Story Proportion
,
b
18%
"'-
d c
9% 7%
e
41%
--
--
,
-!
U)
.-
~- .
1 ,-
"
, -
, ..
,
"
~
.;., City of Cupertino
U~. R1 Survey Responses
. Question 7; Second Sl:ory Area
_>SO%
l1li41-50%
036-40%
D<35"
EëTI 35%
L:]M-
o :!!I076IJ 1,\>'!) ,= ,~ .
.- j.
P,epo..db1t"CO<Ml\o"I)'Deve~'LRportmen'0
c...>cd,M~y 3.:lD04 l~·
Loo'Up<laI.&May3,2OtI4 Gis
i
f
~ ,:\~)
. .
:~ 1_ ~4. i~
..... . ~
¡;,;;rn,cf' ""
n""kBIV. - ----- .
" . j. ' . < .
, . "
. " > ¡¡¡ 4'~
= ,-----~-: ,51'" ."" 3:" ,:' .-"':'.'
, ." " -~~/"-
. ,...
',' ~. . . ,. ..
,1 ..;: 2 \
~ ,~_ J¡
~ ge.~ .-, ;¡¡
~ I~
~
ð
·1
J · 7 H"~'~dRd 1-
~--- I" r.-~-
'--'\
;¡ .
~
:.ê
-¡¡
..
.,^,
~----",
,
,
- Prosp~ct Rd --
20
22
¡:T
U
Ra¡nbo";Dr-~
1;>0 ,
,..
æ
~
~
~
~
"
~
.,
~~
_'1
\2
,. -
McCleIlanRd
,
L
.
."
'"
.
~
.,
,
~9-"
,,~ '
..
...
~
.
,>
_ :."
'13
. -
·tl..
:,',' ",
.---
'7'. 25
-
..
-,
.
-
".
26
, <
.
.
9
EXHIBIT M
--
-
l
~
r-J
'--I
,
HomesteadRd
7
J-.
I
.
.. :-
-13
-
-~
~-
9
EXHIBIT N
.
-
.
.
.
.
L
J I
~. --.-.. . I
~~~ '-'-~
gel" N(j >___.,.--
~
,
~
i
ð
3"
:
20
"
-
....
- -.
"
,
:.
.
t't
26
, '
.
3.~_ A
~
.0'
City of Cupertino
RI Survey Responses
Question 8: Second Story Area
_>1.000SF
_7S1-UOJSF
C]&Ol.750SF
D<600SF
ffi600SF
D~..
o 315150 1~ 1.25(1
~~
,"
--"
-
2,4
L
,
,-
.. .
,\~
" .
, . ~
1;- '1.P 15 _, 14'- .~
o
. , I· ' "~
) '. ,"
n ( ~_.. . ~_
"'~~'~k".d r- -J" ~
.'. . ~ I ~ -
I I· <: ::J
- -I .:: >. 4 S . I r
.. 11 '. ~ ~.. M .
. ø .. _ ~-.
5 ',..
, '
", ~~I." 1 ".
I I "
~ 2 I ~ I
J¡ _
;¡
~. -"'=
Jih9
i,,,,
""'pored by.....c"""""";tyD<v.lopmon' p"pa...........
~'M~y3,2OOt
t...lUp<l."'<lMar).~
-
ProspectRd
1
-
-
I
-J
-\
_ 6 ~~
C\~~J
I . ,
15 I :.. :;2
, :1' 14. .~
I ~--l" ·
r- . ~
~ ~ - " i
I' ~ ~. ' ..
c c
S ~.... ~ ~.
4
Homðtrod Rd
7
r~1
'--- '
\
.
11
.'
r
,
.
lþ
,
i
~,
r~
~ª
:'£
ø
.
.
..
- levnvo
,
lr-
.
EXHIBIT 0
-
..
,
æ
'J¡
.2'1
.
.
,
.,
.'
.. . '.
'13
,
-..-
oF
9
,
,®
!!I Fee'
P""p.mdbvIhoCommUNtyu...dopmon'Dep.ortmen· #~
er..œd'M.oY3,:¡()I)4~
La,'Upd.ted,M~y3.2004 G ,..
.
A
1
.
,
.~_ CityofCuperlino
~ Rl Survey Responses
Question 14: Design Review
.SlronglyAgree
OAg<æ
DOi$agree
œStronglyDisagree
_ Don'tKnow I No Opinion
O~
o '1S~ 1,500
.=
\'
2
. -
.
>
~
J1
;;:
.
.
.
.
. .
~ .
~N~~~~
~
~
]
ð
.
3'
.
.
-.
5
.
-
,-
20
.
~
-
22
.
-~
ProspeclRd
~
.
~
"
~
~
o
~
.
,
Mc{]eUan JW
.
.,
.
1!J!..i9
..
..' .1' .
/~~
..,. 25'
...
26
.
--
--
\
-J
'c>()
~
,
~z (j)
I" ':
Mea'II:"Rd .J
- .
...
- ~
..:. ~ D·'·'
t... ¡c 18
.' ".;r
.
.1_. ~~~
7Homð"'dRd I .. I
..~L~ : ~~~>
. ~ .
5 . .. '""
] '1'; 15 14·- ~
,<I'> ....... " ¡~
I· ., " . . .~
. I . .
II ..
. "f·· . . :
""'Æ.C''''","' ¡--... ¡. . \.. ~.. ..
.11 , ~ . . ,~ --
. ,",. j ~ . 4' " ,
.,' 1¡ . - ~, ~ .._
"': .. ii5 ..'. .' _
5 3" . -. I .-:
.. '<: ,
- t 1
. .
. . .
I
~___L
-
1:>- ,
"
~-]
k ~-
J\
~\. 28..
] ...
_ 0
"
~ :
-=_1
- .
"13
EXHIBIT P
\
9
.
"
-
" ':
~ 2
~ .
' . ~
~¡,~--~-
~
.
11
,
<
ð
:
20
..
¡z
~_# 25
. .
.
..
26
. .
City of Cupertino
Rl Survey Responses
Question 15: Design Review
_ Two Slory {35% FAR+)
III An T wo-Story
DAJIAdditions
~ No Design Review
~
Il
22
,.
.
.
\tt9
i,,,
Á
ø
c os
,-
~f.,
P,.po....db,....Comm"n"yDo..'op..."'~".."".,,'
en,."d,M.yJ.""'"
µ~Up40."d.M.yJ.2<JO<I
.~
D'''·
U 315751}
- -
ProopertRd
AI
-
-
I
...J
....()
~~-'St';¡e1ls
. .
œ ' 11
\:.
23
·.N
. .
I ..' " . M'¡
- .
II_ ~nl ....
I. JÎ',. L~'
.3'
7 Horn"'"d Rd r
rtJJ---
L-\
)
J
rv,
,
,
,~I
16
,
'~
~
~
"
~
.
ø
"
,',
1r
,..
.
11
.,
, i-'~
. J .
. il. 2~.
g
, ~
~-
oF
..
. .
9
EXHIBIT Q
.
".
1
,
.
~
- -
.;, City of Cupertino
flC Rl Survey Responses
Question 16: Story poles
.Strong!yAgr""
DAgree
DDisagree
~Strong¡yDisagr""
_ Don'l Know I No Opin.ion
UN-
O ~~ ,~ u. ,- Á
F~e'
l'rq>o..dbyu..comm"ruty~'Doparttnen'0
Cn.oœdMay32O(M (1t
u.tUpd.O><lMay3.2IXI1 GIS
4
~,r
-~
. "
2
.
>
<
~
5
"
. .
. hi
- '- - -'" -'. .. I ~
~"-"":--'-
~ ,
>
;I¡ë
j
ð
:
.
.
".
\
.
~ -
ProspectRd
20
22
I
L.
.
'.
.
~
McCleUanRd
.
..'~ I
.
.
~9
i.,.,
~..
- .
.
"13
.
II.
26
.
.
--
,
Ö
I
I
I
I
_ 6 -~
"~~J
. .
"" ~
" "
"14 .
I", £
.¡-- -. ~--IJ ,!~ ~
>-. ~' ..
,; t." ¡:¡
I ~ .~_
..... ø. ..
5 3"
15
l
1 01-- I-
L-l
Hom~teild Rd
)
r
,
œ<l
~p
tiVem
7
~~.
~
"
~
~
"
~
.'
..
1"
....
.
-13
-
J
9
EXHIBIT R
. .
~
:t\
Rainbow-O---¡:--
1
;.,
.
-.
"
2 .
" -
~_. '==-~
4
__ ·r
" ---.,
· u '
·
>
<
·
~
...
. .
I~J~_ .
>
.
1
<
ð
11
\ 1-
:
..
IW
12
McOellan
"
...
-¡.t-:..
""-
- 't> 25
~
..
26
.
.
20
2.2BIJ ,(}40 N
... ~ .-. A
--
P,.p"eJbyli"Commun;tyo."...lopmcnlDep.rtmon, ~
."""""""",y3,2OOofo~
l.&.Iu >Ò.,...t"'y3,2IJOo Gis
_~ City of CuperlÍno
.!P.i¡ Rl Survey Responses
, Question 19: Consistency
. Strongly Agree
D,,-
DDisagræ
~StrongIyDisagr...
_ Dan't Know / No Opinion
DAO"
o m7W L'1!)
"
-\
.
~~
ProspectRd
24
22"
.
.
~
~9
.."-
.l¡¡¡
---
---
\
<>q
---
~. I __
L 7H=~"'d~] ~
~~ IW-- .~
( _ ~ L-. "'NJ
~
. 0 .
, lr ' ~ ',.6 .~
, . 1û5 1:,! r .~
;.- I - ,~
!_.~'.. ,. ._-~~
~~~üæ,",.d ,--- ,. - - ! ], ~
I. . 1.(."
. a , ~
.. . I ' .. I
11 4 i
¡.... . ._k
: '".. -
3 r __, I __.,' ..:
. _1' 1
\ "':",
. "..' .
. ~ 2 "
< .
,
~
;...-=
'-
I
5
~
<
ð
.
.
.
~-~
Š
~_.
-,' ~
. . 'l
K 30"
J ~
il 2!\..'
- ~
. -
.
-13
26 ..~, ¡.
. .)~
..... 25 '~
-
-,
EXHIBIT S
\
9
.,
.~ Gtyof Cuperlino
mi¡ Rl Survey Responses
Question 20: Consistency
. TwoStory(35% FAR+)
_AUTWú-Story
C]AUAddirion¡¡
~Nothìng
.'\!
-tl
-
22
Rambow Dr
"'
L
-."-
,r
.
,
t:
,- .
'!!!'- Á
P"I"'odbyd.,C<>rMI"";IyDo'eIDp"","'Dop~rt",..n'~
C«.Ied,M.yS,2I'J04 V;.~
WtUpd;otdoMoy5,:.¡()OoO GIS
,
,~
D'..·
. ~m
-
ProspectRd
..
-
-
\
~
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 Conunission meeting of March I, 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:
ROLLCALL
Conunissioners present:
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Conunissioner
Commissioner
Conunissioner
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Staff present:
City Planner
Ciddy Wordell
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-l9
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
II-ß3
Planning Commission _ .lUtes
2
March 1, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the RI survey, which
includes some modifications that were recently incorporated.
· Asked for comÍnents
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 forms, 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 forms... "
· 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 form, roof pitches, roof
heights and eave heights---which for some reason got changed to waU 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 "waU" heights
Com. Giefer:
· Stated that the survey !Tom 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 maj or
amount of redevelopment occurring, there should be more latitude for transitional
neighborhoods
Com. Wong:
· Agreed that this is what he intended
· Asked Com. MiUer if he thought question number 19 should be replaced with the
question regarding transitional neighborhoods
1I-'2J-f
Planning Commission .nutes
3
MaTch 1,2004
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 eventually 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
1/ - <as-
Planning Commission 1 ..lUtes
4
March I, 2004
Com. Giefer:
· Reco]]ected 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 ta]]er and have features that neighbors may obj ect to
Com. Chen:
· One of goals is to solve some of inconsistencies between Design Guidelines and Rl
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 instrnction "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 box.
Com. Giefer:
· Formatting issue: page 2, the box does not line up we]] 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 wi]] be mailed to 2,000 applicants, and counting IS
days from the mailing date, there wi]] be two sets of data-first from 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 from 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 RI
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
/ 1- ~0
Planning Commission .flutes
5
March 1,2004
Ms. Wordell:
· This item needs to be continued to whichever 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 rrom other cities
· Should review recommendations made by Planning Commission last year at this 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 al10wed 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 snrvey
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:
Is! Nancv Czosek
Nancy Czosek, Acting Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Isl Taghi Saadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Isl Ciddv Wordell
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
/I-~7
Plannjng Commjssjon. .¡utes
19
Aprjl12, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· A simple solution would be to 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 of 24" by 24" windo 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,
· The only concern is that the patrons m' 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 II :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 PaJ)6ng 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 of the Rl ordinance review process
Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner:
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary RI schedule and
, review information about approved projects and the ordiuance 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
/ / -9ß
Planning Commission". .¡lUtes
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 RI 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:
· Part 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 of time 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---if we know our
rules, and we know what the public is interested in, that may be sufficient
Com. Wong:
· Still feels the regulations fÌ'om other cities would be valuable
· One meeting could be saved by not having "Commissioner's Guiding Principles" and
Commissioner's Objectives"
· Perhaps regulations fÌ'om 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 infonnation 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 IS, is there any way for the commission to
receive the information more quickly than is listed in the schedule?
11-89
Planning Commjssion ,...¡]utes
21
April ]2,2004
Mr.Gilli:
· At the rate the City was receiving the surveys prior to the "Scene", the infonnation 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 26'" 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 what 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 of the commission of 2003, 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 l2-Rl 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 Rl 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 Rl
· 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 Rl
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
/1-90
Planning Commission. .\Utes
22
April 12, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
· 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. lt 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 RI so far have been public hearings, but the chain was broken
because RI 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 from 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 what 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
/I-q(
Planning Commission. .1Utes
23
April 12, 2004
will not have to go to design review if there is a vaulted ceiling over 15'. Most of
the time, the applicant is able to design a home so it does not have doub1e 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 ITom neighbors
o Exceptions: This would be renamed as "design review" rather than "exception" to
eliminate the negative connotation. The idea was that Rl 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 smallèr
setbacks
o Side-facing garages on comer Jots: 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 buiJding envelope at
the side setbacks, which are 5' and 10'. That would make a minor reduction in
height on the \0' 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 al10wed
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 R I ordinance and the past
commission wanted to make sure people ]mew about it
o Second story decks: This proposed to move the rules out of the Accessory
Structures ordinance and put it into Rl
o Variation to FARs and first story setbacks requires a Variance: Everything needs
an exception, which has findings 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
/ I-qa
Planning Commission ..JlUtes
24
April 12, 2004
· All of these changes are in the scope of work, so commissioners can do any/all/ or none ofthe
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
will be a study session where the regulations of other cities will be discussed
· The amendments to the tentative schedule are as fol1ows:
o April 26: Study session on regulations of other cities
o May 10: Public hearing at 5:00 on survey results and compilation of al1 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 originally 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 Rl Ordinance
as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held.
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Housin!! Commission: Housing Commission has ha 0 meetings. No commissioner was able
to attend the meeting at which the Commission Ii ned to organizations who are applying for
Block Grants. On April 8, the Commission appro" 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 Ity.
Ma or's Monthl Meetin With Com . sioners: The key information shared by Mayor James
was the bal10t initiative attempt by th Cupertino Concemed Citizens. The group is currently
collecting signatures to have an initiat' e put on the ballot. The City has determined that it will not
take any legal action at this time, b reserves the right to do so at a later time. An outside firm is
conducting a study to determine w, at the results might be ifthe 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 Cupertir 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 wil1 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 tha!. 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 form of cuts in library hours.
/ / - '13
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.rn. in
Conference Room A, 10300 Torre A venue, Cupertino, Cahfomia, 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
//-94
Planning Commission ~. .Jy 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 principles, 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 evaluate that and to open the topic up to public
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 y., - % relationship
· 35% is approximately 1/3, and the comparison has to be 1/3 compared to 3/3, so it is
basically y., 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 little
less 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 rolled 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 ftont 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
II - 95"
Planning Commission ~. ..Jy 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 wil1 provide flexibility for people who want to minimize 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 trom
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.
/1-1(P
Planning Commission ~ _Jy 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 confonnity" 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 fanned 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 all parties to come and speak and get a fair share of
the benefits
Mr. Piasecki:
· Asked Commissioner Miller to clarify his statements
Com. Miller:
/1- q7
P1anning Commission _ .Jy Session Minutes 5
May 13, 2004
· Privacy is one instance where neighbors get far too much consideration, particularly if
the neighborhood is moving from single-story to two-story. 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 around that person who are planning to
live there for the next 20-30 years and are building for the next generation?
· 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 protect 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 princip1e 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 strealIÙined and take into consideration how much the applicant must go
through in the review process without being "broke in the end"
I { - qõ
Planning Commission c .dy 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 to 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 to 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 a1l100k the same and
don't enrich the neighborhood. The more desirable neighborhoods are those that have
individual homes that are not a1l the same
Mr. Piasecki:
· Getting this infonnation rrom the commissioners 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 commissioners 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 contrary 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 of features
· 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 will be seen in the communities will be homes that are added on to.
There will be relatively few new homes, so most of the construction will be in existing,
constrained 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 a1l0wing 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 trees or using frosted windows for
pnvacy
/1- 99
Planning Commission", .Ay 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. Gi1!i the size of the trees required for privacy planting
Mr. Gilli:
· The trees need to be 24-inch box trees or 15 ga1!on 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 corner garage setbacks could be discussed with the
minor modifications trom 2003
· The July 26 meeting is scheduled to cover single-story privacy impacts, second-story
setback for ta1! wa1!s-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'1! be opened up
to public for discussion. The Commission wi1! 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 wi1! give his feedback on every
maj or 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
/1- IDO
Planning Commission c .dy Session Minutes 8
May 13,2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff had envisioned possibly v.mting the whole ordinance and letting commissioners
review it
· It seems that the preferred method is to Jisten to the discussions and then write the
ordinance from 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 schedu1e
· These steps will need to be taken:
o The commissioners will ta1k about the issues and try to estabJish a
consensus direction
o Staff wi1l draft that section of the ordinance
o Commissioners will respond to the draft section at the next meeting to
make sure that 1anguage reflects what was intended
o Commissioners wi1l 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 will 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, rough1y 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 from everyone who participates
Com. Wong:
· The survey is only one tool in the process
/ I _ /0 (
Planning Commission ~ Jy Session Minutes 9
May 13, 2004
· The public hearing is very important 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 inform 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 wi]] combine a]] 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 discussion 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 determined that slope lots and RHS were more
of a zoning issue and belong in a different category
Mr. Piasecki:
· Finish the Rl, and on the heels of it, bring up the slope lots and RHS
· The RI ordinance may be amended twice-we']] write an ordinance without it, and on
the heels of that, you']] discuss the slope lots and RHS and we']] write another Rl
amendment
Chair Saadati:
· Asked if there is an estimated time for each meeting
Mr. Gilli:
· 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 wi]] not be proposing recommendations. The commissioners wi]] 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 wi]] not
be three hours to discuss the R I 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
/1 - (Oa..,
Planning Commission t-.__.utes
12
May 24, 2004
· Com. Chen:
· Supports the project
· 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 proj ect
· Recommending adding two more space
Chair Saadati:
· Concurred with other co
· Supports the project
/
Com. Giefer:
· Supports the project
· Ideal use for the facility
issioners
Motion: Motion b Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
U-2004 5; with the addition of two auto spaces for auto 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 (Rl Ordinance)
Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled
Peter Gilli, 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 Staff recommends 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 wil1
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 staff recommendation to increase from between 45% to 50% of the
second story ratio
If -I Oð
Planning Commission lL.Jutes
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 first 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
11- fDc.¡
Plannjng Commission l\h.Jutes
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 wi1l eliminate
some of the poorly designed crows nets seen on some single story homes and wi1l 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 place
for the design review and the quality
· Weare a community with a lot of engineers; they tend to like function before form
· Want to give people the opportunity to be creative and build beautiful homes within the
community, am not comfortable that the right proportion is between first and second; wou1d go
up to 100% if assured that every home would be reviewed by an architect for specific design
e1ements 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 v01ume ceilings
· Agree with Mr. Chen that they are exclusive
· Strong1y support the daylight plane, but if it were to fall back to double count high v01ume
cei1ings, 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
wou1d be difficult for them even for 800 to fit 3 bedrooms above
· Agree with staff that 50% is good, but still advocate daylight p1ane and have it go through
design review
Mr. GUll:
· 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 leam 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
/f- lOb
Planning Commission 1H,mtes
15
May 24, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· We are 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. Miller:
· 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 terms 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 ofthis
· The idea of bringingback 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
/1-/00
Planning Commission lL,¡ules
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
· Will 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.GlIIi:
· Said most of the population would rather !mow 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 allow
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 potentia] 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 all cases except large lots,
having a minimum of 1,000 almost makes it not necessary to have proportion because the
proportion wiII always be less
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he proposed 1,000 square feet on smaller lots such as in Rancho Rinconada because it
would be difficult to get three bedrooms, master bedroom, hall 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 ],000 or 1,200
. Com. Giefer:
· In Rancho, there are some homes that are 1,000 or less; would we potentially 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
11-ID7
Planning Commission Ì\__.lutes
17
May 24, 2004
· Said that relative to affordability. the appEcant would pay an extra $1000 for a second story,
and he felt the increase in fee would not have a significant impact on decreasing two story
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 infonnation 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. Gilli:
· 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 pennit to convert it
Mr. GiIli:
· 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, staff recommended Yes.
Mr. GilIi:
· 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. GiIli:
· 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
1/-100
Planning Commission IvHlIutes
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 unusual
design wi11 add more space, affordability, be cost-wise and looking at value for the property.
Chair Saadati:
· Some people opt to have a higher ceiling 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 1999
Com. Miller:
· 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. Gilll:
· 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 wi11 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 wi11 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 ofthe 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
11- 109
Planning Commission 1\>"lutes
19
May 24, 2004
there is a minimum of 1,000 very few people will use the proportion rule because 1,000 is
always 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 peop1e
to go up
Vice Chair Wong:
· Requested that staff come 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, if they 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. Gil1i:
· 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 Monta Vista area
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said staff had sufficient direction to retum to the Planning Commission in two weeks.
None
1/ - I/o
Planning Commission 1HDutes
9
June 14, 2004
5.
MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-l9
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 of 35% that didn't
need desigh 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 concem 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 from
them for the Planning Commission before the next meeting.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said city of Palo Alto staff would not be available until August.
/1- 11/
Planning Commission l\..,¡utes
10
June 14,2004
Com. Glefer:
· 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 from 600 to 800 was being
continued for discussion.
· Relative 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 1992 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 wilJ result in a front setback on the second story of 35 feet and one of the sides wilJ be 15
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 Planning Commission may want to look at
whether or not that is needed now if there is an aerial limit that wilJ already preclude anybody
from maximizing a second story that would fIn up an the setbacks.
· Acting Chair Wong had answered the second question.
· The fIrst story setbacks that were specifIc any 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 stin want to pursue is make some recommendations that aren't in the scope
of work and staff can present that to the City CounciJ 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 partiany reflected in the surveys, that believe the large lots,
over 10,000 should 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.
/1- 1/;;;"
Planning Commission Ivllnutes
II
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 wall plane, and in the history
of RI, 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. GiIli:
· 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 all the public input, it may be an issue that the Planning Commission
wants to look at and see if they will 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 all the houses fÌ'om looking the same;
it precludes the architect fÌ'om 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 all work out?
1/ - /18
Planning Commission 1tnnutes
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 rront or the rear, and that leads to a lot of variety and
flexibility in design.
· 'I do not know if the second story is 50% if that will still exist, 1 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 1 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: staffrecommends the surcharge be eliminated; agree with that.
· Relative to staffs 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 three 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 three 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 three 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-landscaping 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
/1- //1
Planning Commission .lvl!JlUtes
13
June 14,2004
neighbor's lot at her expense as opposed to having frosted windows and louvers In the
neighborhoods other than those specifical1y designated Eich1er neighborhoods.
· Supports staff recommendation with regards to the second story offsets.
Com. Miller;
· Relative to privacy, the majority of people in the survey said è&--ftet leave the privacy
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 concem about the privacy.
· Moving to the topic of sma]] 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. A]]owing that kind of development in areas
where we are dealing with sma]] 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 we]] that was designed and it didn't
appear to us as enhancing bulk and mass at a]].
· That again gets me back to where I started earlier this evening and I think we need another
way of looking at this; 1 keep coming back to the daylight plane, it would a]]ow 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. Mi]]er 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
surcharge 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 recommendation 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 Commission, 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.
II-lIS-
Planning Commission Mmutes
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 artículation on the side.
Acting Chair Wong:
· Regarding the second story wall offset, the recommendations that if the Planning Commission
detennines 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 detennine 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 concem, and of those who did understand the
RI ordinance, 60% did not have a strong concem on privacy planting.
· Agree with Com. Giefer that putting louvers or ftosted 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 recommendatión
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 R 1-5 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 detennined 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 of the lots.
ll-II(¡)
Planning Commission 1..dutes
15
June 14, 2004
Com. Chen:
o Asked Acting Chair Wong if he was suggesting that 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:
o 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:
o In the meantime, increase the total square footage to 45% also for two story buildings; these
two go together.
Acting Chair Wong:
o 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. If the
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:
o 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.
o It adds more complexity to the process at 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.
/1-11 7
Planning Commission 1...¡utes
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. .
o Summarized for direction to staff that regarding the first recommendation, the majority of the
commissioners felt that regarding the Rl zone and Rancho Rinconada that a surcharge be
eliminated; majority saying yes.
o Regarding simplification, at least two commissioners support it, which he expressed concemed
about. Asked staff to come back with more information on flexibility.
o If the Planning Commission determines 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.
o Regarding the unnecessary offsets, the commission is split; regarding the privacy planting, an
agree that it should be as is.
o Said he supported having a presentation from Palo Alto regarding the daylight plane, and
asked Corns. Giefer and Chen to comment on whether they are interested in hearing a
presentation from Palo Alto.
Com. Giefer:
o 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:
o Said she would agree to learn rrom their experience.
Com. Giefer:
o Relative to second story wan offsets, agree with staff.
Com. Miller:
o I think that is an increased restriction and I don't agree with that.
Com. Chen:
o I agree with staff on this one.
Mr. Gilli:
o On the issues that are split 2/2, one was the wording change in the surcharge; Corns. Giefer
and Chen wanted to go with staff recommendation on the wording, and Com. Miner 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:
o 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:
o Said he concurred.
//-I/?
Planning Commission 1>l1nutes
17
June 14, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
· 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. Gilli:
· 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 greatly.
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 concem.
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.
/1- Îlq
Planning Commission 1...iutes
18
June 14,2004
· Relative to the offset recommendation in the staff report, if the design review is agreed upon
for all two story projects, then the idea was perhaps you don't 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 continue 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 during 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 ny 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 Rl 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 sþé' felt they would not meet their schedule if they canceled a meeting.
· Felt therfwere many things that they required information for; suggested that Palo Alto may
be abl710 attend the meeting to discuss daylight plane.
"
II -/ao
Planning Commission Nllnutes
31
Ju1y 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 (Rl Ordinance)
Continned from Jnne 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 R1 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 - Altemative 1, Expanded Review; Exhibit F - Alternative 2,
Streamlined Current Methodology, and Exhibit G - Alternative 3, Reduced Design Review
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said other items for discussion included story poles, design review guidelines, and
nQtification.
· Asked for staff report on notification; what does sending out the 11 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 altematives 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 1egallanguage
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. GiIli:
· 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 1 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
PJanning Commission ¡Vilnutes
32
July 12, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
· The issue of story poles is not something staff needs; the survey indicated many people 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:
· Said they were a hassle to install on an older home; the survey indicated people liked them;
however staff does not need them.
· Said it was the call of the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Wong:
· 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.
· Regarding guidelines, based on the three processes, that is how staff will make the
recommendations on guidelines.
Mr. Gilli:
· If the idea is to remain status quo, you may need some level 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.
· If you look at the three options: more review, less review, or remain status quo; likely would
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 slightly, increase them or change them a
little, depending on where you want to go in the spectrum.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said that the City Council let the Planning Commission look into design guidelines.
· 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%.
· 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:
· If you would 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.
· Said he could provide a copy of the minutes or tape of the meeting.
STORY POLES
Com. Miller:
· 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.
· People have come to the DRC and said the story poles frightened them, but he said with the
actual design, he felt more comfortable.
/1- /.Xl.
Planning Commission lhlnutes
33
July 12,2004
· Questioned how valuable the story poles are in tenns 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 that 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 of them.
· 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 concemed. 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 concemed 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 concem 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.
/1- /ól3
Planning Commission lVì!nutes
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 challenging 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:
· Three dimensional perspective drawing showing the adjacent homes; usually 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 pulling 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:
11- /'d./f
Planning Commission ¡h¡ilutes
35
July 12, 2004
· Sajd 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, ifthey 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.
· It jfraises a concern to the immedjate neighbor, they should come and see the full set ofþlans
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 addjtion.
· It js very jmportant 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 elevahon, the renderings, no floor plans; and also a
contact information from staff.
Mr. Gilli:
· 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 II x 17.
Chair Saadati:
· Also in favor of expanded noticing; the site plan; as more people receive notification,
hopefully there will be less outrage and surprises.
Mr. Gilli:
· Is there any discussion on courtesy noticing; or is this the courtesy notice?
· There are two levels of notificahon; one is there is an achon that the city is taking, in which
case, in the altematives, 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:
· General1y 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 staff s suggestion to have more
architectural input and adding an architect to the DRC has some merit; although it is not clear
/1- I~S-
Planning CDmmissiDn b,nutes
36
July 12,2004
that the 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 from an
architectural standpoint to the DRC with a member that we could add :trom 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 nonnally 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 tenns of taking the highlights and strong points
from 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 fi'om 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 fi'om 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.
11- Id-.ft;
Planning Commission lHmutes
37
Ju1y 12, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· 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 information that the general public can get when they are
planning to design a house; at least that handbook gives them some information 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.
· Also Exhibit D, having a professional on board would be an added benefit.
· Finding an architect in Cupertino may be difficult; different professionals to sit on different
matters, but you may not find the same person all the time.
· Sometimes the benefit is if you get somebody from outside, you get an impartial opinion.
Mr. Piasecki:
· 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 find 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. Gil1i:
· Larry Cannon's comments are incorporated into the staff report.
JI-/é)..Î
Planning Commission lnmutes
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:
· 1 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; ifhe 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 professional 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 would 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 public comment.
Kwon-Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive:
· Commented on having an architect in the DRC process.
· There is already a cousultant architect to review the design, and he is going to make comment;
I assume that when the applicant brings forward a plan, 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 public 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 facilitated easier. As to how much
value, that in itself is a good question.
· In tenns of should we be moving towards more architectural review, I am always hesitant
about what level 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 people through
further architectural review, or we are basically opening up another whole new issue to explore
/I-IZ<{
PJanning Commission w1llutes
39
Ju1y 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 ifthe 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 well 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 fundamentally 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 altemative 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 II x 17 or legal size, they will 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 dollar and time figure on
each of the processes, how long it takes, and what the cost is.
Mr. GilJi:
· Generally it will cost an extra couple of thousand dollars ¡fyou go to hearing at applicant's
expense.
11- ízq
Planning Commission !hlllutes
40
Ju1y 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 appreciate 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 information about guidelines and minor changes as discussed regarding story
poles, notification.
· After one with the possibility of an architect, 1 will put the possibility of an architect into it and
just know 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 of legal non conforming building lin"s, 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, I just
wanted to know 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
conforming 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.
11-/30
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 oflateness 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.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl!: No Report. om. Giefer asked if someone could attend the August
17th meeting in her place; Vice Chair W ng volunteered to attend the August meeting; Com.
Giefer will attend the September meet" g.
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.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No verbal report
gIVen.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
1/ - /3 (
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 Attomey:
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Taghi Saadati
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin lung
Peter Gilli
Charles Kilian
1.
MCA-2003-02
(EA-2003-19)
Citywide location
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Continuedfrom
Planning Commission Study Session of
August 23, 2004. Tentative City Council date:
Not Scheduled
Peter GilU, 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 single 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.
//- /3a..
Planning Commission ~.~JY 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 e1iminated 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 staffs 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 27th to review the first draft of the model ordinance.
Mr. Gilli:
· In response to Com. Giefer's question about frequency 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 ear1ier 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 frequency 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
..,.,I¡ a building envelope?
Mr. Gilli:
· If you had a building envelope without any wall offset requirement or guide1ine 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.
Com. 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 form 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 guide1ine 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.
1/ - /12
Planning Commission" . ~dy Session
3
September 13, 2004
Com. Miller:
· Asked if the reason for having two different daylight planes is because of staff's 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
tenus 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. Miller:
· Said he was impressed with the presentation that Palo Alto gave in tenus of the success they
are having using the daylight plane.
o 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.
o 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.
o Supports the daylight plane.
Com. Chen:
o Many changes will be made if going for the daylight plane, specifically regarding the single
story heights.
o It is a major change and not within the authorized scope of work, willlikely delay the process
and create confusion.
o Said he feels the existing plan works well, and will support staff's recommendation.
Com, Giefer:
o Several things were solved by the Palo Alto daylight plane policy; during their presentation
several concems 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 concem 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 ITom
City Council.
o 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.
o 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.
/I-/8£l
P1anning Commission ~ .~dy Session
4
September 13, 2004
· I would also want to ensure that every second story home is reviewed by staff for aesthetics,
making sure it 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; 1 wouldn't
want 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 Rl ordinance
is currently ;w,s 28 feet, so even though the envelope goes over ;W 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 concemed 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 Coms. 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 formalized 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.
11- /35'
Planning Comrrrission ~,~Jy Session
5
September 13,2004
Com. MiUer:
· 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 concem 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.
//- {30
Planning Commission ~. ~Jy 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, it is 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 staffs 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 lOx 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
11-137
Planning Commission ~ ,Jy 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. GiIli:
· 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. Miller:
· 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 Corn. 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. Gilli's summarization of commissioners' suggestions.
Mr.Gilli:
· 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.
/ 1-13~
Planning Commission ~ JY Session
8
September 13,2004
Mr. Piasecki:
o Said it was dependant on whether they wanted to incorporate them into an ordinance or
separate guidelines, which should be resolved first.
o 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.
o 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:
o 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:
o 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:
o We may still have a separate sheet that may have some illustrations but the actual wording will
be in the ordinance.
Com. Chen:
o A follow up question is when staff does the review, the more fonnal; the more extensive
review. Is staff going to follow the guidelines more closely.
Mr. Gilli:
o 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:
o Would you write the guidelines to reflect current practice or keep it vague.
Mr. Gilli:
o The draft language now is rather vague; it allows for us to adapt to a neighborhood.
o 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:
o What is the difference between a fonnal review process and an infonnal review process.
Mr. Gilli:
o 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 fonnalized review,
staff sees it before the plan/check stage before all the structural drawings are done, so if there
/1- 131
Planning Commission c Jy 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.
o Instead of using story poles the idea is to have a rendering which is a ITont 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 information 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.
o 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:
o 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 fee1,
but that is after all the design review is done and accepted by staff.
o 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:
o 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 ITont of the house.
Mr. Piasecki:
o 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.
o Staff wants the opportunity to make sense of it.
Vice Chair Wong:
o 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.
o Said he was not comfortable using the floor plan because he felt that if they reålly wanted to
come inside to see where the windows were showing, that the nearby adjacent neighbors
would come to look at it.
o Asked Mr. Gilli about staff's position, said he did not recall their position regarding having
floor plans.
,
Mr. Gilli:
oWe 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.
11- /40
Planning Commission, ly 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.Gilli:
· From our position we think we should give as much infonnation 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 Jot 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 RJ 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. Miller: (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.
/1- t41
Planning Commission ~ Jy 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 R I 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 RI 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
/ / - Ic.f;:;.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 27,2004
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair oog, second by Com. Chen, to approve Applications
M-2004-07 and E 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
(RI Ordinance) Continuedfrom September 13,2004 Planning
Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not
Scheduled.
Mr. Gilli presented the staff report:
· He reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report.
· 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.
· 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.
· Staffs 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 of the draft with some modifications to the City Council.
Com. Miller:
· 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 RI and also for people who went to a public hearing.
· In the draft itself; page 2-39; staff added a category RI 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.
· 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.
· Page 2-41, C1.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.
· 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.
· Page 2-42, G. Height: I know we talked about Item 2.a.l, that is a change from what the
ordinance is currently, I 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.
11-142
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
IS 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 concemed about us getting involved in helping
people design their houses too much.
· Page 2-49: B.l: 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, 1 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 pennits as rear yard setback reductions,
17 feet plus gable end.
/ / - ft./Lf
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 are
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 title.
· My last comment is a question also, Page 2-88, the flow chart, the last process regarding
design review for ordinance exceptions, can we put a public hearing or public meeting in the
DRC box, so we know it is a public process, not within the department process.
· Re: II x 17 plans, agree with Com. MiUer 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 building
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:
· Also request one cut of the survey data we did earlier and I know Mr. GiUi: ran this and I am
not sure if it was distributed to aU 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 reaUy 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 felt that the second story ratio should stay 35% or lower and that was just a
telling statistic to me as 1 was considering this because I went in thinking it didn't matter if it
was 100% second story but I think the data coUected was so overwhelming that we need to
give it consideration and I would like City Council to see that data.
· In the R I model, one of the things that has been bothering me through this process as we are
talking about the second story height, and that it directly hits at the mass and height of building
and specificaUy 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 built up with large
homes, I would like to add a maximum home size in Cupertino.
/f- /45'
Plal111ing Commission Minutes
6
September 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 1 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 concem,
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 Rl 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 ¡fthe 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 Rl 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 /Tom 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.
/I - /4 (0
Planning Commission Minutes
7
September 27, 2004
· Page 2-49, D: 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 Rl 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. Gilli:
· It will be in our presentation to them that there is a process change; it is not !mown 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 permitted 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 minimum size should be 5,000 square feet to
accommodate some of our smal1 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 Rl
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" YS. "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 tront and the garages are in the back. Being that one of the goals is being harmonious, I
don't see that as being harmonious. I would rather see that as a guideline vs. in the ordinance.
11-147
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. Il.C: front yard tree planting: Feels 24 inch box or larger as excessive.
· Page 2-48, top of page: development plans: 1 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.l.: 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 24th 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 1 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 and things like that because I think that
is privacy concern and I think that if they are concemed, 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 Plan 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.
/1 - ì4?
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 personally 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 1 am supporting the 50% is to allow 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 rriendly 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 second/first story, one of the things leamed rrom people who are
building houses is that in many instances, people are building larger first stories than they
normally 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
allowing you to get a reasonable amount of space in terms of a three bedroom configuration is
potentially going to result in smaller 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 well; 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 coming 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 ffeffi of the house should not be more than 50% garages; do not recall seeing that.
Mr. Gilli:
· 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.
/ f - ;+1
Planning Commission Minutes
10
September 27, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
· 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 shonld 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
haffilonious in a design compatible with others, would that override this requirement.
Mr. Gilli:
· The intent of this was it is understood that the pattem 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 !fosted glass or other things
that we discussed. We have heard !fom 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. Gilli:
· 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 concemed 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
11-/5D
Planning Commission 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
will resolve the house that is very visible from distance looking up the hillside.
· 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 altemative 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 Rl 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 Rl 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 Rl; 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 R 1 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.
/ I-/~I
Planning Commission Minutes
12
September 27,2004
. I hope that everyone wì11 see fit to keep Rl 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 R 1, the consensus was that the
neighborhood property owners did not want to change significant portions ofR1.
o Urged everyone to keep Rl in tact as much as possible.
Mr. Dennis Whitaker, resident:
o 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.
o Expressed concern about garage conversions; noting that safeguards into garage conversions
had not been mentioned.
o 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
from growing but can stop additional families from moving in.
o 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:
o Said there were parking requirements for enclosed number of parking spaces that prohibit
. people from 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.
o No additional verbiage is needed in the ordinance to prohibit garage conversions.
Leslie Burnell, Hollyoak Drive:
o Was present at all the R 1 meetings several years ago and is familiar with the issue.
o 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.
o Historically, former Commissioner Orrin Mahoney was responsible for arriving at the
calculation of35%.
o 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.
o Reiterated that the second story size was being increased 43%, not 15%.
Vice Chair Wong: (Directed to Mr. Burnell)
o 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.
11- /5a...
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 of the 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 Rl-
5 zone, Page 2-39 of the staffreport.
· 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 Rl-1O 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 rrom 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 concems.
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-confonning and have to go through the pennitted yard encroachment rules. If change is
/1-153
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 major 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 general1y wider and when it was decided what the setback would be, 5 and 5
was not enough, and they decided that one side should be at least 10, with the smal1est 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; 15 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-Iandscaping, 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 smal1lot 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 feet and that is regardless if it is on the 5 foot side or the 10 foot side.
/1- ¡S-1
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 proj ects in the past have come 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 come 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. GiIIi:
· 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 commissions 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 commissioners 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 summary 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 common 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.
/1-/55'
Planning Commission Minutes
16
September 27,2004
Mr. Gill!:
· 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.
/1- 15""0
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.Gilli
· 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. Gilli's proposal.
Mr. Gilli:
· Is there agreement on the naming of the two story processes, instead of "small" and "large"
name it "two story residential permit P' 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 roof like 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.
/ /- 157
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 ianguage; 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 1et the design stand and that is one of the advantages of having the staff review.
Vice Chair Wong:
· If we had a DRC because it was staffs 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 ru1es. If you 100k 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
e1evation 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 midd1e wou1d 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 prob1em 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 leve1 set back, this is similar to some guide1ines or ordinances which other
cities have in place.
11- /51
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 little 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. Gil1i:
· 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. GilIi:
· 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. Gilli:
· 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. GilIi:
· 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.
/ I - /51
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 concem is.
Chair Saadati:
· How does that differ ftom 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. GiIli:
· 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:
· Ifthe exception goes to the Director, that is fine with me.
Chair Saadati:
· Does the majority concur?
Response:
· Yes.
There was consensus that the ordinance return to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting.
11- /47 ()
Planning Commission Minutes
21
September 27, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked for clarification on the three car garages.
Mr. GiIli:
· 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 of the 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 normally take 20 feet; it would meet the 50 foot rule.
Mr. Gilli:
· 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 bn;ak it up.
/1- J0(
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 Com.
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
Honsing Commission:
· Com. Giefer reported that the eeting was postponed and cancelled.
Mavor's Monthlv Meeting:
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 III also be on the city website.
· The status of e three initiatives by the Concemed 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 and 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.
//- /foéJ...
Planning Commission. Jutes
2
October I), 2004
Minutes of the September 27,2004 Planning Comm' sion meeting:
Com. Chen: Page 1, Roll Call: Second refer ce to "Gilbert Wong" should read "Angela
Chen"
Chair Saadati: Page 9, 4'h 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)
POSTPONEMEN SIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
A TIONS: Chair Saadati reported that an e-mail was received and
Old Business: Planning Commission Procedures For Public Hearing.
WRITTEN COMMUN
would be discussed und
None
1.
MCA2003-02
(EA-2002-19)
City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
(Rl Ordinance) Continuedfrom September 27,2004 Planning
Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not
scheduled.
Mr. Peter Gilli, 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: R l-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 Rl-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 Rl-a zone, which is the Lynwood Acres neighborhood; they
/1- /03
Planning Commission 1. ,utes
3
October 11, 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 Rl 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 1.
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 roofrafters, 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 I-IS, 19.28.075, B3,
there are three different ways of describing this; he suggested reducing it to one way;
preference "that it is hannonious 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 fonns 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 tenns of whether it should be II feet or 12 feet or something of that nature; and this kind of
change would give more flexibility.
· 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. Gilli:
· 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 ru1e and that a variance is necessary.
II -(roc{-
Planning Commission. .Jutes
4
October II, 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. GiIli:
· 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. GiIli:
· 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 will be 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. Gilli:
· 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.
11- 105
Planning Commission. .lutes
5
October [[, 2004
· The appeals process for minor residential permits, 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 form.
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 R I 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 RI
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 harmonious" but emphasized that
they were trying to make these neighborhoods great for everyone and there is a tight set of
rules for R I 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 Rl 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
//- 1{pft1
Planning Commission h..Ù1.ltes
6
October 11, 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.
o He suggested the Planning Commission refer to the tapes of the meetings where former Com.
Mahoney said 6 or 7 years ago, that 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 y, of it is upstairs and y.. 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 Chni, Woodbury Drive:
o Supports the changes to the ordinance.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
information but would incur additional headaches for the homeowner.
o 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.
o Urged the commissioners to reconsider that.
Mr. Gilli:
o 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.
o 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 information 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.
Yvonne Hampton, Oakview Lane:
o Expressed concem about color control from the city.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Under the present regulations, their home would not be compatible with present family needs.
11-/b7
Planning Commission 1 .utes
7
October 11, 2004
· It is wise for a city to look to the future with understanding ofthe past so that someone doesn't
put a space age home in the middle of a rustic neighborhood; that is the purpose of guidelines.
· 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:
· Supports the proposed changes. One concem 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.
· 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.
· The more you force the ratio to be bigger on the bottom and smaller 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.
· Said he concurred with his wife's other comments also.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said that R I-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 will be in that zone.
· If the home is in the Rl zone now, it will stay there unless a long process is undertaken.
Rhoda Fry, San Fernando Ave.:
· Said she would like the Planning Commission to be more empowered to encourage
outstanding architecture in Cupertino and do design reviews for all second story homes;
preferably all homes.
· 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
million, and also something that will last for generations and is going to impact the look and
feel of the city.
· 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 reviva1, 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.
· Please toss out the percent rules and do more design reviews.
Susan Louie, Woodbury Drive:
· Supports not requiring the residents to put up story poles when they have additions because
they are dangerous because they stay on top of the roof and may cause leakage.
· Some people may feel that $3,000 to $5,000 for story poles is a fraction 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.
1/- 10?
Planning Commission ¡,. .ùtes
8
October 11, 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 Rl 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 rrom all the
commlSSlOners.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, to approve the negative declaration
and model resolution.
Com. Giefer:
· Reiterated her concem that throughout the process there was limited public input.
· Said this meeting was one of the better attended meetings; the meetings were well 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 concemed 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 concem.
· 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 R I, but reiterated her concem about the lack of public
input in general; and the one data point rrom 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 to make
an unusually large first 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 allow for, as a number of speakers said, changing neighborhoods or
what could be called 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 fellow commissioners would support
that change in the document.
//- ífo9
Planning Commission Ì'....,utes
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 concems, 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 rront 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 rrom 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.
· Relati ve 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.
/1- 170
Planning Commission 1 .ùtes
10
October 11, 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 from the staff would likely clarify it.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he would withdraw the black and white rendering and incorporate Com. 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 Com. Miller had that you substitute
the language in that second section with the broader language that he preferred.
Mr. Gilli:
· Summarized that Com. Miller proposed to strike 19.28.060 c.t.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 Com. 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 Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to propose to separate the
second story ratio from the overall RI 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 public 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.
//- i7f
Planning Commission tI_ .,utes
II
October 11, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained there was a motion to first vote on that aspect of the 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 permit 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 accommodate 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
11- {7d.-
Planning Commission 1 ltes
12
October II, 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 concem 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 infontlation 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 A wards 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.
/1- /13
EXHIBIT U
City 01 Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
ClnOF
CUPEI\fINO
Staff Use 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-family residential development in the R1 zoninq district.
Environmental Setting:
Standard sinqle-family subdivisions. predominantly 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
If 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 Manta 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
YES ŒI NO
o
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area -
/1- /74
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 District
4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District
5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 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 Clara 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 Documents 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 Dept. List Substances Site
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES
22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application 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 Departmental of Environmental
Health
A. Complete ª-'! information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. 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 paqe.
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 applicable)
BE SURE YOUR INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTAL
IS COMPLETE - INCOMPLETE MATERIALS
MAY CAUSE PROCESSING DELAY
11- /15'
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
-- ---
:-,- c:- 0 c:-
_ c: c: c: .- nsæ+'"
ñSra1J fOra 01;$ -
:¡:¡ U m '::~=~ê5 ..c: () () ()
ISSUES: c: !!: e. 1-",," o ..
""-':¡: Ole. UJ'- c. ze.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c: E CI) c .-... "' c: E E
õ.~- Q) C) :t:: 0 Q).~-
...J'- :æ; (.)
Q.C/ C/ C ...JC/
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 [ill
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41 ,44J
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 [ill
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44]
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 [ill
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 [ill
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 [ill
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 [ill
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23J
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 [ill
environment which. due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7.39]
/1-/70
-
>..... c.... 0 c~
- <:: c !:.."
(ãftSt) n:¡ ns 0 ra "''''.... ....
.- u n:s J:: u .-.... .c 0 0 0
ISSUES: .... r.¡:: ë. 1-&;::';;-;0 I-r.¡::'" o '"
<:: .- III '-';E cna. 111'_ a. za.
[and Supporting Information Sources] CD C E en I: .-.... III C E E
õ.~- Q) C) =:: 0 Q) .~-
...J'- :æ; 0
a. en en .5 ...Jen
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? [5,10,27,44]
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ŒJ
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(i!:1~I.':!9.i!:1gL~LJLIl~lmite~JQ, mar?.bL verll_O'JI. .n.. _....._______....__..___ ___.__________._....______ .__.._____n.......___..___..._______··_·..·_.._······_
/1- 177
·
>.... I: ... 0 1:";
_ c: t: C =
ëãCGt) os os 0 OS os os'" ...
~~ns ~~S~b ..c: CJ CJ CJ
ISSUES: I-""OS o os
c: .- 9 ""-';¡: C)Oo (1)"- C. zOo
[and Supporting Information Sources] .s t:: E U)!: .- ~ '" c: E E
o .~- Q)r:D :::0 C1) C)_
....1.- :;¡;; CJ
a. en en c: ....I en
pool, coastal. etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement D D D 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 D D D 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 D D D 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 D D D ŒJ
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in D D D ŒJ
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D D D ŒJ
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5,13,41]
d) Disturb any human remains, including D D D 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 D D D ŒJ
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoninq Map issued bv the
/ /- 17g'
».... c"" 0 c""
- ~ ~ I:;¡:¡ =
-~.... (U ~ o !II (Uti!.... ....
.~ u (,) J:u '-10.. ..<: 0 0 0
ISSUES: ...."" ~ t-",,:Eñio t-""cu o cu
C ._ '" .- '§ OJ c. rn'- c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c: E U)C ~o '" c: E E
õ.~- a> C) .- Q).~-
c..m ....Iü) :æg ....1m
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 Œ1
[2,5,10,44]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including D D D Œ1
liquefaction? [2,5.10,39,44]
iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] D D D Œ1
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D D D Œ1
loss of topsoil? [2,5.10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D D D Œ1
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 Œ1
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 Œ1
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 Œ1
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 Œ1
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 Œ1
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
/1- I7q
>.'" <:... 0 <:...
- <: <: <:"" <:
-canst) 01 CU 0 CU OICU'" ...
~ (,) ctI ¡::.g:5~S J: u U U
ISSUES: <: ~ ª 1-..,01 o 01
11> .- .~ '" c.. U).- Q. zc..
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) <: E U) c :.¡::I..... 11> <: E E
õ.~- Q) en ._ 0 Q) "'-
..J'- :æ; u
c..CJJ CJJ <: ..JCJJ
of an existing or proposed school? \
[2,29.30,40,44J
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? [ ]
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)? [20,36,42] I
--"_..._--------,._-- . -- .-----
11- lóD
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
I
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
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
quality? [20.36,37]
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood
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
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
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
mudflow? [2,36,38]
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING· Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? [7,12,22,41]
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
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
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
mineral resource that would be of value to
--------.-.-..----"---.---.-----.------.------...-.-
»....
- =
-caca't)
= f.) t"G
t: ~ ;::
Q) t: Ë
õ.~-
e.<n
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c::...... c'-
"'æ alii
J:u.c;:;L.
I-q::_nso
UI .- .'" CI C.
CI) c: ~ .- ....
Q) C') ::: 0
-lèñ :¡;¡ g
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
=....
=
"''''....
..c: <J I)
1--..'"
11)"- c-
UI t: E
Q).~-
...J<n
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
....
I)
o '"
zc.
E
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
-
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
... -.-------.-.-- .--.-----......--------.. -........------.-.. ---....--...--------
ŒJ
/I-Iff
;.,.... c: .... 0 c:~
_ c: c: C::¡:I
ëã\'Ut) IU IU 0 IU lUlU.... ....
+:I U C'G .=u~.,o ..c: c.> c.> c.>
ISSUES: c: ~ ª I ::....IU I-I ::IU o IU
""-';¡: C1 C. ",._ C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] 11> c: E U) c: .- '- '" c: E E
õ.~- 4)C'J ~o Q).~-
c..en --100 :æ~ -'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 noise 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]
.._---"---_._~_."---~--------- -- - ___._____. i..........._____
II - /'ð~
..
»... c'" 0 c....
_ c C t: ~ c
ñSCGt) CU CU 0 CU cucu'" ...
J:. 0 .- '- .s:: 0 () 0
ISSUES: ;:s u C\1 t-",,:5iiíO t-""cu o CU
C ~ º en·-·=:: ClC. en'- c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q C E U)t: =+:;1'- en C E E
b .!?- Q) C) ._ 0 Q).~-
c..en ...J(ñ ~~ -'en
...
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 ,26,27,44J 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
/1-183
-
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
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)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed. either individually or cumulatively,
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,
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
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?
[2,19,32,33,44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
[17,44]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
b) Require or result in the construction of
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
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44]
~._"._-
~. ~
_ c:
1ijcuõ
;;~ra
c: ._
Q c: E
Õ CJ_
c..èi5
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
c.... 0
s: E: :.p
'" '" 0 '"
..c: u .-...
1-",,:5ñíO
1/)'-'''' ",a.
U)c:>:'¡::¡o
Q) C) ._
...J'- :¡¡; u
en c:
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
-
D
D
1
c....
c:
'" "'....
..c: u u
1-",,'"
U)'- Co
I/) c: E
Q) .~-
...Jen
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
....
u
o '"
za.
E
.--
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
ŒJ
//- /'¡if
-
»... r:'" 0 r:'"
- I: I: r: :¡:o I:
rän1t Ia (,¡ 0 ~ ~~.... ....
.=~;;~O oJ: u~o u
ISSUES: :'¡:¡~ctI 1-",,'" o '"
c ._ º IJ) .- ':= '" c. U).- c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] $t:E (he: :.¡:¡'- IJ) C E E
o.~- Q) C') ._ 0 Q) "'-
a.cn -J(ñ :æg ~cn
e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 ŒJ
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
g) Comply with federal, state, ánd local 0 0 0 ŒJ
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? [?]
//- 18'5'
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
ŒJ
o
o
o
o
ŒJ
o
o
ŒJ
o
PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT
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. ~ 4lJ'
Preparer's Signature / (
Print Preparer's Name Peter Gilli. Associate Planner
/ / - / Bb
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff)
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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology ¡Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology ¡ Water 0 Land Use ¡ Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population ¡ Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 T ran s portati onrr raffic
0 Utilities ¡ Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
Œ1 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o 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.
o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o 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.
o
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 I~ct, nothing further is required.
. j
!
Staff Evaluator
1)~ S~CJ '=)
Date
c\\\\\ U2-
Date
ERC Chairperson
II - Ica7
EXHIBIT V
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Septernber 11, 2002
As provided by the Envirorunental 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 Envirorunental 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 REOUEST
Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single-
farrúly residential development in the R1 zoning district.
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Envirorunental 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
1/ - /'35
EXHIBIT W
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARA nON
As provided by the Environmental 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 R1 zoning district.
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The Planning Corrunission granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent
with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts.
Steve Piasecki
Director of Corrununity 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
/1- {cae¡
15~41
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. )..
Agenda Date: November 16, 2004
Application: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02
Applicant: Greg Pinn
Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction lnc.
Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-03-001
Application Summary:
· USE PERMIT for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units)
development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building.
· ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet)
and residential (29 units) development
· EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side yard
setback.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Comrnission recommended approval of each application on a 5-0 vote:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2004-02.
2. The use permit application, file number U-2004-01, in accordance with the model
resolution.
3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2004-02, in accordance with the
model resolution.
4. The side setback exception request to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, file no.
EXC-2004-15, in accordance with the model resolution
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential
Zoning Designatiorý P( Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Zoning)/
Specific Plan Heart of the City Specific Plan
Net Acreage: 0.84 acre
Gross Acreage: 0.92 acre
Actual Residential Density: 31.6 DU/Gr. Ac.
Allowed Density: 35 DU/Gr. Ac.
/2-1
Applications: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02
Adobe Terrace
Page 2
Height:
Stories:
Parking Required:
Commercial -
Residential -
Parking Supplied:
35'
2 stories
66 spaces
(1 stall/250 sq. ft.) 2,000 sq.ft./250 = 8 stalls
(2 stalls/ apt.) x 29 apts.= 58 stalls
66 spaces
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Specific Plan/Zoning:
Yes
No (exception requested)
Environmental Assessment:
Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of October 26, 2004, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend
approval of the project. Commission comments resulted in additional conditions of
approval for design changes to the east-facing building elevation, improvements to the
parking garage and the selection of entry arbor design" A". The Commission also
directed the applicant to evaluate the possibility of moving a handicapped parking stall
from the surface parking to the underground parking and providing a stairwell from
the garage to the ground level near the front of the building. The applicant has made
the revisions to the plan set.
One member of the public spoke about his concern with the adequacy of parking for a
mixed use development project.
DISCUSSION
Project issues are discussed in the staff report to Planning Commission (Exhibit A-I).
Parking for this project is more than adequate. The applicant is providing the full code
required parking for the project and is not proposing a "shared parking" reduction in
spaces.
Data used to justify the sideyard setback exception was in error. The corrected data
pertaining to the building setback is provided below.
Building Wall Side Sebàck
Retail & Common Area building wal1(east side)- 10 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- 20 feet
A partment building wall (east side)- 27 feet
Apartment building wall (west side)- 16 feet
Building Wall Length
(72' building length)
(178' building length)
(42' building length)
(56' building length)
12-2
Applications: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02
Adobe Terrace
Page 3
Apartment building wall (west side)- -52 feet
Apartment building wall (west side)- 10 feet
Apartment building wall (west side)- 60 feet
Common area building wall (west side)- 33 feet
Average Side Setback 23.1 feet
(23' building length)
(44' building length)
(30' building length)
(57' building length)
ENCLOSURES
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6278, 6279, 6280
Exhibit A-I: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated October 26, 2004
Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2004-01cc.doc
ùN'
David W. Knapp
City Manager
):¿-3
U-2004-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6279
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING,
V ACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT
CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQU ARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2004-01 (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held. one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Perrnit is hereby recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof;
and
/2-1.(
Resolution No. 6279
Page 2
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2004-0I
(EA-2004-02), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 26,
2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 9S072" dated 9/17/04 and
consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through AS.O, AS.I, A6.0, CI through C6, L-PI
through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval.
On sheet L-P4, entry arbor "A" is approved.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Governrnent
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a staternent of the
arnount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape
irnprovements that include:
a) a sidewalk width of six feet,
b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as
separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting
properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements.
c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees.
4. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall install bicycle-parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking
ordinance.
Il -.')
Resolution No. 6279
Page j
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
5. DEMOLITION REOUlREMENT
All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project
construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required
demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances.
6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City
and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development
Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan.
7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with
the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the
abutting residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian
ingress and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL
The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant
shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed
project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site irnprovements if
necessary.
9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual.
10. DESIGN REVISIONS
The applicant shall revise the plans to: 1) provide additional building detailing on the east
elevation of the building, 2) modify the underground garage to provide adequate backup
space for the end parking stalls, 3) evaluate the possibility of rnoving one or more of the
grade-level handicapped parking stalls to the underground parking garage, and 4)
evaluate the possibility of providing an interior stairway from the garage to the ground
level near the front of the project.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
11. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
12. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12~
Resolution No. 6279
Page 4
U-2004-01
October 26, 2004
13. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
14. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
15. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 perrnits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
16. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain
facilities need to be constructed or renovated.
17. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall subrnit detailed
plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
18. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee:
6% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
12-;
Resolution No. 6279
Page 5
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
b. Grading Perrnit Fee:
6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
$1,000.00
$ 3,462.00
NjA
$ 243,000.00
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvernent
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
19. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equiprnent
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equipment is not visible frorn public street areas.
20. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMF plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvement plans. * Identifv all Pre-and Post
development BMPs that will be installed on-site.
*Include erosion control plans with next submittal, which shall include a 50' rocked
construction entrance and straw rolls.
21. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site improvements.
22. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to
obtaining a building permit.
12-8'
Resolution No. 6279
Page 6
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
23. TRAFFIC
The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this
resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
/s/ Ralph Qualls
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th 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:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong & Chairperson
Saadati
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/ s / Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/s/ Taghi Saadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2004-01 res.doc
/2-1
ASA-2004-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6280
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL
PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING, V ACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A
TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED
AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2004-02 (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or rnore
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring
structures;
4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of the
City Specific Plan;
/1-/0
Resolution No. 6280
Page 2
ASA-2004-02
October 26,2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-02
set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2004, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 11l: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and
consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through AS.O, AS.l, A6.0, C1 through C6, L-Pl
through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval.
On sheet L-P4, entry arbor "A" is approved.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (I), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
rnay protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape
improvernents that include:
a) a sidewalk width of six feet,
b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as
separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting
properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements.
c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees.
4. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall install bicycle-parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking
ordinance.
/1-11
Resolution No. 6280
Page 3
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
5. DEMOLITION REOUIREMENT
All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project
construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required
dernolition perrnits in accordance with City Ordinances.
6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City
and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development
Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan.
7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the
land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the abutting
residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress
and egress from the benefiting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL
The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant
shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed
project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if
necessary.
9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
10. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
(~-/~
Resolution No. 6280
Page 4
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
13. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
14. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and! or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain
facilities need to be constructed or renovated.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirernents of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed
plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee:
6% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
b. Grading Permit Fee:
6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
(2-/ ]
Resolution No. 6280
Page 5
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
$ 1,000.00
$ 3,462.00
N/A
$ 243,000.00
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Irnprovernents
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site irnprovements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
18. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equiprnent is not visible from public street areas.
19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvernent plans. * Identify all Pre-and Post
development BMPs that will be installed on-site.
*Include erosion control plans with next subrnittaI. which shall include a 50' rocked
construction entrance and straw rolls.
20. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site irnprovements.
21. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to
obtaining a building permit.
r'L- ( Y
Resolution No. 6280
Page 6
22. TRAFFIC
The Traffic Department rnust approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this
resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
/ s/ Ralph Oualls
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th 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:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson
Saadati
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/s/ Taghi Saadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Planning\ POREPORT\ RES\ASA-2004-02 res. doc
12- {r
EXC-2004-15
CI1Y OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6278
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE SETBACK AS
REQUIRED BY THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
EXC-2004-15
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION 11: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Specific Plan Exception, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
Public Hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this
application, and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. There are extraordinary conditions not generally applicable to sirnilar uses,
which justify the exception. The project has a narrow lot width of omy 108 feet.
The required sideyard setbacks of 17.5 feet on each side would have reduced the
usable lot width to only 73 feet, which is unusually narrow for a mixed use
project.
2. The exception departs from the requirements of this chapter to the minimurn
degree necessary to allow the project to proceed, in that the smaller side setback
of 5 feet is to the 4-foot tall podium waIl, which is needed to accommodate the
underground parking structure. Wider side setbacks of 10 and 20 feet are
proposed for the building;
3. The exception wi!! not adversely affect neighboring properties
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. EXC-2004-15 is hereby approved; and
That the subconcIusions upon which the findings and conditions specified In this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
12- ,( b
Resolution No. 6278
Page 2
EXC-2004-15
October 26, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Application EXC-2004-15, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of October 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION l1I: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04
and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5.0, A5.I, A6.0, CI through
C6, L-PI through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in
this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirernents, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the arnount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred fròm later challenging such exactions.
3. SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION
A side setback exception of 5-10 foot as shown on the approved exhibits is granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and
Chairperson Saadati
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
. NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Isl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
I sl Taghi Saadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:jplaIlIlÙIg/pdreportjresjEXC-2004-15 res
(2-t7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02
Agenda Date: October 26, 2004
Applicant: Greg Pinn
Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.
Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-03-001
Application Summary:
· USE PERMIT for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units)
development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building.
· ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL for a rnixed-use retail (2,000 square feet)
and residential (29 units) development
· EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side yard
setback.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2004-02.
2. The use permit application, file number U-2004-01, in accordance with the model
resolution.
3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2004-02, in accordance with the
model resolution.
4. The side setback exception request to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, file no.
EXC-2004-15, in accordance with the model resolution
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercialj Officej Residential
Zoning Designatiorý P( Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Zoning)j
Specific Plan Heart of the City Specific Plan
Net Acreage: 0.84 acre
Gross Acreage: 0.92 acre
Actual Residential Density: 31.6 DUjGr. Ac.
Allowed Density: 35 DUjGr. Ac.
Height: 35'
Stories: 2 stories
Parking Required: 66 spaces
Commercial- (1 stallj250 sq. ft.) 2,000 sq.ft.j250 = 8 stalls
Residential - (2 stallsj apt.) x 29 apts.= 58 stalls
Parking Supplied: 66 spaces
( L -( !(
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Specific Plan/Zoning:
Yes
No (exception requested)
Environmental Assessment:
Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Greg Pinn, has requested a use perrnit, ASA approval and an exception
to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow the demolition of an abandoned
restaurant, formerly known as the Adobe Lounge, and the construction of a mixed use
project consisting of 2,000 of commercial space and 29 apartment units over a parking
podium.
The surrounding land uses are multi-story apartments to the west and south, a one-
story commercial building to the east and commercial and office uses to the north across
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The property was formerly approved by the City for a 77-room hotel that was never
built.
DISCUSSION:
Parking
A conservative estimate of the parking need for this mixed use project is 66 parking
spaces based on the following parking ordinance requirements:
Commercial- (2000 sq.ft.j250 sq.ft.j parking space)= 8 spaces
Apartments- (29 apartments)(2 parking spacesjapt.)= 58 spaces
Total Parking Required 66 spaces
The applicant is providing the full requirement with 6 stalls at grade and another 60 in
the underground parking garage. The uses will share the parking and reduce overall
parking demand.
Traffic
A traffic analysis was originally prepared for a slightly denser project on this site (33
apartments and 2,634 sq. ft. of retail use) (Exhibit A). The denser project was estimated
to generate 15 AM. peak hour trips and 26 P.M. peak hour trips. Traffic level of service
analysis for three nearby signalized intersections indicates that all of these intersections
will operate at Level of Service of "0" or better with the project, which is consistent
with General Plan traffic level of service goals.
Site Design
The plan set depicts a 2-story wood frame structure built on a parking podiurn that runs
nearly the length of the lot. There is one two-way parking ramp on the west side. The
2
12-(1
podium deck will be four feet above grade, but an internal ramp in the garage will
lower the podium to grade level for the first 37 feet of the building depth.
The plan proposes a pedestrian circulation system that connects the Heart of the City
streetscape improvements with a decorative walkway on the podium on the east side
that steps down to grade at the rear and along the west side.
A pedestrian easement is being required on the westerly sideyard to provide a future
pedestrian connection between the Biltmore Apartments and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
It remains to be seen if the Biltmore Apartment owners will consent to this access that
would benefit Biltmore residents.
Architectural Design
Because of the narrowness and depth of the lot, it has been difficult to develop an
aesthetic design that does not look like "corridor" architecture. The building has gone
through several design iterations with the City Architect, Larry Cannon (Exhibit B).
The proposed design largely meets the concerns of the City Architect. The building has
a strong front facade: the retail storefronts face the street, a second-floor apartment is
located above the recessed garage entry and a trellis entry gate is located at the
driveway entry to bring the appearance of the building forward, while rnaintaining the
Heart of the City front setback.
To avoid the" corridor appearance" that often occurs with development on narrow,
deep lots, the building wall is articulated with balconies and courtyards to break up
wall mass and create private open space. The long roof is broken up in several planes
without creating visual clutter.
The building walls are made more interesting with awnings, window sills, light
fixtures, wall tile insets, vent covers, trellises done in short rhythmic patterns without
excessive repetition.
Heart of the City Sidevard Setback Exception
This is an unusually narrow but deep lot on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The lot is only
108 feet wide, but 338 feet deep. Historical redeveloprnent interest in this lot has been
minimal because of the narrowness of the frontage. The previous City approval of a 77-
room hotel on this site required a sideyard setback exception as well.
The applicant is requesting an exception to the required side setback of 17.5 feet (half
the height of the building). The side setback of 5 feet is needed to accommodate the 4-
foot tall podium wall for a usable underground parking garage. The building itself,
which is setback from the edge of the parking podium, has a highly articulated facade
with varying larger side setbacks from the property line as follows:
3
/2-20
Building Wall Side Seback
Retail building wall- 10 feet
Apartment building wall (west side)- 10 feet
Apartment building wall (west side)- 16 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- 20 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- 27 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- -52 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- 60 feet
Common area building wall (east side)- 33 feet
Average Side Setback 22.6 feet
Building Wall Length
(72' building length)
(66' building length)
(56' building length)
(180' building length)
(42' building length)
(23' building length)
(30' building length)
(57' building length)
On an average basis the side setback is five feet more than the requirement.
Enclosures:
Model Resolutions for ASA-2004-02, U-2004-01, EXC-2004-15
Initial Study and ERC recommendation
Exhibit A: Traffic Study
Exhibit B: Design Comments from Larry Cannon dated 4/22/04
Plan Set
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development STv'l~'
G:planninglpdreportlpcU sereports/U -2004-0 i.doc
f).~c0(
~
4
12- 21
ASA-2004-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL
PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING, VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A
TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED
AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2004-02 (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring
structures;
4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of the
City Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
(1-12..
Resolution No.
Pa~(òl
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-02
set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2004, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and
consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5.0, A5.I, A6.0, CI through C6, L-PI
through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein rnay include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Governrnent
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape
improvements that include:
a) a sidewalk width of six feet,
b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as
separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting
properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements.
c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees.
4. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall install bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking
ordinance.
(2 -1 J
Resolution No.
Page 3
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
5. DEMOLITION REOUIREMENT
All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project
construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required
dernolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances.
6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City
and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development
Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan.
7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the
land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the abutting
residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress
and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL
The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant
shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed
project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if
necessary.
9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
10. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximurn height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
12-1'--(
Resolution No.
Page 4
ASA-2004-02
October 26,2004
13. STREET TREES
Street trees shan be planted within the Public Right of Way and shan be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
14. GRADING
Grading shan be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain
facilities need to be constructed or renovated.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shan subrnit detailed
plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreernent with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shan be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee:
6% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
b. Grading Permit Fee:
6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for
Commercial Units
b-l:J
Resolution No.
Pa\1:lèS
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
$ 1,000.00
$ 3,462.00
N/A
$ 243,000.00
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
18. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvement plans. * Identifv all Pre-and Post
development BMPs that will be installed on-site.
"Include erosion control plans with next submittal, which shall include a 50' rocked
construction entrance and straw rolls.
20. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site improvements.
21. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Prograrns Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to
obtaining a building permit.
/2- 2&
Resolution No.
Pageb
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
22. TRAFFIC
The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Comrnission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
J: \ Planning\PDREPORT\ RES\ ASA-2004-02 res. doc
/2-1"7
U-2004-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING,
VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT
CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2004-01 (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are enurnerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof;
and
(2 - 2%
Resolution No.
Page 2
U-2004-01
October 26, 2004
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2004-01
(EA-2004-02), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 26,
2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and
consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through AS.O, AS.l, A6.0, Cl through C6, L-Pl
through L-P4, except as may be arnended by the conditions contained in this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a staternent of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations; and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape
irnprovements that include:
a) a sidewalk width of six feet,
b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as
separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting
properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements.
c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees.
4. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall install bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking
ordinance.
IL~ 2'1
Resolution No.
Page 3
U-2004-01
October 26, 2004
5. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT
All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project
construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required
demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances.
6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City
and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development
Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan.
7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with
the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the
abutting residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian
ingress and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL
The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant
shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the irnpact of the proposed
project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if
necessary.
9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
10. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the rnaximum height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
13. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
/':Z-)ð
Resolution No.
Page 4
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
14. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain
facilities need to be constructed or renovated.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed
plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee:
6% of On & Off-site Improvernents for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvernents for
Residential Units
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
6% of On & Off-Site Improvernents for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
$ 1,000.00
$ 3,462.00
N/A
$ 243,000.00
b. Grading Permit Fee:
fz- J [
Resolution No.
Page 5
U-2004-01
October 26, 2004
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvernents
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. OnCsite Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein rnay be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
18. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvernent plans. * Identifv all Pre-and Post
development BMPs that will be installed on-site.
*Include erosion control plans with next submittal. which shall include a 50' rocked
construction entrance and straw rolls.
20. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site irnprovements.
21. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to
obtaining a building permit.
22. TRAFFIC
The Traffic Department must approve all improvernent plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
(2- 3~
Resolution No.
Page 6
U-2004-0I
October 26, 2004
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th 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:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2004-01 res. doc
I~ -]J
EXC-2004-15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE SETBACK AS
REQUIRED BY THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
EXC-2004-15
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Specific Plan Exception, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or rnore
Public Hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this
application, and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. There are extraordinary conditions not generally applicable to similar uses,
which justify the exception. The project has a narrow lot width of omy 108 feet.
The required sideyard setbacks of 17.5 feet on each side would have reduced the
usable lot width to omy 73 feet, which is unusually narrow for a mixed use
project.
2. The exception departs from the requirements of this chapter to the minimum
degree necessary to allow the project to proceed, in that the smaller side setback
of 5feet is to the 4-foot tall podium wall, which is needed to accommodate the
underground parking structure. Wider side setbacks of 10 and 20 feet are
proposed for the building;
3. The exception will not adversely affect neighboring properties
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. EXC-2004-15 is hereby approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified In this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
!2-j~
Model Resolution
Page 2
EXC-2004-15
October 26, 2004
-------------------------
- ---------------
Application EXC-2004-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of May 10, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: U ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04
and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5.0, A5.1, A6.0, Cl through
C6, L-Pl through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in
this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION
A side setback exception of 5-10 foot as shown on the approved exhibits is granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairman
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:/plal1llil1g/pdreportjres/EXC-2004-15 res
( 2 - J')
F
CUPEIQlNO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
..~~îfi'iiì~¡ilÄ." ;¡<~~à7~_". .. .'.' 'rÄ:~" ~& '
" ".a.::oJ::\;;1it'i;\';"'''~'A'';';".,"..:., ,.."g ~c.j;:!JJr::.·.¡¡".,· ? . .~, . .... ',_ . , ,
~""'=~J=¡,.;,,,,'~.. """ .-~~~,:, ..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
taff Use Only
EA File No. EA-2004-02
Case File No. U-2004-01.
SA-2004-02
Project Title: Adobe Mixed Use Project
Project Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Project Description: Use Permit and ASA Approval to demolish an abandoned
restaurant buildinQ and construct a mixed use proiect consistinQ of 2.634 SQ. ft.' I.
of retail and 33 apartment units.
Environmental Setting: ",.
Proiect site is an urban infilllocation presently developed with an abandoned restaurant
buildinq and surface parkinq.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (net ac.) - 0.88 Building Coverage - 39% Exist. Building - 1.793 s.f.
Proposed Bldg. - 39.986 s.f. Zone ---E.. G.P. Designation -Commercial/Office/Residential
Assessor's Parcel No. - 369-03-001
It Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 34.48
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms
Total s.t.
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
Heart of the City Specific Plan
o
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
It Non-Residential, Building Area - 2.634 s.t. FAR - 1.04 Max. n/a
Employees/Shift -? Parking Required 77 Parking Provided 77
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES pi NO 0
/2- Jb
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUìSIDE AGENCIES lContinued)
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 District
4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District
5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 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 Clara 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 Documents 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 Dept. List Substances Site
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES
22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application 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 Departmentai of Environmental
Health
A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. 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 paqe.
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 applicable)
1'2-'37
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
---.------ -------"--- """ - ------1
».... C.... 0 C'ë: i
_C c:: c::; ,
-"'.... '" '" 0 '" "''''.... .... I
.! u 0 .s::::: 0 .-... ..c u u u
ISSUES: .....- 9 f-.-:51Uo 1-,- '" o '"
c~ 1I):!::·~ClC. en ~ c. zC.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q C E U) s::: .- ~ II) C E E
õ.~- Q CI ::0 Q .!2'- I
D..(/ ...J'- ::iE U ...J(/ I
(/ C
,
;
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a D D D )ët
I scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D D ~ I
including, but not limited to, trees, rock i
outcrop pings, and historic buildings within a . I
state scenic highway? [5,9,11.24.34,41,44] c.
,
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D D )Ii( I
character or quality of the site and its ;
I
surroundings? [1,17.19,44] I
d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D D ßlI
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1.16,44] I
!
! II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
I determining whether impacts to agricultural
I resources are significant environmental
i effects, lead agencies may refer to the
i California Agricultural Land Evaluation and I
i
I Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by I
I
! the California Dept. of Conservation as an I
i optional model to use in assessing impacts ,
I
I on agriculture and farmland. Would the
I project: c·
I a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique D D D 1\ ,
I Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ,
I
!
i Importance (Farmland), as shown on the I
! maps prepared pursuant to the Farmiand
i Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
i California Resources Agency, to non- !
i agricultural use? [5.7,39] I I
, i
r
I b) Conflict with existing zoning for D D D ~
I agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
,
I contract? [5.7.23]
I c) Involve other changes in the existing D D D ~
I environment which. due to their location or
i nature, could resuit in conversion of
i Farmland. to non-agricultural use? [5,7.39] ,
! _:~ ----------- -------- I
,
~-_. '" - -,-- -.. ---.--
/2~]ð
í - ~-- -~'-----i
»- I: _ 0 ;
I 1:- ,
I ISSUES: -I: I: 1::;:; I: i
- 1\1'" IU 1\1 0 III 1111\1'" ... \
.!:!! (.) (.) .s:: u .-.... -'=<.><'> <.> I
-.- ~ I-¡¡::É1âo 1-1;:'" o '"
I:::!:
I [and Supporting Information Sourcesl .. <: E (J).- ~ '" c. V).- c. zc.
f/J s::: .- '- (J) <: E E
Õ .21- Cb C') :t::: 0 ...2'-
...J'- :¡: <.>
D..(/ (/ I: ...J(/ ~
f-:.:.:- _.
1111. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
i significance criteria established by the I
i applicable air quality management or air ;
i pollution control district may be relied upon ;
í
,
to make the following determinations. Would I
the project: I
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 )!;l I
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] i
b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 )';( I
I contribute substantially to an existing or I
I projected air quality violation? [5.37,42,44]
,
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 ft1.
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] .'
.a ,
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 I
i pollutant concentrations? [4.37,44] ..
, - I
I I
! e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 .;~
I
I substantial number of people? [4.37,44] ,
. ,
,
,
I IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would I
I
I the project: !
í
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 18.:
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]
I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ~
I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
i community identified in local or regional
,
i plans, policies. regulations or by the
i California Department of Fish and Game or
! US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10.27,44]
I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ~
I federally protected wetlands as defined by
i Section 404 of lhe Clean Water Act
liinclLJ.cJirlg,~lltlloLlilllitedt~ mar~, vernéll. --."...........-... .. ."..._".~.__._- ---..--.-....--.---.-'"""''''''"''''''" '---...
(1.- J1
r-- "."._--~-- --~-
I
I 0 i
I ».... c: ë c:¡: c....
I _c C I
" - 11\.... II 11\ 0 11\ (V 11\"" .... I
I .!!! u u .t: u..s:::'- ""' .c u (,) u i
I ISSUES: .....- :g .....¡¡::_1Uo I- .- '" o '"
I [and Supporting Information Sources] I:~ U)'-'3: ",c. cn~c. zc. I
Q) C E cn c .- ""' U) C E E
õ.~- Q)C) :!:o Q "'-
, ...J'- :¡¡ (,)
; Il.I/ I/ C ...JI/
I
I pool. coastal, etc.) through direct removal, -
filling. hydrological interruption, or other
I means? [20,36,44] ,
I I
d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 E
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 locai policies or 0 0 0 .i?t
ordinances protecting biological resources.
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? [11.12,41]
I f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
I Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 IK(
! Community Conservation Plan, or other
I approved local, regional. or state habitat
I conservation plan? [5,10,26.27]
,
I
i V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
I project:
I a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 JIi{
! the significance of a historical resource as
I defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41]
I b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 . 0 ~
i the significance of an archaeological
I resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41]
I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 oR
i paleontological resource or site or unique
i geologic feature? [5,13,41]
d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 JlJ..
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 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ,
l_~____ 0 0 ~ ,
i delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo ,
I Earthquake Fault Zoni.Q9..~ap issued by the i
---~-j
(;. - YD
i -.
! »- I: _ 0 1:-
-I: C C:;¡ I:
í -1'iI- III I'iI 0 I'iI llll'iI_ -
I'iI (;) t.) J:. (;) ..c:'- L. J:.(;)t.) t.)
¡ ISSUES: .,.- ~ t-.-_1ã 0 1-,- .. o ..
c::t::: fI) :t::: 'j tn c. (I) :t::: c. zc..
! [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c: E en C .-.... II) c: E E
õ.~- eve) ;!:o Q) .~-
....1'- :;; (;)
D..I/) I/) I: ....II/)
, -
f--- ---~
! State Geologist for the area or based on
I other substantial evidence of a known fault?
r Refer to Division of Mines and Geology ,
! Special Publication 42. [~, 14,44] !
I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D D ..KI
[2.5.10,44]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 ~ I
liquefaction? [2,5,10.39,44]
!
I iv) Landslides? [2,5.10.39,44] D D D Ds( I
!
I
I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D D D .ø. I
1 loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] !
i c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D D D ~
! unstable, or that would become unstable as
¡ a result of the project. and potentially result
¡ in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
I subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
I [2,5.10.39]
! d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined D D 0 }'l
I in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
i (1997), creating substantial risks to life or.
i property? [2,5,10]
e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 D J¡q:
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:
,
I a) Create a significant hazard to the public or D D D ¡:¡(
I the environment through the routine
transport. use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
I
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 D D JE: i
the environment through reasonably ,
¡
I foreseeable upset and accident conditions ,
I involving the release of hazardous materials ,
!
! into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] ,
,
i c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 D ø, ,
¡
I hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ,
,
I substanc~s~._<2.~ waste within one~quarter mile ,
,
____..___._.___i
12 - L( (
I: ... 0 ,
»- 1:- ¡
I: I: :;; ,
- I: I: ,
- !lI- ra!ll 0 III lII!II.... .... i
.~ u (.) ..c:: u .-.... '<:uU U ,
ISSUES: ... ¡;: g t-¡¡:::51ao I- .- '" o '" I
<:: .- (I)'-"§ ",c.. U') ~ Co zc.. I
[and Supporting Information Sources] ( <:: E f/) C .-.... (I) <:: E .§ I
õ.~- Q,) C') :!:: 0 ( "'-
C-I/) -100 ::iEg -II/) ,
,
,
of an existing or proposed school? '-
I
[2.29.30,40,44] I
I
I
d) Be located on a site which is included on a D D D )t
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]
I e) For a project located within an airport land D D D )i1{
I use plan or, where such a plan has not been
I adopted, within two miles of a public airport
I or public use airport, wouid the project result
I in a safety hazard for people residing or
i working in the project area? [ ]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D $
airstrip, would the project resuit in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? [ ]
I g) Impair implementation of or physically D D D þ1I., ¡
i
I
interfere with an adopted emergency !
response plan or emergency evacuation i
plan? [2,32,33,44] . I
I
h) Expose people or structures to a D D D ~ I
significant risk of loss, injury or death ,
involving wildiand fires, including where ¡
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or ¡
I
where residences are intermixed with ¡
I
wildlands?[1,2,44] I
"''''",- I
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I I
-- Would the project: I
a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ß[
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 D ~
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
iowering of the local groundwater table level I
(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)? [20.36,42]
...... ." ......
!Z-L(d.-
--~--,--,-----,-~_.
--
¡
i
I ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sourcesl
I ,) So"'" ,',IIy ,"" Ih. .""" dm ,,,,.
j pattern of the site or area, including through
I the alteration of the course of a stream or
I river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
[14.20.36]
I d) Substantialiy alter the existing drainage
i pattern of the site or area, including through
i the alteration of the course of a stream or
I river, or substantialiy increase the rate or
! amount of surface runoff in a manner which
I would result in flooding on- or off-site
[20,36.38]
I e) Create or conlribute runoff water which
I would exceed the capacity of existing or
I planned stormwater drainage systems or
I provide substantial additional sources of
! poliuted runoff? [20.36,42]
,
i f) Otherwise substantialiy degrade water
¡quality? [20,36.37]
I g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood
I, hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
I Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
i [2,38]
I h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
i structures which would impede or redirect
! flood flows? [2.38]
Ii) Expose people or structures to a significant
I risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
i including flooding as a result of the failure of
! a levee or dam? [2.36,38]
-,.-
! j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
i mudflow? [2.36,38]
! IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING· Would
i the project:
! a) Physically divide an established
¡community? [7,12.22,41]
1 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
,
Lp()liC:>'L()! Ces¡ u lélti()I1.2!ªf1ªg_EJ.f1c:y",,~th_._ .......
;.,....
-r:
-\II'"
.! u l)
....¡;::!J!
c ._ ~
<I> '" E
õ.!2'-
D..(/
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
£: ... £: .....-
IV r:
.c~.<:'Q.<!
I-- ._ ... 1Q 0
VJ:!::·;:C)Q.
VJ c ;>.-'"
Q) en .:!:::= 0
..J .- "" l)
(/ -=",
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
.
D
D
-- ._----~,_.-
._"'~~
r:....
r:
IV \II'"
.<: u l)
t- .- ra:
VJ:t:: Q.
"' '" E
<I>.S!I-
..J(/
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
\j¡J,
,
...
l) I
o ra: !
zc.
E !
;
---i
~I
I
I
JS{
j!Í
ø..
!
ø.
ø'
1&
~
þØ.
D
..
1:Z~Lf.'J
.---.--,-.---.,--". ---...- .- .-----1
I ;.,- 0 1:- I
-I: c:ë I:+:; I:
i - tI!.... I'G tI! 0 tI! !Uti!.... .... \
¡ISSUES: .! (J u J:. u .-.... ..c::",'" '"
-.- 9 1-¡,;:;1Qo 1-.- .. o ..
c~ 1/)'-'3: ClC. I/) ~ Co zc.
i [and Supporting Information Sources] '" C E I/) C .-.... I/) C E .§
õ.~- Q)C) :!:::o '" CI_
I ....Iii) :õg
! Q.m ....1m
,
I 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? I
[1,7,8.16.17.18,44]
I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ,
0 0 0 ~ i
i
i conservation plan or natural community I
i conservation plan? [1,5,6,9.26]
IX (b) The g,roject is being redesi~ned. It may require a Heart of the City Specific Plan side
yard excep ion to allow balconies 0 encroach into the side setback area.
I
!
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 J)(
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the stale?
[5.10]
b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 1Xl
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
i
i XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 ~
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise .
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? [8,18,44]
,
I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 ~
i excessive groundborne vibration or
i ground borne noise levels? [8,18,44]
,
i c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 .ø
i ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
i above levels existing without the project?
! [8.18]
I-
i d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 ,aq
: increase in ambient noise levels in the
i project vicinity above levels existing without
I the project? [8,18,44]
--
! e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ~_.......
--.---- -----_._--_......._,,_._~.._- ----- --- - ----..----.-.----...,,- --"..-"".-...,,-.- L-"...__._._
/2- '1'-(
r--.----.---
I
!
!
I
1 ISSUES:
! [and Supporting Information Sources]
ì
!
I
I 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 noise levels?
[8,18,44]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
I XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
I the project:
!
1 a) Induce substantiai population growth in an
[ area, either directly (for example, by
I proposing new homes and businesses) or
I indirectly (for example. lhrough extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44]
I b) Dispiace substantial numbers of existing
i housing, necessitating the construction of
I replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16,44]
I c) Displace substantial numbers of people.
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
I 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:
L--
!
Fire protection? [19,32,44]
Police protection? [33,44]
Schools? [29.30,44]
),...
-c
-",~
"~ u u
~.- !!!
c:t: ~
Q C E
õ"~-
Il.en
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
C'E c~
tIS '" 0 '"
..c u .c .- ....
.... .- .... ñi 0
en~';: cnQ.
VI s::: ;;:."_...
<DC) ==0
-'¡¡j ::!:g
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Parks? [5,17,19.21,26.27,44] 0 0
,- ,--------"~---1--,------+_----
____'?ther PUblicf~~t~e~[1_~20,4~L___L D_____~__ ___
c:'E
"'",~
.cuU
t-;¡::'"
cn"- D-
en C E
a:I.~-
-'en
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
--.----.--.---.--...-..-."
~
u
o '"
zQ.
.§
~
1
i
!
I
J\l
"§IJ
~
, !
!
!
!
I
~j
íi1I ·
.ái
~!
---I
ÞÌI I
---
f:z -l{5
r I r'S v·").-- J s-¡ Y'\. b '? I 0
r---~---- ~ !
i 0
»... ~ 1: c:¡:; c::'"
! - c:: c::
-III" IG III 0 (1 (VIII" ..
.!.! u 0 .e u ..c'- ... .cuu u
ISSUES: ....- ~ ....·-_ra 0 I-¡¡:;'" o co
r:::~ II)~'¡¡; ClC. m'- C. zC.
[and Supporting Information Sourcesl '" !: E en r::: .-... II) !: E E
õ.~- Q) r:::n .::: 0 Q) .~-
...J'- :E U
C"t/) t/) c:: ...Jt/)
i
I
r--- I
i XIV. RECREATION-- I
i
a) Would the project increase the use of D .b D ¡¡¡( I
existing neighborhood and regional parks or i
i
other recreational facilities such that !
substantial physical deterioration of the ,
facility would occur or be accelerated? I
[5.17.19.21.26.27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational D 0 0 ~
facilities or require the construction or I
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the i
environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC -- I
Would the project: I
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is D D ~ D I
substantial in relation to the existing traffic I
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 I
intersections)? [4.20.35.44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 D J¡
a level of service standard established by the ,
county congestion management agency for i
designated roads or highways? [4,20.44] I
, c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 ~
I including either an increase in traffic levels or
I a change in location that results in
i substantial safety risks? [4.?]
¡
I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 D 0 ¡g: I
I
I design feature (e.g.. sharp curves or I
i dangerous intersections) or incompatible I
I uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? [20.35,44] i
I ,
i e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D 0 0 ~
i [2.19.32.33.44]
f---
i f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 .ø
! [17,44] .- ---.-.......
;----'"'-_.- 0 0
, 0 ¡¡¡¡: i
! g) Conflict with adopted policies. plans. or i
I programs supporting alternative J I
,
ItrCln:i.P()rtati.Qllle.g~us tu rll()uts,jJicycle.____ i
-"_._"." -"'--,""'._._."'"-.,----,",,,," ".-. --.-.,.---- ---- -.
lØ"
/2-l{1o
_._--~--" ,
¡ i
! >..... t:.... 0 t:.... I
i - C C C:¡:¡ C ,
ISSUES: -.,.... ro., 0 ftI III.,.... .... I
.!!! (,) u .J:. (,) .c .- ... .c " " "
.....- ~ t-·-_ñi 0 I- .- ., o .,
s::::t:::: IJ):!::'¡: c>c. ( ) :t:::: 0- zc. I
. [and Supporting Information Sources) Q) c:: E ( ) s::::: ._.... IJ) c:: E E I
Õ .2'- Q) t:n ::: 0 Q) c>_
I ....I .- :æ: CJ
¡ Il.IJ IJ c:: ....IIJ I
I -
L-, ,
I racks)? [4,34] i
,
I ,
¡ I
,
I '" \} (~}
I The traffic analysis identified a total of 15 new A.M. freak hour trips and 26 P.M. peak hour
i tri~s. A CMA traffic analysis is not required as new rie fall below 100. Nearbrc signalized
I in ersections continue to operate at acceptable traffic OS levels with the deve opment, that
I is, LOS D or better.
I
I Parking supply meets City requirements without sharing parking between uses.
¡
I
I XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - I
I Would the project:
,
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 pi I
requirements of the applicable Regional !
Water Quality Control Board? [5.22.28,36,44] i
,
b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 1&
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 0 0 & I
new storm water drainage facilities or I
expansion of existing facilities, the I
construction of which could cause significant I
environmental effects? [5.22.28.36,44] I
e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 Jii{ 0
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 0 0 0 ~
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
g) Comply with federal. state, and local 0 0 0 ~
statutes and regulations related to solid ..,J_____,,__
waste? [?]
-,---,- ,.
XVI (e) The Cuftertino Sanitary District cannot determine the downstream availability of
sewer service. t has experienced events when peak sewer flows have exceeded c'¥iacity.
A flow study may be necessary to determine if off-site improvements are required. his
requirement was placed on all significant size projects on or near Stevens Creek Blvd that
flow toward sewer mains in Wolfe Road.
................
IZ_l(7
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 £t
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
I the major periods of California history or
! prehistory? 0
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ~
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a projecl 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)?
¡D
!
! c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 ~
I effects which will cause substantial adverse
i effects on human beings, either directly or
l~~irectly? 0 ___J
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.
Pre parer's Signature
Cre-
Gk
Print Preparer's Name
(¿-LiJ
¡;NVIROijM~ijTAL¡;VALUATI6N (10 b~J~om"leted by Cjw:~tÊffh .. . ....
,:~:»t::,> /'"ë'::; ,': "". .... . ... ,,': c': >~<':<:':<, ,j,: ,,': ","; m,< "'.'S>/::«Kt'>· '0
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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water fil Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation ~ Transportation/Traffic
.Þ\ Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 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.
0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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.
0 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 project, nothing further is required.
CJ2.;.. \ - 1 J ì4/~Lf-
Staff Evaluat<:1') n. Date
U CŒ/
ERC Chairperson
~ 1'-+, J-Où'f
Date '
!L-l{1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
May 12, 2004
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
May 12, 2004.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2004-02, U-2004-0l (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brother's Construction)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Architectural and Site Approval for a rnixed-use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential
(33 units) development.
Use Permit for a rnixed-use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential (33 units)
development and the dernolition of an abandoned building.
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Envir
Declaratio
significa
ental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
'ndin that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
ental impacts.
g/ erc/REC EA-2004-02
!¿-)ò
EXHIBIT A
DATE:
March 12, 2004
TO:
Greg A. Pinn
FROM:
Sandi Domingue and Traci Ono
SUBJECT:
Traffic Analysis for Adobe Terrace Mixed-Use
Development, 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of the traffic analysis for the proposed
mixed-use development located at 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. Califomia. The
mixed-use development as proposed entails the construction of 33 low-rise apartments and
approximately 2,634 s.f. of retail use. Access to the proposed development is provided via one
right in right out dri veway off of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The traffic analysis will include a trip generation analysis, intersection level of service analysis.
access/site circulation analysis, parking analysis and pedestrian/bicyclist impact analysis. The
traffic analysis will follow the guidelines set forth by the City of Cupertino.
1.0 TRIP GENERA nON ANALYSIS
The purpose of the trip generation analysis was to determine if the proposed development would
generate 100 or more new peak hour trips to or from the site. If the proposed development were
to generate 100 or more new peak hour trips, a full transportation impact analysis (TIA) would be
required; however. if the peak hour trips are less, a memorandum addressing issues requested by
the City of Cupertino staff will be adequate for the traffic analysis.
Project trips were estimated by applying the appropriate vehicular trip generation rates to the
proposed mixed-use development (33 low-rise apartments and 2,634 s.f. of retail). The trip
generation rates used are those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation, 6'h Edition. Applying these rates, the proposed 33 low-rise apartments are estimated
to generate 217 daily trips, 15 AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12 outbound) and 19 PM
peak-hour trips (13 inbound and 6 outbound). The proposed 2,634 s.f. of retail is estimated to
generate 107 daily trips, 0 AM peak hour trips (normal business hours begin after 9 AM) and 7
PM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 4 outbound). The estimated total net daily trips for the
proposed mixed-use development is 324 daily trips, IS AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12
outbound) and 26 PM peak-hour trips (16 inbound and 10 outbound). Based on the trip
generation results, a traffic analysis memorandum will be required and not a full TIA. The trip
generation estimates are presented in Table 1.
( 2 -) r
Table 1
Trip Generation for Adobe Terrace Mixed-Use Development
,
Daily Trip AM Peak PM Peak
Generation
Size/Area Peak Percentaae Tries Total Peak PercentaCle TriDs Total
Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out In Out Trips Rate In Out In Out Trips
Phase 1
Apartments (units)" 33 6.59 217 0.47 20% 80'% 3 12 15 0.58 66% 34% 13 6 19
Retail (per 1000 s.f.)* 2.634 40.67 107 0" 0% 0% 0 0 0 2.59 43% 57% 3 4 7
Net-Trips 324 3 12 15
* Source ITE Trip Generation Rate for Low Rise Apartments (221) and Specialty Retail Center (814)
**Normal business hours for retails shops beqin after 9 AM
16 10
26
2.0 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The purpose of intersection level of service analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed
development on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. Level of service is both a
quantitative and qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A. or
free-flow conditions, to LOS F. or highly congested conditions. The level of service method
specified by the City of Cupertino evaluates an intersection's operation based on stopped delay
with a threshold of LOS D or better. However. LOS E+ (45 seconds weighted delay) is
acceptable only for De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza
Boulevard/Bollinger Road in order to facilitate the "Heart of the City" concept described in the
City of Cupertino's General Plan.
The study intersections are analyzed using TRAFFIX, a software package which is based on the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for analyzing intersections. TRAFFIX
evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay which includes stopped
delay at an intersection, delays due to oversaturation queues, movements at slower speeds and
stops and slow downs on intersection approaches as vehicles move in queues or slow down
upstream of an intersection. The correlation between average stopped vehicular delay and level
of service is shown in Table 2.
As directed by the City of Cupertino, the following three key signalized intersections were
analyzed for this project:
1. De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard
2. Torre A venue / Stevens Creek Boulevard
3. Blaney A venue / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Operating conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours
of traffic. The peak hour is defined as a one hour time period between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and a
one hour time period between 4:00 and 6:00 PM during which the highest volumes of traffic are
experienced. These intersections were analyzed under two scenarios: Existing Conditions and
Existing + Project Conditions.
2
/2-) :L
Table 2
Level of Service Definitions
Level of Description
Service
A Free flow; minimal to no delay
B+
B
B-
c+
C
c-
D+
D
0-
E+
E
E-
F
Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Sec.)
:::: 10.0
Stable flow, but speeds are beginning to be
restricted by traffic condition; slight delays.
10.0 < delay'" 12.0
12.0 < delay'" 18.0
18.0 < delay'" 20.0
Stable flow. but most drivers cannot select their
own speeds and feel somewhat restricted;
acceptable delays.
20.0 < delay'" 23.0
23.0 < delay'" 32.0
32.0 < delay'" 35.0
Approaching unstable flow, and drivers have
difficulty maneuvering: tolerable delays.
35.0 < delay'" 39.0
39.0 < delay'" 51.0
51.0 < delay'" 55.0
Unstable flow with stop and go; delays.
55.0 < delay'" 60.0
60.0 < delay'" 75.0
75.0 < delay'" 80.0
Total breakdown; congested condilions with
excessive delay.
delay> 80.0
Existing peak hour tuming movement volumes and signal timing were provided by the City of
Cupertino (see Appendix A). Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections operate at an
acceptable level of service based on the City of Cupertino's threshold (LOS D or better). Based
on field observations, all the intersections appear to operate at the calculated levels of service.
The results of the intersection levels of service are presented in Table 3. See Appendix B for
TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets.
Existing + Project Conditions are existing peak-hour volumes plus project-generated traffic
estimated for the proposed development. The project generated traffic is estimated by using a
three-step process: (I) trip generation. (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first
step, the amount of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated by applying appropriate trip
generation rates based on land use on both a daily and a peak-hour basis (refer to Section 1.0
above). In the second step, the directions by which trips approach and depart the site are
estimated based on the relative location of complementary land uses and existing travel patterns
in the area. In the final step, the traffic is assigned to the individual roadway segments of the
roadway network.
The results indicate that under Project Conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable
level of service based on the City of Cupertino's threshold (LOS D or better). The results of the
intersection levels of service are presented in Table 3. See Appendix B for TRAFFIX level of
service calculation sheets.
3
/2 - )3
Table 3
Intersection Level of Service Results
Existing + Project
Existina Conditions Conditions Chonae
Avg. Avg. Avg.
Avg. Crit. Avg. Crit. Crit. Crit.
Del. Crit. Del. Del. Crit. Del. Vie Del.
Intersections Peak LOS (sec.\ vie Isec.\ LOS (sec.) vie (sec.) Chance Chanae
1 De Anza Boulevard I AM D 43.1 0.887 44.6 D 43.2 0.890 44.9 0.003 0.3
Stevens Creek Boulevard PM D 47.4 0.801 50.2 D 47.5 0.802 50.3 0.001 0.1
2 Torre Avenue / AM A 6.7 0.248 4.0 A 6.7 0.250 4.0 0.002 0.0
Stevens Creek Boulevard PM A 7.4 0.311 8.9 A 7.5 0.315 9.0 0.004 0.1
3 Blaney Avenue I AM B 13.4 0.446 13.7 B 13.5 0.452 14.0 0.006 0.3
Stevens Creek Boulevard PM C 24.1 0.676 24.4 C 24.3 0.677 24.5 0.001 0.1
3.0 ACCESS/SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
One driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard is provided for the proposed mixed-use development.
The driveway is approximately 24' wide. Access to the proposed development for vehicles
traveling eastbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard is restricted to a "right in right out" driveway
which feeds to an underground parking facility proposed by the project. A raised median on
Stevens Creek Boulevard does not allow vehicles traveling westbound to tum left into the
proposed driveway. Therefore, a U-turn is available at De Anza Boulevard I Stevens Creek
Boulevard signalized intersection for vehicles traveling westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
A signalized intersection on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Torre A venue and Blaney
A venue is provided as access to and from the Fire Station. From field observations, this
signalized intersection is approximately lOa' east of Torre Avenue and operates as a coordinated
intersection with Torre Avenue. This signalized intersection is closest to the proposed project
site, however. according to existing roadway signs. no U-turns are allowed at this intersection.
4.0 P ARKING ANALYSIS
The City of Cupertino's Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces for each apartment unit
and one parking space per 250 square feet of retail. Applying the city code requirements to the
proposed mixed-use development. a total of 77 parking spaces are required. The proposed
mixed-use development is designed to provide underground parking beneath the apartment and
retail structure. The parking layout provides a total of 78 parking spaces (76 full size parking
spaces and 2 handicapped spaces). Seven of those parking spaces are at-grade, surface parking
spaces and the remaining 71 parking spaces are underground parking. According to city
requirements. adequate parking is provided for the proposed project. Table 4 summarizes the
City of Cupertino parking requirements for each land-use component of the project. See Figures
I & 2 for the garage level parking plan and site plan respectively.
4
/2-)~
.--~J~J~~~-
'~~7-'; L·J~,;':;
------ - - - r-;,,:·~
......"..........~,'......."';.......,.m"'-......'"
~-=~~~~;:-.,-=~:";"~,,~,~~
..,...........~........~.....~..-..... ,.,,~.........
_~"'......~....~~""""'ucrs,'''''''''...
""~"", y-.....=-,.;~"""."""".._,..........
.-....__-........~""'..........
~<
}>innBrolhersCmnpunie~
,."S"'"
S,;,.lJ<)
'-
-
""'"".....
'L,-",""""u~"'rr"'- ~
" ~
CityR""
" r_-..- i
''''''0;''
~ 'n<"
-
....~
-
'.....".- -
c-""...., -
......-
Garage
Plan
;..~,""
A-l.O
''''.j..'''..'"'....."........"
,,~
AdobcTerracc
.\Mi"dU">o,,,d"f"="
::..,.~
J.,...._1ÞI.""""
~=....,IIILITr_--+---\
....-"'~-"""......--~
N1ilJI1J'A\I ¡¡!3'1/1
/NrJØ?;!'O'l/lrR-1JR-))
~
"
~.
II
4if-~
~
;¡
~
(.D.l6~:rR·")
,..,.'
GARAGE LEVEL PLAN
.....",..___........""""..Œ~..r~
5eff)'¡M'œ"E
®>
oa.œ AM TO g,_ PH - 5EVEN DAY!.
V"""",
1'11X!:D RETAIL ·AFART!'1ëNT!>
'I-EART Gf' CITY" ff"J
COM"'ERCIAL I OFFICE I fi£!>IPENTIAL
&,ø1'il3 eGl.FT. 11.6"
:l3-<4a! !Q FT. ~~
!I!.'o1..NIT!>
13LN!T!I
IbIk-lIT&
"iJ'Ill'ð
!I,!I61!>G1.FT.
:I,I9Q! &Q.FT.
HOUR6 OF RETAIL 0PE1'tA TION
EXI8TING œE
""""""""'"
Zo.IlNa. D£8IGoNATION
Ga£ ItA . I"I.~ DE81G1NATION
PAY~ A!'IEA
L_ N'æA
Æ&IDEt4TIAL.
''''"''''''''
l ~PRGOH
3 eEDAOCM
REC!õ:EAT~ AREA
="""" """" ......
FI'iIyATE C'f"'a>I MIEA
38,«~.o( f>Q. FT. t:JMJ ACREe
.o(3.Jnl'ð &Q. FT. Ð.9'ð6 AG ;£f
2-"3.4 IIGtFT.
;n,3!>l!lf>6Gl.FT.
)~~.¥8Q.Ft<
3S.&lI>Irr8
""
.e-.ø.4"
!¥!:J/>ACFiiE&)(3"
3s.øl"ure
&!!E AReA
NET N'ŒA
"""""......
I'YII!Dn-.k".~A
l;£TAIL
A"_
TOTAL
r::>e<6ITT AL.Lœ.ED
DEt48jTY F'ROPO$ED
".&1'"
+3'-"-
ÆECIYII.DILI:i'&
.
"
1l1l'U.LðlZE:
2 ~AtCICAPF'ED
î1 TOTAL
,...
¡.. ¡NP.!"Iõ!r.#-!!.TORJEð
""""'
_FCOII.l1
~IL.DINC) PAD ELEYATION
HO.Gf'EMPI..O'T'EE&l"'ROJEc;TEI:;I
PA~Fæ.GIlJIFæ.D
PAf'liKlH('j,e+IOJN
N'
I
4
~
,
!
3
~
,
~
,
d
i
j
:;
3
t
~
,
,
;.
,
,
¡
~
!
(
,
,
)
j
1
~
~
¡
j
,
,
,
~
.
,
-~,:; . ~-"""-...
':.:,';=:"'~'::,':;. ;::~;::';:.
, -..,-=-.....
,...m..-..................''''.-....,,''''''''......,..,..
_;,~........,"'"e.,o...._..~."''''''-:...,
~":~~..g':;.::,;';:>::c~~~~"
~~~"::::~':.:'~.!.~L-;<;;:.__'
,_..._...-;,,~....,"'''''''--,,-~.........
,,-
Pinll Brothers Comprmie$
1. }~k> OM~
Scitt2,O
s.~¡;,,;., PI.- .,¡¡~
....;..~
Adobe Terrace
"_toll'...]]....:"""""
lOI211~.=.0fed<DI'''-
c-.."P'~ibo,l'A.~jlm
",...,
Çli~(Re.;>io"'
. l~..........., ",,'"
",^,"'M;'''Il''ITT.C me.:."
"
"
Ci(y~~';";,,,~
. -- ~
.Iill"",~ ,;,,.""
- ,.~,..'"
...'" ¡>'''''f
"'.nO, ..
,.....,.",. "
"',or,,,,,"
Site Plan &
First Floor Plan
A-2.0
I,)
°Uœ~
GRAPHIC SCALE
io.='
(I....¡
_.001\
~
,
.
I
I
~~. ~G
._~
-- .
<:)
~
!
~
~
~
~
~1a
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.-
._~
J..""............_
-~.
~
~~
Ii
~
~
~
1-
FIRST FLOOR PLAN E)
~ 1it'Þ'A?1\IU:'III
/NeIZI'S9'O'VU'R·liR-3)
,J.
(35.U5'X-¡¡:g¡-
J!UM'
- 5tf)ð'œ'M'E
-
~ SITE PLAN E)
~
,
I
~
w
@..
~
\
~
"
~
3
~
,
,
î
i
~
"
,
'1
t
3
~
¡
~
,
<
,
,
)
3
1
!
~
,
,
o
,
;;
,
,
,
~
,
Table 4
Summary of Parking
No. Spaces No. Spaces
Land Use Size City Code Requirement Required Provided
Apartments 33 units 2 spaces per unit 66 66
Retail Use 2,634 s.f. 1 space per 250 5.1. l' 12
Total: 77 78
5.0 PEDESTRIANIBICYCLIST IMPACT ANALYSIS
The project area consists of many high tech businesses. The City of Cupertino has set up a
transportation network that integrates transit services with a variety of forms of transportation.
Public bus transit service is provided by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A).
Bus service in the project vicinity is provided by Route 23. Pedestrian facilities in the project
area consist primarily of bicycle lanes and sidewalks along most of the streets within the study
area with the exception of Torre A venue. No on-street parking is pennitted in the study area.
According to the project architect, the proposed mixed-use development will provide sidewalks
across the top of the site by the trash dumpster and around the back of the buildings in the south
and across the podium connecting to the existing sidewalks along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
This proposed project will have no impact of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
CONCLUSION
The proposed mixed-use development (33 low-rise apartments and approximately 2,634 s.f. of
retail use) will have minimal impact on existing traffic on the surrounding roadways and
intersections. The total net daily trips for the proposed mixed-use development is estimated to
generate 324daily trips, IS AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12 outbound) and 26 PM peak-
hour trips (16 inbound and 10 outbound) resulting in insignificant volume changes.
Under Existing + Project conditions. all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of
service. The proposed project will not impact existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Adequate parking and circulation is provided by the proposed project.
7
/2-')7
APPENDICES
12 - r:f
APPENDIX A
Existing Peak Hour Counts
12~ )7
...
a;
0>
,
CD
C>
r--
Gì
'" CJ')
~ :::::: :=,
X e:::
ro 0 ~,
U- S: U"'"'~)
~ U ,::0-
~ ...J --
0> .-~
0> ŒJ =¡
cD ,-':;¡ :?.:.
C> lJ..
r--
Gì
'"
e.
Q;
<:::
0
.<::
a.
:;;
Il.
0
0
¡.:
0
I-
:;;
>- Il.
0
a:: 0
~ on
:2
:2
=>
(J) I- 0
f- z c::
Z ::0 0 ~
=> 0 Z
0 ü « w
Ü ..J
U a ::0
0 ¡¡: 0:: 0
f- Z U. N :;; ~ ID
Z ~ ~ 0 « "
w 0
l- N 0 w
:2 W 0..J W
..J Ó ":0
W Il. « "'0 c::
> :0 ::0 OlD Ü
0 t) Z 0:: 1-;:5 II)
U. Z UJ z
:2 ID
0 « 0 !~ w
C) >- N >
I- w
Z I- 0 t) OUJ I-
Ü 0
Z N 0 r-.:.a II)
a::
=> <n ~
f- Z
Z w
U 0 ž
1.1.1 F 0
~ U ¡::
w ,:.: u; t)
....I (J) UJ
c:: ,:.: ü 0 <n
UJ
- W Z ~ W 0 0::
3 f- UJ 0 ~ i< UJ
Z ::J c:: W l-
t) Il. Il. ~
. Z "
'"
~
L?l "i
=>
g M ~ "
~ " <D
N ~ N ~
j ~ L M Z
~g¡ "
. N W
"
r~
<D ... I
~--'
N
r¡;--------þo- 1 r
~ ~ ~
~ ;!
~ ~
'" ¡¡¡,
=> -
0
:t ~ '"
~ w
'" <D W
<5 ,¡, '"
~ ()
~ ~ <D
" Z
" w
>
w
r-
<D
~ ;;; ~ <D N " ~ ~ N ~ <D ~ ~ ~ ~
¡': m ~ ~ ~ N ;;; ¡': ~ ~ " ~ ;;
S' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m N m ~ ~
0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ m-,
r- r-
;::! ~ ~ 0 " M ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ m ;¡ :¡¡ ~ g
~ S' ~ S' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<D <D M ~ ~ ~ ~
w w
:: :t M ~ M " N ~ m M :: :t N a; 0 ~ <D
r- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 <D ~ r- ~ N ;! ;!
<D N N N N N M N N <D ~ S'
w w
~ r- ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ir <D § ~ ~
'" N N M N N M ~
<D <D - -
w w
<D ~ ~ ~ ;:: ~ ~ ~ N <D <D ~ <D ;; ~ ~
~ ~ S' ~ ;! ~ " N <D ;;;
<D <D M M ~ ~
0 z Z
<D :t ~ M 0 ~ ;;; N ~ M m :t ~ " <D M "
r- ~ 0 ~ ;;; ~ ~ ~ r- 0: :3 N ~
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ;¡
~ <D N N
Z Z
'"
" ~ j¡; ~ ~ ¡;; ~ N ~ ~ ;;; ~ r- ~ M ~ 0> ~
0 M M ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ;! ~ ~ ~ 0
0 <D <D N
-r,; Z Z
~ 0
'" ~ r- ~ m ~ M ~ ~ M 0> m ~ ~ M 0> ~ N
~ M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ 0 0
" ~ ~ N N
0
0
;:
~ ¡<: M N ~ ;! M ~ ~ § ~ :t ~ ~ ~ M 8
<D S' ~ ~ ~ :;: ~ N ~
<D ~ ~ ~ ~
00 ~
~ r- M 0 N ,., 0> 0> 0> ~ ~ ir ~ ~ ~ " ~
'" M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " M ~
<D <D N N N
~ 0 ~
'" ~ " ;; N 0> ~ 0 N M M ~ N " 0> 0> M
M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;¡ ~ ~
<D <D N N
" <D
N ~ a; ~ i" M 0 ~ § ~ N ¡<: ;;; 0 :;: ;:: ~
~ ;! ;! ~ ;;; ~
<D ~ ~ ~ ~
<D <D
- ir '" ;:: ~ N M ~ ~ N - r- 0 ~ M ~ ~
~ ~ ~ S' ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~
<D <D N M M M M
" " '"
r- '"
z -'
" ¡':
D
" D
" ~ " ~ " ~ 0 ~ 8 r- 8 ~ " ~ "
z 0 '" ~ 0 M~ '" ;; M ~g
;;; æ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :x~ <D " W ~ ~ ~ 8
w ¿, ,¡, ¿, ,¡, ¿, -g ,¡, 0 " ¿, ,¡, ¿,
~ " ;:: M ~ 0 ~ :t <::: " ;:: M
~ ~ ~.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. Z 0
'"
~
L~ w
:5
~ ~ ~ N 0
~ ~ '" <D
'" ~ M
~ ~
-4J L ....c-~ ~
w
"
~
~~
, ~
~~ ...
~
M 1 I r
ª --......
~ <D ~
¡;; ;:: ~
~, ~
0:
=>
0 " -
:t '"
M W
'" ~ w
<5 ¿, '"
M ()
~ ~
" <D
Z
~ W
>
~
'"
~ " ¡; <D ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ N ~ M ~
¡': N " " N <D <D ;:: ¡': :;: N N ~ ;¡
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 ~ ~ ~ ....
r- r-
~ ~ ¡; M ~ ~ ~ ;:: ~ ;:: ;::! ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ <D ~ ~ " " ;; <D ~
<D <D M M N N
W W
:: i!' <D ~ M ;! ¡; § ~ ~ :: :t " g¡ <D N M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:: ;:: <D M
N r- ~ ~ ~
<D <D
W W
" ir M 51 ~ ~ ~ ~ <D N ~ ir ¡;; ::¡ ~ ~ ~
" <D ~ <D <D ~ ~ N
<D o <D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w w
<D ~ ~ ~ ;¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <D ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;; N
~ ~ S' ~ ;::! <D S' <D ~ ~ ~
<D <D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z z
~ ~ ~ ~ <D " ~ <õ æ <D ~ :t ;:: a; ~ N ¡¡¡
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ª
N N N N N N N N r- S' S' S'
<D
Z Z
'"
~ ~ ir ~ " <D ~ ~ ~ <D ~ ~ r- m 0 ~ ~ M
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ N ;¡ .;¡
0 <D <D N N N
;: Z Z
~
'" ~ ~ M M ~ <D ~ <D ;:: ~ ~ ~ m N ~ ~ N
~ ~ ~ ~ <D ~ ~ N ;\ M '" ¡;;
~ <D <D M M M
0 ;: ;:
0
;;
~ i!' '" N <D ~ N ~ <D ~ '" ~ M <D ~ ~ :g
~ " ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ <D <D ~ ;!
~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~
;:
~ ir N M <D ¡; ~ N g a; ~ r- ~ <D ~ $ <D
~ ~ <D <D m '" N ~ ~ ~
~ ~ M '" '" M M
M ~ ~ S' N ~ M ~ ~ M M ~ ~ '" " ~ "
S' " " S' ~ N N ~ ~ ~
0<D <D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" '"
N :t g N ~ <D ;:: <D <D :g N i!' ~ ~ M ~ ~
Ii; m ~ ~ ~ <D " g § §
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <D ~
'" '"
- r- gª <D a; ~ N ~ - ir " M ;¡ ~ ~
'" ~ ;::! S' '" " M ~
<D - '" M ~ ~ ~ ~
'" '" '"
r- ~
z
" ;:!
D
" D
0 '" " '" 8 '" " '" " r- 0 ~ iji '" 8
z 0 ;;; M h ~ M ~ " '" [ð ;¡;
;;; æ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~
8 ,¡, ,¡, ~ => " 8 ,¡, ¿, ,¡, 8
~ w ;;; M~ <õ M 0 F ;;; M ~
~ ~ "'~ ~ ~ ~ :t ~ '" ~
/2-I.vO
')0 . -þ b<3 .+t
·3A'<I3è1'1; O.1.
Imol u¡ ~O
~ Ism I IN:::]
lollS 0 ~s I
~dJd r ~
Q
-~-
. . œ
, -
>-
u
<T.
"
~
o
rJn
~ <
m
~ õ r
~
n~ ~
~~
m .....
o I
~~--'
~
:¡.u¡¡WMOy.¡el::l!4ð^
SÞ:G'O OOOZ:MlHO
00:90 oaou,ono
...
L",
~
;;;
E ~
œ
~
~
~
~ ~ ----t
~I
,..
T
f--:t11>
t!
8~
~
~
¡:::j01
,.. u
...
~ I r
POd 11 H1 1d
10 I 10~ Is, I I
~
~ S.
~~l UI ¡no
·.^V3ddOl
Hs-a GGEO _0 sœ'O """'0
JL5 99' 0 OL "" "' LZ 0 " 0 0. e9t 0 6!: e," " >< 0 0 0 ><
co:eo Vi'10~aO W'15/1:eo wv'oo:eo Wr/ 00:80
0'0 Z'L .'SO H 0'0 Z'LI; 0·0 'irZ9 0'0 v"g ng ... 0·0 0'0 0·0 O'OO~
~I" WL 0 "S Œ9 gs am 0 ,s 0 LE ,¡Z, 0 "'" vLQ~ I'S .,. 0 0 0 .,.
""'~ B~ol ~d aWLL1Je~s
"" 'ddv
"""
I"·",,
99~ ~
0.'0
0·0
o
=
g'9
gL
Þ'æ
g'gg
S65
l7. ¡..g
L'L
06 S'eH
0'0
<TO
o
.-z
<TL'
La
<TO
0·0
o
6" 10-"125
o-¡:g
86 596~
erQ
0'0
o
n
õe
""
V'OS
õ9l1
(:~H
e·z I ""
õ'
96 9L
0'0
0'0
o
0'0
01]
o
0'0
0·0
o
""
o-ao~
9L
'Ycd2!01
%40'Jddv
¡e.:¡01.puEUÐ
,,'Z ,>¿ 0 ¡:g "¡:g gg gm 0 ,g 0 Lg 1¡Z' 0 "0. YLO~ .. I.. 0 0 0 .,. lalcl
"'" "" 0 " gSI .. Z" 0 " 0 00 OF' 0 oz soo l> m 0 0 0 01 WVGÞ:90
',," stZ 0 6' 96' oz 9Z 0 gl 0 " 6LZ 0 OZ ..Z .. , 0 0 0 , wvO£:ga
'" LSI 0 "' e"" e 6l 0 '" 0 9' ''''' 0 'Z 90" " 01 0 0 0 01 y.¡\f9~:eD
15 991 0 0. "'" £1 'Z 0 " 0 m e9" 0 6<: e'" " >< 0 o· 0 >Z ~v oo;~o
om yz. 0 ¡z e9' se LL 0 g¡: 0 .. e¡:¿ 0 eg e£9 z¡. ," 0 0 0 ,£ ""~
". 991 0 Zl O£I t, 6l 0 Z' 0 l> "'" 0 DO. LOZ 9' 0 0 0 0 6 N'1Si>:LD
'" OZI 0 g 6m 9 '" 0 L 0 g, 6L1 0 £1 gJ" " " 0 0 0 " WV OC:LD
az 16 0 g 'L " l> 0 " 0 9 g9' 0 e ",.., 6 e 0 0 0 a W'<t S~:LD
.1' eg 0 , gs . 6 0 9 0 £ ~t'~ 0 L a" 9 " 0 0 0 " r,!'v'OO:lO
n 0" n 0·' 0·' 0" 0" o·~ 0" 0" 0" 0" 0" 0" 0" 0', ~ ;op"d
II"'~ I""~ I pad I ~1 1H.l I~" ,,"o~ I POd I ~1 I H.1. I ~d !E¡0.l I pad I ~1 I H~ I~" le¡o~ POd I ~1 I Hl I ~d aW[lJ.J~S
UI .'<IV 'dd;< "dd'V 'drlv
punoq:¡.se;: puI1Oql.W°N ptm''''¡'''M PUnoQlW105'
'a^,g){33~::> SN31'i:L!.S =^\:f3~~O.1 'CIf.18 >133\:1:1 SN3^3.LS ·~V3èl!:!O.1
µ,¡aWW\OW al~!~pa1Uµd SW"IIl.IEJ:
~
0~/ 70nO
00000000 :
V-8:) :
ON aBEd
a¡ea }Je¡S
apo:) a¡!s
aWEN a/!:
12-&f
oU!¡Jadn~ JO 41:J
d:J1^JriQ p.lp.n :""II r JP. II c: \J IDI^I
-',",
"":{"
'3^1;( 3~!:!Ol
I~°J. Uj ¡no
~ '" GL:J
0 " , ,.
p., .L" H.L .L1
J 1 4
0
~ ~ ;¡>
.
_ m 0. ~
. . ø ~H
~<'I 0
..... ..... ~ 5-
M m
m~~ JJJ9W9r.oV'49¡::¡!~9^ L~ ~
~ O~:L~ OOOZlVOI~O -<
" ~
m
E::! N sv;9~ OOOtflrOI~O -5"
. ;::
~ " ---t f--~;:; ~
,,"ON ~
I ø ~-<~
-~ N
M
ð - "'I I~o ~ ~
~ .
~ -
.... .... .... ~ ~
.....
~ I ¡+
P'd .L1 H1 ""
, , 6<
w:=J 6' rm:::::::::J
¡lq°l "I ¡no
. ^1;(3~nJO
36RO _0 ggL:a 699"0 ~~g-O
¡z¡¡ >OV 0 '" 9"" .. "" 0 61 0 oe .... a " LŒ L II 0 a 0 II
= ~d O£:so Wd oc:so rld 00:50 ~d SV:þQ
0·0 . v"L .·99 n 0·0 no 0·0 0·99 0"0 ~"L '"06 H 0"0 0"0 0·0 O"OD~
'1<6l -, 0 LO' 6LCI e. 09' 0 l'J 0 e6 L~£.¡ a '6 <:6" "" .0 0 a 0 6£
, ,a:¡cl ¡e¡ol .L"
1"1 "ddV
PUnoqt.¡µ°N punoq4¡r1°S
"3N/ 3H~ 01 "3/\'V 3~HOl
6""" 0·0 H: ."'" n l"S 0·0 '" 0·0 '"£ S"'" 0·0 9'~ ."61: 0·' n a·' '"a 0"0 y., %I~.l
'"a '"L 0"60 .-0 0"0 e"6£ 0"0 Z'os 0"0 "e [62 '" 0"0 <Yo 0·0 c'OO~ %~dd'V
>!oS ¡:g9l 0 LB' WZ .01 Wl 0 te, 0 W W'l o. LB' £LIl l'J 11. 0 0 0 ll. J~.lPueJÐ
to9 e<£ 0 g" œ¡: 6 ¡z 0 " 0 II Y6l 0 <£ 6Sl y e 0 0 0 9 v.Jd S~:90
-"" LM: 0 ¡z g<£ at e·£ 0 g, 0 £l gg¡: 0 S, "'" . 6 0 0 0 6 Wd 00:90
0£5Z v~v~ 0 Vß 19Z~ as LSI 0 as 0 la' Zl" 0 90t .." Z£ L£ 0 0 0 L£ ¡e¡ol
19 L.' a 9 9Ll " 9£ 0 " 0 ¡z .e' 0 Œ 0Sl , 01 0 0 0 0' f'<d 91':;0
<II """ 0 "" 96£ " ., 0 61 0 O£ S9~ 0 " La: L " 0 0 0 '" Wd O£:SO
"- L9£ 0 el £<£ 0" M: 0 " a Zl to£ 0 6£ "'" 91 9 0 0 0 9 I"id S ~:go
'LL ZS£ 0 yz Lt£ ." e£ 0 " 0 ., 6L£ 0 £l """ L 6 0 0 0 6 Wd 00:50
1'101
'~
I~O.l
"d""
99
6Z
L£
o w.;
o oez
o 09"
O"L
pad
punCXN+JoN
"31\V3'ef'tiO.L "&\18 )83è:1~ SN'3f\31.S
¡:uaWaAO[l' a~!4a^píl¡U!Jd E)
S1: ç¡; fe<DL
"L II VIIdSv;VO
" £, VokfOt::VO
A, JO,pe:r
L" .awu.~s
"'~l' ~
..
'"
'"''
m
¿s,
~ :
C oZIVono:
uùOOOOOO :
d-S8 :
ON aBed
8*80 ~~S
8POJ 6*!S
8W8N 61!::I
! ¿-02-
oUlj.J8dn8 )0 4!8
g:Jl^-Jac: 81Er1 ::JlllP..! I S:) 'P.lhl
OZ6L.6
Z,ÇL6
ÇZÇOS
ZOSS!
= SlJI1dNOJ N'drU B31 GNflOHlS3M + ----- +
= SlJl1dNOJ N'drU ld31 CINIlOHlSV3 OÇL
~ SJ.:Jl1dNO:J NlliU. B31 CINIlOllli.LnOS + +
= SlJl1dNOJ N'dIU B31 GNflOHHDlON
WE = :)!J3)ND!3lN3 3Will0A
E6!E ~ :DNHN31VJ,Ol
+
------ +
+ ----- +
....<: çn
Ç810
+--~-+ ------
:>....
+----+
+ ------ +
zç
ça
8Çl
+----+ ------ +----+
L#: 8#' 6#:
...
o ! #+ -----+
.....: Oç
11#+ -----+ -----+
.....: OZO! !91 I
ZI #+ -----+ -----+
.....: !6
+----- +
E81 I <....
+---~- +
+ ------ +
6010Z
+ ------ + +----- +9#
96 ......
+----- +----- H#
nZI UOI
+---- +----- +1>#
8Ç ......
+----- +
......
......
:r
+ -----+
+ -----+
ZSH
+ -----+
¡:
..
......
+ -----+
...>: IZU
+ -----+
..
+
S#: Z#: !#:
+ -----+ -----+ -----+
¡¡I 61 I 16
+ + -----+ ----+ -----+
:>.... ....<: IZS
+ + -----+
:S:
H10
3 ·....·M
+
+ ------ +
Ç10L
H.L1!ON
£0·Ç8z'1oL :OEd
+
+
"l^J"V ç1o:
8-Ç1o:L :3WU 00ldVIZ:3lVG El:JSWÁOUEIEl :NOUV:JOl
l33HS A1!VWWnS :JlHdVì:!D * 3Will0A 31:JIH3A
ONU1!3dD:J dO AlD
/2- G J
UPOOP
9P6l61
00191
11081
~ SI::>l'1dNO::> NllilIId,n aND08.LSaM + ------ +
~ SL::>l1dNO::> Nlli1.L IdB:1 aND08.LSVB: >98
~ S.LJl'1dNO::> m:Ifl.L .LdB:1 OND08H.LflOS + +
~ S.L::>l'1dNO::> Nlli11.Li£B:1 aND08HDlON
l61P = :)!::>,[)NIìlB:INB: B:wn10A
l6lP = :DNUN31VIOI
P9£
:>....
+ ~~---- +
....<: 10>
+
.m__ +
+----+
------ +----+
+
+
0>( >£1 6¿
+----+ ------ +----+
¿#: 8#' 6#'
01#+ ----+
.. ¿P
+----- + / II#+ ~----+ -----+
lPOl < ...... ...... ...... l¿¿l OOOl
+----- + ll#+ -----+ -----+
:r- ...... 181
+ ------ + + ----+ + ----+
OlP£ LPl£
+ ------ + +----- +9# ¡: + -----+
9ll ......
+----- +_m_ +># + -----+
8¿£1 9901 ...... ...... ..,>: LPl\
+----- +----- +P# / + -----+
98 ......
+----- +
£#: l#'
1#:
:S:
lOP
+ -----+ ---+ ----+
011 8Zl lO 1
+ -----+ -----+ -----+
....<: O>P
3 ......i'Il
+
+
.>
+
+
+ -----+
..
+ +
l>8 HDlON
£O·>8z:'P¿ :OHd
+
+
·W·d
00:
\
,
8-00:¿ I :3Wll OOldV Il:3.LVO 8::>S'!',(0U131t! :NOl.LVJ01
13:aHS AìlVWWflS ::>IHdVìlD * ill^!fl10A 31JIH3A
. .
. .
ONIlìl3dfl::> i[O AID
( z -(ç y
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIX Level Of Service
Calculation Sheets
Iz--t)-
COMPARE
ThuMar 1113:51:122004
Page 3" 1
City 01 Cupertino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
AM Existing
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal=ProtectfRigh1s=lnclude
Final Vol: 366 571 249"'"
Lanes: 1 0 4 0 2
.,.J4t.}..'+
Signal=Protect Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Righ1s=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 10/10/2002 Rights:lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
j Cycle Tirne (sec): 120 ~
487""" 0 230
~ Loss Time (sec): 12 ..
0 ..p-
1145 3 -..- CriticalVIC: 0.887 ....- 2 563"""
T Avg Grit De! (secNeh}: 44_5 T 0
116 1- Avg Delay (seclveh): 43.1 t 2 206
LOS: D
""'ì ~ t t+ ~
Street Name: DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------ 1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______________1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Oct 2002 « 7:45 - 8:45 AM
Base Vol: 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Ese, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
____________1_______________11_______________ 11_______________11_______________1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.13 0.87
Final Sat., 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3524 1440
____________1_______________11_______________ 11_______________ 11_______________1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.48
Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.89
Delay/Veh: 44.9 32" 3
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 44.9 32.3
HCM2kAvg, 10 28
Lanes 2 0 1
Final Vol: 49B 2223-·' 199
Siçnal=ProtactlRi ghls:Overlap
****
****
0.55
0.22
13.7
1. 00
13.7
4
0.35
0.24
28.0
1. 00
28.0
4
0.16
0.89
65.6
1. 00
65.6
12
0.27
0.83
45.9
1. 00
45.9
16
0.08
0.89
81.6
1. 00
81. 6
7
0.35
0.65
36.0
1. 00
36.0
12
0.48
0.15
17.4
1. 00
17.4
2
0.07
0.83
75.5
1. 00
75.5
6
****
0.18
0.89
58.7
1. 00
58.7
13
0.18
0.89
58.7
1.00
58.7
13
/2 -(ç ~
COMPARE
ThuMar1113:51:122004
Page3-2
Cilyof Cuper1ino
Adobe Tarraca
2000 Operations
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
PM Existing
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Street Name: DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Oct 2002 « 5:30 - 6:30 PM
Base Vol, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Ese: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final vol.: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.06 0.94
Final Sat., 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3395 1548
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.28 0.10 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17
Volume/Cap: 0.80
Delay/Veh: 63.5
User DelAdj: 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 63.5
HCM2kAvg, 12
Signal=ProtecVAights=include
Final Vol: 421 1903*- 450
lanes: 1 0 4 0 2
.,.J 4 t ¥.. '+
Signal",Protec1 5ignal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Aights",Overlap Vol CnIDa!e: 10110/2002 Righ1s",¡nclude Lanes: Final Vol:
J Cycle Time (see): 140 ~
314*·' 2 0 356
-.t Loss Time (see): 12 .t-
O
71. 3 -+- Critical VIC: 0.801 +- 2 785'"
0 T Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 50.2 1= 0
454 -. Avg Delay (sec/veh): 47.4 2 336
LOS: D
+¡ ~t t ~ ~
Lanes: 0 3 0
Final Vol" 476·" 1065 225
Signal=ProtecVRights:Overlap
****
****
0.32
0.66
42.1
1. 00
42.1
14
0.48
0.29
22.4
1. DO
22.4
6
0.34
0.80
43.6
1. 00
43.6
20
0.24
0.58
47.5
1. DO
47.5
9
0.16
0.60
56.5
1. 00
56.5
8
0.41
0.68
36.8
1.00
36.8
16
0.34
0.76
46.8
1. DO
46.8
17
0.11
0.80
71. 8
1. 00
71.8
9
0.20
0.66
54.3
1. DO
54.3
10
****
0.29
0.80
49.4
1. 00
49.4
17
0.29
0.80
49.4
1. 00
49.4
17
(¿-~ '7
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:122004
Page3-3
City oí Cupertino
Adobe Terrace
20000oerations
Level Dt Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
AM Existing + Project
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal=ProtectlRights=!nclude
Final Vol: 366 571 250'"
Lanes: 1 0 4 0 2
.-J4t++~
Signal=Protect Signal=Protecl
Final Vol: lanes: Righ1s=Overlap Vol Cnl Date: cl, Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
J- Cycle Time (see}: '20 ~
46r" 2 0 236
~ loss Tima (sac)" 12 .t-
O
'147 ~ Critical V/C: 0.890 ...- 2 565'"
r Avg Grit Del (sectveh): 44.9 r 0
'16 Avg Delay (sec/Veh): 43.2 2 207
LOS: D
~ ~ t t+ ~
Lanes: 2 0 3 0 1
Final Vol" 498 2223-- 199
Signal=ProtectJRights=Over1ap
Dek~za Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T RL T R L T RL T R
------------1--------------- 11---------------11---------------11 _____________u 1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------11 c______________1 1_______________1 1--------------- 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Growth.Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri, 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 6
Initial Fut, 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
____________1_______________11_______________ II _______________11_______________ 1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.12 0.88
Final Sat.' 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3498 1461
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11--------------- I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.48
Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.89
Delay/Veh, 45.0 32.6
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 45.0 32.6
HCM2kAvg, 10 28
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
****
****
****
0.55
0.22
13.8
1. 00
13.8
4
0.08
0.89
82.0
1. 00
82.0
8
0.35
0.24
28.1
1.00
28.1
4
0.35
0.66
36.1
1. 00
36.1
12
0.16
0.89
66.0
1. 00
66.0
12
0.27
0.83
45.8
1. 00
45.8
16
0.48
0.15
17.3
1. 00
17.3
2
0.07
0.83
75.2
1. 00
75.2
6
0.18
0.89
58.8
1.00
58.8
13
0.18
0.89
58.8
1. 00
58.8
13
I 2 - ~ð
COMPARE
Thu Mar11 13:51:122004
Page 3- 4
City of Cupertino
Adobe Terrace
20000peretiol1s
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altemaiive)
PM Existing +Projeci
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal=Protect Signal",Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights",Overtap Vol Gnt Date; ola Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
..f Cycle Time (see): 140 ~
314'" 2 0 363
~ Loss Time (see) 12 $-
722 -+ CriticalV/C: 0.802 +- 2 78r*"
0 T Avg Crit Del (seclveh)' 50.3 T 0
45' -. Avg Delay (seclveh) 47.5 .- 2 339
LOS: 0
~ ~ t t.- ~
Signal=ProtecVRights",lnclude
Final Vol: 421 1903'" 457
Lanes: 1 0 4 0 2
~ 4 + ~.. "-..
lanes: 2 0 3 0
Final Vol: 476-" 1085 227
Signal=ProtectIRighls"Overiap
Street Name:
Approach:
Movemen t :
DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T RL T RL T RL T R
------------ 1_______________ II --------------- II _______________11 _______________1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
____________1_______________11 _______________11_______________ 11_______________1
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
project Tri: 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 5
Initial Fut, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
Reduct Vol: 0 ° ° ° ° ° 0 0 0 ° 0 0
Reduced Vol, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
____________1_______________ 11_______________11 _______________11 _______________1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.05 0.95
Final Sat., 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3383 1560
____________1_______________11 --------------- II _______________11 _______________1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.28 0.10 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.32
Volume/Cap, 0.80 0.66
Delay/Veh, 63.6 42.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 63.6 42.5
HCM2kAv9' 12 14
****
****
****
0.48
0.30
22.6
1. 00
22.6
6
0.20
0.66
54.4
1. 00
54.4
10
0.34
0.80
43.7
1. 00
43.7
20
0.34
0.76
46.9
1. 00
46.9
17
0.11
0.80
72.0
1. 00
72.0
9
0.24
0.58
47.5
1. 00
47.5
10
0.41
0.68
36.8
1. 00
36.8
16
0.16
0.60
56.4
1. 00
56.4
8
0.29
0.80
49.3
1. 00
49.3
17
0.29
0.80
49.3
1. 00
49.3
17
!7-{/7
COMPARE
ThU Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Page3-5
City 01 Cuper1ino
AdabeTerrace
20000paratiar\s
Level Of Service Computation Repon
2000 HCM Operations (FU1ure VOlume AJtemative)
AM E1ásting
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal=PerrnitlRights"Overlap
Final Vol: 45 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
~4'¡'~~
Signal=Prot+Perm Signal=Pro!+Parrn
Final Vol: Lanes: Righ1s=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: 1/4f2000 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
J Cycle Time (see): 70 ~
53'" 0 54
-t Loss Time (see): 0 .t-
533 ---+ Critica!V/C: 0.248 ....- 2 1074'"
~ AvgCri1 Del (seclveh): 4.0 T 0
55 0 .. Avg Delay (seclveh): 5.7 . 103
LOS: A
~ ~ t ~ ~
Street Name: Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module: » Count Date: 4 Jan 2000 « 8:00 - 9:00 AM
Base Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.' 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.71 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.33 0.90 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.90
Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 2.86 0.14
Final Sat.' 2717 0 1615 0 0 1644 627 4715 410 1092 4904 247
____________1_______________11_______________ II nnn_________II_n____________ 1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14
Volume/Cap, 0.13 0.00 0.25
De1ay/Veh, 26.4 0.0 27.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 26.4 0.0 27.2
HCM2kAv9' 1 0 1
Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 51 0 57'"
Signal=PermiVRights=lnclude
****
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.24
0.11
20.7
1. 00
20.7
1
0.50
0.27
10.0
1. 00
10.0
3
0.61
0.14
6.0
1. 00
6.0
1
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.50
0.27
10.0
1. 00
10.0
3
****
0.86
0.11
1.1
1. 00
1.1
o
0.76
0.29
2.7
1. 00
2.7
3
0.76
0.29
2.7
1. 00
2.7
3
/2-70
COMPARE
Tn\.! Mar" YJ:5".'2 2-GO/¡
Page 3-6
City 01 Cuper1ino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
Level Of Service Compulation Report
2000 HCM Operalians (Future Volume Alternative)
PM Existing
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signah"Prot+Perm Signal=Prol...Perm
Final Vol: Lanes: Righls=lnclude v~ CnlDale: 01/04/0200 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
j Cycle Time (sec): 110 ....'-
107 0 32
~ Loss Time (see): 0 .t-
O
1279"· 2 -----... CriticalVlC: 0.311 1- 2 1192
~ Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 8.9 1= 0
58 0 ---., Avg Delay (sec/Veh): 7.4 93'··
.....
LOS: A
~ ~t t ~ ~
SignaJ=PermiVRights",Overtap
Fiilal Vol: 39 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
~4t~'+
Lanes: 2 0 0 0
Final Vol: 52 0 98·"
Signal=PermiVRights=lnClude
Street Name:
Approach:
Movemen t :
Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T RL T RL T RL T R
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______--------1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10' 10
____________1_______________11_______________1 t ---------------1 t ---------------1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 4 Jan 200 « 4:45-5:45 PM
Base Vol, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______-------- 1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.69 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.B7 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.91 0.9l
Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.92 0.08
Final Sat.' 2635 0 1615 0 0 1644 488 4932 224 555 5031 135
__________n 1_______________ t 1_______________11_______________11_______________ 1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.24 0.24
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 0.16
Volume/Cap, 0.12 0.00 0.37
DelaylVeh, 39.40.041.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 39.4 0.0 41.9
HCM2kAvg' 1 0 3
****
** **
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.23
0.10
33.8
1. 00
33.B
1
0.76
0.29
4.2
1. 00
4.2
1
0.70
0.37
6.B
1. 00
6.8
6
0.70
0.37
6.8
1. 00
6.8
6
0.84
0.20
2.7
1. 00
2.7
1
0.77
0.31
3.8
1. 00
3.8
4
0.77
o .3l
3.8
1. 00
3.8
4
(2-7/
COMPARE
ThuMar 1113:51:12 2004
Page 3· 7
City 01 Cupertino
Adobe Tarrace
2000 Operations
Level Of Service Computation Report.
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altemative)
AM Existing + Project
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal"PermitlRights=Ovenap
Final Vol 45 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
..-J 4- .¡. f+ '+
Signal",Prol+Perm Signal=PrOI+Perm
Final Vol: lanes: Rights=!nclude Vol Cnt Date: 0;. Aights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol"
j Cycle Time (see): 70 ...
53'" '-- 0 54
Á loss Time (see): 0 J.-
0 1
635 2 -... Critical VIC: 0.250 1- 2 1083'"
=r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 4.0 .... 0
55 0 Avg Delay (sec!veh): 6.7 .- 104
LOS: A
~ +t t ~ r"'"
Street Name: Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I------------c--I 1---------- -----I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
__________n I_n______nnn II-nn------n--11 n__n_______n II n______nn___1
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 9 0
Initial Fut: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54
____n____n 1_______nnn__II_nn_nnnn_11 __n______n___11 nn____nnn_1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.71 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.33 0.90 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 2.86 0.14
Final Sat., 2717 0 1615 0 0 1644 622 4716 408 1091 4906 245
________nn I_n______nnn II----n-----nn I 1_____nnnn__11____nnnn___1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14
Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.00 0.25
Delay/Veh: 26.4 0.0 27.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 26.4 0.0 27.2
HCM2kAvg: 1 0 1
Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1
Final Vol: 51 0 57"·
Slgnal=ParrnitlRighls=lnclude
****
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.24
0.11
20.7
1. 00
20.7
1
0.50
0.27
10.0
1. 00
10.0
3
0.60
0.14
6.0
1. 00
6.0
1
0.50
0.27
10.0
1. 00
10.0
3
****
0.86
0.11
1.1
1. 00
1.1
o
0.76
0.29
2.7
1. 00
2.7
3
0.76
0.29
2.7
1.00
2.7
3
(2-;1...
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Page 3· 6
Cityo! Cuper1jno
Adobe Tarrace
2000 Operations
Level 01 Service Ccmputation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Al1emative)
PM Existing + Project
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Street Name: Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11--------------- 11-------------- - 1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11____________---I
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 B 0
Initial Fut: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.69 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.91 0.9l
Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.l3 l.OO 2.92 0.08
Final Sat., 2635 0 1615 0 0 1644 485 4934 222 558 5032 134
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11______--------- 1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.24 0.24
crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 0.16
Volume/Cap, 0.12 0.00 0.38
De1ay/Veh, 39.6 0.0 42.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDe1/Veh, 39.6 0.0 42.1
HCM2kAvg' 1 0 3
Signal =PermitlAights=Overl ap
Final Vol: 39 0 0
Lanes: , 0 0 0 0
..v ~~ ~ t~ '+
Signal=Prot+Perm Signal=Prot+Perm
Fin(\] Vol: Lanes: Rights",lnclude Vol CntDate: 0/' Rights.=-Include Lanes· Final Vol:
J- Cycle Time (sec) 110 ~
107 32
J¡.. Loss Time (sec): 0 .t-
O
129'''' 2 -»- Crilical VIC 0.315 ...- 2 1200
-;:10>- Avg Grit Del (secJveh)· 9.0 r 0
...
58 0 T Avg Delay (sec!veh)· 7.5 97'"
LOS A
~ ~ t ~ r+
Lanes: 2 0 0 0
Fjnal Vol: 52 0 98'"
Signal::PermiVRights,=lnclude
****
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.22
0.11
34.0
1. 00
34.0
1
0.76
0.29
4.2
1. 00
4.2
1
0.70
0.38
7.0
1. 00
7.0
6
0.70
0.38
7.0
1. 00
7.0
6
****
0.84
0.21
2.7
1. 00
2.7
1
0.78
0.31
3.7
1. 00
3.7
4
0.78
0.3l
3.7
1. 00
3.7
4
[2.-7 :;
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:122004
Page3·g
City 01 Cupertmo
Adobe Te,race
2000 Operations
Level Of SaNice Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations {Future Volume Altemative}
AM Ex.is\ing
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal=PermtlRightS"üverlap
Final Vol: 91 119 111
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
~4t~~
Signal=Protecl Signal=Protect
Final Vol: Lanes' Rights=lnclude Vol CnlDate: 412112000 Aights=lnclude ,Lanes: Final Vol:
j- Cycle Time (sec): 70 ~
91·" 0 56
~ Loss Time (see): 0 .t-
O
1020 2 -----... Critical VIC: 0.446 +- 2 1072-·
-:t AvgCrit Del {seclveh}: 13.7 r 0
50 0 AvgDelay(seclveh): 13.4 96
T
LOS: B
~ ~ t t+ ~
Lanes: 0 0 0
Final Vol: 158 275·" 52
Signal=ParmiVRights=ûvarlap
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T RL T RL T RL T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-------------- -I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------1 ---------------11_______________11_______________1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 Apr 2000 « 7:45-8:45 AM
Base Vol, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 158 275 52 III 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
n______Un I---------n----II nn__nn_____II_n_______nn_II_____n________1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.49 0.98 0.98 0.37 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes, 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 0.57 0.43 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.85 0.15
Final Sat., 939 1560 295 701 1007 770 1805 4910 241 1805 4881 264
------------ _n___n__n___II___________nn 1 I---n----------I 1 _______________1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40
Volume/Cap, 0.43 0.45
De1ay/Veh, 16.2 16.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 16.2 16.0
HCM2kAvg' 5 5
****
0.50
0.36
11.1
1. 00
11.1
4
0.40
0.40
16.2
1. 00
16.2
5
0.40
0.30
14.8
1. 00
14.8
3
0.51
0.23
9.7
1. 00
9.7
3
0.11
0.45
30.6
1. 00
30.6
3
0.50
0.41
10.9
1. 00
10.9
5
0.50
0.41
10.9
1. 00
10.9
5
0.10
0.53
33.0
1. 00
33.0
3
****
0.49
0.45
11.7
1. 00
11. 7
6
0.49
0.45
11.7
1.00
11.7
6
)2 - /Lf
COMPARE
Thu Mar11 13:51:122004
Page 3-10
City 01 Cupertino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
level OJ Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume AHamative)
PM Existing
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal=Protecl SignakProtect
Final Vol· Lanes: Righls",¡nclude VolCnt Dale: 412112000 Righls",lnclude lanes: Fina/Vol:
j Cycle Time (see): 110 ~
181 0 85
~ loss Time (see): 0 ~
0
1772'" 2 ---+ Crilieal VIC: 0.676 +-- 2 106S
-+ AvgCril Del (seclveh): 24.4 T 0
-{
47 Avg Delay (sedveh): 24.1 i- 22S'"
lOS: C
~ ~ t ~ r+
Signal=PermiVRights=Overlap
Final Vol: 102 228 120"·
Lanes: 0' 0 0 1
-.J ..4- t ~ '+
lanes: 0 0 0
Final Vol· 79 135 150
Signal=PermiVRighls=Over1 ap
Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T RL T RL T RL T R
------------ I _______________11 _______________11 --------------- 11_______________1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
n__________ 1 --------------- II _______________11 _______________11_______________1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 Apr 2000 «
Base Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume' 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
____________1_______________11 _______________11_______________ II -------------- - I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.26 0.92 0.92 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes, 1.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.69 0.31 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.78 0.22
Final Sat., 488 829 921 604 1252 560 1805 5033 133 1805 4747 383
------------ 1 _______________11_______________11 --------------- 11---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle:
Volume/Cap:
De1ay/Veh,
User DelAdj:
AdjDe1/Veh,
HCM2kAvg'
Street Name:
Approach:
Movemen t :
****
* ** *
****
0.29
0.55
37.2
1. 00
37.2
9
0.29
0.55
34.1
1. 00
34.1
9
0.48
0.34
18.1
1. 00
18.1
6
0.29
0.68
44.2
1. 00
44.2
12
0.29
0.62
35.8
1. 00
35.8
10
0.51
0.36
16.3
1. 00
16.3
7
0.22
0.46
38.2
1. 00
38.2
6
0.52
0.68
20.2
1. 00
20.2
16
0.52
0.68
20.2
1. 00
20.2
15
0.19
0.68
47.2
1. 00
47.2
9
0.49
0.46
18.7
1. 00
18.7
9
0.49
0.46
18.7
1. 00
18.7
9
/:2-7)
COMPARE
ThuMar1113:51:122004
Page3-11
Cityot Cupertino
AdobsTerraca
2000 Operations
Levgi 01 Service Computation RE!port
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
AM Exisiing + Projeci
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal",PermiVRights",Overtap
Final Vol" 91 119 111
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1
.-I4t~~
Signah,Protect Signal"Protec1
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Voi CntDate: ,1, Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
J Cyçle Time (see): 70 -t.
100'·· 0 58
-t Loss Time (see): 0 J-
0
1023 -.. Critical VlC: 0.452 <Of- 2 10730.·
T AvgCrit Del (seclveh): 14.0 r 0
50 0 t Av!; Delay (saclveh): 13.5 96
LOS: 8
+- .,t t t+ ~
I
Street Name: Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
____________1 --------------- 11_______________11_______________11_______________1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Ese; 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58
____________1_______________11_______________ 11_______________11_______________1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.49 0.98 0.98 0.37 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 0.57 0.43 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.85 0.15
Final Sat.: 935 1560 295 6941007 770 1805 4911 240 1805 4882 264
____________1_______________11 _______________11_______________11 _______________1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.16 0,12 0.12 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.39
Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.45
De1ay/Veh: 16.5 16.2
User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDe1/Veh: 16.5 16.2
HCM2kAvg: 5 6
Lanes: 0 0 0
Final Vol: 156 275"· 52
Si gnal,.PermiVRights=Overlap
****
0.49
0.36
11.3
1. 00
11.3
4
0.39
0.41
16.5
1. DO
16.5
5
0.39
0.30
15.0
1. 00
15.0
3
0.12
0.45
30.0
1. 00
30.0
3
0.51
0.41
10.7
1. 00
10.7
5
0.51
0.23
9.5
1. 00
9.5
3
0.51
0.41
10.7
1. 00
10.7
5
****
0.10
0.53
33.0
1.00
33.0
3
0.49
0.45
11.9
1. 00
11.9
6
0.49
0.45
11.9
1. 00
11.9
6
( 1.- 7 &
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Page 3-12
City of Cupertino
Adot>eTerraca
2000 Operations
level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
PM EJdsting + Project
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal",PermWRights",Overlap
Final Vol' 102 228 120·"
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
.,.J4t}...~
Signal=ProlaCI Signal=Protect
Final Vol: lanes: Righls=lnclude Vol CntDate: ,I. Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
J- Cycle Time (sec)- 110 ~
189 0 B6
~ Loss Time (sec)- 0 .t-
O
1774'" 2 -... CriticalV/C 0.577 +- 2 1070
T Avg Crit Del (secIYeh): 24_5 T 0
47 0 1- Avg Delay (seclveh)- 24.3 226'··
LOS: C
~ ~ t t+ ~
Lanes: 1 0 0 0
Final Vol: 79 135 150
Signal =PermitIRighls.e:Overlap
Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T RL T R L T RL T R
------------ I ---------------11--------------- II _______________11 _______________1
Min. Green, 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
____________1_______________11_______________11 _______________11_______________1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 4 0
Initial Fut, 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
------------ 1 _______________11_______________11_______________ II --------------- I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.26 0.92 0.92 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes, 1.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.69 0.31 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.78 0.22
Final Sat., 488 829 921 602 1252 560 1805 5033 133 1805 4748 382
____________1 _______________11_______________11_______________ 11_______________ I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle:
Volume/Cap:
Delay/Veh:
User DelAdj:
Adj, Del/Veh
HCM2kAvg:
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
****
****
0.29
0.55
37.2
1. 00
37.2
9
0.29
0.55
34.0
1. 00
34.0
9
0.48
0.34
18.1
1. 00
18.1
6
0.29
0.68
44.2
1. 00
44.2
12
0.29
0.62
35.7
1. 00
35.7
10
0.52
0.35
15.8
1. 00
15.8
6
0.22
0.47
37.9
1. 00
37.9
6
0.52
0.68
20.2
1. 00
20.2
16
0.52
0.68
20.2
1. 00
20.2
15
****
0.18
0.68
47.2
1.00
47.2
9
0.48
0.47
19.2
1. 00
19.2
9
0.48
0.47
19.2
1. 00
19.2
9
/2-71
I reviewed the drawings, and am familiar with the site from previous visits and reviews. The site is a
very diffiCtùt one to develop because of its narrow and deep proportions. The architect has struggled hard to
solve the basic problem of getting a significant project on the site. The massing and architectural forms,
however, seem less than what was envisioned for the
"Heart of the City" area. The current design has little
relationship to the adjacent residential project, shown
in the photo to the right; has a very awkward transi~
tion between the retail use at the front and the l'8si~
dential units behind; and does not seem to have ad-
equately addressed the retail and guest parking.
With respect to the latter parking question, eleven
parking spaces are required for the retail uses. but only
eight are provided adjacent to the retail uses. How will
the remainder of the spaces be provided, and how will
the access from those spaces to the retail shops be
handled? Also. where will guest parking be accommodated? While not very desirable, guest parking within
the parking structure is not uncommon. However, in those cases where this has been the necessary
solution, there is usually some internal means to physi~
cally separate the guest and resident parking areas
(e.g., electric gate.) I did not see that provision on the [
plans that I reviewed.
One other caution before addressing the design
specifics. The Landscape Plan appears to be from an
earlier design, and does not reflect the current floor
plans accurately. The Landscape Plan shows substan-
tially more landscaped open space on the site than
would be allowed by the floor plans. as shown in the
diagram to the right.
T'Illi 41S.331.379'> fAX,415.)jl.37<J7
April 22. 2004
Mr. Colin Jung
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
RE: Adobe Terrace
Dear Colin:
EXHIBIT B
ARCHITF-Cn::rUL PJ_'\.Ni\tNG l1EU't",!,'{ Df31(;\;
laQ HARBOR PI!!V ¡, SUm! l19. SAUS.!IUI'O. C.!I949M
¡¿-It
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22. 2004 Pogo 2
In looking at changes that might be considered for the design, I looked at a few alternatives, but
concentrated on the approach which would keep intact as much of the proposed plan and design as
possible. My comments and suggestions follow:
Site Plan
1. I personally have some grave reservations about the design and viability of the proposed retail on the
site. It has limited presence on Stevens Creek Blvd., and does not present a very attractive face to the
street. As noted above, it also does not have the required number of parking spaces adjacent to it. My
suggestion would be to reorient the retail space toward the street and reduce its total area unless the
spaces can be deep ones that reach back to the southerly limit of what is now proposed as retail.
2. The two parking spaces that are located within the front setback area seem to be visually undesirable.
3. The design ofthe project as a very thin and long composition on what is already a very narrow lot seems
to me to result in an inadequate visual presence on the street. I would recommend extending a short
wing of apartments at the second floor parallel to Stevens Creek Blvd. at the front of the project as
shown in the diagram below. The entry corridor could be short enough to avoid the need for an addi-
tional stair.
4. The current design of the project seems to also give the overall residential part ofthe project inadequate
presence and image on the street. A prominent entry focal point element would help.
Add urttts at
sø<:ond floor
Eliminate these
parking space$
if possIble
This retail Is
qUQtlonable
under any plan
.T'Ti·
I
Ì!,III
:1'
, -
i~1
···~··I·"·
-------. -tzµ
Rotate retail
to face street
,
ì
G t
,
Create strong
j focal point
. on front facade
ptobablyal$Ø
"HdloproWdft
d_1ift
¡,trlnilt/oo( il'I
this ánJa to s110w
eq,f,lsl access
" 1
¡
1
--
Elevations
5. The currently proposed design of the project uses hip roofs and big blocks of building, and seems, as
noted above. to not relate well to the adjacent building to the west. My suggestion would be to break
down the scale of the building elements -especially along the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage. and use
gable forms to relate to the adjacent project. This is shown conceptually in the front elevation below.
The addition of architectural details to add scale and character to the architectural elements would also
help. Photos of a mixed use example in the Town of Los Gatos is shown in the photos below. Also shown
is an example of projecting balconies on a residential project in Downtown Mountain View. This latter
example also shows how the front elevation might be treated with stairs and street-oriented entries
should a decision be made to eliminate the retail space in the project and use the currently proposed
surface parking for guests.
CANNüNDESIGN GROUP 180 IWI80R DRIVE, smTE 219. SAUSALITO. CA9<9I»
/)-7'1
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22, 2004 Page 3
Une of current
roof propos~
J
Retail spaces
oriented to street
Alternative ~ront /;;levatJon
Los Gatos Mixed Use Project
Mountain View Residential Project
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
180 HARBOIl DII!'';!. SIJl'œ 119. MU5ALlTO. Co\949IP
/1 -ð'D
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22, 2004 Page 4
6. I spent less time on the side elevation shown below. It would need to be studied further and made
consistent with the approach adopted for the front of the project suggested above. Significant items
shown are the addition of a rusticated base and projecting molding at the third floor level to break the
building mass more into a base, middle and top. The use of gables instead of hip roofs is also suggested
along with some increase in scale for the balcony columns. The most difficult design issue to be' resolved
is the transition between the front two story elements and the back three story portion. The best
solution would be to eliminate the third story units that extend forward over the two story portion.
Roof forms for this third floor
J .. extensIon need to be sludled
--±--.L
Add Intel'tlsting form
articulation and detail
on Ihls side elevation
Alternative Right Side Elevation
..'.......
. ..........~
-..... .....
·~-···-......~~!~t~..P..~!!s...........'"..~'".,....,...,,'
"........n.........
Rusticated base
($ÏtJC'CO or stone)
Other Approaches
7. Within the context of this review, there was not enough time to look at other different approaches.
However, it might be worth exploring one with exterior as well as interior access to the ground floor
units as was proposed for the recent Villa Serra project in the city. This would provide for pedestrian
access along the sides of the project as shown on the photos below ofa project in Downtown Mountain
View.
CANNON DE!lIGN GROUP
180 HARØOR DRIVE.SIJrœ Zt9.SAIJSA1ITO,Q9'I%5
/2 - ð (
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22, 2004 Page 5
Other Issues
8. The placement of the trash enclosure at the front
door of the project is unfortunate, but given the
site constraints, this may be the only solution pos·
sible. If that is the case, it should be treated with
special design care. An example is shown below from
the new Los Gatos Hotel. Note that the conceptual
front elevation above shows a trellis element over
the surface parking. The design of the trash enclo-
sure could relate to that and have landscaping grow-
ing onto it to soften its appearance.
9. The l'ooffol'ill for the three story portion ofthe project needs to be worked out. The use of a steeper roof
slope to match the gable roofs and retention ofa hip rooffol'ID would place the overall height a bit above
the maximum permitted in the Heart o£the City Plan, but the plan does allow for exceptions as I recall.
That roof form is shown in the diagram below for YOUI' information.
Colin, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I
did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
(7f~~
Larry L. Cannon AlA AlCP
President
Q.'!NON DESIGN GROUP
1110 IW!IIOR DRI"E.SUrIE 119.5AUSAIJTO.C.~9496>
! 2 -% ^
"-""--_.....cb..d----a:m . Kwtø._*
"'''"''''~ -
tD01~1Id. . Tel.408.<M6.11ii9
SùœCSor*'P.CA95070 ...--
_.~
'nie_of_Jll-""¡'~lIooIIbo_IO"
opoci6<:_fur_"""'......,~...pUbIiArioo>__
be~_"'_-. k............................-.,by
.",-'in_.,,¡"r-t.ispmibilal. TIIk"'....._
~.........._ANDEkS()I\ AkCHIÆCTSINC......
~_ v"-'___f'Ioœ-..d-'__"
_I""-_~of""'oo:q-..<if__
-
Pinn Brothers Companies
1475 s.MogaAvc..
SuitelSO
SJmJOIIe,.CA.95129
"-
Adobe Terrace
A Mixed Use Devdopmenl
20121 Stevens Cn:ek Blvd.
CUpertíno,CA.9S072
-
Client Revisions
., -- -
PlANHINGSUBMJITAl. w,_
,
,
·
,
·
,
·
,
'"
"
"
City Revisions
~. -- -
, ~ ,,-
, ~ ",...
, I"UNNIN(;SUBMIlTAl. 09I1111M
·
,
·
,
·
- I ' IJII)t
-
~ ¡u.s.
-
-" "
-
~'" ~
_r&
Title
Sheet
--
A-O.O
- -
~ JoIr_A__
Adobe Terrace
A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
:t± ! ;¿
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT
lOCATION
PRELIMINARY
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
¡;;d PLANNING DEPARTMENT
o APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL
o
BUilDING DEPARTMENT
o
DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL
o
o
BUILDING DATA
RETAil:
2fl)ØØ ßQ. FT.
v-N
B
YE'
2ØØ0125Ø _ e
6UILDINGJ SIZE,
CONSTFaJCTIO'ol TYPe,
OCCUPANCY,
5PRINKLEF<:ED,
PARK-IN::; REGlUIRED,
PROJECT DATA
3o&~-Ø3-ØØI
41,112.2 5Gl FT. [,$1 ACRE)
;.aM~.44 SQ. FT. (.883 ACRE)
~I-IEART CF TI-IE CITY~
vACANT
MIXED USE (RETAIL! APARTt1ENT5)
2~,1'3U8 5c: .Ft..
l4,ø2b.øø :J;. Fe
516!'>185c; . .
29,1'91.18 Sq. Ft.
4,141.-:.4 Sq. R.
1,826.øø Sc:: . FL
232194 Sq. Ft..
4,141.94 Sq. Ft.
APARTMENTS:
SUILDING: SIZE,
(Frtvate ep.. Spa". Nol Included)
Flr&t F!oor
$ecQnd Floor
Tot,,1
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE,
(PATIOi!MlCONT)
Fir&t. Floor
5eo=nd Floor
Tot.al
35" ·Ø" FRCt1 FACE c:If' CURB
IØ'-Ø~ OR EQUAL TO 1/2 TI-IE J-lEIGHT
UJl..4IC1-E:VER 15 GFæATER
2Ø'·Ø" MINJHI.N
.~1+35' LHJT5_33.4$
'"''
31'·Ø"
vARIES
APN..,
$ITE SIZE,
~,
NET,
ZClNING '
~TLI5E,
FROP05ED USE ,
REQUlFi2ED 5ETBACKð
f'RCtIIT,
SIDE,
RE_
ALLOWABLE DENSITY ,
DEN5JTY 5I-IOWINGJ
ffiOP05ED 5ETBACKß
,"""",
S!DE,
RE_
TEJ..., (40&) 151·'3131
FAX- (-40&) 1a.1-:z63:
CONSULTANTS
c.;uN:1'l,- f'>I""I ~~ ca-tPANIE&
141!> 6aratoga Ave.
ðUlTE: 1!1oÐ
&AN JOßE, CA '!!6~
AR.CI-IITECTURAL, ~ ARCI-!!TëCT$ ~
KlRT a ANDERðON, AlA
1211)1 $ARATc::6A-SLffiYVAI.E f<I::.>_
8IJITE c: ðARATOOA. CA '3&Ø1ø
TEL, (4Ø8)~-l2b'3
FAx; (4Ø8)~.3<482
TE:1..("'!50}'-"-'16S6
FAX ("'15) ìT1-Ø41Ø
TEL (<kI!:Ie)&o!&-ø3ØØ
FAX (<kI!:Ið) e.4Ø·ø3Ø1
~ HC;:IU.I.4T Al<IP AððOCIATE&
LandIoc.ape.Arctllt.sc:ture+LaIldPlamlng
2Øhð THIRD STREET, ðUITE b
&AN ~16CO. CA $41Ø1
.......... JEN5CN AVR
eø!:>S c:AH1NO AIô!ROTO
GILROY, CA '3SØ1Ø
LAND"""""
ARCI-IITECT,
ENGoINEE~
CIVIL
SHEET INDEX
TITLE $EET
LEGEND AND NOTE&
"""'.
Pl'æl.1M1NART DEMOLITION PLAN
FÆU11NARY GRADINGo PLAN
FÆLII'1INARY UTJLITY Fl....AN
Pl'æl.1H1NARY EROðla4 ~ ~
SITE FL.AN . ~ PlAN
GARAGE PLAN f FIfõ:ðT A..OOR F't.AN
SEca-c> FLOOR F1....AN
\.NITPlAN&
EX'TERIOR ELEvATIQN&
E><l'ERIOR ELEYATIa<0
etJrLPINGo !oECTIOH!o
"PÆL1I1INAR'r L.AND&C.APE PLAN
FÆLIMINAR'J" Pl...ANTIIÖ PLAN
FRELIMINAR"r If'ëRlGATJO.Iza,{INGoFI...-AN
TÆl.L~ ELEvATrc::::N
A-Øl)
C-I
C-'
C-'
C-4
C-.
C-.
A-I<>
A·2/l)
A-31)
A-"'I)
A-.",
A-a.J
A·bl)
Lp·1
Lp·2
LP-3
Lp·...
NO. OF lNm;,
1- BR
2 - 6Ft:
~
TOTAL
,
+4'-0" A6O'Æ GRADE
SEE C!VIL DRAWINGS
F'RDJECT I-IE~T,
I'U16ER c:If' STORIES
FODtLt1 !-EIGHT
BUILDING PAD ELEvATION
'"
.
>
,.
V-N
R-I
YO,
'<1><2
CONSTFaJCTJO'ol TYFe,
OCCUPANCy,
5PR:1NKLEfõi£D,
PARKII't::s REGlUJRED,
!8,3~.øø 6q_ Fl
5',21'9.&2 Sq. Fl.
6)312;' Sq. FL
5,1Ø1,ØØ Sq. Ft..
$ITE CO\IEr=>Ar.&
SUJLD1NG: c.ovERAGE
DRIVEWAYIPAF<K.1N6
PERIMETER LANDOCAFE
PODILM LAND5CAF'E
....
25',486.øø $GIFT.
'-4
TYPE-I
YO'
bb
bb
3
PARKING GARAGE
$IZE,
OCOJPANCY,
CON&TRlJCTIQN. TYPe:
e.PRlt>l<LEREP,
TOTAL pAfð(1NCiI: REQUIfõ£P,
PA~ PROVIDED,
~ANDICAFP p~
F'ROVlDED'
(f)
z
<
-'
"-
w
<.:>
<
z
<UJW
<>:~u
00«
oza::ð
z a::.
«°WO
z~ z
e><r-¡:::
'"
ZoW ~
ozm=>
<WOO
0::'-"0
<.:>~
>- «
0::
<
Z
~
-'
W
0::
"-
~
-,
"""
C1
2!:.....!.-S8IE1'S
lOB :NO.
.....
i
~
i
U
Ii
~
~
o
æ
~
~
!!
M
.
~
~
LOCATION MAP
IWSCALE
SHEET INDEX
'" LEGEND AND NOTES
" .""
~ PRE~DENQJfIO l f'I..AH
" P~Hff!;IIADINGPl.M
~ PREl..l.lN.ARY1111UTYP\AH
'" PRÐMHNn" EROSION CGlTRQ.. PUH
ABBRE\f1Al1ONS
æ CATCHBA511'4
~ ~~
EX/EXIST ~'"""
"
" '"'" ...
rn -"~
'" """"'"''
~ ~
~ fOP Of GRATE
"" .......
U' """''''''
"' P05TH:IICATORV....I.-YE
~ PACfIC Go\S" EI..EC1RIC
.ft. """"''' UN<
'" !'lØJCS£RW:[[A!ÐI£NT
"" P<il'\""ltm.. CtURΠPf'E
"'" -~"'"
'/W I!I(JfTŒWAY
- 1I__TUlEAII£R
"'" """'"
SS SANlTAAY$f\IÆR
~ SMtlTAlfYSfY£RCI..EANOUT
~ """'''''''
,.... SAtlTARYSE'ÆRIIANHOl£
""" STORUDRAlNIoINtiCU
æ TOPOFC1JR8
roP foP Of PIPE
p TOPDFPA'IDENT
~ -~
". "...
~ YlTlllFlEDa....y~
. "'".
RFNCHUARK
~N"""INT_c...HOR1HEASTRE1URNOHS1E\ÐfS
æQ)( IIlW. AT INTEl!SECTØI WTH !>tRT.... A\ÐIUE.
El£VATKttI96.49
BASIS OF BEARINGS
1HEBEARI«>N89'5""OO"E(f"THEf,I~TUMEOF
STE\ENS CAEEK a.w. AS 9tO"" CN lHU !:[RTAI"
"RœORf Œ"SOR'IEY"IIECCJA(]£I)IMB()(JI:!l1U'1ILIIPS
Of PAGE X\ S.IIMTA. cu.RA COUNTY REcœos. WAS TAKEN AS
TI![IIIISlSDr AlLIEJIRJNGS SHOWN ON ltISPlJ\H.
§
i
,
o
.
~
DESCRIPTION
EASEMENT
""""''''''''
SANITARY SE'IIER AND rrUSHlNG INLET
SANTARY SE~ AND WANHOL£
STORN ORAIN AND IoIAHHOL£
STORM DROP INILT MID LA Tt:RAL
WATER WAIN
ARE HYDRANT
lEE (....lDO
",,"ŒR
STREET NCfIUWOO
CURB '" GUT1ER
EL£CTROlER WITH CONOUIT
1ElEPHaE OUCT (COHOUIT)
DA(!::T1CN ΠPIPE FlDW
DRECTlOM Of SURf"ME fLOW'
SPOT n.EVAT1ON
POST INJlCA1œ VAL~
SANTARY S£1£R CL£N.IOUT (SSCO)
WATER NETEß
WATER V......\'E
STREET UQ-1T
P"'v'ING CONfORhl
CQHS1RUCTKJII ENfR-'NC£
SIlT HNC£
BUI.DING
LEGEND
PROPOSED
. II" S5
.
J1:t'SD
"'-
__8:"..!.....-
,32&00
,
o
EXISTING
-----
G-_£.!.A"....Ä_
---0----
__ '¡'X1:t'SD
"'---
__prill
Œ-
--JIi-
------
@
=......---
----;::¡.--
__...6~..... _
__1__
,,12.3
o
~
~
1~ ""''''IIOHAl ~ CISOIMGE ElJIIIIIIA1IOIII SYSTEN PERIoItS tþs(:ttARG£ f'£JNT.
0QNSlRI.JCTI0I PØMT. ..AaOtTA11Qr4 Œ STDfIIM _M POUUI1OH f'REVD TDoI PUtt
(SwPP) NÐ YOIIIITCRNC RJH) ARE ~ PAOA Tn ctMÐIŒ»£NT a:
CClNS1RUC'TIC»I AC'IIVlTYR£lA1ED TO 1M! 511£ NÐ M.l.. BE C8fMED BYTI£
comtACTOIl Nt( DISCttNI!E DUftftG (:(I6fRUC'IIOft. or GIIOI.JÐWA1ER NTO 1Hf:
DCJIINS1RE.W S1'tArII S"I'S'1EM IItIISTBE l»ICCNT-...lEO....ftJL 111t: ClJHlRACTOR IaJS1
NNΠ1MS DEJEAMlH...1ION PRIOR ro NN OISOIARCL
16. 9O.lD IT N"F'UIt lIiAT Tt£ WMI< lOBE IX»£ OR N4YW",TTER Rfi...1J\£ tJiEREID IS
NOT SU'FlŒNTt.y DETAL£D OR EXPl..<IIHro ON 1HE'SE PlIIIIS, lH£ OOlflR...CT1JR SHAU. COITACT
~:t'~y~~~~~,L~ ~:.~ ~.AJRTM£R EJcF'l.OHÞ.OONS
17. PlANS USED ftIR CC:WS1RUCTlON PURPOSES I>IJST BE SIGJŒO 81' !HE aTY EMGINEER
18 1Tg¡AU.a£THE~"lRACTOR'SRESf'ONSIØI.Jn'roltO"lfYTHEENQfrt£ER{I'""""y
DIfT£ROtŒ .. LOCA1ION a' EXlSDtG VJIJŒS FRœI tJiU SH~ OR OF ANY
cn<IfUCTSW1H TIiE ~ BEFORE: COHIIN~ fInH THE WIRe IN ' )tAT AR£A.
19. IT SHALL lIE tt£ CQnRAC1OR"S RESf>OHSØJrr TO PROTECT IN PlAC£ (BY AAY
t.EAH5 1EJ:£SSAR'r) "'-'- EXB1\NQ U1lU1I£S L.lNUSS 01H£RWl!i£ SP£OFJEÐ ON 1}iCi£
I'I.NtS OR AS DIRECTED BY 1H£ DlGlNEER.
20. WORK IiO.MS ARE 8:00 "'" TO 5<00 PM. WONJAY 1HROJG1 S"'TlADAY.
21. 11£ CONS1ItUCTICH a: AU.- GRAwrt U<УROROUC) UH£S (SNIrTNO" SUIERS AHO
S1tAf ORUIIS) 9iAL BEGlIII "'T THE MOST DO'MCSIREAM EHD, IN..£SS 01H~
SPECIF1CIIlL.Y APf'RO¥ED 91' AJoto. ltE CONlItA.CTœ 9-MU. \ÆRIn' fHE l.()C ,.~
ANO ELEVAtION or ALL COIfI(C1ION PaH1S PRIOR TO INST.oti.oIT\ON a: Nf'( POR1IOII
.."""""
22.. AU. w:RK ...ntH TIlE arr liGHT or w",y AND PU9UC SER'oICE E...g[Vf)fT SHALL
IE ctIIIIPl£1ED "'S PfR aTT Œ C1JÞER1INO STNÐI\R[ PtNtS NÐ SPECfiCATØfS.
23. 11£CONTRACTOR3VoU.aEE"SP(NS lIl£fOR....yAEl.D~ŒSWAD£IIfITHOUT
~AU1tiORI2"TIO<tFR'(NTIi£ENGIt«Efl.
ltECON1R.\CTOR AGfIŒ(1) AT" ACCCII!OANŒJlTHIJDI£RAU.TACŒI"1EDCONS1RVC1IOII
PItAC1IŒS, mAT It£ COII1RACTOR IiIIl.BE R6JJIR£D TO ASSUME stU NUl
CDlFL£1E ÆSf'ONSØUTY F"OIf ..œ SI1E CONII1I(N$ DlIRI«I 1HE (:(IUtSE Œ THE
CONS1RIJCJIOIlIa'TItSPRO.ECT.INa.UDlNGTH£SAf£T'ra'AllPfRSONSNÐI'ROPERTY.
Ttt5I1£<1U101DtT 9W.l fIE: IotAD£ 10 N'PI.Y CON1IHU0U9.T NClIIOT lIE LUTED TO JlOINN..
MRCIItC....::ua. tHEcomtACTORf1..IImIERAGII£ESTDDEfDlD.IltŒ:YFYAl'ClIoD.DO'M€R"
CT'rNCI £J 1JfIEER HAIU.£SSFRCII NlY AND All UA8LJTY, ÆJII. OR AlLEGED."
CDJIII£c-TICIN IIIlW THE I'£JIF"OA,tAHC£ or WORK at lHIS PRO.Ð:T, fXBII>mo:
U ,.8 UTYIIIRISttCFRQ, THEsa.EHO;UGE)IC£Œ1t£~.
EXt.AVA1IQ<tNÐ5HORNõ:
THE COIT1tN:TCft 9iAU. PRO\4Œ " !JfO'IttG OE9CH 10 TH£ Œ01EtHCAl 0IQNEf.R
TO I<ICATE THE OESIGH .\DEOJÞCI"!IH:J THE I'ROŒIIURES","-,T 1IIll. BE INCORPORATED
!UIN: CCNS1RUC1\ON f(ft 'liE CAIt.AŒ 8ASOŒHT. SoW DESICM SHAll r£ fltST
IIE\IIDIED_APf'RO\oIEDØYTHEQE01£CHNIC:AI.~OFf£COIDPAOATOMfY
ER£C1K»t AN) IMS!"ALLA1Dt. DESIGN SH........ N;:UJDE WE...9.ÆS TO BE TAIŒÞI
TO PJI01ECT THE MIJAŒNT ~ FOI.JoIOATION DLRNIò ]}£ WT/CRADNC
_1ME<:oN5IJ!UC1IOMOFtHEGM.IrŒR:uIOA"OON~
IT 9WJ..BE: nK:COI1RACTORS"SClE R£SPON9l1lITY 10 (£9(J(HÐ ~\oIX AŒaUA1t
SHlJRN<.iIIUoDlIIG.JrHDFRMIE1DI (,ASR[I UAEDra:tn£PMO~OFtEE.IH)
1'ftOPfRT'r IJI..IMK; 1It£ ca.rsTRLlCTlOH Œ 1HIS BlADllc.. ÐCŒ5S LOAD CAPAOTY Œ Tt£
SL.\8S11AU.JtOT£!IŒEÐlOAD$EllU'V\.A£A11O'lttEO£SIQHSUI'£RN'>OSEOlOADSL£SS
~ l.I\oE HI) ŒHI lOAOS. D£9GH SI.ftJU>OSm lOADS "Q.uoe: uw: LOAD.
PJIR1I1I(JfLOAÞ, NÐ /lMT onøtL( ,r, ) NOT" n£ PI.AŒ AT 11-1[ 11£ or SHCif fiG.
DlCAV""OONSHAlLB£AD£QU"1D.YSHOREO._M:EDANDSI-E£IS)SOlH^T1H£u.R1H
IiIIl. HOT!;U]E OR SETTLE.IINO so 1H.f,T........ Ð1151INC~ Œ IWYI(N)
MJ. 8£ rull.Y PROTEClED FROM DNotAŒ. JIH'( [)AM ,.C£ RE!U.1IfIIC FItOII '" lAO( Of
ADEQU"'TE~iRltCl'lÇNÐSHŒ1IIIC5tI¡/ U,9E1H£IIE7'ONSØ.t1YŒ1HE
CON1RACWR. ~ 'MlL YHŒ NEŒSSNn' REF'þjftS OR IIECOJIS1RUC1IQN AT Tt£
COI1Jt\CftR'SÐCP£NSE:ltf£Jl£lI-£EXCAVA1IOMFORACOHOOIT,TIIIENa1AJ1Dft)R
SIIIUC1URE IS A'Æ FŒTORYCRE.. 0EP1It. TIlE CON1R..toC'TUR SIt........ Pf«MIJE ADEQUATE:
s-£E1Il1G. SHOIIING AND 8RACItG OR EOUI'V.uNTMETIiOO, F"OIt 1H£PROTECT\CIN IX Uff.
OR lAII...c:H SHAll. COtFORM TO Tt£ Al'Pl.lCA9Lt CONS1RUC1IDII SAf£1Y ORDERS OF
"!H£Dl\tSKlHŒIHOUSTRlAl$.toFÐYOf"tHEsr"1EŒC~T1 ECONlRAC'KIRSltIllLL
ALWABOOIPLYOSHARECIIJRDÐfl"$.
TH£comtIIC1UI:SltAU..9£SOta.YRESPONSI9I.£~AllEXCÞ.VATICJ\ PIIOC£OUR£ø:tlJDtIlG
LAOOttC. 5KMtC. AHO PROŒCTKIt Œ ÞOJAŒHT PROPERTY, S1RUCTURß. SffiŒTS AHD
U-aJ1JES..ACCDRD......a:'MTHtHELOCAl8l.lll.DlNGDEJ>~1.
IT IS It£ R£"SI'QGI!IUTY Œ 1t£ C(JHR...CTOII TO ŒlTAIH All P£R1111S NEa:SSNtY 10
~TIlEM:IRI<SHO'MIIHTH£S£PLIIHSFRDWTIIE~"1EÞ4JÐID£S.
tHE CDN~ SH...ll. TAKE EffEC11'Æ I.C11ON 10 F'R£VENT 1t£ FORW.1I0II OF "NY
AI~ousrIlUlSANŒANDSHJW..BERESF'ONSIal£~"'NYßAIotAGERE3JL1ING
FROtI A FAI.1.Πmoo sa.
.
.
,
.
,
,.
,
..
..
'"
..
.
Y////////A
-
---
D
CIVIL ENGINEER
RUGŒJt~.£NSEH-"'ZAR .. ASSlXlATES
ðœl5CN.11NDAAROYO
GI.ROY. CILIFœNA95020
(408)848-(1300
FAX(4OB)t4B-MCr./
CQNTI\CT: ARIotM"... .[NS£N/OJRlS PATTtIN
SlllCONVAU£I'IU.OCR5
25/)N.tI~rST.SUrrE:no
SAN JOSE. CA 95110
PHONE (401'1) \l1l9-6I5.»
FAX(408 998---M311
CON1ACT: SIiA'IW IUISSH"OUR
QIHR
P'tIN 8ftOS. ca<m'RUC1ION NC.
14]!; S,lft,t,1QGA "\E., sunE 250
SoYt.lOSE. C\ 95129
~4Js;~Jl.~~J'
CDHT.o.cT:Al..ÞHP_/CR£GPlNN
ARCHITFCT
IH:IERSONIRCIIIT£CT$,IHC.
1'2201 SAR"'TCJGA_SUNYVAlE RD. SUTE C
S,lft,t,TOOA" CA 95010
PHOM£(-4OI!I)44IH2ð9
FAI(4IIB)446-.3482.
CONTACT: KVRT ø. NaRSOH. AlA
11£ cotTRACTOR 9JAlL PROVIX ÞU. I.IGH1!>, SIGNs. BAIIRICÞ.OES, FUG tEN OR OTI£R
O£W:ES NECESSARY m PROW)[ FOR SAFElY. mE C(I<, 1R1\C1OFI SHAll.. SUBWT " 1RAFAC
co.rrwa. PlAH reft QTYSTAfT R£'ÆW Fat All '/IIm (.THIN CI1l' RlQiT Of"W"Y ANI
PIJElJC S£R'o1CE EASOENTS.
THE COM1RH::1OR SHAll. POST EtI£R(:[NCT Ttl.EPHONE NUIllI!ERS FOR PCUCE,. F1AE.
MØ lAHC£. AHD 1HOS[ IoGEllaES RESPONSIB.£ FOR f1.£ llloUI1ENNICE OF U1IU1IES
IN lHE'otCNTrŒTH£ JOB S1TEJHJPROYIDEAOOPYlOCll)'1'\.BJC WORKSI
IHSFEClIOJIDÐ>AAtVEHT.
lERRASEARCH.1NC
_......D£lOFlOSUTE110
s.r.H JOSE. CA 115119
~~J.~:2I)
COII1ACT:CEORC£IIIAlCDlSSY
...lLR£TURN RADII AtI) CURtI DU"'ARE TO FAŒ<FOJRB.
J\U.QUNnll1fS AIIDP"YllÐIIS ARE ANO-.J.B£I:!ASEDOHH0RI2C1\11J1lIolEASURE"ENTS.
L£NC:1HS Œ SllKTAIIYS['I£RS AND SroRIII ÐRAH> ¡IfŒ H<RIZON1Al 0IST1dIŒS
mow ŒKJ(R 10 ŒJlTER IF SlRt.ICruRES. IIOtINDED CFT TO TIlE NENlEST F001.
ÐOSTlHG I.INO£RCRCIUIIÐ UTIJTI£S ...NO IIIPItO'otWEHTS M£ SlID" IH THEft APPRODWAlE
lOCATIONS ftASUlIJPON RB;Q'1( N"ORN.ATICII "VAII..ADl£ TO tIE ENC:INEEIt...T TIlE
TIME Of" PR£PIJI...TION or TIfES£ PlANS. lOC...'1ICf{S IlAY NOT HA'Æ BEEN vERFlEQ.. lI£
FlELD NÐ NO GUARNߌ IS NADE ,\S TO tIE H:O.IRI\CY DR COW\E1£NESS Of" ltE
IHFORWAlO'SIIO". THE CON1RACTm !HAll Ni01IFY umn C(M>ANI£S AT I.£AST :t
'M'JfIKI«¡DABIHADYANŒ::Of"COIIS1NJC1ICINIIICftOERF0R1H£Iot1Off:LOI..OCATETHEIR
F"'CIU1I£5. THE conRACTOR SHAlL AlSO N01IfY 1..........--.""" ';n~ AI~RT III"'" .0.1
1_...............7'-~. . . . 48 HC1IRS PRIOR 11) NlY COfSTRUCTION IICfNrTY. NÐ OBTAIN ,oH
IŒNTfIC'-11CIN HlII9ER. IT SUÞiL BE THE RE!f'(ff:S 9UTY <F Tt£ COfTRACTCR m
0£TEIII0tI£ TIlE OIS1£NC£ NÐ LOCATION r:£ UTUŒS 9iOIIN ON lI£SE PLANS. NllCA1m
IH THE FElÐ BY lOC...T\HG SER'ofCES.ORE'oIDENCED BY FAClJŒSIJISIØLE ATOll'
ÞÐ.I"'ŒNTTO THE JDB9T£. NlY AOOITOoIAlCOSTINCURREO "S "IIESUlTŒ TH£
COH1RAC1CR'S fHU.RE: TO ~ lOCA"IIlIß Of OISTIfC U1IU"II£S PmCIR TO
BEQNWtG CONSTRiCTION SHN.LBE EIORNf BY THE CON1R...CTOR.....D IS DE:DÐJ
INClJ.ŒD AND Iot£RŒ[I IN TI€ C'arlTRACTUHIlPtllCE.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
JlO1ß - SHEIT C4
JLUL
STANDARD WR8 SECTIONS: A2-ð
5IOE'<IIiIU(DETAIl:D£T"CI1ID
DRroEWAY DUAL - DETACHED SÐEMJ{
STIINDARD ORCF' N,.[T - cuæ QPf:r~'NG
$1ANDARD 24- FUT GRATE DROP llIlET
"""""""""'"'
S1ANDARDCON"ECTlCJllTOIoI~WI\ll
$1N«1ARD fllIE H'l'DRAHT ŒTALS AND SP£CflC"'fK»oIS
G£N£RIIl1RENai8ACKF1U.!ttaUIIŒNENTS
B.EC1ROU£RFOJII)"'1Þ
TREE PItOTECTDI
UllUTY NOTES
1. fOIl SEYlER NCJ ."'TERCQNN£CTIONS, SEE PlUIII!IHCPlANS.
2. FOR....TI:R SER'otC£ OCSICH. SŒCAl 'MI."ŒR PlAIts.
J. ML"'TERPI>E~Allft£PfRCAl."'lERPl.NIS.
4_ ALl S....,TAAy SFIIER PIPE .T1-tIN an' ßlQ-U~CF-""Y ANO/Cff IIO"'OW",Y t:.t.5ÐÆHTS
SU^,-l BE VŒ>. AlL ON SITE $.W1,I,RY SEIlER Pf'£ SHAll 9£ PER PlIJlotBlNG Pl..AHs.
5. All STORIII DRAIN PI'[ 12" OR (Rf"'TER SH"Ll BE CLASS. ReP.
tL 1d.l DR......MJ£ SlRUC"TUI£S lOCÞ.1ED IN lRNFlC AR£X> SHAll. BE RATED TO RESIST
~~,
7. Fa:t SHE UGH"IINC AN) OCT.u.s. SEE EILC1RICH.. PlAIts.
""'''''''''''
CUT - 1.1.900Ct*
All. - OCT"
.......
1-16
1-19
H.
,-,
H
'-"
J_I.
.-"
~"
.!H2
H
All EJ(ISlUtC UTU1'ES ,,"D ~DlTS THAT ARE: NEW 011 w,y ft£(:(JW( OIWAGEII DUANG
caßTRUCTKJN SItAU.. BE c:œtPl£JUYRES1OIŒD TO l1£ SAlISFAClKIN or lHE an'ÐIGINE£R.
H"D N4 Of"f'QRlI.H1Y 11) EVAlU...tE TI€ SGWflC...HŒ OR 11-£ fN) ...tC:I 9JOOEST Þf'f'ROI>RI"1£
ANY REl0C0\11CIN Of PL8.IC um1ES SHAlL 9£. c:DNDtJC1ED IN ACCCfIDNlŒ: 'MlH MY
NIOAllR(Ql.lREJ¡ DlTS<FTHEUTUTYCOW'N«.INCUJDINCFŒS.IIONDS.P£Rt.ITSNCJ
'/JORIONIGCDNDlTIONS.f1C. T141S_SHAI.lft£OONEA1NQEXPENSEroTl€U-aJTY
COMPANY. T14E OWER SHAlL PAY 1H[ COST or All SUCtI RElOCA1KI't WORK tNa..utIIN¢
FEES. IKJÐS. PE1NTs. E1C.
IFNtCIiAE(IU')Ql;R.w,rERIAlSNŒUHCO'ÆREtIDURtlCClAA£INC,.TlÐlClill'tÇOROTIl£1l
E>CAV"lIOM. ENtTII.-:>RK .MIII 100 FEET or lI£SE .....TI:RIÞt.S 9W.l B£ ST<PPfD UII1L
" Pflcn::ssuw.. NIOi,\EI1.DGIST 'MID IS ŒR"lF£D BY TIlE SOCIETY Œ CAUfOlfNlA
IIROfAEa.OGY (SCA) /'HJ¡æ. THE 500ETY or PRÐF£SSlON.u. AAOiII£OLOOY (SOP ,) H"S HAD
NlTIG^lION IlEASUII'E5; If lH£Y AA£ DUllED N£ŒSSARY. THE CDl.tt1Y CORCI'ÐI HIO THE
tu.TI'o£AMERtCAHI£RITAGfCCMtlIS9U<1SHAllA1.S08f:NC»fl£ONCJf'ROŒDUR[SFOllOII£D
105 ItEOlIRD IN N'f'ÐI)IX K or 11£ CAI.I'Q'!NA ONRCN.ÐITJL OUAUTY ACT.
RlIGC[ þ.-JÐ SÐI-A2AR"''\s~T!SDŒSHOTSP£O''fORRECOWMENn1l£uSECIft
1NSI"AU....lION ΠAllY WATERlAl OR EQIJf'WJIT 1IIHCtf IS loW)[ FI!QIot. OR Wi1Df COH1NNS
"'SBESTOSFOIIlJS£IH1HtCONS1RUCTlOll0f"1I£SEM'RO'ÆNENTS. AltYPMTY NSTAlUNG
OR USING SIJCH M...1ERIAlS OR E:OUPlENT SH...ll BE S(11:lY ~ FOIl AllIMJIJRES.
D*AC£$. 011 UA8U11£5. or AN'I'KINO, CNJSED BY THE USEa' SUCH ),IATERI...LS 011 tr.£ r:£
S1JCH£WI'NE:NT.. TIIEPfi(I'o6OIIS<F1ttSNCI1ESH.u.APPlY~l£SSTHEYAR£ÐlPfŒSSLT
w.<t.I'ÆD IN Ml1WC BY RUCC£RhENSDl-AZAR '" ASSOCATE$.
,
..
"
,.
/
~
z
·
~
"
/
tl
i
·
~
o
o
<
,
5
8
/
8
>~
~q
~/
::6
w~
><
."
o
·
o
¡¡~
~~
~¡;
~!!:
~~
wi;
~<
..
00
~
~ RE'5"OI05Ø..E FOR IIII~lA'!ION Œ EROSION C1JJ11RCl. NtD ~"" PLAN:
9\JCOIIVÞJ..L(Y·....l.ŒRS
255 N. VARlŒTST. SUI1'E 220
Wt.109:.. CA 951'10
PIØ£ (_) 999-6636
FAX(408)99~
CONtM;T,SHA*III.o.ssH>OUR
tt£ EROSION AltO SEDlWEHTCONlROLf't...¥\I Q)'ÆRS DMlY tt£ fRST WlNlER
FŒ..LO<ø«:; GRK*IG. IH1EJ&t f'\.AHS NfE. 1O!E RE5U6IIITIEO FOR CITY APP!!O\IAI..
PRICR'P31STSEPTE14BEROFEACHSU9SEaJ£NTl'£AR,.tfoITLlHESlTE
1W'IIO'IENENT5 ARE "CCEPrEO BY lI£OTY.
" CONSTRuCTION EtfJRNoIC( StW.L II[ tlSTAU.£D f'RIOfI: ro CCYLNCOENT Of'
QtIlW<fÇ. AllIXHSfRUCTICW'JRAfflCEHTERlHCTI£PA'o£DR!»ÐhltJSræOSS
lI-iESTA8IU2EDIX1"fSTRUCT1ONEN1RAItCE.....Y".
(;(J(JR.Ir¡(;1O sttH.l III~T"'" STÞðUZEO ENlRAHCE WAY (DRAIN ROCK AS A
GRA'Æl ROAD"AY." .....11111 50 rE£T lQ<IIG) AT EAQ1 ENtRANCE TO THE sm:
ANY.-JO TRÞOŒD ONTO PUBUC S1REET5 SHAll DE Æ»CI'ÆO ft1AT SAM£ DAY AND
AS~BY1t£01Y.
Þti.EROSIOfoI CON1R(LIllEASURESSHAU-BE: VAttTNHmlf,lTllDlStl.IØD AREAS
ARE STAIIIU2£D AND Ot.lJlŒ$ 1U ntS £Ft0Sl0H AND smwENT CONTROL f'l.AH
SHÞU. lIE IoIADE: to aIŒT FIELD CONJI1JONS ONlY WlTJ.I TH[ APPROVAl OF OR AT
lHEIJAEC1IOIICF"lHECllYENGI>tEUI.
..
,.
>
..
,
W
ü
«'"
a:: 0
(l)a:: .
WWt- ~
I- ¡=
~W ~
(DB
o
o
«
~ U£ RHHY SEASON, ALL p"vm NŒAS SHI.U. lIE IŒPT C1L\R OF THE £AR~
IIIAIDUt. /\ND DEBRIS.. Ttf[ SITE SHAlL 8£ MAHTM£D SO AS TO ....zr
SEOU.IENT-lAIJEN ~JfOFF 11] AllY S~ OR_,oa: S'I'!öfDI. STRAW BAlE SLT
TRAI'S SHAll DE flSTALLEO AT PlACES .......TIOPAtlHG SEDIoIENT-lADÐI RUNaF TO
. Nil.
ÞU. EROSION CONlRCL fM:lllTES MUST BE INSP£CTID AND R£J>AfltD AT TI£ [NO
OF EAæ-.oRllltlç DAY DUIIIIIG THE RAINY SEÞ.SCft.
THISOICISf(J\I MÐ5f.DIWI:NTCOfl1'!<LPLAN WAY NOTCOI/ER I\L.llHE SlTUAlICINS
lIiATIIIAYARlS£OURINCCOISTI\IJCTIONOUE1ONfiIC(>AlEDflfWCOHOITlONS.
VARlAlIONS!.IAY 8E IoIADE TO !'HS f"LNoIlN THE rnD, 9.JB.£CT TO 1t£ APf'R1}VAI..
Of"tH[ClTYENGIHEER.
FA OCL.J\Y OCl1.RS 9[f*[£N tH[ ROUCH CRH>tICð>[RAJ\(I'I AND lHE INSTALLATlOII
OF lH£ i.MlUlCflOUN) STOI8oI OR...... S~~ BY OCTOŒR 1ST, THE: CONTRACTOR
SHAllCQofSTRUCr "R£1ÐITl0N8A5INNÐCRADETf£tIGH POIKTSCf'TI-£ PARKING lOT
SUBGRAQESTOOR_TOTHEB.o.sIN. THEE!ASlHSHAll9ESlZEDroPKrlllO£
RHEHTIOH Of A 10 YE"fI SlOAN Willi AN O\ÆfIflDW TO THE ÐCISTI\IG STRŒT
5Y'5TEN.5UITNIlE:~PROT£~fCRTJ-£O\€RflOWSHAll8ECONSTRUClEÐ
FROtf GR"V£l OR SNœAGS TOOEniER 'MTH SIlT fÐlCING. OR On£R METHOD.
TO PREVENT THE OISCHAR(£ OF CONT.....N...1(Ð R\JtfOFT ffiOII ENT£RING lH£
SteAl DRAIN SYSTOI, AS APPROVED IN lA1"INCBY lHE ENGKE:R.
,
,.
~I
i
g
EROSICtI COfHROL IllEA9JItES SHALl 8£ IN fff£CT FROM OCYœœ 15 TI1RO../C1i
APRIL 15 EAQJ YEAR.
9t.T FЫE SHAll III[ PlACE;U AROUND THE PERIM£t£R OF lH[ PRo.£CT UNTIL
PA....G~AT1OHSH...\oEBŒNC'*PL£lED.
FOR EROSQICONTROt.D£T-"lS,5E£SHITTC6.
TH[ OIQIfŒR "'SSTJ.I[S NO I!E5PONSØlITY FOR lH[ NSlAlLAJ10N QUAUTY
~D RE$UlTNG SYST£1II P£Rf"CJRMAHŒ-
CON1RACTOR Si'lAU. OOWPl'l' WlTtf THE RUl.£S...NO R£GlU.T1ONS OF fHE STATE
CONSTRUCTION SAfÐY ORDERS. CONTR1ICTa:I 9iAll COIIIPlY WITH All STATE,
COUNTY ANO CITY LAWS .....OORDlNA.NGE:;; AND REIJUlATOðOF THE/)[PNI"DoIEJiT
Of INDUSTRIAl RfLATlOHS o.S.ttA. AND INDUSTRIAl JlCCIJ£NT ca.NSSION
RElATING ro THE SAFETY HV CH~.o.cTI:R OF IIORK, £CMPIIEHT AND lABOR.
WORK SliAllNCITBfSTAAT£OWlTHC:UTFIRST ttOTF'IfIlGTHE C1Tr
ÐfGINIR. SOIlS ENGINEER NCAPf>ROf'f!IATEPt.IBlICAGEHClES.
IT'5I1AllaElH[CQfJfIlICroR'Sf£SI'(WSI~1YTOW_T""NCClNTROI.OFlH[
ENTIRE CONSTRVCTlOII CP£RATlON AND. TO THIS ENO. IŒ£f' THE £NTIRE: SIT[ fRŒ
FR(N EROSIGI
CONfR...CTORSHAUBERESPoHSIIII...EFORREOUtREDIHSPECTIOtOSNllJSH"'lI.WAKE:
TtE (48 HOUR!; PRlOft) N()1If1CATION ro TH[ CITY ENCNõER. SOL £NCIN£[R Oft
0T1-Æ1I R£II\IIRW INDI\fDU.ot.S æ PII9UC AlJf.NCIES.
NO PERSOJI SHAll.. WHEN NAI.UHG.......'I' £ARTH. SAND, CRA'Æl, STONE, DUIRIS,.
PN'ER OR AllY 01HE!l: SlJBS1N«:E: OVER NlY PUalIC STRŒT. AllEY OR OTHER
PlIBUC PlACE, AlLOW MATERIAL TO BlOW OR SPIll. OVER N«J UPœI SoIIIO P\I6UC
_T-OF-WAY(lRAOJACENTPRTV...TEPR!JPERlY.
..
1
>
.
,.
SCXI.SENQ!tŒRro~AU.CRNJINGANOSU9NITAFINAlR£P<'RTTO
THE OTY PAOR TO OCD.PAHCY.
COIIIPACTKJtIlEl"afTS AMOPAD£U:VAT1ONCERTlFlCA1IQH AllEREOJIAED ON All
...... "'" -
COIITÞCTPUIIJCWORIIS, (4<IB)777~.JJ&I-. fæDRAIHAC£ANDnNAl GRADE
""""""'-
1t£ COoITRACTtIR SHJU REW:W ST~ARO DUAL 6-4 ON TRŒ PROTECTIOH
PRIOItTOACCIlllPUSHINGAHYWORI(OItRnlCIVIfGANYTREES.
ElEvAIOoI CERWlCATE IS RE:QU1REDPRICR TO AIIAlav.DINÇ t'lSPE:C:nOH
AU.GPADlHCSHAU.BEOONE"AC~WlTHlHESŒ.SR{PæT
PRE'PAREO BY lER<oSEMOt. INC liMED 5EP1ENBER f5. 2!XIQ. PAO.£CT
......,..,
AUSTawlJ [IIISTofUATICIN'lllTHSUY'ESl£'S5T11""'2J:SHAU.B£mmED
B...1H[CI....OIGINEER.
AI.!. (IN-SJTE SAMTAI!"I'SOOÆR lINES AND LATERALS SIi.o.u. B£ SUB.£CT TO
8U1.l:*CD£PAltTWEHT'S APPROV",,- PRIOR TO INSTJUATION.
UTl.Tl£ BEST IrIAHACDIE,n PIIACtrUS C--.>. AS REQUItED BY TI£ ST...rE
WA1ERIIESO.flC£SCONTROl80ARÐ.fOllCONSlRUC1Ia\IAClIVllY\ltiJCl:f
""""" ...
A '/I!RII 50ÐJulE OF GR¡\ ) NG AND £JtC6OH It 5EDIW£NT CONlROl PlNI SHALl.
I!£PRQW)[O"lO TtI[OTYEKOIIŒR 8YAUOU$T f!).IfANYWORIIlSroBE
f>tRf0RlL0 I:IElWEEH OCTOŒR 1 ro N"RIl 15-
AllR()( f"III_~/OI(OOIIINSPOuTS5KAU.fI£COU£:CTED9Y~1\IN,IO,Ç[
N.ET aJH:CTING 11] PU6UC STOAu OIWN.
MÐCISTINCTOPOGRAPUVSHOMlOfillH£S[PlANSISBA5£D(lNACROlN>
SlIRIIEY( A" [Otl-f-IJQ.PREPAlEDIIY1I£RO-GÐJ )[TIC"~...T'Ot.fHE
CDM~ ~ (IN .,..5 f'lNr REPR£S£NT GRaHJ n£VA11QNS AS
O[1'(RIoØ<iÐ)ATTH£TlWEt:FSAIOSURV[Y. '>IJ8S£OO[HTtRAl!Nòð>[RATIONS
"AloE ߌN OOHE ~ TtE f'R[pARATICIN Of THE::£ PlANS. 11-£ CON1RACTOR
SHÞlI. 8£ R£SPONSØ.£ TO CONfRM THE GROlN> ElEVATIONS AND OV£lW.l
1tJ'OGftN'tt'( OF THE SITE PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUC1IQft. !lASED ON
HIS ÆID R£CONIIAISSNfŒ, 1t£S£ PlAII5. AM> THE: SOLS RfPal:T, TiI[
CONTRM:TORSNMl.EST1NATETH£EM1HWORICQUANT1T£STOttSSATISf~1JOH
PRIOIImTH£5tAATOfCOHSTRUCTIOHNlD!Wrt.LDlSPOSEDr£xc[ss
MATERlALClRACQU I!E:~_T£f!IAI...sR£QUIR[()TOca.IPl£T[TH£
GIIÞDINGASSJiOllN(IN.....S~ NOÞIOOITIONJlLCOUP£NSATION'IIIlL1II[
IoIAO£FURAAlYÐ1'ORTOR!IiIPORTREQt IRED.ÐCCEPT1ISPROVIO£OJ<lTH£1W
"""""".
AllREVISICIHS TO THISPlAII JofJSTIlER£VlUIEDBYTtf£PlJBUC 'MIRrIS
D£P¡t,RTIoÐfTPRlORro~CT1()< ANfSl1AI.lB£"'CCURA1ElY~ON
R£....srof'lJlHS::iGNED8YTt£ClTYEIICIft([R.
THE: EXGAVAOON CClN1R1\ClQf f1JR THE ~AGE BASD.IDIT !'HAll IiAVE A ~IT
f'fKiI CAlDSHA TO [JO:::AV"TE 14M[ mAN 5'4111 DEPT11 Ofl.OWCftADf.
TH£COMTRACTl)ff9tAllPJKMDEAstf(RNGO[SIGj ro THE GEOTEONCAl[NGlN[IR
TO NCATE TIlE DESIGN ADWJACY ÞK) Tt£ PROC'EDURf:"S THAT 'Alll. ß[ INCCIfW>CfIAT£O
DURtfCOOIIS1RtJCTIONfOR THE C.o.AAŒ:9AS£WEHT. SAI)[)[SÞCNSHAll9EFlAST
RE\U".VIEI) ","D 1IPf'fi0"ÆD BY 1TiE ŒOTECI-NCAl ENGINEER Of REcam PRIOR TO ,tHy
ERECTION AND INSTAI.lATlDN. DESIGN SH,oU HCU.OE ÞoIEASURES TO 11£ T.o\KÐI
TO PItOT£CT THE ADJAŒNTBl.UJlNGf'UlI«)AT1CIN IIORING-M CUT/GHADtIÇ
"NO TIlE CCHSTfIUCTION Of TJ-£ CAftAGE fCIJN:IATlOII WAlL
sn£: ~N"'Œ SHAI..1. lIE PER lHØ cae SECTION 11104.7 .vÐ JJ1S.-4-.
A STORM DRAINAGE AND ORADING CERTFlCAT£ 5HAU. Œ PRDVÐm TO TtfE CllY SHOWING
TliAT pl\IJ n£VATI()II! AHII GARAŒ S1R\)C1URE NI£ PR01£C1ED ffiOI¡ lIIE 100 "IE)fi
"""''''''''.
,.
.
·
1
>
..
·
..
,.
,
,
>0
n.
"
"
..
"
'.
..
"
..
,
,
..
ALL SAHITÞRY!£'ER CONSTRUCTION WlTHII TH£ STREETRIGtT-(F-WAY a¡ MTHIH DISTRICT
£ASDIÐH$ S»AU. BE C[Jo SlRUClEO IN"~ VII~ THESE PlANS AN . THE STANDI\IÐ
ftClf1CATlQ\IS Of TI1£ CUPEfttlMO SANTARY !)STRICT. THE DISTRICT £NCH:ER SHÞti BE
NOmED TWO (2) WORIONC DAYS fN ADVAH~ OF" STAAlINC C<:INSTRUC~ Dr" Pt.ÐUC
M'ROI/EWENTS <m Ttð PRO.ECT, 20128 STEVENS CRUX aa.u:V1IRD., ClJP£ltTlNO,
CA95014....SEPJlRA.lElAT£RI\t.SEwER~T-.u.9£IS9.IroFOREA!;HSANlTNI'
SEWER lATERAL TO BE CClNSTRUctm OItÐlTEllDEO_
All.. £XCAVA1IQN AND 9ACI<fllINQ WITHIN STRŒT RlGHT-Of-\lllAY SHAll B£ OCH: IN
~\IIITHTH£I!EOJIROI[ TS:OFTHE£NGINE£RCFTH£PUBlICAIU<lCY
HA"'NG .lJASOICTION. ENCIIOA(:HI, [ T P£RMITS: SHAll. BE OBTAINED AND" COf>Y
SH.IILLBEOHTIŒ.I09DI.IRNGOOHSTRlJC1JON.
,.
i
n
i!
~
¡¡
;
I
IN1£RtY ERCISICfi CONTRCI'-- WEA5tÆS SIlO.. ON TH[S[ f"LNoIS lIRE [S1IMATE> CF
WHA1W1tlACTUALLYBEREQl..lÆDfCRTI£COI'ISTRUC1IatCF fH[ 0'ÆRAll
PRO.ÆCT. ""AI. QUANTITIES MAY VAAY ACT::CJROttG to TI-£ CII.....GES, AOOITJOI+S.
Ofl[TlOHS Oft OIoISSOI ON TΠCfiICf'UL Pl.........
FOSSiL fL1ER5 SHALL BE INSTHJ.£D IN All OlSIŒ DflAltlAG£ AND tRASH £Na.OSUR£
1NU:TS:. FUI OETAIlS, SEE 3EET œ.
..
.
A 8AC:1<f1.OW PROTECTIVE: DEVIŒ SHAU.. BE PftOW)ED ON PRlW.T£ PRCPERTY. .utE
NECESSARY, IN ACCORO.......œ 'MTH SECTION 4105 OF TJ-£ DISTRICT CP£RATIONS COOE:.
AAY Ðl51WQ OR NE'M.Y PlANTED TREES SHAll. BE A WlHIrIUI OF TEN (10) fEET fRON
~YSNtTARY9õ1IER LATrRALOR........ ITSHALL [ THE IIESPONSIIllUTY Of
Tl£D£IÆlŒ>tR TOCOOROINATl!HE PlNITWG OfTR£[S.~ TIllS Df'ÆlDl'WENT,
TO........TAlNrn£REWlREÐTEII(fO)rooTcu:ARNK:£.
tt£[)£~AIIOG£N£RALCONTRACTORSHALLB£fI£SPON5IlIlEfDRf'R01ECTlOII
OF Tt£ ÐlSTlNG SNIITARY SE'/IEIt fACIJlIES NtO. F [)AWAG£ ) OVIUMG CONSTRUCTION
OFTtfEPIQ"OSEOIMPRO\ÐoIENT5.SHAllBE!Ð>AIR£OTOTHESATISf'ACTlOHOFtt£
CUP£RTlNO SANITARYa5TRICT.
QtAM€lS Of All OISTRICT lllNIHQ.fli WTlIfJi THE cutlSTRVCTJON II«.A 91All IE
PROT£Crm 8Y PI. YWOOO CO\<ERS, PlAC£1) IN THE MNflOl£S N«J III""'HOlES CASTING$
SHAll BE AOJ\ISlED TO nNAl œADE IN N::COROANCf.TH Tl£STANDÞ.ROSP£CSTCATIONS
Cf" THE ClJPERTINO SoOHTARY DISTRICT OR NO Of![CTm BY TJ-£ 0IST'R1CTE) Çf£[R.
PRlQR11]STNl:1INCCONSTRUClKW,TII£CCHTRACTtRTHATWll.B£f'£RF(RWJN(;'IØ!K
ON II1ESAHlTNl:YSE:WEIIS SHAll BE: I!EOUIR£D rol!EGl5TER WITH TN£OISIRfCT, P!t'OVIŒ
INSURANCE AS SPECF£O IN SECTIONS L)9 N«J 1.40 Of TI£ OiS1J!ICT'S STANQAIIO
SPE:CIf1CATlClKSAH;ISIGH T11£lAT£ftALS£YIERPERWltsRfffRR£ÐlOlN "f-A6OVE.
RE:VE'II£II 200J
,
,
..
,
·
,
"
aJPERfINOSAMlT.oR"~T
DlSTRlC-TDlGIIIffR
/
~
z
,
~
~
~
<
~
~
~
~
,
o
5
:1
g
>~
:¡Q
~/
:::6
w~
.<
"<
~
"
!;
~
"""
C2
.2!:........L..SHI:f."IS
lOB RO.
-.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
!i
·0
.-
2~
,.
.0
.<
;:::.-::
00
z
~!
~~
¡¡wm
LNI1';; ΠRE/ItOVAl.. (TO at CONTAINED wrrHl<I PROPERTY ut+ES)
-~
.'
I
Z
«
...J
a..
Zw
°u
F
-«'"
...Jo::"
00:: .
:::i:wo
Wl-~
o '"
W~
>-00::>
0::0"
«0
Z«
:::i:
:J
w
a:::
a..
l
--
"
o
0,
e
o
o
~
0,,1
I
I,
I
II
I
~,
.,.
"
-
Q
-0
o
~
.
XISTING ~T!,UCTURE TO REMAIN
¡¡OJ
,
.."
~..
'V
¡
,
,
I I
i ~
¡ ¡¡
+ "" "-
.... fftCAlDItOlHROl\Wtjt£
V
~ \
...
....
- ",'
." PARKU<G ~j
"p
..~.. ~
) ~, ""
...
....
~
r-;;¡;-- ..,.
.... ... ~
....
-. "
....
æ.1
"""
C3
.2!-..!.-- SHEETS
,JOB NO.
""'.
~
, 2
. ~
I!
!!
¡¡
i
~
~
g¡
¡¡¡
~
"
!ô
A
'0
'"
~
FEET: lØ", 20'
'º-
.
IN
5CN£
q
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
DEMOLITION N S.
1. 11-£ CONTRACT(fl IS R£SP0N9BLE FOR RE"O~ ....NO OISP09NG
Of All r.lAlERIÞLS AND ITEWS J\S SHOM ON THIS F'I..AN. DlSf'OS.o..L SHAlL
BE IN II L£GAlIolANNER. REMOVAl AND DISPOSAl SHAll 8[ IN
CONf"ORt.IAMŒ 1I1'IH THE: RE:QUftE~TS Of THE CEOTEŒNCAJ.. RfFORT
PREPARED BY Tffi U.5EARC» INC., DATED SEPTEWEER 15, 2000.
2. AN IN\£$'lJCATlOH or HAZAROOUS OR CONTAAlNATED MA1ERIALS
HAS BEEN PERfORMED. THE COI\ITRACTOR SHALl CONTACT lHE
ARŒlTECT FOR A C<PY or nJE R£PORT AND THE STAT\JS Œ' THE SITE
PRIOR TO COIw~ WORK. RUOOfRI-,ENSEN-AZAR '" ....SSOClA1£S
IS NOT RESPOH!>8I..£ FOR 11'1£ D£SICH, DlRECTICrII OR CONSEOOENŒS
OF REÞ.ICMNG AND DISPOSING OF ANY H,QARDOJS <R CONTAMNATED
NATERIAL FOONG LN THE SITE DURING THE CClJRSf Œ' CONSmUCT1ON..
3. All VlUnES SEROONG EAa-I PARŒI. SHALL BE CAPPED, PLVGGED.
OR OfSCCNoIECTED IN ACCOftOI\HC£ WITH Ut[ !PEl::lflCATlCNS OF THE
AGENCY PRO'o\DING SM> SERVICE:.
4. IT IS Tt£ RESPONSlØ1JTY a:- lHE ~TRACTOR TO VISIT THE STE PRIOR
TO CONSmUCTION TO 'ÆRlfY It£ EXtSTt«; CGÐI1KNS ÞUJ IW'RO'ÆL£HTS.
5. 111: CCJHRACTOR SHAll HOT DISTURB [)liSTING PROPfRTY IXIRHER WARI«R5. SHOUlD PROf'ERT'r
a:ÐI[R MARKERS BE DISTURBED Oft DESìROYED OlßING Tt£ COARSE OF THE CONìRACTI) (S
OPeR"TlONS. HE SHML. "T HIS CMN OCPENSE. HAVE TH£\I R£S£T NÐ RECDRO£D IN A I£GAL I14M1N[R.
6. AFT£R OENCUTI(J. AND REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING M'ROVO£NTS. THE SITE
SHALL BE LEFT IN A J£AT (;()NaTION BY tHE CÐlOlJl\al CONlR"CAA.
7. ANY IffY NOT N01ID TO BE SA'ÆD 'MlHIN TI-E LNrTS OF REMOVAL SHAll BE RENOVm AND OI5I'OS£D <F.
a. AT THE UMITS OF TIt( DEIoIOUTlON, THE CONTRACTOR SHAlL SA'M::UT Tt£ PA\OIEHT
~TJ~~~ ~~A~ ~~~l EDGE HID SUPPORT THE EXISTING SECllQ.1
9. TI-£ c:anRACTOR SH......L VERIfY THE LOCATIONS OF THE DGSflNG U!UTY CON...£CTlONS
WITH THE APPROPRI"T£ VWTY ço"pANY PRIOR TO COUUEJoICOIENT (F DE\lOUl1OH.
Ç~~"'%1IhTI'lrrtÆ- &=-O~ll"U~E~TT ~U~T"'bf'<m.ðt::tL B£ PLACED
10. ~~~'rTr ~~SE~;ri:r;~CW':='ÄR~~~1":6~~~~~~;æL~urr~
COOROINATf 'MTH M'PROf'RLATf AG£NC'I¡\JnlllY ,OR SNT DDK:U1100 NÐ REMOVAL
11. EXIS~ RRIGATI{)O U"'ES SH......L 8£ ROtoIm£D. 5EFI:'o\Œ PaNT TO BE CAPPED at WARKED
AT Tt+E UJ.l1T OF R[W()VAL LI/£..
12. SEE N01ES ON SHEET CI . C2. AND C3.
/
~
·
o
ï'
/
tl
·
~
·
w
·
o
A
·
,¡,
5
8
8
~.
~~
"/
-:::ö
w~
..
".
~
o
.'"
88
~.
'"
NO
;;~
00
Z
~~
..
00
ÐæAV/ro11QH NIO SHORIJIG'
lHE DJIIITRACTOR StIAU. PROIIIO( A SIIORING O£SOI TO lHE ŒOTE(Ho GAL £NGIHEEII
TO JlllCATE THE: DESlCH AD£OUACY ""0 TttE f>ftOC[()UA£S THA1 -.L IE NCORPORATfD
DUliNG CONSJ1IIUClION F't t 'fH£ GNlAŒ: S/roS£ItÐIT. SAC IIE5IGf\I SHAu. BE FIllS!"
R£'Æ'IIfD NÐ AF'PftO'Æp BY 1Hf ŒOTEONCAl fNGIf€[II or RECORD F'IIIœ TO NtY
£A£ClIONNlDINST¡o,¡,u.TION. ŒSlØoI!'HJtt.INCU.C)(III£ASUA£SWS£1AIŒN
TO PROTtCT lHE AÐ.W::ÐIT IJJl.DIHC FOullÐA1la>I CU"NG TttE CUT/GI'IAOING
~Tt£caE.TRUCTIONIJFTHEIõARM:EfOl.ltOATlDNWAI.L
IT 9tAU. BE THE: COHRACroRS sa..E R£SP()NSIBIlJfY ro 0f5IGM Aft ) f'ROW)f AOCQUAlE
~ BIIACINC, AND fRAMEWCI!k. AS RECMRfD fOR lHE PIIOTEC"I1I»ICF IJF[ AND
Pl«PEKn'DU~"Gl}£CONS1RUC1ION a:-"fHIS~. ÐCŒSSLCWlCAI'AClTYtJf"1HE
SLAB SHAll- NOT EXCEED LQIoDS EQlIM.lEHT TO THE IESICN SUPEmiPOSm LOAD'> LESS
CONS1RlJC1K»oI U~ AND OEAO LOADS. DESIGN ~ LOAD~ INCUJOE UIoE'.: LQIo.O,
PARTIlION LOIIO. NIO ~ I1IHER LOAD HOT IN 11-£ PlAŒ AT TttE t1I/[ rs SHORING.
f)CCAVAf1ON 9iAll- B[ AI!EOUAlB.YSIIORED. SRACED ÞMJ SHE£T[D SO mA1 '!HE EAIHH
w.Ll HOT SUX OR SETn.E AND ~ TttAf AlL EXlSlI«> WPRO\OoIEHß CF AllY KIND
'MU. BE fU..lX PROffct£O FROM OAIiIAŒ. ANY DANAŒ RESU.-TWG FROIII A LACK fS'
ADEOUArr SHORING, 9ll1ICN> AND St\t:tfHi SHAll. fIE 1HE R£SPOOSIII./TY or lI£
COHTIIAC1œ, wtfO -.L IIAI!E: NEŒS5AR'Y REP~ 011 IlEf){»fS'[RUC~ AT '!HE
CONTRAC"Iæ'SEXf'EI'6£"M4JI£THEElCC.AW,TIOJfFURACONOUIT,TllDæHNIOjCIR
!lTRUCnIRE IS fl'Æ FEET eft Mcø:: IN DEPTH, 1t£ cnnRACTOR SttAI.l. PROWl[ ADEOUAlE
$HEETNI. SHORHG .....0 BRACNG æ EOJIYAl..EMT WErna). FUR THE 1'R01El:1ION Œ IS£.
OR LMB.wtCH SttAI.l. CONfCRl.f TOlIiE AI'f"I.ICABL( COISfRUCTION SNTIT'ORÐE:RS ex
THE OI\&ON OF IPCXISfRIAl SAFElY or T11£ STA1£ OF CJU'ORMIA. "!HE COITRACTOR 9"l1U
AlWA'I"S ca.Fl.Y OSHA REQlJREWDns-
THECOIIlRACTORSIIAU.8ESOI..ELY~FORAU.[)(CAYAflONPfl:OŒIJt.MHa.tJOtIG
LAG(lNG.SHOIIIMG.AHOPROlECT\ONOfAOJACEHTPRCPEIITY.~S.STREfTSAND
UTlJlIES W ACCORDN<iΠ\IIITH THE lOCAl BUIWNC DEPNHNEHT
"
.
.
i
!
z
«
-!
a.
C)W
ZU
0«'"
«0:: 0
o::O::Ô
C)~~
'"
>-W~
O::(IJ=>
«00
zo
-«
:::E
:J
w
0::
a.
""t'
" I,"
~fn ,~~AY
FRCN;S' TO or~'9tI 1: ""
~IIP..~ : :;~,"; i, J!!~
J~'~~r~~1IU~£~~T ß~;
Ib'üTSlŒ'ÖF'THltS~i~.!GR ~1 j~1[. ~~
AND U !IE PER III: ~
.'·¡1ARCHI~RAl,.5·)I' ~ ",,;,.
1 \.,; l¡--" r a ~~
1 ' i'" ê,~J. m ...at;¡
I ôl¡~f
I U ..""II>
:..~ i. !;¡Ii~
I ¡ I!I \..j ì3>-....~
I;~ o~~<
f ì Pi .. ~co8
I ~.. ,.,~a~1i!
-< ~ ,-- ~C"
1 ~ t....j :>!~B!;1
1 "
1
: "'.-:~ "';.'
1
--, -
I,
'i-i ""
1 ' .
,I
'I
\1
\.
..
-C.'
,
I:
t;~,
,;
!;
,l.:j
~~~!~3~"~::r~~l
S£EARChITEC1UR""-Pl.AN~~CJt,1Tf:XTURfi.
TC fNI~ ;.....=..'""'=~~~
~.~\ ð~ _~'~~.
-
¡
~
~
==--t'Ir
. œ .
-
<"¡ ,"', ~'i ... , ,h ~ '"' .. w: , ~.~~~
¡ ~ ':...;;r¡-r--J "I I n.::.:-~. ¡'fíir'ti ;'
~ ~~ ;;:;;:, g;:!.:i;:t~~ 'j
'I :: :: s: 'l ..,' 0. ¡ ;:0 ª ~ ~ I~.
" a M C ~ -'< . _ '" ~ I
HOT£: ~~"W~?:rItL~~W£ATI ~STÞH....;"5·~CotIF~fOtXL<ffitt65, ~"}Ä'
-M:Ilüï:îiiGLA'rWTDETAJ'AEKM. ~ E .slr~1[C1UR"'-1'lM FOR ~ T[YTURf./~' :;
11£ OUNfilTES HA\.£ Bf(N AI'PfIOKIIA1Ef) FTIOrI EXIS'TWC GROU~D ELEYA'I\aIIS,
BA5EtIatIHETOPOOAN'tI'I'IŒf'ERDtt:fDAØO\£,101I1[QA.A0[5-_0N11-E~
PlANS.1H( I\CfUItl...wQUNTCf'ENmIIIO'ÆÐ-.J.VNl.Y~OIICOIPM:_
C(JolS(1CATtOfo{, STFIPPtIC, AHO 'THE COfJRAC'TatS IlEATHCV or- OÆRAflOH
EARTH'llfCflK5tMtIIARY
IIDt ~!;1IIIATFb lIlANnTv
=M
OHli
''''''''
·STREET L»IOERCUT FOR UTRJTY WENDi ~ DISP05AI. 15 IQIlt-lCWœD
IN 11-£ Þ6O\.£ EARntllORK QJMTITY.
"COWPAClIDN, ~SOl.[IATION. Swnt, NÐ 9-Ø«AŒ rAC'Il)RS FOR
ON-SITE ItIAT[RlAI.S /loRE /'tQI 1"ax:¡p¡ /roT(O'" 1I+E A8O'Æ Qu,o,HlIlIES.
°AC'lUÞIlOl./NlT111E5 ItO'ÆOIN TIl£F£I..OFOft THIS PROLCT'Ik\..VAIlY
Df~OIfT11£ACTUAlSOl..$fHCOUNJERfD,'It£COIITAC1Cf!'S
WfTHCD OF CPERAT!OH, ETC.
°NO~Nt£.ASSUII£DratlN1)-£A90Y[EARTHJIIORI(QUANflfY.
VARIATION fRCU RE:WRrn PAD ÇR¡\[)[ 9lALL NOT ÐCŒEO <1.1 FOOT.
T1fE COH"lRACTOR 1$ '1!E$F'( tt5Q£ ~OR f'R()\Ð1IG AlL SN"ETY ~ TRAIFIC CON"lRct.
IEQIØ!W ~ £xISTHG 51REETS DJRIN~ CONSTRUC1ION. COW'EHSA1ION FOR T1iESE
ITENSSHALlBEDŒlrtÆO NQ.I.DEDIfCTtt:~OfYI\RICIIJ5J1[IISDfWORl(.
sa: HOlES ON ':H:ETC1 NÐ C2
..
.~
~I
"
;D
-~~
n
"
n
AlL ROOF OR...."S ....0/011 00_ 5POUTS SHAI..L BE ÐR.UED '!!tEET F'LOW n
A'fIA'I'f1IOMTtt[~GAN[)COLJ.[CTfDBYDftAlNAœ "l.nCONHECTEDTO
PI.QJÇ STtfIM fftNo FAOUT"l'.
1H[ PERIt!If1[[aAlst MlllNT/tIl1H[ STREETS. SlD[W.ot.KS, If«) .....yOTttfR PUIIUC
IllQiT-Df'-.....YIN A Cl£AN, SN'L IfÐ l1SIØ.£ CONOITKIt. IroIfY 9>Ll OF SOL.
ROC:K.DIICD61RUCTICfoIIIÐIRIS-.r5T8EIIOoIOYEDFllCltlPl.ØJCl..YO~~
~~5TRUCTIONNÐIII'ONCOIIl'l£T1tOI<forTtl£PAO.ÆCT.
tHE ÐlSTJoIOTa'OGIIAI'IfY ~ ~ lI-I£S[ PUHS IS IIA5WON A AERIAI.../CROUNÐ
5l1li:\0' PRÐ>AIIED 8Y AEIIO(:UIO£n:: aA'ORA1I(JH. OA'TE9 CMll!"fOO. 11£ OON-roLJIð:
!IIOIIION1III!';Pl.ANIt£Plt£ÆNfGROlH)Ð..EYA1IONSAT1I£1IIIEI:fSAÐ~.
THE CCfoITRACTOIf SHAlL BE RE5P0N9BLE W ~ GRO..tfO ELEVATION AND
DYERAU. T!JI>O!R.<\I'HYOF tHE g1[ PRKJ t TO THE STARTOf'CONSfRUCTDt. BASED
ON IllS nELD R£C(No /roISSAHŒ, THESE PLANS. ...NO mE C¡:OTEDiNICAL REPCRT,
THE COoI1RÞOC1DI9-W.L ESfNATE THEEARTHMRC: WNflI'QE5'fOHlSSA1ISf'AC1IOfI
I'RICR W 1HE START Of C061AUC11ON, AI«) 5HAU.. 0Ig>œf Of ÐCŒSS MA:f£RlAt.
.....-fOR'lHEMXJJISI1ICf<Œ_r.....1DIIAI.4S_tClCtM'l..£ŒTHE
QII_AS_ONTHI5IU11t.NO_~ALCQIPÐfS"'1IOH"" (IIIAÐE_Nrt
ANY EØ'ORT [R 1IoIPOII1 REtURED, ExC[PTAS PRO\IIO£D ... 1:1£ 610 oocuue.rs.
S/tOIJU) l'OÐ..IOII....M'A5IDNS TO TtEGflIOIItG PlAXS fIE IIEOI.IIRED roFAClUTA1(
fH[CONl'JACTOR'SOI"ERA_Rl.!GŒll--.ÐfSEM~AZAR"~1ES:sHAI.L8E
ccw:>EItSATEOfM 5UQ ADOITlONAl.-I!£'.ISKINS.
EMrTHIIORI< OUAHflTES SHCWI OIlH'S PLAN ME AEf>RESÐlUTNf ()JAHffiES
AHOÞR£A.RIf g,£OFORIMFORUA'1IOHONLY.
."
.
n
n.
",
..
!IQ!I;S
1 5OII.SDfGlNEER TO R£VIEWAU-GI'IÞÐING....Ð SUBlllTAF1toIA1.IIEPORTW1I£
OTYPMOR TUOCCUPNlCT.
2. COW'AC'TIONIIÐ"CR'lSNÐPADElEVATlON~A1IOINllEIIEOLWi£OCI<.ou..
8ULDNG PN> \QlK.
~ CCHfACT PUElJC WCAKS. (4OfI) 177-.3354. f'!)ft 0RAItAC£ ArC) F1<fAL <RAI)[
-
4. ~~RE.l*~ffR~æ:~:"fC)N9.I'!INC'fHEAR£AAOJIICENT
5. 1H[ CClNTRACTtft 9tAlL RE'o'IEW 5TAHDARO D£TAI. $-4 CW 'JREf f'ROTrCTlOl\l
PRICft TO ACtXM'UHNIõ N4Y I'Ø!K eft RDIO\ING ÞHf TÆ:ES.
6. AI.L GRÞlIING 9tALl B£ OONE... ACXXiRI)No(CE WIfI1 THE SOLS RfP<IRt
pft[PAREDBY'IERRASEI.RC».INCOATfDSEJ>1£.WflERf5.2000.PftO.£CT
No.lIII26.G..AU.CõltlÐN:AHDEXCAVA'ßCN{5I'f<:fINI:IIOIIK9iALLBiEOONE
UNDER THEøesEl{VA-noN OF TIIEGED'ŒCHNICAlDICINEEJI. n£ŒOTEClfllCAL
fNGMER SHAU.I1EHOflÆO 4&1ÐJRS9EFOIE Tl-£STARTOf ÞM'f~
(408) 362-4920
7 lOti ST"DIIIf IJ£INSTAI.lATION.TIt 5I.Cf'£S LESS _ :z (~""'L 8£ Y£!!If£O
IfY mE CNL EHGIiŒR.
II. U1IUZE8ESTII","~PRACT1ŒS(BMP"..).A5REOJIRmaY1JlE5T/roTE
""'TER RESOURCES CIOIIfROL BOARD. FOIl ~ON ACTroITY IIII-JIOi
"""""'''''-
9. A M:IIIC 5CHfJX.U:OFO'iAOlIfG N40 EROSI(N a SEDIII£HTCOIHROI..I'LNf SII.ALL
BE I'ROW)[D TO fHf Q1YENQIof£EII S'I'N.IQ.IS11:t, FNN_J5 TO BE:
PE~IIET'IIEDIOC1OBER1roAfflL15_
-
~fl-
. .
--..-
"'''<'
I
,
,
ª ~ i
;¡,;!- ~
Jj'r~
~V ,
itf~._~~_.~
.,,.-
.
¡
-~-......
~ ,;'" ...:.;;
~Y'-'-,
tJ .--.----'
""'., i-'-
I
9;
.
-------_¿-
"'V
Þ<.,"'c'
"
"
\
ì ^'-'
)
/
/~~:'\
,
"'.
,~
""'"
J
~
í»o;'
i
i
j ,
r
,
I{
1./ "S'
~
¡¡
~
i
i!
.~
i
i
Ii
D«:I\VA1ICtt9oW..LØE~~~IroCCORDAIIC[.TIIlHE
~..&W~~A£W.ëOO~~~~
NOT'EI9....d.
..-
~~
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
A
,
"""
C4
.2!:........!- SHEErS
.coø 1fO.
..,,,
0 '0 '" '"
"i "ii ~ -
~
SCAl£ IN FEET; t"= 20'
SECl10N B-B
~=
'!OlE: ~~..Jt'O&~~It~~OSfS
MCJi£IEC1IJIIAL~~AlF'lANS..
NOTE: EXCAYA'IIDH 9-IAU. BE QQII{ IN AÇQH ANŒ 1111\1 IH£
~~~~}s~~J.U
l....flOCR I
-
!CMT!C1IJIW.I'lANS
~M;[u:vnrr202..')uEN1R'Y
5Œ AAOIT£CTPLAN!I
¡W;,j!Jr.i'!~ìJ.IIi.~~ 'ITI"'n?I~µJjífl~ñ1!-!i;¡u.g¡.gl
SFCl10N A-A
~=
MOl£: ~~~~T~~s
AROtTfCTUlW.~ STIIUC1URAl PLANS.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
",-","""
""~Œ
19.G_<l.________'
¡¡-m;
"'-.
<-
"'"""'"
4'PCCWAOOfAY
=i'WR~:*r~r~ER'S
R[QIIRDIaI'\S. S£EARQ ITECfUllALAHD
5~ALPlNIS-
"'~
!'H:N01(19
~'.
,^
/
i
.
o
~
i
.
~
~
t
~
~
~
ii:~
0/
N "
;';0
w~
.<
""
."
-
"01E:~VA_~"'IroCCOI!9AHI:EIITHlHE
A..&W~ ,.J~~¡s%uc~TO
--HOTfl!1..~
"'-
SfEHD1£19. q.-cI.
11
o
.m
00
00
N<
~g
~ð
8~
«
A~
2O'NAX SPACf«';
1Q~'
i'i .. ___.__
:AIM KETMA1ERIAl
QN£I R£COW£N>"TIO
ANS) ß[IN5TAU.ED
iii lUll
6" SM-3~
...
.ME l stJRF"A(
~~
-~
... ...
~ ....
IW!
~...-\
.--
---~
~
491.F6·!iM-.I5SDs-.o.OO75~
¥11TH LNeSC.....UREA ~N~. . O.t.
SEE "ÆRlMEŒR!U'!I'AŒORNN ...... BD.DW
lJ«J(RC!} STRUCTIIJN \
.p \
..~>-
~
. CliN< OUT
0 JNliNE ORAIN
- - PERlWE1IR SURFACE DRAIN (SDR-35)
NOl£: CONTRACTœ TO ExPOSE 0.- .",tER Uti: AN) 'ÆRFY ELfV~TION
.\tÐ LOCAJlON ~ TO NSTAl1.ING TIE t£W STŒIaI DRAIN APE.
5TtJö !RAIN INlH AND SllHTMY SOlER SERVICf.
Tt£LOCA~{TTtEEXIS1I"GSAAlTAAYSE'M:RSEfMCEIS
1j1fCH1)1IIN. SffNOTEOHSlfiTÇJ.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
¥
ð
F
~
Z
<t
...J
a..
w
>-ü
I-<t
::¡a::~
1-0:: .
~WD
......f-~
>-Wffi
a:::m~
<too
ZQ
::ï:«
:J
w
a::
a..
o I
~ I'
g.~.fIO± . ì I
"'1""""
""""" Q I·
~. '"""
.~
"" . I 0
....1 [
ft.A\..IRATE N!n r: ~
. I'~ otpl
I w *
J" >
",.~
V> i V
01
\
~
-,
, "
, .
,
:"'. 0 'P~I'
---18LF 12"'50 o.OJO I
+,1 ~.~ Œ~~-ø" "J ~ æ " I
, ¡a7f1~ ~ ~~\ C:
..NCWNGWE H "ftH~ RPlUMf
II Ii' V I
, ... /
".
~': .J' /11 I
'~
, .
, '
'0
I
,
~,
~
,
o
I{).~
~.
--
~~~-
IT .." 0
,",'
- 0
~~
-
EO
.U
.0
'"
"
"Ii
..,
,,-
,,-
~
."
º-. Q
Q. 20 " 60
, 'Iii ~ -
~
SCAlE IN FEET; 1"= 20'
...
Q 00
&"SDlh>5S1)S..o.!:I!mi
---~~1~~ær &JÞiL IElOW
...
IIO~
...
00
OC"IAIlBElOW
CO
.,.
.."
..
:\1'1
... í\~ 1=
...
...
o
o
ŒŒ .
.
r .,., ~ " ~;~':.>S:~:;;;'··rt~: . ':~~~~';;;b I J ~
~ ~1S~() ~~N~TDSE:CURf I i 2
(}£ Pf.RY1S9ON or THE Al)JAcon J>RCPERTY I . 10'± ~ t
=WE~ f(N:f~~~ÐR~~~~l r - 0
SUOiACCfSSAHO/ÐRDlSTIJR6ANCEIS...[ŒSSART. "T ~
f1 ¡;
·SC;APED ~o
"" 4' pee WAIJ(W"y ( I ·r pee WAlKWAY
".-- ~~~. =Pl C:~~~~.~J~ N'I1-CPlASTB"¡ItLH: ORAIN "MTH8"OOWED . ~ NYlOPlAST r IMLŒ ORAIN NT!! 8" OCNED
1 I ,.. WCllLf IRai CRATE. INSTALL (t 6" 5m-)5 I OUCnL£IIKJ!(CRATE- IHSTAl.-LCtI'"SDR-J5
...m5X6I(61E£ATWAIN.2I/IIAXa.C 'MlH6XöJl81tEAThlAIN.2( ·w.xo.c. """"""'0 WlTH6X8X61EEATWAIN.2C'UAXo.C.
CRAlERlWror.lATCHÐO$l\NGGROlIMOfliV...-nON. GRA1ERlMroWATCHEXlSTffGGI'«IlJKIfl.EVATION. ~ æATERIU 1O,....lCI'I [xISTlNGGROUNOEUVAT1ON.. 00
~..:.-""-;JÌì::â"-'~· I "! ~;BJiÆÂ~ II ~
¡;
!T f'~[)S~~roSEOJRE: ~
..',~ !T¡~~[)~~~~ìTOSECURE ~
l}£ ÆRYISSD..: or It£ AO.IAŒNT PRCPERfY ~ -;-. Tl-EPERMSSI()I Œ' 1} [ AO./AŒNTPRQfIERTY ~
=iJ~FEN=~TM~rnAl ~;.-~ ~TOEN'ŒR¡'ÐISTURB MR R[g>fCTI\o£
¡""""''"'''''''''''''''''''' ,,:~.- POOIAI WALL AIID FOOrnG PER 11-£ s., F THE CCJ«TRACTOR D£T£fNN[S THAT ..-----POÐVI.I WAll AND FOOTflG PER J}Æ
"VCH ACCESS ANO/OR 0ISTlæANCE IS N£ŒSSART. AAO-IIlIT"MUL AND STRUClIJRAl PLAN$.. -'":, ARCHTKII..RAL AN) SlRIJCTURAl PlANS. SUCJ- Aca:SSÞIÐjæorsT1.J!8JoHŒISt£ŒSSARY. ARCttl1EC1I.I!Al AND STRUCTURIi. PlANS..
6" SOf/-J5 SO.SlOPE SHO'IIN IN PI.Nt 'ÆW- 5" SDR-35 SO OSlCP£ SHOWlf IN PlAN 'IEW- 5" SOR-~ SO . SlOPE SliDWN IN PlHI ",['If-
œ.u.AC£ rLHIŒl NÐ PrntORATEO PPE PER DRAlNAŒ Bl.ANKET ANO PERf CRATED PIPE PER MAlNAŒ IUH<ET NÐ PERf~A1ID PIPE ÆR ~
OCOTECIffC.IL ENallŒR's REQlJRÐÆN1S. GEOTfCI-NCAl ENGIiE£R"S R£CJJfÐIEN1S. Œf)1a)ftCAL ENGINEER'S R£WROÐIlS. !î
SEE ARŒII'lECTURAL k STRICTI/RAIl PlANs. !'D:~l£CWRAlkSlRUCTlJRAlPlAHS. !l:E ARCHl£C1URAl &i: SlRUCl\.IRAl PLANS.
~ '~~~~ii;i: A
ROO1BARRIER """
I """
!BEl ® ® ~ @ C5
~~~ C5 C5 ~"'" C5 OF .
"""'"
lOB NO.
0021111
<
~
·
o
~
·
/
~
<
~
00
~
·
*
g
~~
~/
::ö
w~
><
~.
~
o
g~
M<
,.
fj~
,-
C>~
~~
~~
~
°1
:8
.. .
B .~
III -
~ ·t
.:! 0
I 4 i"
_C u
li~~
Õ/!.-
Sta~ed Entrencn.d
t Strn"BaIe
) Sedim""t Loden Runoff
_I -
""'"
~CamP<=l.dSoJ'D
P'e~lUndermlnlng.
S1RA W BALLINST ALLA TlON DETAIL
I
I
I
l
l
I
l
l
I
I
l
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
1II1
1111
Bin<in9W"n:ar
EquN.
F1teredRunofl
-==
::II
ó
.
~
5O'I,Iininun'l Pllblic R"!!IM of Way
~b.ul -I: :;::¡Z~F=~ S- mi'llmum. 2"-:5' ok stone
or- Equol PROFILE
SO" Ni.........
!^
~Š- .£
~g~ ~õ
~~
wŒ
PI AN L a'" "",,1m...... U1lc1<r-. -¿-J" dia. ñone
STABILIZED CONS1RUCTlON ENTRANCE:
NO SCAlE
2")(2"X54"
woro POST
6'sPAClNG
(PACKAGEl) 'fIITtt
SILT FENCE fMRIC)
SIL T FENCE
NO SCALE
""
u
Ô
Z
i=
0:
'"
Q.
"
U
-
~
C
o
z
«
-1
c...
-1
o
0:::
I-
zW
OU
ü«
0:::
zo::
OW
(1)1-
Ow
o:::m
WQ
>-0
0:::«
«
z
:::E
::¡
W
0:::
c...
- ~
~ Q
...
~~~ø,
"" 0
I
Y
"'~
..'
....
~
~ !
ii
fi
..
:j""{
II
·C
Q.,
w
~
"'
<
"'
z
w
n
^'
"'
"'
^
w
r
<
b
n
o
-,
.Jw,~1
: \ I
..,
I
1 \
I
W
_J ..t~
I
I
I ..
I
1"1;'
I
I
I
~~. .,
I
I
o
6J
o
""
~
I
-4'
",'
J
&
~
1-
..l
I
>r¡.e "". """"
IHSTALl 9LT FENCE
AT B(Ul)AIIY
~ ~
"
U
¿s
,",,'
~ª
~,
&i
~j
Q
""
~
~9·9021 ___
,-V ~-
/(l¡ll¡l~~¡/'hi/~/
~o 0 - - "'õ"':;. - -; ~ -
¡i -" ¡, iff
i~ ~! ¡; ¡; I
'I !;! Ii
! :<..
;
i
!
..'
~
Ii
"
,"",' "'1;~
t / I~'
~
."
-~
... -
/
...
V
-
....
..'
I;
"'<'
...
...
.
z
~
~
.
i
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
~
~
'.n,
C6
~SHJ:ET3
DR RO.
-.
w
2<1 ..
"ii ~
SCAlE IN FEET: 1M= 2(}.
o
EROSION CON1ROL NOTES:
DROP INLET SEDM:NT BAARIERS AAE TO BE USED fOR SMALL. NEARLY LEVEL
DR.o.NAGE AR£AS. (LESS THAN 5¥)
2. ENBED THE BAlES 6- INTO THE SOL AND OfFSET CORNERS OR PLACE: BALES ....TH
a-.os TIGHTLY ABUT!NG. GRAVEl... BACKflU.. "MLL PRÐÆNT EROSION OR FLOW AROUND THE BALES.
, THE TCf' Of' THE STRVCTtK (f'ONQlNG HEIGIT) MUST Bf WELL BELOW D-£ GROUND EL£VATKJII
OOWNSlOP[ TO PREVENT Rt..ftOff nwu BY-PASSING THE INLET. [)(CAVATJrn Of A BASfII ADJACENT
TO THE 0RCf> INLET OR A TOIPORARY DIKE ON THE OO'fotlSloPE or THE STRUCl\JRE WAY BE HEŒSSARY.
SEC"Jlftl A-A
NO SCAL£
/IID If CUll
-
!!!!:!= -
-
--- -
A
-IISWJ.S.TSIIIII$_IIO~_
CURB iNLET SEDIMENT BARRIER
NO SCA1£
NOTE: ADDITIONAl SEDtwon BARRIERS SHAlL BE INSTAI.l.ED AROUND
[)(~ ~ INL£T5 OOI'MSlREAU Œ' THE PRo..£CT SlTL
'~~~ r ::::.-~
122D1~~M~ . TeI.-.+I6.1M
!dO:!t5oral:q o,V\9S070 Fa. __
-- .
_._-
1b<...œ_pIooD<oncI~""'-""'II"'-"'ih<
"f!"Cf"',,¡..r..._Oboy......pq>oJ»I..J""___
be<o<Jftll'lyhmi1cdloouo:h.....-.r<puWction...ptóoooiœby
'""'~;"_O'-..por1.¡,probibikd. TiIIe..,I!Iop-_
opocifi<obœor<lZlllim"'¡!hAN[)S :SONARCHITECTSJ~._
pn:¡odiœV......_....Ih""""pIarn_,.,.,.".-.........
""""""~pirufacie....iðeDœof....~ofÙle..........
CIi<ac
Pion Brothers Companies
]475SandogaAve
Suite2SO
SaøJose.CA9S129
Pmjectc
Adobe Terrace
A M;)¡ed Use DeveIopnent
20128 Sle<mISCreei Blvd
Cllpenino.CA.9S072
-
o.!.: ~ "" --.!i'£ ,,-....
__ ~ NI!:
__ m~
k Y. -',
4 ~
~"-~"
: -~'~ .
__ A -'
'. .
,
T
:
.
. i
A :
k~'\::;¡;"'~;è::.,.<", i:; ~I
!~,,<~,>~:>:~ '>.'G:_.'':·-:-'' " ~'
I.~j)' -~\:.i:..,;<-',< ,.;o,;~ . / ,Y. .
~~w ,"'. " +'17"~ / . X I
p~lNI:>~r///-/Î.'.-'--~-;:¿-;/-:>/'>;:% . (' ~
,/~<~f.;;://:;{-;:/; /.,' (A. :
f/,- %%-'/_.<.i-,//f_,/-t/.// 1 -... -""I'
--===Þ'-' ,.' . ~~_-~,.__:_---/ -= ::: )< "'.....V'JNoS.$e!
~ ~ ' ~~~
" : . v ~~ _-L.____ t
. ",' _, <. N) ID K.; -,~ \- ./ ,(, ~- f
[' i II ~ v:""_~ $ ¡.
~ " Z
~---J----~---~----r---~-- ~""'---.-~-
~
..
,
I I
I ,T
I ~! 4 I .
. I
! I J;.
1._L__,S:>:
e._
----
~...
------
'_<F"-
- -
fi
I
, I,
, .
__ J~,
I ....... ~
,-----, <':=-::'CUT
H - ~
on___; : c~ IN ~
.
,
I
~
oj
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n
I
I
~
-ø
'-'"
"'"
o
EJI5LAND
C
o
o
-I-
I
I
t
I
¡
I
t
I
i
I
i
1
,
I
I
ch
i
i
I
J
(E)FLWI'/'-"!f5
(E)PLIW1E/'IIS
.
::-f¡.
",.
w,~
",.
00-
"Œ~
09I17.o¡
'm~
11I6'0)'-V
ox
U
Client Revisions
No~""
I I'!ANNlNG SUBMffTAl
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
'"
"
"
City Revisions
~ --
1 RF.ÐESK;N
,~
} PlANNlNGSUBMnTAlS
.
,
.
,
.
",.
...
fu~'"
,~'"
S!>o<tTi&_
Site Plan
Roof Plan
" I"
-~
A-1.0
-;:;; ~.o.doh,
------l
¡
,
,
I
-~
,
________J z$
t> I ' 16'
ROOF PlAN .
~ ..-
5CA.LE,III6"·)'t!>"
SITE PlAN
1
--~
----------------------------
-~-~------~----~-------- ~
---- --------------------
I
ri------------------------
: ;,
I: ~
¡ Ii
01,
i:
,
I"
I ii ii~~Fo~T~r~T-f~r~ i
I ì' '''' "
¡ -~->=~~ ~~~~~ ¡~
,
i
,
i
,
.
L, ___
-----
2
~"
I
1:0-.<1>.. ~~ . ::;.__ø.
- ------
:::..~~ . ;:.:.:
-.~
The....oIlbeapIMs_spocifi<oliom,oboIIbe..-idodlD.
spociócsirttiDrlOÜ:lldooy_~-'pubficaIioolbn:l'"
bo~_IO""¡'_,a-.~or~""
""I'-..._..-iIIl*t..~T*"''''p¡._
~__"""""_ANDERSON AkCHI'rnCTSINC.......
prejIIdiœ.Viølol.....__......"""~_
_primo&cioo~of"""-..-..<#Obo_
~
Pinn Brothers Companies
1475 Saratoga Ave.
Suitc250
SlmJose,CA95129
-
Adobe Terrace
A Mixed Use Devdopment
2012& Stevms CrcekBlvd.
Cupertino,CA95072
~
21'-Ø-
FACE a= 0JR6
4#
;1
I
I
I
20'-0"
---,
,
,
,
,
,
---~
303'-0'
: I ~'.:g'<c.A"" -- - - __ _ _ -- -_
~..-----t-~-mir H ~ - -
I - ___ I -
~ 1 . ~-;--- --- -, . ~ T ,'-'I'==¡=
I I I I - --- --- --- ~ I'
--L. U ~ --- J I t L t ! r n ~ I I ,I ,i---.mt-~ 1 i
~---1-: ~:[ I~ _~'--'+b!;'T--~-¡:~! I"j-.-hr
___ :__ ~ ~r~~5;;.;~Æ" ;:1
~-~---------- '---1--- --T'k ~?' $~;/r ,.0í//% %¿<~~ .. ~:1
18'·Ø"_ 24'-0" 5~ I Y ---I -, .
I r- -.II
! I '
- I I I :
~, I I
ðllŒ.5TOR.16E I
'?
~
--
n
~
.
.
~I
31
,
,
r--.:J
, .
I ~.__
, .
,
, "
I _____
,
,
L__-./i1
[-:¿
-f 25':Q:"--,
~ ¡-------I
,
,
n r--"
- '
- - ,
.. :
~,
¡--::-..I
,
"
~
,
..
,
,
,
,
J(
"
ß
-
'?
º
- - ---
--- 1"16'-0"
'?
º
36'-4"
+---
6
A~.
--,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
A _
, "
, .
, -
,
,
,
,
':
I'
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
,
I,
L--
,
:
-
~,-
-
."'"
091!1104
07/OIJ04
IIW" '..o"
u
·
,
"
"
"
City Revisions
No. DeKripóon
, """""
2 PLANNINGSUBMlITAL
,
·
,
.
,
·
,..
-
-'"
~"
Sbeelnl<:
Garage Plan &
First Floor Plan
Client Revisions
~I~-·
I C!ieoJtRYiew
,
,
·
,
·
,
AAlseø~~)(
NÞSTUC;c::O~
511:1!~~
NC> mzvATION ~
......... !5
r-~-......._ .
~~
-'-
--
""","",,"woe
,
"
~
I T 1 _'·~_A
I ' 1'1' , """"........h.
I Ccn-1dcor,1æ........". ~~....Ft.
b P-.... ~
.................... ,~, .-..."
t- ~Œ~
l-eR .
_..P..... - . ,-eo,
t ~ J
I ""AI..
,
.,
~ - ~
x. - ~
J' ~. ~I",","""", ]II[!f --
~ rOEUJ4U(:"-
~__~. X
ST~ I
I
J:j
-..-.
l'GARAGE PlAN
D--.-rz:=1"L.Þ.H
z$
2:;
-~-~
\ L--"""""""""-'"
I'OIt.~YNfD~
....::.~
.".....
,
-
...~
w...-
~
H
6
:::6.
-.-................
!
,T:
.h
~
!
-
<::
--=.d . -- 1-
- <::
I ~f.
~-
==
=:>H
^~
!
"
I
~
I
,-T
,EI R.AHŒRO
o ~
ii!
16
~
01' ~
VI ~
- ~
J.~~
,~ (1
I
0-
o
o
h
"
$
if
I
iì
-'0-
I
iì
_1'16.,
A-2.0
- -
~ "~n
".
..
I'-Ø"
ø e' 1&'
w-_ .
SCALE: Il1h- "
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
'fl8" ~ NT
2
--
....~ ~:.~ . :;:::.--
~~~. ~:.=
_............
Th<...of_pIono_~_be""""""b1loo
opo<ificoile¡;,,-..,¡,,¡œ"""'.....___~__
be""""""'/ÎQ>iIod...oudt....._~...~b< <
","'-'¡"wIIoIcorÍD~íopouhiHlo<LTIIIe"''''JII-_
~__ANDERSONJtJl.CHJTECTSIHt._
~V-_.-_~,....-S~...
_prirK_eoidaoœoldoo~ol"'_
c_
Pinn Brothers Companies
1415 SanIIogaAY(:.
SIIÎIcZS(l
Sao Jose.CA 95129
-
ProF
Adobe Terrace
A MìxedUse Developm<nl
20128 Stevem CrcekBlvd.
CUpertino, CA 95012
Client Revisions
--
-
&
,
·
,
·
,
·
,
"
"
"
&,165.e&c¡.F\..
2~1""""'Ft.
1e#lØ1.l2&q..F\..
~
.
,
.
---............ .......--.
L"""9 ",",-" &YJro.,
~..!._et<>r
~--
,-,
NO.C1FlJ<IIT&,
,.-
,.-
L.08
,~~
----------
t
~---------~-------------
-------------
r -~~--
--
"
rf
ii
I
,I
I:
I
Ii
-
.",..
$'17~
IJ-IIJJIM
1116"'1'-0"
U
City Revisions
DesaipCiœ-
~-
l'1aru>intSobnlØol
-
-
-'"
Cbock<dÐy;
Sho<rT-oIec
o
::6,
SECOND flOOR PLAN
Second Floor Plan
. o· .. ". I g,.",¡t;o..:
. .-. . A-3.0
5CALE, !fl6" . 1'-0"
- -
FilE _A_I..
1I...&._.....,.,d4i-..cr;a . _B._.w.
""...,.,..., -
~_M . T........_1lM
Sl.bC~C\95U7D Far.408.'If6.) JZ
_............
u......øl_.....__¡__bo.-.-..'"
~,iII<lòrwhio:hlboy__"'-'_pobIi<mœlhcnd....
bo~6nûI<d"'sud:>__.'-'->~ar~by
ØJ' "'-'irlwhoJoŒ¡"J*'I.¡'~TIIà"'''_-.cI
~__ANDE:ItSOI'IARCtfI1'eC'TSINC._
~v_""""",,,-__p¡....J~_
_poiuot_..idoDceÐl1bo.............øl1bo-.
"""
Pinn Brothers Companies
1475s.&1ogaAve.
Suitr:250
San Jose, CA 9S129
-
Adobe Terrace
A Mixed Use Devel(l lJllelJt
2012SSU:VensCn:dr.Btvd.
Cupertîn<>, CA 95012
-
ClienlRevisions
~ - -
,
,
,
·
,
,
,
·
,
"
"
"
Cíty Revisions
- - -
,~ .-
, Fl.ANNINGSUBMrITAL 0'If11.v.
,
·
,
,
,
·
~< O1IO]JIM
- 1"""1'4"
-'" ~
CbId<odBy: AA
_rolo:
Unit Plans
-
~~~
---"--
A-4.0
- -
,~ l<>tr.Aðobo_
-iT
I '
, ,
.¡ í
_lJ
~
j~
}_ ._.___~___~._~'-f>.
t--~__.__J?'-Ð"
---T
~I
~I
~I
__.o('!! '-v_
------i
!
'A'I
r-1
~II, II
--~_---"'£----!
I
014_11 Sq_ FL
10833 Sq_ f'l
"'-- ----t
-~1 T
.' ]
r I
-t:
1.1
1-'1
~. ~
-:. I
" ,
I
(J
(J
-j
, .
, ,
~
~".Æ'
,
Plan-IC
Living .Ar<!:ð
BalcOl'1':j Area
1-----
i =j
i
~
]
òi
~ "I
-l.! I
~I ]
i
i
__.1 !
1..,
844-"'3 Sc:¡. Fl
- 120.86 Sq F
-
.o( ".'!! " .__
]1'~___
rr- '=----t- ~----
-,
[L
I-L
1.
G
(J
~'Ð"
Plan-IB
Living Ar<!:a
Sa Icon,::! Areð
j----
IT"--=î-Tl
~I
11
4]'_'!! "
G
G
~
~_._._-
t---',.
"
Plan-2C
LTvine Are5 914_61 5q. Fl
Bðlcon<:j Area· 302h'9 Sq
Plan-2B
Living Areð '914.83 Sq. Ft.
Sðic.on':j Are<9: - i2833 Sq. F
914_61 SC - Fl
- 128,33 Sq. F=l.
Plan-2A
Liv;n9 Areð
Ba Icon':j Area
-n
;- i
- I
,_ \ I
._ " I
~ J ~
, I
"I I
-lJ
}-_.~'~-"~~
------------ - -~--!'..
t--------.l'I~t~---~',-~· -~-t
, --I .
,1
~ w I
L- J
, "
'-=.:
Plan-IA
Living Area ~ 604.83 sq. Fl.
Ba Ico!'!':j Area ~ 12825 Sq_ Fl
-""""1
I'
,I
---~
t
¡
--i- '=-t
-1----r
I
.,1
'"
-t
,
ì
I
~I
"I
I
i
L
m.
}!_':..3_
J?Ð'-ø'
~.::~- ------t·
~
]
~-----¡¡
II
-u
:0':)3 SC1_ Fl
- !2825 Sq Fl
Plan-3B
Lvinc¡ Area
Bð!cõn':j Area
Fe
fo.
10':3058 Sa_
148.86 Sq
Plan-3A
Living Area
Bð Icon!:! Areð
~~ ~~ . ~~~
~~~. J:.:':
_.~
..........of.......pIoasmd...........-oboIIbe....ncr..¡......
~..r..r_..,.._~....~__
be...,..,..JyJiJn.i!edto__. It-.~o<"'-"'br
lIIJt-.iII.....o<..pm,1s~r...."'Ihop-."'"
opcci_.-widlANPERSON....KCHlTEC'ISnc_
projÐdìœ.Vi>aà_..ìdt_pImoMII~'"
_p;.nofo<;oevìðonœoC<bo~of""-'
-
Pinn Brothers Company
1475 SaalogaAvc.
Suilc25Ð
San Jose, CA 95129
-
.,,~
-
Client Re...isions
'¥i. ""'--
.!... PlANW\NOSUBMl)TAL
,
,
·
,
·
,
·
,
..
"
"
-
Adobe Terrace
A Mixed U.., Developmeol
20121 SIeVmS CreekBJvd.
Cupertino.CA95072
NORTH ELEVATION
_-\'-0'
TopPlotll
Top plate'
""""M
TopOl
ELEVATION NOTES
l OLDWCJIIiiI...P~I!!L.&CI"'ÆJI1iRÃc:otTA"'&"TfLEWlRNoIDGt1K4T1.tUL.
2 6T1JCCOWI&.4foI)FNew"a'f'UIIT'E'.
~. &T~ AL!J'1JI'U1t)G1011t&AoÐ IØIÐCW.
-4. DOU!!ILEPA1EALIJ"INI1~
!I-. ACCENT TU
6-. QIi!CIlJGI.rT IIQOH J.WÐRAL6.
1.w::rooTfIIEU.I&~~.
lit. 1I.IOOO1\HXIW6lU..AfC;>~~~
~ 6'fU::;C;O~FOAMAC:CBfT6"af"u.IITI!:".
IÐ. \LIOODPOOfiI6T4tIIT0M4~TlllÐ.L.I!Io
n. e.4T&TCIE~
1'1. GOLOIIt.CANvA&~
13. DeCOI'tATI\/t!:I"ETALLIGWTFIXfUIIIII!
14. ðTUCCC coYEÆ'P FON1. COI'ItoIIa!
.,.. DE<::;ClRA,TM: I"ETAL I!J.AI...CONY
.. Arne;; \19fT (pANTED)
n. PEGOIUITI\/£I"ETAL.ÆNCEI!IEE~I"'LAH
IØ. DECOfU,TI\,.£4X 4 0!"ÐI6GUA1'E6
I!I. 4'-1JI' ~ I"'CIDU'1 l1l11-I 2' Ie\It!AL. LHE$. &" APARt.
1e. f'L.ANTÐII:!IOX AN::> &'NCCO nAS'IEØ
eeE l..AK;)ec..AFE PLAN6
-
..-
O9IJ1/OC
GImlIN
3i3'l""NI"
"
U
City Revisions
=Ä--
~~~
,
·
,
·
·
-
-
.DrIro¥nB)<'
~"
....r~
0+35"
-$-Top or RIÐC£
.
Exterior
Elevations
ShedNc>.'
A-5.0
- - -
Fí",D-J-"'lujocIa/~ ""~
~lEVATlON
3PfZ"-N,.
~~-~~~ . ~~--~
~~~. ~:.=
-~
",.,_M......pIoDs_~_lbe-'<lodlD...
II I<Cifi<rneftJr_..,.__prqwaI_~__
bea¡nodylimiledlo___~__"-~by
..,-.cI,Í!I_"'ÌDpOI't.¡"J'I"IoibiIIdT"'IO"~'"
~""""'",ilhANDEIt9Ot'IAJtCIßJ'ECTSINC."""
~VIsIIaI""""'__~_~_
__prioIIo.lioc;..__ot......,.,.,,-œof._
~
Pinn Brothers Company
1475 s-toga Ave.
""'".
SanJosc,CA951~
-
"",,.,
Client Revisions
1Jeo<:ripIîoD-
PLO.MllNGSUBMm¡\1
-
Adobe Terrace
AMixedUseI:.tevek>pmeM
20128 SteVcos Credo; Blvd.
cupcrtino,CA95072
-
~
,
,
,
·
,
·
·
·
"
,
I
1-
R"odge. +35'-'-- - ---
1
TopP!ate.+24'---.-......-·-.. -I--
Second L",,", 0 +H'~- - ~--
Top of Podium 0 H'-¥-- --
"""'.0
ELEVATION NOT'E5
L OLDu.JC::IRLDCONCIõIETEeI-.ENP~COTf.A""&"T1t...Eu.vRAlC:>a1N.A'fI.RAL
1. &"T\IC:COIIV5Al<ÐFN161-1 "a'F1LWI"Æ".
3.. &T~ALiI'1NI'1P00R6A1'Ð~
-4. pC:tJ!I ...I!:I"'AlEAUI'1MI'1UICXJIL
5>. ACCelf TILE..
6.\lRClUl:iHTIAON~
1. WOOD1REU...I6~~.
a. WOt;:I[)IWÐOW&lU..AlÐBfIUCE.~1I!III/II::IIIÞ
~ &1UÇ(:O~FOM'fAC.C:EH1&"a'Fu.mE".
~. WOOD DOC:IR STAIN TO HATa4 1'FIS..L1&
!leAY&TaEARI::H
o. COLOR c..wv.A& AILNIö
13. DECO'Ui11YE t"ET....... L.1CiHT FIXTI.FiE
14.. STUI:COCO"IIÐiEDFOAMCOI'ONIQ;:
IS.DECOI'tATI'o1!i1'ET......."""'-CON'T"
16. ATTIC \o'Ðlf (PAHTEO)
n. DEC£!lltAT1\1!1'eT.......FEHCEeI!E~FI....AN
IØ, C>eCOItATI'Y£.X.OPei~
19. .'-r J.EIGI-/T POOU11ft1..12"1E'ÆAL. L.I<E&... APIJRf.
2£1. ~ eox ACI S"T1JCCO PlLA&T1!M
... ~ FUNO
-
,,~
0!II!7..v4
.""~
3/)2"-1'-<)"
oY
~
_Noe
A-5.l
- -
F;Io;J)-J_Pr<Ij<dsI~"'J ~_
City Revisions
No. IJesa'¢œ
--
J ~iDlSUbø_
,
·
,
·
,
.
-
-
-'"
~."
--
Exterior
Elevations
"".....
WEST ElEVATION
~
1:....cL__4.d..-cøn . _B._AlA
~-~ -
1l101Sora11op-~1Id. . T....-.-M6.Uø
SUleCSonllDg;>.CA95WO ~--
_.~
Tbe_o(....pImo_~.....I~~101IIo
spOCifoc.;æfor_"""'......pr..,-d..,~__
bo.~limÕlod...so.do"""-ROII5O,~.. IOII>ik>Iioaby
...,......-.....-..-iIIJ*t...,..,.,ibiRd.ydotoll>o,....
1 IOci___IlNOERSONIIlI.CHIJECl'SINC._
~VfiuaI_wilh_p-MII~""
_pr¡.o&cioo~"'''''~_lhe~
~
Pinn Brothers Company
J415SanlopAve.
Suìte250
Sardose,CA9S129
-
Adobe Terrace
A Mixed Use Devek>pment
20J28 SIeYCÐS Creek Blvd.
Cu¡icrtino,CA95072
-
CliemRevisions
~ -- -
· I'LO/NINGSU!'JMITJAL ~~
,
;
·
·
,
·
·
"
"
"
City RtwisioI!S
~. -- -
· ~,- ..-
, ~ialSld>arittal 09I17~
;
·
,
·
·
- OII71I1M
~ Jl'Jr_]'..()"
-" "
~'" u
--
Exterior
Elevations
Sboetlioc
A-5.l
-
fOlo<P-J_p",;.a.I~ )oIeA_
I
-1-
RidgeO+35'-~-~--
RAN>CM ~-...
1
Top P!ate 0 +24'+--- - -.- -1-
Second LotveI 0 +14'-¥--- - ~
TO IofPodiumO+4'~-~
Grode 0 0
ELEVATION NOTES
lot.Ou.t:::llQLPCCHCfõIETEeL..ec>"TI!I'iR4carTA""S"TI!..£ILV
J. &1UCCC\LV~~"a'I"IU-IITE".
3.&T~¡II, J,J"1NI1pC)OR! ,,oIH;)~
.... DOISLE PAlE ALlI1ItU1IUtÐ01J,.
~. .oICCEHTTILE.
to.~~~
"1- aJOOO'I'NaJ,..I6~II!!fIIIOIIH".
.. Io\t:ICCIUÐOWSlU-AfCJI!!IRAœ.~~
!l stUCCO ~ FON1 ACCEHT8 "GW 1U-IfTE".
IØ. IæIOP pOC:Ifõit &TAH TO HATCW 11'õ!EU.1&
It eA""&TOIE~
t2. COLOIt CMoIVA& AIINIoG
1:5. CJI5CCIRATlVEI"ETALLICil-/TFIXIUIIII!!:
W. &'NCCO CC\IEJIiEP FOM1 c.oR\IJCE
5.DEC;(;:l!tATt\II!t-eTAL~
16-. ATTIC 'ÆHT (PANn;OJ
n. DEGOfIt4T1W r-eTAL ÆNCE 6EE ~ Fl.AN
1&. p£(;.C R4T1vE"X401"E1\1eG:U.o\11E&
¡g.4'.""l-El6 . Tf"OOU1I11TH2"~Lt.E&·Ø-J>PARr.
w. f'L-AI'o!ÆR eox AN:) &TUCCO F'tI..A&TER&
&a! J.MoC)6CN'E F'I...AN&
m'MAP
WEST ELEVATION
~
1:..""- ..£.....--oDII . Kwtl._'"
"'~ _.
~-~ ·IT....__~
5I*cSOriIIDp,a95lJ1O F.... -.44Um
_............
The...of_plms_"-;-"_bo~"
..,.clficsilrfør_....,.__~_puW__,¡",¡¡
bo~J_..._......Itæoe,~...~by
-r~.._...;".....Ì>~ T.øc.to1k,.,._
~__A.NDERSONARCIDTECTI;IHC-......
pn:jQdiœ.VÍIUIJ...-twilfl_p..._~""
_~ilcieeYidoooceof""'_""h_
-
Pinn Brothers Companies
1475 s-oga Ave.
SUÌle250
San Jose, CA. 95129
"-
Adobe Terrace
A M"IXOO Use Develop".....
20128 Sk'Vens CRdl Blvd.
Cupertirw,CA_950n
Stamp:
Client Revisions
~ - -
, PLANNlNGSUÐMI1TAl. W~
,
,
·
,
,
,
·
·
..
"
"
City Revisions
~. - -
, ~ ,,-
, p~_õaIJ ~,~
,
·
,
,
,
·
- ~-
- LW'ol'..(I"
-
-" OY
-
~" ~
_TóHeo
BUILDING
SECTIONS
_No.-
A-6.0
FíIeo V;-A~J2-30-03 IJub;Adubo
z z
0 0
" ,
~ g
.
RidgoO+3('-QJ------ = ___0-
T""PIø!..+24'--¥---- ---_
; ~- ~-
Seccnd'--'lO+W"llt-- -- - -
Fhl t.M 0 H'~ _...._AŒ
... 00
. --
-
~ SECTION B-B
Vt8"sl·""
z
0
"
~
------------ -- --.----------
j -
- -
- -
~ ~w ~w ~~ ~w ~~
-.,...... -..... ~w ~w ~~ ~w ~~
; ;
. . .--
_.*---
SECTION A-A
1118"~1'''''
-
-
~-
,
è
--
.
.
í
.
·
,
_!'.
;
·
;
·
r
·
·
.....
y""""'teO+u'--¥-----i-;
Seem<I t.....r 0 +14'~ ~t---- _;l
I
fntLewlOH'~_
..... ,
z
o
.
'M._"JL
I
·
i
·
]
·
;
¡
¡
J
¡
¡
·
·
·
,
t
j
·
I
¡
I
·
I
J
i
·
f
·
f
i
·
]
;
·
i
i
i
{
;
·
f
ì
·
i
i
i
j
·
i
·
~
~
¡,¡
'"
~
::Ë
Oii5
1:1::-;:
i¡J.~ ~
Z " .
00 "
- "
,. .r .
- = ~
rI'l =.s1lO
IX: ~ E~
~ <,g.
1:1:: .. "'_
t...... 1:)11111,.,
r-' Su;;:
O .. .'
,..; ... UN
"""" œ...on
,.,.. r.IJ O~
- 11')""'00
Z r- =~
.... .-
:z - 001-<
-
~
~w
«n.
Z«
_ 0 Z
1: m <I:
J Q .J
W Z a.
œ«
n.-'
~
r.IJ. (.? ~
,_, Z ~
- -..
.... ~ e
...0114 j~
~ ø..
_ "U
U ~ Be:>
O ~'~M
+ ~ ~
r.IJ. ~ I!~
rL1 g:¡ I.r. ~
~ E;~~
~ ~¡Æ~
~ u~~l
:> :'inl
..... ~ -r-"II
o ~;~j
~ ~;¡;;Ë
~ =E-o ¡!'=
E-4 ~~f~
I~
ENHANCED P A VlNG IN AREAS AROUND
PODIUM (TYP.)
P01TED PLANTS ACCENT ENTRIES (TYP.)
- LANDSCAPE SCREENING AT BASE OF
PODIUM (TYP.)
RAISED PLANTERS AND STUCCO
PILASTERS (TYP.)
STREET TREES PER CITY OF CUPERTINO
PYRUS CALLERYANA-24" BOX
SP ANlSH GLAZED CERAMIC TILES ON LOW
CURVED WALL WI TERRA corr A POTS
IN BANDS (TYP.)
ROWS OF PALMS AND HEDGES AT
SAL TILLO TILES
c
>
.J
m
RETAIL
SPACE
\I
'"
'"
It:
U
m
Z
'"
>
'"
I-
m
íJ íJ íJ
- ~ _.________r--
EXISITNG
WOOD, STUCCO & TILE BUILDING
ENTRY ARBOR
~OCKrnGBroCKPAVERS ~
AT ENTRY AND PARKING (TYP.)
SIDEWALK ALONG PROPERTY LINE
ROW OF EVERGREEN TREES ~
AT ENTRANCE TO GARAGE BELOW
ADOBE I1'
Cupertino, California
5' DIAMETER RAISED TILE
FOUNTAIN
ENTRY
POTTED PLANTS AT RETAIL SPACE (TYP.)
RADIAL TILED BANDS IN
PAVING (TYP.)
SEATING (TYP.)
z
z
"
·
D
D
·
,¡
·
"
z
>-
D
·
·
z
z
¡
DATE
7·16-04
REVIBIDNIi
9*16-04
10-15-D4
BCALE
16- = 1"0'
@
NDRTH
SHEET
L-P,
D<4
ITALIAN CYPRESSES AND
OLEANDERS AT ENDS OF
BUILDINGS (TYP.)
RAISED STUCCO PLANTERS
WI COLORED TILE ACCENTS
(TYP.)
RAISED GEOMETRIC TILED
FOUNTAIN - TWO TIERS
SEATING (TYP.)
STUCCO PILASTERS AT
COURTYARD CORNERS
11
o
c
o
.
o
c
o
d
t
~
.
"
<
j,
"
%
o
ê
~
/
"
,
~
00 c~
,~, ,,~
~ z.!
~ zE
:$ ., ~
....-
....
!êu
U ., i.
O "'~N
+ ~ ~
CI'J f;>i ~":
rJ:1 ~ ~J::
-< e~;
"'~.
~ !:.!~~
< ã~l¡
~ ~U
o ~ðS~1
~ ~ J ;1
~ Q¡.....
Eo- j~lí
i~
38
TG
5 s· romanzoffianum
15 G I Q.reæ Palm
8 ~
5G GI""Y
2
15G
Planted in each t
Fatsia"
."..,.-
T um"asmîooidc:s
. tar asmme
Tibouchina
urvilleana
Princess Flower
!I§ A=
Dwarf Japan~e Mapl
,r¡;---,;;,;"""- ....~-----_._.--~-
-4 5 Cu ressus ire 2 Nerium oleandc-
15 d, 15 G Italian Cypress 150 Pink Oleander
5 Ia' 4 Nerium oleander -isG) Cupressus sc:mpervÏrens
5G uo 15 G Pink: Oleander 15 G Italian Cypn:ss
3 ." ~PittosPOrum 'vari~'
15G I 5 G Variegated Pittosporum
~5G f ~anzofflallUm
J 5 G Queen Palm
~ i. 'Texanum'
5 G Glossy Privet
h-a--I Prunus calleryana 'Bradford'
J5G BradfordPear
ADOBE m
Cupertino, California
'"
1'01
::?1
O~
== N
~
._, _ N
- - "
Z = ~
'" "
_ N
r. r.r ~
rn 6dSOõ
N 4,)'''0
"""" ~ I:;:!,
~ <.fÞo
== (11=...
t....... OlIaI"I
~ °U"
O - .
,.; ~ û~
.... CI:I "",...
= ~~i
Z r- =.
Z ~J!;:
-
Q.,
>-
n:[!
~z
- -Z
~z«
:¡ <{ .J
W...JQ,
n:n.
n.
DATE
7-16-D4
REVISIDNS
9-17-04
10-15-04
SQUARE FOOT CALCULATIONS
IRRIGATION CALCULA TIONS-
~.(I2Od.of~I<rip1""""grMe
2,611"-r.ofOrip_BubblerIrrigoóoø",,podhll"pIonI¢r<
72
IG
4 S' romanzoffianum
1~4_~_ Bo~l§t~~~~__J
LlL LiRusb1mJ ¡. 'Texanum'
! 5 G Glossy Privet
,
EXISITNG
BUILDING
LTexwJlJm'
'"
3
24
4
2S"Box
~
D
~
m
Ii
W
W
a:
u
~
IØ
Z
W
>
W
I-
m
~
SCALE
6";; 1'-0"
@
NORTH
SHEET
L-P.
0'4
DUND t:DVaREi .f~8~T~NE:D F"RDM THIEi ~l~~,BeIlf]ower
Star Jasmme
SweetViolct
Trachelospennum jasminoides
Viola odornta
PLANTlN()CAl.ClIl.ATIONS;
7.6J7..f.of~.....00IViisIing"fgrwod.,.,...._ood_.
AJlpropo:se<I-..,.."'¡,.;.,.IowIODu>dctaIoo_.....zoœ.
u.....Ì>DO~londscopinsoo....,lobe=n<wro.
"Th<Ri<noprnposedtllof.-..oos!le.
7.6J7._f.of~lROoonois<iogor~co_.""""'....,tr=.
AII~.......lObolowlo___..........
""""""no"';<liftgJ~ooSÎle"'be_
nø.,i>nopro >Oll<Odhof......ooOÍll:.
;t
c
o
o
o
,
E
~
e
~
~
/
C
~~
C
o
I
J
·
t
·
t
·
¡
·
·
1
·
·
t
t
·
I
r
I
!
I
f
·
í
·
¡
I
i
·
J
,
·
;
I
¡
j
·
i
,
·
;
f
t
·
i
·
i
J
I
!
I
·
~
~
<I;t
z
z
w
·
D
D
<
,¡
~
w
Z
>-
D
~
·
z
z
¡
~
00 c;,;;
... !:i ~
"..
¡... ~ E
< ~
..1-
~;¡
- ~<.>
U õ
o ..J'~:::
+ ~i!:
rLl I:&I~~
rIJ. tl:1òI. :::
-< e~~
"'~.
E-4 !: =¿:;
-< Q:~'
~ ~ i~t
'" - .
o "",VJ._
~ ~..
~ ~;!
=1-..
¡...~W
!~I
rIJ
¡,,;¡
:.:
O~
=....
~ "
¡";¡'" "
z~ .
~
- "
¡o, of .
~ "
rIJ = sf
~ ~ E~
~ -( O!l.
= (OI~_
~ ClIØI.-:.
= u·
0- .
.. .'
~ 1.0 UN
CI:I S ~
= ~"'iõ'
Z ..... c!;
Z :!;~¡:
-
p.
>-
œz
«IJ[!
Zl-ZZ
~«-«
-I!JZ.J
...J-[Jo.
WœN ,
œœ
n.-
DATE:
7-16-04
REVISIONS
9-17-04
10-15-04
SCALE
1/16- '" 1"0'
@
NORTH
SHEET
L-P. ¡
C'4
+42'ðU~IL~
~
,.,o,V¡M6ß1!1!!
~"""
~ J
5I!!!!!~~~
-I"()!III.Ç<JIJItT'f'Nf.D~6N
~~;':"'''II
®BlIJ£:FLEX R1SER_
IiElGHT"'S HErDED
@5·"'au...POP-UP
"''''
DRIP REMDTE CDNTROL ASSEMBLY WI POP-UP
NOT TO SCAl[
!
,
~ d¡t
1 ~
:r'
,- W
~J
t -;:1
.d,l
~~ en
~ e¿
i ~
~
1___' . --,
I
SITE PL.AN z~
~ r Q)HEADFlUSHINT1H
FINISH GRADE Q)/WOTtIAti
b o F1NJSH GRNJE
0J.AroIAI. 11 @NUL.CH-<JY/1rJNAl
@1S"ftÐ( et.E16I'1't.E Q):rHIGHWATERlNGBA5IN
@1WU£XEU ïl1l @F1N1SHG/UIOt'
@HAAJ.EXT/lJPI£Et.L ®BtlBBlEII-<I"A8OVfFlNISHGRADf
~ @4'VPEkFORATEDABSPUISffC
- 5Ul?oIt'. FlIJ.TOBaOW
NOZZI£ WITH J/4" DrAM. DRAlN f!OCJ(
~ o PVCSCH 8ONlPI'U
@PK:STREETEU
@PVCFlÐf.NJPPUWTTH
--
""" @u_
POP·UP SPRAY HEAD FIRST ~V.EJ..B\jf'LJ..~AD
NOTTOSCALE NOTTOSCALE
-
---
I
I
i
I
!
i
I
i
~
>
I
íÌ
o
>
.J
m
\I
...
...
œ
u
íÌ
m
z
...
>
...
I-
m
íÌ
tv...-
o
o
o
......-
J
o
I
@RlClDPIK:/DfflP
WBEAOAPTOR
®BRlCK fO SUPPORT 80:
AS REQUIRED
0PLAsnc VALvE BOX-
INST~PAAALLELTO
tDGES '" ¡\.I)JACE:NT TO
PAY1NG \llHERE POSSIBlE.
@RIGIDPVC-t.IIN.36"
G)FU<ltSlt GRADE
@fRCl./ROIOTECONTROl
"..'"
Q)CANNI$1£fIFlLTER-
155 I.IESIi fllTR^T ON
Vi/FLUSH v......~
@PRESET ¡>R£SSUR£
REGULATOR
rËl~ ';@
"""'"
~
~
0~N UNf
@8/UO(TOSUPPORT
8OXAS,.fffJED
®RU BOTTOH OF /JO)( WI
roa>rHOAAINACIO{
@.-.
@5OI«JPVCNIPPI.£
@/IIASTJÇ¡.O.TM'.i
,
o PlAS1JC VAl.IIl' BOX.
INSTAU PAAAUH ro
fJJGESAAJJJAŒNrTO
PAVUtGWHE1!fFOSSlBl£
0,P\1t:HAJIYUIII£
®PVCIAJHIAt
@sæ-fOFJT1'IM;S
@FlNISHGANJE
@I/VfOJECt:WTROiVAo'-Vf"
REMDTE ceNTRaL VALVE
NOTTOSCALE
,
ADOBE
Cupertino, California
RRIGATION ZONE LEGEND
a DENOTES DRIP IRRIGATION ON PODIUM
1;,i:;;t~~ft1'1
-':-"''''~';;'<._>- LEVEL PLANTERS
~ DENOTES SPRAY lRRJGATION WI 6" POP-UP
SPRAY HEADS ON GRADE
ALL COMMON AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED ON ONE METER BY AN
AUTOMATED. UNDERGROUND SYSTEM WITH BACKFLOW
PREVENTION AND HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. DRIP lRRJGA TION AND
BUBBLER HEADS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY.
,
G
,-,
G
"
c
1
c
C
G
~
è
è
~
"
<3
~
i
i
;
!
¡
¡
,
i
i
f
·
!
¡
I
f
!
I
I
!
,
I
f
I
·
I
¡
¡
·
I
·
;
i
i
I
·
,
Í
·
,
¡
·
I
·
1
·
i
!
!
~
!
!)
,,!¡
Z~
-~
z..
Z E
:s~
..;¡
~~
~.~~
+ ~:!
¡;¡~¡:'
;;:¡ ;J-:
....~
U"'.
~ ,::= E!
~ :~I:oo. c
"'. "
U¡fJ~':¡
CC"::j!:a.
-< E .;
~,¡;E1
ðl~';
!of. .c:;....E
pI- u ":
Z" .~
'<'tð.i
-'NO.
~
rI1
~
E-<
<
-
U
o
rI1
rI1
<
E-<
<
~
o
:¡;
~
~
~
o
¡::z::
"'"><JZ.
~
---
-
P <.
fÞi.øp
"iµJ - lÞ+o\~
~,
-!!!L..
~
I
~
'o
-'
~
.
~,
..
'"
~
:;;
o:¡¡
=:iN
~
~.~ ::;::
Z ~ ~
en N
_ N
~ oJ' ~
rJ1 ê: as ¡;¡;;-
^' q,I --=
~ ... E:!..
~ .( 0 ~
== -:a_
t........ 1:)I)00f<'I
~ °U-
O - ~
=: -.:.
- ... ~IIO
IooI;of CIS... M
= ~~i
z !;:;::!.
Z -t )1-
-
=-
¡,
-.
3
:."
It
"
,..J N
10
Z
100
--
...JI-
...J«
W>
o::w
I-...J
W
DATE
9-17-04
REVISIDNS
~.
'\{T ~I
<I
-'
1:
/
,
-ç
-:~ .
<I
-.
,..
:·a~.·
..'.; ~ t·.-, :
. -
z
z
·
·
D
D
·
IÎ
·
·
r
~
D
·
·
Z
Z
¡
SCALE
3/8' = 1'-0'
SHEET
L-P.
c, .
PI
L~I?D8C 11'.0./ "8"
9-/6- @~ fl!,1'*.A-
/IKnL. -' ,. .. "f' ~
_.f- . .. ~
:56. : JItJ'!> ~
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUPERJINO
Community Development Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. 11
Agenda Date: November 16, 2004
Application: Z-2004-02, EA-2004-15
Applicant (s): Morey Nelsen of Nelsen Engineering
Property Location: 22570 San Juan Road
Application Summary:
Consider application No. Z-2004-02, EA-2004-15, Tiep Nguyen, 22570 SanJuan Road,
APN No. 342-18-020
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2004-15;
2. The rezoning application, file nurnber Z-2004-02
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:
Zoning:
RHS 1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula
RHS Rezone to RHS-21
Yes.
Yes, when rezoned.
Environmental Assessment:
Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission approved a tentative rnap for this property at its October 26,
2004 meeting. The tentative map created two parcels, and City Council approval is not
needed for a subdivision with four or fewer parcels. The rezoning is needed because
the property is currently zoned RHS, with no indication of rninimum parcel size. The
minirnurn parcel size is assigned at the time of subdivision, since it results frorn a slope
density analysis that determines the number of potential parcels for a piece of property.
{3-1
Application: 2-2004-02
Page 1
DISCUSSION:
The existing zoning designation of the property is Residential Hillside (RHS) and will
be rezoned to Residential Hillside with minimum lot size of 21,000 square feet (RHS-21).
The applicant has subrnitted a slope density calculation indicating that, based on the
average slope of the property, two parcels are perrnitted.
November 16, 2004
By way of background information, the larger lot located in the back is a flag lot with
access off of San Juan Road. In general flag lots are discouraged. However, it is
appropriate at this site due to the existing predorninate neighborhood pattern of flag
lots in the surrounding area. In addition, access is difficult to achieve off of Stevens
Canyon Road.
Several members of the public expressed concern about additional developrnent in the
hillsides. Staff explained that the potential for subdivision of this lot already exists in
the General Plan, so the rezoning and subdivision do not create unanticipated
development.
Enclosures:
Model Ordinance No. 1950
Planning Commission Resolution 6275
Tentative Map (information only)
Initial Study
Negative Declaration
Exhibit B - Zoning Map
Approved by:
-'
~¿
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Developrnent
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:planningl pdreportl eel z-1004-02
IJ-,)
ORDINANCE NO. 1950
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING OF A 1.31 ACRE PARCEL FROM
RHS (RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE) TO RHS-21 (RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE MINIMUM
LOT SIZE 21,000 SQUARE FEET)
WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application No. Z-2004-02) for the
rezoning of property fÌ'om RHS (Residential Hillside) to RHS-2l (Residential Hillside Minimum
Lot Size 21,000 square feet); and
WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City's general plan land use map,
proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and
WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A as a proposed
amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to
RHS-21(Residential Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet) ; and is made part ofthe
Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its
passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council ofthe City of Cupertino the 16th
day of November, 2004, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the day of , 2004, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the Citv Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
G:PlanninglordlOrdz200402
fJ -3
ZONING PLAT MAP
REZONE 1.80 ACRES
FROM RHS
TO RHS-21
54
S59'44'OO"E 31
ð
ø:=
~
~
(f)
(J1
N(,.¡
Nå
:I'" -!>-.
00
N.O,
fT1
\
--I
I
I
\
I
N40'00'00"E
260.20'
------ ------
------ ------
------1------------
------ ------
. ------ ------ --------
45
60
=
EXHIBIT A
)
~OO"W
373 s;--::.
C~ON- ROAD
8~N8
-
w
,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All of that certain property situate in Cupertino, California described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southwesterly corner of Parcel D as said parcel is shown on the
Record of Survey recorded in Book 190 of Maps at page 47 Santa Clara County
Records; thence North 98.79 feet; thence S75°06'13"E 98.45 feet; thence
N03°44'31"W 50.11 feet; thence N40000'OO''E 260.20 feet to a point in the centerline
of San Juan Road; thence S59°44'00"E 31.54 feet; thence S53°04'00"E 224.02 feet;
thence to a point on the centerline of Stevens Canyon Road; thence S53°17'00"W
313.84 feet; thence N85°54'00"W 214.41 feet to the point of BEGINNING.
Containing 1.80 acres more or less and lying with the limits of incorporation of the City
of Cupertino.
Vobslnguyenl/egal. doc
(J-)
Z-2004-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6275
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF A 1.80 ACRE PARCEL FROM RHS
(RESIDENTIAL HILlSIDE) TO RHS-21 (RESIDENTIAL HILlSIDE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE 21,000 SQUARE FEET)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2004-02 (EA-2004-15)
Morey Nelson
22570 San Juan Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the
following requirements:
1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new
zoning designation.
3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrirnental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
(3-1c
~-
PROJECT INFORMATION
IJJfNElI. ANJ).I.!'PLlCMfT:
TlEPNWYEN
1~ NORTH MA!!KET STREET
SAN JOSE, CÞ.UFQRNI.... 951
:>6C
---=.:.:..-=-...::--~ . ,."
::-=>::~:~~~~::
"-D_'
'k'O
-
'I'
"'N
/
~
,
I
" .
, .
~ ~
~ I
5
./œ
6NGlNZEk
t.CAAIUSE.NElSEN,R.C:L 20S97.EXP
NEl.S£NENGlN[ERt.'IG
2HI01STE\OENSCRŒI<6OULF.:VARD
CIIPERTlNO, CALWORNIA. 95014
1U.. (-406) 257-114~2 FAX, (40!!)
PlUJPERrr JJ1] R!:SS mD IoPH,
,',,"<>JUJOI
~
,--" ---i I
--~_O'"~./'''
'f.,( " ~ ../ -,
"~",_"-OPI: 'Î'--r----
"''''''COO_"AlTO'''
DRIVEWA Y DETAIL
SECT10N A-A
H' 1"=10'
V: '"=10'
.~
~~ I
",
'"
-
~
,
ì
z
w
>-
=>
<.:>
z
w-
o
(/)0<
O~Z
Zn:n:
::Sz2
~«:J
D-:J<
<",0
::!'
z -
W<O
>(/'J~
- f-
>-On:
¡:::"'W
ZU1<L
WN::J
>- NO
cg
.lIii
",..
...=:
1116
cffi
257-6!!Z1
HS-;¿IACRE
0' CONTOUR:
TCiPOGRAPHIC F1ElD SUR1/EY BY NELSEN ENGINEERING
--.-l
DETAIL A
DRY WEll
",","'"''''
~~~~
^,
~':~~~E~:~:1~,';,
.
,
(
l1'l'lLl7"ns:
IJ.ECTRlC AND G....S. P.G..I< E
WA!E:R, SAN JOSE WA"ŒR COI,jPI\NY
TELEP!jONE.S8C
ZONING:
SOURCZ
22S70SAN.A.lÞ.NROAD
CUPERTlNO,C.oJ..JFORNIA,
/l.PN34Z-1B-020
Pl/.fJ1'OSED NUJU EII øy .tors:
PRfJJ1tCT ARU: 57.257 SQ. FT.
(LOT 2)
j
L,
IF<l''''''~
.-l
fCRADING QUANTITIES
i CUT: 11.6'I'DS
i flLL: 34.1'I'DS.
I"PORT: 22.SYDS.
~'~'~"J'"
"",,~/.-:-=::.: ---
OF KRESGE
10438984
I;
,
! ". ",";'
~~
SrtvtNSê:~ON_
-~
,..,..
~
1
,
~~:.:r~:.o5"~
Po- -~ .'
v'a-- ..
,-
~
~
,L._--/
-
""
PROFILE
CENTERUNE OF NEW DRIVEWAY
H: 1~=20'
V: 1fl=10'
""""''''''''''''''''.''''''WTI.",,-,
..r<toc,.,,, """ G[D;;,:::r~t':.~~~
....,.'..."'..'m.'D.E..''''"'SUL'...TS,
.><0.£<1"11","-'0."".....,>004
~~.
-----=' -
AREASUW.W.ARY
"" ""
",,, Z1,304S0.rr.{O.49M:)
,~, 31,5SIISQ.Fl:.(O.7ZAC)NEf
3S,953 SQ. rr. (O.83AC) GROSS
-....
20'
O<W'''Œ:lc.-.:
--_""'",c.-.:o.-"",",or""
X -...ttm""""""-",,,
~ :!~~'",~""".
._._ DI.""''''''''''''-
t
LEGEND
!I
SCALE:
MAP
SITE
VICINITY
~
''''-
- .¡>;
\...J¡p
1,1
I-
CUPEIQ1NO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
taffe~~rì¡ý .
EA File No.
ase File No.
ttachments
Project Title: Tiep Nquven
Project Location: 22570 San Juan Road
Project Description: Rezoninq of a 1.31 acre parcel from RHS (Residential Hillside) to
RHS-21 (Residential Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21.000 square feet)
Environmental Setting:
The proiect site is located in a residential neiqhborhood surrounded bv similar
residential uses
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - 1.31 Building Coverage - N.A. % Exist. Building - N.A.
Proposed Bldg. - N.A. s.f. Zone - RHS G.P. Designation - Residential Verv Low Yo Acre
SID
Assessor's Parcel No. - 342
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
18 - 020
Y. Acre SloDe Densitv Formula
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms
Total s.f.
Price
Unit Type 1
Unit Type 2
Unit Type 3
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
Slevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
o
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - N.A.
Employees/Shift - _Parking Required
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area -
s.f. FAR - NA
Parking Provided
Max.
YES
iii
NO 0
/3-1
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 District
4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union Hi9h School District
5. Environmenlal Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 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 Clara Valley Water Dislrict
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 Documents 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 Dep!. List Substances Site
20. Public Works Dep!.
21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES
22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar
23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics
24. Adjacent Cilies' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the malerials listed therein to complete, the checklist
informalion in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cile other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next 10 the question 10 which they relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any queslions. you must attach a sheel explaining lhe
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 paoe.
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 applicable)
BE SURE YOUR INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTAL
IS COMPLETE" INCOMPLETE MATERIALS
MAY CAUSE PROCESSING DELAY
1'3-//J
E.Vf..LUf..l10N OF E.NVIRONMENTf..L IMPACTS:
---- - - ---- -_..- I
>.- 0 ",- I
- '" f:ë 1::.. caæ_
-"'- '" '" 0 '" -
.!! CJ u .J:: u.c.- ... ..c::...... ...
ISSUES: -r;:::! 1-1,þ:_ñ1o I-r;::'" o '" I
'" .- 1/)'-'3: ClC. 1/)'_ C. zc.
I [and Supporting Information Sources] GI '" E CI) c .- "- I/) s:: E E I
Õ .21- GlCI =0 GI CI_
...J .- :=... I
0..1/) I/) s:: ...JI/)
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ,
D D D 0
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D D 0
I including, but not limited to, trees, rock
I outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,441
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D D 0
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? [1,17,19,44]
d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D D 0
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
,
III. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
I 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
I 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 D D D 0
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 D D D 0 I
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23] !
c) Involve other changes in the existing D D D 0
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5.7,39]
--........-.-- ----..--...---........-.-.....-
1'3-11
----- -- ~-,_._. -- ~~-_._,.,-
,
, »... 0 c'"
I -c C'E c:¡:¡ c
! -(13" IV (13 0 (13 IV (13" ..
.! 0 0 .f:o.c·-" .cOO 0
¡ISSUES: ...¡¡:: ~ 1-¡¡::..1üo I- .- nI o nI
c._ CI)'-'¡i Cle. fI) ~ Co ze.
[and Supporting Information Sources) c c: E ",I: ._a.. CI) c: E E
õ.~- epen :t::O ep .~-
I 11.1/) ..J'- ::!: 0 ..JI/)
I I/) .E
I
I ,
1111. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the I
i
significance criteria established by the I
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
! the project:
!
I a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 0
, the applicable air quality plan? [5.37,42,44]
b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 0 I
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5.37,42,44]
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 0
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
I standard (including releasing emissions
I which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? [4.37,44]
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 0 I
pollutant concentrations? [4.37,44]
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 0
substantial number of people? [4.37,44]
I IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would I
I .
i the proJect: ,
I
I a) Have a substantial adverse effect. either 0 0 0 0
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, i
sensitive, or special status species in local or I
. regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by I
,
i
I the California Department of Fish and Game I
I or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? !
I [5,10.27,44] - ~
I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 0 I
I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural I
I community identified in local or regional i
!
I plans, policies, regulations or by the i
I California Department of Fish and Game or I
i
i US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10.27,44] I
i
,
I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 0
I federéllly'prote<:t~d we~andsél!5sJ~fine~ by . ....._"."'--,.,..- .__._~_..,-"'''-''" ---. .................
/7-1 :2
I~ -.-,.- ~._----_._--- ~- . .
! »- c.... 0 c-
-c c c:¡:¡ c
! -IV- IØ IV 0 IV 1Ø1V" -
.~ 0 0 "cU"t:I_"- ~oU 0
! ISSUES: -I;: ~ t-.-..1U 0 1-1;:'" o '"
C ._ C/):!::'i CIa. C/)'- a. za.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E f/) s::: .-... C/) C E E
Õ .2'- G)tD =:0 Q) .2'-
....1.- :¡;; u
D..m m .5 ....1m
i Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
I (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
I pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
I filling, hydrological interruption, or other
I means? [20,36,441 .
d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 Ii'! I
of any native resident or migratory fish or I
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 Ii'! 0
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 Ii'!
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat I
conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] I
Discussion:
Item E - Less than significant impact
The City's consultant arborist has prepared a tree report on the project site. Even though
the applicant is only proposing to remove two trees from the site, the report reviewed a total
of seven trees on the site that could be potentially impacted by driveways or building
activities. All of the trees evaluated (including the two proposed for removal) are not
protected specimens based on the City's Tree Ordinance. The 12" mulberry tree shall be
replaced by either one-36 inch boxed or tw-15 gallon specimen tree prior to recordation of
the final map. In the event that any of the reviewed trees are removed. the applicant is
required to replant them with specimen trees outlined in the project arborist report prepared
by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated March 3. 2004.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 Ii'!
! the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5.13,41]
¡ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 Ii'!
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5.13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 Ii'!
'.'. --...--,--- .
IJ-13
r--...--·-·-·-·----·
I ;..'" c'" 0 C'"
, -c: c: c:'- c:
i lGœ 0; lGœ..
\, - œ" ..
.~ '" '" .e. (,) oJ::'- ... ,c",1.) I.)
: ISSUES: ... ¡¡:: ~ I-t;:....ñšo l-¡¡::tO o to
C ._ .. .- .¡ CI 0. ..'_ 0. zOo
I [and Supporting Information Sources] , !!cE tI) C .-... .. C E .§
0.5!'- Q)O) :!::o Q) .~-
! 11.1/) ..Jiñ :;;g ...II/)
i paleontological resource-or site or unique
i geologic feature? [5,13,41]
I
I d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 ø
I those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
[1,5]
l VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
i project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving: i
i i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ø I
I delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
I Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
i Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ø 0
[2,5,10,44] I
,
I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 ø
i liquefaction? [2,5,10,39.44]
,
I iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 ø
I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 ø 0
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 ø
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?
[2.5,10,391
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 ø
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 0 0 0 ø
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]
--- ----~
IJ-{ L(
"- -.- --
,
\ :.,- 0 c-
! - c C ë c:¡:; c
-CIS.... CIS CIS 0 CIS CIS CIS"" ....
I .! u u ~u.c·-~ .cuu u
! ISSUES: -"" 9 1-¡¡::....1âO 1-",,'" o '"
c ._ fI)'-';i CIa. fI)'- a. za.
I [and Supporting Information Sources] ( ) C E en C .-... fI) C E E
õ.~- Q)C) :t::O CD .2'-
, D..t/) ....100 ::¡;g ....It/)
i
I Discussion:
I
I The Geological Report has been prepared and submitted by Cleary Consultants, dated
June 11, 2004_ The project shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
I specific recommendations outlined in the report and the recommendations from the City's
Geolooical Consultant in his reDort dated August 10, 2004.
I VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS I
I
¡MATERIALS - Would the project:
I a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 ø
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 0 0 0 ø
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions i
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44]
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 ø
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, i
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile I
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 ø
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 ø
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? []
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ø
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 ø
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33.44] i
"""""""""""""""""""" " """" " -- -- _ ..a....____~
(J-/ J
;.,- 0 1:- !
I:'E I::¡:¡ ,
-I: I: I,
-III- œlll om œm.. ..
.!!! 0 0 .s:o"c·-"" ..coo 0
ISSUES: "'o¡::ë t-¡¡::~1ão I-o¡::'" o '"
c ._ 11)'-'3: tile. 11)'_ e. ze.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E en c .-... II) C E .§
õ.~- Q)t» ::!o Q) .2'-
11..1/) ..J'- :¡; 0 ..JI/) 1
I/) C !
h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ø
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]
I VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
I a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 0
¡ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
I b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 0
I supplies or interfere substantially with
. groundwater recharge such that there would
I be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
Iowering 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
I granted)? [20,36,42]
e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 0
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? [20,36,42] ,
I
,
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 0 I
quality? [20.36,37] I
,
g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood 0 0 0 0
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 100-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 0 i
I
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2.38] i
I
i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 0
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 0
mudflow? [2.36.38]
.. ---- - ...
/J-/ b
>0.... 0 c....
-I:: C ë 1:;:; I::
-ns"" ns ns 0 ns nsnst) ....
.!!! CJ CJ J:CJoC'-'" 'cCJ CJ
ISSUES: .... ¡¡: ~ 1-&;:...100 I-¡¡:IV o IV
C ._ CI)·-1~CJC. CI)'- c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q C E en C .- "- CI) C E E
õ.~- G.1 en :!:: 0 Q .21-
D..(f ...Jiij :;;g ...J(f
I IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
I the project:
I a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ø
community? [7,12,22,41] I
I
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 ø
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
I mitigating an environmental effect?
[1.7.8.16.17.18,44]
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ø
conservation plan or natural community
I conservation plan? [1.5,6,9,26]
I
I X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
I project:
I a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ø
I mineral resource that would be of value to
I the region and the residents of the state? I
1[5.10]
b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ø
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
,
I XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 ø
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 ø I
I
excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? [8.18,44] I
c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 ø
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
. [8.18]
'- ~.,..""",.",-".,,-".-
13-/7
--.-...-
»- 0 c-
-c c 1: c ~ c
- 1'1." IV 1'1. 0 1'1. IV 1'1." ..
.!!! u u J:u..s::·-~ .cuu u
ISSUES: -c;:: ~ ~t;::....ftio I- c;:: os o os
c ._ tn·-·- C)D. 1/)'- C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E I/) c ~.- "- I/) C E E
õ.~- Q)C) ~o Q) .~-
0.1/) ..Jii) ::æg ..JI/)
!
r Police protection? [33,44] 0 0 0 0 I
,
I Schools? [29.30,441 0 0 0 0
í
I Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] 0 0 0 0 i
,
, ,
I
I Other public facilities? [19,20,44] 0 0 0 0
XIV. RECREATION ..
a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 0
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
I [5,17.19,21.26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 0
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the !
environment? [5,44] I
XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC--
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is 0 0 0 0
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
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)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 0
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, 0 0 0 0
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 0 0 0 0
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? 0 0 0 0
[2.19,32,33,44]
'-'---- -.....-.-.-.-----... . ..____~_ L-__.._.. ........"'..__
( 7-/9
-~--,-,._-~ -.---- ----.------.- 1
,
, »- c _ 0 c-
i - ¡;; ¡;; c;;:; ¡;;
\ -m'" IUm 01'3 \13m... ... I
I .! u u .cu"c·-'" ..c u u u
i ISSUES: -.- 9 1-~...1ão I- .- 1"11 o 1"11 I
C~ II)'-'¡ Cle. en~C. ze.
I [and Supporting Information Sources] CII C E en C .-... II) C E .É I
õ.~- Q)CJ :::0 Q) .~-
0.. en -'ii) :;;g -'en
I f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? !
,
0 0 0 0 i
! [17,44] I
I
I ø
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
,
i ,
I
i XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-
i Would the project:
I a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ø
I requirements of the applicable Regional i
Water Quality Control Board? [5.22.28,36,44] I
0 0 0 0 I
b) Require or result in the construction of I
new water or wastewater treatment facilities I
or expansion of existing facilities, the I
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22.28,36]
c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 ø 0
I new storrn water drainage facilities or I
I expansion of existing facilities, the
I construction of which could cause significant
,
environmental effects? [5.22,28,36,44] ~
e) Result in a deterrnination by the 0 0 0
wastewater treatrnent provider which serves I
or rnay serve the project that it has adequate I
capacity to serve the project's projected I
I
demand in addition to the provider's existing i
commitments? [5,22.28.36,44] i
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 ø
perrnitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [40,46]
g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 ø
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? 0
-~--~~- -
I J- 1.0
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 0
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? D
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 0
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)?
D
I c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 0
I effects which will cause substantial adverse
,
i effects on human beings, either directly or
I indirectly? D
L..,__._
REP'A'ReR'S
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. ~~3 . ø---
Preparer's Signature ~ ~
/ L..- /
Print Preparer's ~e 63ARi e 1-/1I--ð
rJ-21
ENVIRONMENTAL EVÄLUAT10N(robeCompletedby eityßtaff)'~:::'000:::':::' 0 "" """1
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 I Water D Land Use I Planning
Materials Quality
D Mineral Resources D Noise D Population I Housing
D Public Services D Recreation D T ransportationfT raffic
D Utilities I Service D Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
[if 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 projec . nothing further is required.
<..
ER
rson
¡ 0 {IS/J-VO'l-
Date
{ ;-22--
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As provided by the Environmental Assessrnent 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 Novernber 16,
2004.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
EA-2004-15
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2004-02, TM-2004-06
Tiep Nguyen
22570 San Juan Road
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Rezoning of a 1.31-acre parcel frorn RHS (Residential Hillside) to RHS-21 (Residential
Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet).
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the
General Plan and there are no significant environmental irnpacts.
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community 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/negEA200415
11-)..1
EXHIBIT B
-.
vJ
\
I'-'
---c:::
I
7~'
.~.\~.
.~
¡>I-',.
F
CUPEIQ1NO
.
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Developrnent Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. Jj
AGENDA DATE Novernber 16, 2004
SUMMARY:
Confirm the status of the regular City Council meeting of December 21, or
schedule a rneeting between Decernber 15 and 22 for Architectural and Site
Review of the Valko "Rosebowl" project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council either:
1. Retain the regular City Council rneeting of December 21 or
2. Schedule a rneeting between Decernber 15 and 22
DISCUSSION:
On October 4, 2004, the City Council approved a use permit for 204 residential
units and 138,760 square feet of retail space for the Valko Fashion Park
"Rosebowl" site. A condition of approval required Architectural and Site
Approval of rnore detailed plans by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Valko Fashion Park property owners plan to schedule Planning Commission
review for Decernber 14, and request that the City Council schedule its review
before the end of December, since this project is critical in moving forward with
the cinemas. This timing would require either holding the regularly-scheduled
December 21 meeting or setting a special meeting.
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by:
;'
~
Stev PiaseckI
Director of Cornmunity Developrnent
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:planning/ pdreport/ cc/11-16-04
Printed on Recycled Paper
/4-1
(17:\ I
I,.~,.~
c~. I
.
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014~3255
(408) 777-3354
FAX (408) 777~3333
F
CUPEIQ1NO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM IS-
AGENDA DATE November 16.2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review of bids and award of contract for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks,
Project No. 2004-05, to JJR Construction, Inc., in the amount of $473,000.00, and approval of a
contingent amount of up to $27,000.00 for additional work that may be identified and approved
by the Director of Public Works, for a total of $500,000.00.
BACKGROUND
This is an annual maintenance project funded through the City's annual sidewalk, curb and gutter
maintenance budget. The project consists of removing and replacing concrete curbs, gutters and
sidewalks by a City-hired contractor. Since it will be more cost~effective to do so, the project
includes installing concrete wheelchair ramps at intersections presently lacking the ramps along
streets programmed by the City for pavement overlays.
The wheelchair ramps are required along the streets receiving the pavement overlays by Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), since the pavement overlays will constitute
significant alteration of the City right of way. The wheelchair ramps required for the
programmed overlays will cost $64,800.00, funded out of the Pavement Management Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) account. Also to be funded out of the Pavement Management CIP
account is permanent street pavement patching in the amount of $35,000.00, necessary to
complete the present reconstruction of curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
The following is a summary of bids received for the Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and
Sidewalks project:
Bidder
JJR Construction, Inc.
Sposeto Engineering
Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc.
Engineer's Estimate
Base Bid
$ 473,000.00
$ 489,555.00
$ 496,975.00
$ 506,800.00
The low bidder is JJR Construction, Inc. for the amount of $ 473,000.00.
estimate is $ 506,800.00.
The engineer's
Printed on Recycled Paper
/ )-(
FISCAL IMPACT
This action would require expenditure fÌ'om the approved Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter
Maintenance Budget Account No. 270-8403-7014 in the amount of $373,200.00, and additional
expenditures thereafter in amounts up to a total of $27,000.00 for any additional work identified
and approved by the Director of Public Works. This action also requires expenditure ITom the
approved CIP Pavement Management Account No. 270-9450-9300 in the amount of $99,800.00.
The approved total budget for all of these funds is $500,000.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council award the project contract for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and
Sidewalks, Project No. 2004-05, to JJR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $473,000.00, and
approve a contingent amount of up to $ 27,000.00 for additional work that may be identified and
approved by the Director of Public Works, for a total of $500,000.00.
~ ~ AU",,,,, bid"occivol,
fëIt.. Ralph A. Qua s, Jr. Kimberly Smith
Director of Public Works City Clerk
Approved for submission:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
()-;¿
I F
CUPEIQ1NO
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
Fax: (408) 777-3333
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Summary
AGENDA ITEM
liP
AGENDA DATE November 1. 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Adoption of Resolution No. 04- L/ t.f J... , approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the
requirement for sidewalk and streetlights, but not for curb and gutter, on Camino Vista Drive,
Dubon A venue and Prado Vista Drive, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, pursuant to Ordinance
No. 1925.
BACKGROUND
Over the last few years, several residential property owners and neighborhood residents have
voiced objections to the City Municipal Code requirement that City standard curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and streetlights be installed along street fÌ'ontages as a condition of residential building
permits. In general, these property owners felt that their neighborhoods are rural or semi-rural in
character and would be compromised if the normal concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, and
streetlight improvements were required.
On October 20, 2003, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1925, amending the City Municipal
Code by establishing criteria to be used to designate certain streets or neighborhoods 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
seven have been completed and approved.
Property owners along the fÌ'ontages of Camino Vista Drive, Dubon Avenue and Prado Vista
Drive, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, shown as Area 2 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, sidewalk, and curb and gutter 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. The typical curb, gutter, and
sidewalk requirements call for curb, gutter, and sidewalk to be installed along both sides of the
street. As required, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of the semi-rural
designation necessary to modify these requirements.
In terms of safety, the waiving of streetlight and sidewalk requirements would not contribute to
an unsafe condition for traffic, pedestrian travel, or security within this area.
Printed on Recycled Paper
I~- /
In tenns of safety, the waiving of streetlight and sidewalk requirements would not contribute to
an unsafe condition for traffic, pedestrian travel, or security within this area.
However, the Staff does not recommend approval of the request to waive curb and gutter
requirements within this neighborhood, since a certain amount of curb and gutter already exists
along these streets and adequate drainage cannot be achieved without the continuation of these
improvements. Because a number of residents throughout this neighborhood have already
constructed curbs and gutters to direct water away ftom their respective ftontages, neighboring
properties without these improvements may be subject to water ponding along their ftontages, a
condition that can be injurious to the pavement and hazardous to traffic.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-L/YJ-, approving a semi-rural
designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalk and streetlights, but not for curb and gutter,
on Camino Vista Drive, Dubon Avenue and Prado Vista Drive, south of Stevens Creek
Boulevard, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925.
Submitted by:
AMr:~.
Approved for submission to
the City Council:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
føIa- Ra p A. Qualls, Jr.
Director of Public Works
/ Ie -;¿
10016 .' ~ ~ ~, i ~ ~ ·
~I" . ~ [: ; ·
·
"'" ~, ·
_10007
~
o
....
'"
'"
I
o
o
o
~
-Ü
o
....J
'"
CO
CO
'"
'"
'"
CO
CO
'"
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
'"
~
CO
'"
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
STEVENS CREEK
-,
10110
'"
'"
g:
'"
10120
10130
10140
10131
10141
10150
0151
10164
10160
10161
10180
10190
10191
10206
10199
10212
10222
10223
10236
10237
a..
110231
"
10250
10256
\
'\. "~
/ ""--------
\<:fI-<>\
10264
/ ~
#
o
'"
'"
o
~
o
'"
'"
o
~
'"
CO
CO
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
....
CO
'"
'"
CO
CO
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
..
CO
'"
'"
'"
CO
"'"
'"''
106
,,,..
10011
"'''
." ~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~
- . . .
N N N N
N N N N
" 0
01
109
,
~
110 12
"'
112 111
J
1\)---.
'"
'"
CO
o
í ITTl
~-10116 ¡ 6 I
II ' 1 )
10121
: 10132 I
1 1«
1 10129 i~
! U)
1 10148 >
o
z
~
«
u
10112
I
I
10120
10157
10128
10159
10133
10167
10136
10145
10144
10169
10153
10177
10152
10161
10189
10168
!
"I
!
10171
10201
10170
10181
10180
10215
)
DUBON _ ) '-~"6
~"
, 70
~ \ 79.;>
~ "
" \
1022L_
......J
....J
:r:
I-
o
o
LL
10239
'"
~
1:1
~
~
'"
o
~
10251
'"
~
CO
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
o
CO
'"
'"
'"
~
fò
'"
CO
'"
'"
....
'"
'"
CO
'"
Area 2 ~
Pickler N
Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr
"0
;:>
"0
1017
101 0
10 5[
0270
0290
(
-3
10016 ~ ¡: i ;; i í. i ;
i ~ <C;
. ~ "
~', "- " ~ " ~ ~
"'" ,,'
"'"
"'" 106
~'" 10011
101
22670
^ ""- '00
~ Q ~ 0
" ~
. Q ~ Q 109
N N N
N N N "
0 0 ;110
113
112 111
on
CO
CO
'"
'"
a>
CO
CO
'"
'"
a>
'"
CO
'"
'"
a>
~
CO
'"
'"
a>
'"
CO
'"
'"
a>
on
CO
'"
'"
STEVENS CREEK
--
~ '"
10110 · -rJ¡ '"
'" a>
'" '" '" CO
g¡ fa s: J 0
'" o 0
10120 , 10112
10116 ,
I 101~1 / I
10130 I / 10120 10157
I 10132
I ,«
10140 ¡ 10129 I-' 10128 10159
10131 I en
10141 10148 >
10150 10133 0 10167
10136
Z
0151 10164 ~
10160 10161 10145 10144 10169
ð
1 10180
10
0 10153 10152 10177
-,0 10190 10191
!~ 10196 10189
10161 10168
IU 10206 10199
,0 10212 10171 10201
.....J 1 10170
10222 10223
...!
I 10231 10181 10180 10215
10236 10237 Ie.... "- )
\ DUBON ). 'O,e.
. (
10250 ,_or \. ",-....../'" _10227 ._.....J
r¡,G~ ....~/ .....J
10256 ~<J / ... '0 :r:
.Þ. \. 79~ 10239 I-'
/ ci '" ~ \
10264 / rf 0 X "ã> "'" 0
'" '" ~
'" '" '"
~ 0 0 0 '" 0
~ ~ ~ 0
~ 10251 LL
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
CO .... CO on ... '" '" ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" ;>
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0 a> CO .... CO on
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" CO on on on on on "
Area 2 ~
Pickler N
,,0 Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr
,
1017
101 0
10 5C
0270
0290
( (ç-'-(
10016 . ~ . i
;10027 ~ ~'" i, . ~ ! ~ ~
:,10017__ N ~ N «¡
"'" N
,~,
~
o
...
N
N
'"
.,
'"
N
N
'"
'"
'"
N
N
'"
'"
'"
N
N
'"
'"
'"
N
N
( ')
N
'"
N
N
'"
~
'"
N
N
'"'
".., 10.
,,,.. 10011
107
22670
'\ :108
~ . . 0
~ . 109
- ~ ~ .
N ,
N N N N
"
00 110
113
112 111 "
--,,-
STEVENS CREEK
10110
0>
!
CD
10120
10130
10140
10131
10141
10150
0151
10160
10161
o
o
o
i~
10
o
'-I
10190
10191
10206
10199
10223
10222
10236
Ie....
(
,,\.,~....-
..f!l.fj / '
/ ~
~
"
10237
10250
10256
10264
'"
'"
'"
N
12
'"
N
'"
'"
'"
N
'"
...
'"
N
10116
I..
I
I 10132
10148
10164
, 10180
10198
10212
l'023'
o
'"
N
o
~
, 0
, N
N
o
~
i I i I
, )
10121
I
'<C
~
U)
>
o
z
~
<C
Ü
J
1\)--
0> .
'"
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
N
'"
N
'"
10112
I
I
10120
10157
10129
10128
10159
10133
10138
10167
10145
10144
10169
10153
1 0177
10152
10161
10189
10168
10171
1 0201
1017D
10181
10180
10215
)
DUBON J:~eÐ
....... "
,~', .
\ '0,
"", 79~
~\ ...
~
'.
-- t022L__'::1
I
10239 I-
--'0
o
10251 ~
",
N
~
S
-
~
~
'"
~
'"
N
'"
'"
'"
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
'"
*'
~
'"
co
'"
'"
....
'"
'"
'"
'"
Area 2 ~
Pickler N
\~. Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Ave/ Camino Vista Dr
0'
1 12
'>0
;>
'>0
1017
101 0
10 5C
0270
0290
-5"
"'
.,
'"
'"
'"
"IV::'
,,,.. 106
=.. 10011
'"
="
. "" 108
~ ~ . 0
- æ . , $ 109
" æ "
" " " "
"
ö 0 L110
113
'" 111
1( ( ~7 10016 ~i ~ . . ¡ i ~ :;
~ $ .
.. ~ . III, .
~. N . N N N N
N N· N ~- N " N
',....1.0017 ,....
,~,
~
o
....
'"
'"
-.'.-j
o
o
o
i~
-<-)
o
1--1
en
'"
'"
'"
'"
en
'"
'"
'"
'"
en
~
'"
'"
'"
en
'"
'"
'"
'"
en
"'
'"
'"
'"
STEVENS CREEK
~_..-
10110
r '"'' j.; I
I ¡')
[I.··· 10121 ,I
10132
10129 'ï=:
en
>
o
z
~
«
<-)
10144
10169
'"
g¡
'"
J
,..,
'"
en
'"
o
10120
10112
/
I
10130
10120
10157
10140
10131
10128
10159
10141
10148
10150
10133
10136
10167
0151
10164
10145
10160
10161
, 10180
10177
10153
10152
10190
10191
10206
10196
10161
10168
10189
10199
10212 10171
10170
10201
10222
10223
-"1
l. 10231
10180
10215
10181
10236
10237
¡CL
\
\. .--
'---..,---
-I
----I
:r:
I-
o
o
u..:
)
DUBON, ). 70~86'
~7."
~. 079...
~
10239
___ 1022L
10250
10256
.
~f>\
\1:1>
10264
/
/ tf
~
~
'"
o
~
'"
~
. '"
, 0
, ~
o
'"
'"
o
~
10251
'"
.,
'"
'"
'"
....
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
"'
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
...
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
en
"'
'"
o
'"
'"
"'
"'
;>
~
'"
.,
"'
'"
....
"'
'"
'"
"'
Area 2 ~
Pickler N
,. Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr
'Ó
;:>
'>0
1017
101 0
. 10 5C
0270
0290
(.;
'"
10027 10016 ~ œ . i i ~ Œ
.
N
N . Nj N
:,10011 10006 N N N N N N
N
,~,
"'''
106
,,,..
10011
'"
22670
~
o
"-
OJ
OJ
A \
e
109
Ie ~
æ re
N N
~
~
N
~
N
on
CO
"'
OJ
OJ
en
~
"'
OJ
OJ
en
"'
"'
OJ
OJ
en
'"
"'
OJ
OJ
en
on
"'
OJ
OJ
en
OJ
"'
OJ
OJ
"
110
00
'113
112 111/'
STEVENS CREEK
--.~
r '"''' '"
10110 ~ '"
'" Fl en
'" !B "'
co ~J 0
CoO 0 . g
<XI
10120 10112
,
1 )
I. 10121
10130 I ! 10120 10157
I 10132
,«
10140 10129 ¡.......; 10128 10159
10131 C/)
10141 10148 >
10150 10133 0 10167
10136
Z
0151 10164 :2:
10160 10161 10145 10144 10169
«
b 10180 Ü
10153 10177
0 10190 10191 10152
,,0
~~. 10161 10189
10168
Ü 10206 10199
0 10212 10171 10201
,--1 10170
i 10222 10223
,
I 10231 10181 10180 10215
10236 10237 Ie.... '- )
-..- DUBON ) 707ð.
\
" (J ..... 1 0227'~ _,:--1
10250 \. ~ '. --1
~'ó" '--..--" "'---/ "
10256 ,,0 "\ 70 I
/ ~ '\ 79<
/ 10239 I-
10264 // # 0 ¡¡¡ OJ 3 \. \\ 0
'" ~
.OJ OJ Of
~ 0 0 0 Of 0
0
~ ~ ~ ~ lL.
10251
'"
CO
"'
OJ
'"
on
"'
OJ
CO)
"-
"'
OJ
'"
"'
"'
OJ
'"
CO)
"'
'"
CO)
...
"'
OJ
'"
OJ
"'
CO)
~
"'
'"
'"
en
on
'"
o
"'
'"
on
on
","
f<j
'"
IX)
on
'"
"-
on
'"
"'
on
Area 2 ~
Pickler N
Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr
01
"'0
\>
'Ó
1017
101 0
10 5C
0270
0290
'-I
10016 . ¡; ~ ~ i t .
~ i ~ . .
~ N ~
100G6 N 0' " N
,~,
"lUtl
22666 106
U~ 10011
'"
22670
, \ ;108
, ~ ~ ~ ~
e æ ~ æ 109
« æ
« « N «
0 0 110
113
112 111
~
o
....
'"
'"
co
CO
CO
'"
'"
'"
CO
CO
'"
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
'"
~
CO
'"
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
'"
'"
CO
CO
'"
'"
STEVENS CREEK
--,..-
~- "Til '"
10110 '"
'" '"
'" CO
'" en , s: J 0
CD ,
Co> o , 0
III
10120 , 10112
10116 I
I _In) I
i
10130 I 10121 ! I 10120 10157
I 10132
I 1«
10140 I 10129 t-' 10159
10131 I CJ) 10128
10141 10148 >
10150 10133 0 10167
10136
Z
0151 10164 ~
10160 10161 10145 10144 10169
«
b 10180 Ü
0 10153 10152 10177
MO 10190 10191
J~ 10196 10189
10161 10168
Ü 10206 10199
0 10212 10171 10201
,-I 10170
I 10222 10223
-------I
l10231 10181 10180 I 10215
10236 10237 /0..: ) I
( DUBON ) 70,-
__. is'6'
10250 ." "r-' ___ ,...n10227'
~¡fl.<;'~ -~ "
/ ""----- "
10256 ' \'0
þ. \ 79.. ",
/ ~ '" ~ '- 10239
10264 , ~ ¡¡¡ ~ ! "A> ,
~ '" '" '" ,
0 0 0 '"
'" ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 10251
'" '" '" '" '" '" '"
CO CO CO ... '" N ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" .;>
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0 '" CO .... CO CO
'" '" N N '" N CO CO CO CO CO CO fd
Area 2 ~
Pickler N
,.,. Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr
.
--l
--l
I
I-
o
o
u..
"0
1017
101 0
0270
0290
-j/
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-442
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A SEMI-RURAL DESIGNATION FOR CAMINO VISTA DRIVE, DUB ON
AVENUE AND PRADO VISTA AVENUE.
WHEREAS, property owners along the ftontages of Camino Vista Drive, Dubon Avenue
and Prado Vista Avenue 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 curb and
gutter, sidewalk, and streetlight requirements for these streets. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby approves a
semi-rural designation with respect to sidewalk and streetlights, but not with respect to curb and
gutter, for Camino Vista Drive, Dubon Avenue and Prado Vista Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th 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
1& -1
\
/~~
____=-J
íì
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
Fax: (408) 777-3333
F
CUPEIQ1NO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Summary
AGENDA ITEM
n
AGENDA DATE November 16. 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Adoption of Resolution No. 04- '-'11./3 , approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the
requirement for streetlights and sidewalk on Randy Lane and Larry Way, pursuant to Ordinance
No. 1925.
BACKGROUND
Over the last few years, several residential property owners and neighborhood residents have
voiced objections to the City Municipal Code requirement that City standard curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and streetlights be installed along street ftontages as a condition of residential building
permits. In general, these property owners felt that their neighborhoods are rural or semi-rural in
character and would be compromised if the normal concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, and
streetlight improvements were required.
On October 20, 2003, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1925, amending the City Municipal
Code by establishing criteria to be used to designate certain streets or neighborhoods 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
seven have been completed and approved.
Property owners along the ftontages of Randy Lane and Larry Way, shown as Area 5 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 and sidewalk 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. The typical sidewalk
requirements call for sidewalk to be installed along both sides of the street. As required, over 2/3
of the property owners have signed in support of the semi-rural designation necessary to modify
these requirements.
In terms of safety, the waiving of streetlight and sidewalk requirements would not contribute to
an unsafe condition for traffic, pedestrian travel, or security within this area.
Printed on Recycled Paper
(7-!
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-_, approving a semi-rural
designation to eliminate the requirement for streetlights and sidewalk on Randy Lane and Larry
Way pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925.
Submitted by:
~'~_'M'
r.. Ralph A. Qualls, Jr.
Director of Public Works
Approved for submission to
the City Council:
flY
David W. Knapp
City Manager
/7-)""
LUCILLE
10741 <.
10741 10740 10740 ~
-13
113-120
10727 10726 10727 10726 "
"
N
"
N
10713 10712 10713 10712
105-112 9 -16
g
10699 10698 10699 10698 ~
~
77 17 -28
10685 10684 10685 10684 -130
~ ~
'\' q
10671 10670 10671 10670 73 ;;; ~
~
-76
:f ~
'?
10657 10656 10657 10656
N .,. 46 -56 ~ ~
..,. "i' ~ '"
~ ~
10642 10643 10642 ~ ~
10643
>-
10626 10629 0 10628
10629 Z
;:2
10615 10618 10615 10614
10614
10601 10600 'Ì?,.
10601 10600 i>. '&
~ ~ :g
N ~ ~
¡¡ ¡¡
10586 10587 10586 CEDÄR TREE
10587
10573 10572 10573 10572 10575 10574 10573 10572
10571 10570 W
10557 10556 10555 W 10554 10553 10552
a:::
10557 10556 I--
W 71/.s¡,."
10541 10540 10541 10540 10545 C> 10544
Z ",q." 706'
~ '%>
10525 10524 10525 10524 10535 10522 bO,O,
,<:<
10511 10510 10511 10510 10515 10514 ~ ~ ~ M
'" ~ ~ g
" "
" " .~. "
N N '"
MÈRRIT - - Ll.J
a:::
15. \« I--
I-- AREA 5 ~
10451 (f) => 20046
~
t> ~ .....J
c; Randy Lane & Larry Way a.
N I
110462
N I
~ '" ¡:¡ ~ '" 7-3
" ro ~ ~
LUCILLE
10741 <.
10741 10740 10740 ~
-8
113-120
10727 10726 10727 10726 co
co
N
co
N
10713 i 10712 10713 10712
105-112 9 ·16
?i
10699 10698 10699 10698
¡;;
77 -28
10685 10684 10685 10684 -80 17
~ ~
'I' '1'
10671 10670 10671 10670 73 ;;; ~
~
-76
:f ~
"I
10657 10656 10657 10656
N ~ 46 -56 ~ ~
'" M N
~ ~
10643 10642 10643 10642 ~ ~
,
>-
10628 10629 0 10628
10629 Z
~ 11
10615 10618 10615 10614
10614
10601 10600 <2;,.
10601 10600 i>. 'ß-
"% ~ ¡g
~ ~ ~
¡;¡ ¡;¡
10586 10587 10586 CEDAR TREE
10587
10573 10572 10573 10572 10575 10574 10573 10572
10571 10570 W
10557 10556 10555 W 10554 10553 10552
10557 10556 a::::
I--
w 70,*<
10541 10540 10541 10540 10545 (9 10544
Z ,.$"> 70*<
~ ,
10525 10524 10525 10524 10535 10522 ,,,4'
0
10511 10510 10511 10510 10515 10514 M M M M
= ~ , ¡g "
0 co
co 'uj\, co
MÈRRlr' N N N
W
a::::
~ « I--
I-- AREA 5 ~ 120046
10451 (f) :::::>
~
" ~ ---!
> ~ 0 Randy Lane & Larry Way I
N N a...
N
~ ~ :;: ~ ~ '"
<> ~ ~
LUCILLE
10741 ..::::
10741 10740 1074Q ~
-8
113-120
10727 10726 10727 10726 '"
«:
'"
N
10713 10712 10713 10712
105-112 9 -16
"
10699 10696 10699 10698 ~
~
77 17 -28
10685 10664 10685 10664 -80
ro <0
"I' 'i'
10671 10670 10671 10670 73 õõ ~
ro
-76
:f <0
'?
10657 10656 10657 10656
N ~ 46 -56 ~ ~
'" M N
~ ~
10642 10643 10642 <0 ~
10643
>-
10628 10629 0 10628
10629 Z
~ 11
10615 10618 10615 10614
10614
10601 10600 'Ì7
10601 10600 1& 'ß-
t'J ~ ~
% 0 ~
¡.¡ ¡.¡
10586 10587 10566 CEDAR TREE
10587
10573 10572 10573 10572 10575 10574 10573 10572
10571 10570 W
10557 10556 10555 W 10554 10553
0::: 10552
10557 10556 I--
W 069-"
10541 10540 10541 10540 10545 0 10544
Z ,,,,~'" 70,5'
~ l{:>
10524 10535 10522 <Ii>
10525 10524 10525 0 ,,,,'0
10511 10510 10511 10510 10515 10514 M M M M
'" ., <0 "
5 '" 'LJ
, '" '"
MÈRRIT N N N
W
0:::
7J. \« I--
I-- AREA 5 :::2i:
10451 (f) .:J . 20046
.,
[> .,. ., --.J
'"
N c; Randy Lane & Larry Way a...
'" N
N
N 10462
~ ~ ~ ~ '"
" ro ~ ~ N
LUCILLE
10741 <.
10741 10740 10740 -
ç
-8
113-120
10727 10726 10727 10726 '"
'"
~
'"
~
10713 10712 10713 10712
105-112 9 -16
~
10699 10698 10699 10698 ....
m
77 -28
10685 10684 10685 10684 -80 17
ø ~
"/ q
10671 10670 10671 10670 73 ;;; m
-76 ø
::¡: ~
'?
10657 10656 10657 10656
~ ~ 46 -56 .... m
";- M ~
~ ....
10642 10643 10642 ~ ~
10643
>-
10628 10629 0 10628
10629 Z
~ 11
10615 10618 10615 10614
10614
10601 106110 ~
10601 106110 0- '&-
'% >Q ~ ~ ~
a
¡oj ¡oj
10586 10587 10586 CEDAR TREE
10587
10573 10572 10573 10572 10575 10574 10573 10572
10571 10570 W
10557 10556 10555 W 10554 10553
e::: 10552
10557 10556
r- !
w 706;<",
10541 10540 10541 10540 10545 0 10544
Z ,,,,q."> 70*
~ '"
10525 10524 10525 10524 10535 10522 b">">
0 ,<::;
10511 10510 10511 10510 10515 10514 M M M M
'" ø ¡g "
c; '"
'" ~ '"
MÈRRIT N N N
W
e:::
Li \« ~
~ AREA 5 ~ 20046
10451 (/) =>
ø
~ " '" ---!
> N c; Randy Lane & Larry Way a...
'" N
!=:'I
N 10462
.... :;: .... ~ "'
Ç> '" .... ~ N
LUCILLE
10740 10741 .::::
10741 10740 -
ç
-8
113-120
10727 10726 10727 10726 '"
g
'"
~
10713 10712 10713 10712
105-112 9 -16
..,.
~
10699 10698 10699 10698 ~
~
77 -28
10685 10684 10685 10684 -80 17
~ w
"1 q
10671 10670 10671 10670 73 ;;; ~
-76 ~
:f w
'?
10657 10656 10657 10656
N ..,. 46 -56 t:; ~
";- "1 N
~ ~
10643 10642 10643 10642 w ~
>-
10628 10629 0 10628
10629 Z
11
10615 10618 10615 10614
10614
10601 10600 <Ì}
10601 10600 i¡ '&
'% ¡<¡ is ~ ~
¡;¡ ¡;¡
10586 10587 10586 CEDAR TREE
10587
10573 10572 10573 10572 10575 10574 10573 10572
10571 10570 ill
10557 10556 10555 ill 10554 ' 10553
10557 10556 e::: 10552
I-
ill 706;0"
10541 10540 10541 10540 10545 0 10544
Z ,$'" ,
7<1t1 '
, ë? \' "
I
;~J 10524 10525 10524 10535 10522 b"''''
b ,1:1
10510 10511 10510 10515 10514 M M M M
'" go :g ;g
;; '" uj-- '"
MÈRRITJ N N N
ill
e:::
7S. \« l-
I- AREA 5 ~ 20046
10451 (f) :::>
~
> ~ 00 --I
;; Randy Lane & Larry Way
'" N a..
N
N 10462
~ ::;: 1::; ~ '"
'" 00 ~ ~
n
LUCILLE
10741 <.:::.
10741 10740 10740 ~
-8
113-120
10727 10726 10727 10726 '"
'"
N
'"
N
10713 10712 10713 10712
105-112 9 ·16
v
.,
10699 10698 10699 10698 ~
m
77 -28
10685 10684 10685 10684 -80 17
~ w
a¡> '"
10671 10670 10671 10670 73 ;0 m
~
-76
;;f w
'?
10657 10656 10657 10656
N ~ 46 -56 ~ m
'" M N
~ ~
10642 10643 10642 w ~
10643
>-
10628 10629 0 10628
10629 Z
(2 11
10615 10618 10615 10614
10614
10601 10600 ~
10601 10600 i>. 'Õ'
'19" [!¡ ~ ~ ~
0
¡¡ ¡¡
10586 10587 10586 CEDAR TREE
10587
10573 10572 10573 10572 10575 10574 10573 10572
10571 10570 W
10557 10556 10555 W 10554 10553 10552
a:::
10557 10556 I--
W 70"",<,
10541 10540 10541 10540 10545 (9 10544
Z ,$'" 06'
(2 lJ<,
10525 10524 10525 10524 10535 10522 <"",,,,
0 ,<:5
10511 10510 10511 10510 10515 10514 M M M M
'" ~ 8 ;g
0 '"
'" W '"
, N N N
MERRIT w
a:::
../5. \« .1--
I-- AREA 5 :::2: 20046
10451 (f) :::>
~
> ;g ~ ......J
i N 0 Randy Lane & Larry Way a...
'" N
.. N
N 10462
~ ~ :;: ~ ~ "'
Ç> ~ ~
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-443
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A SEMI-RURAL DESIGNA nON FOR RANDY LANE AND LARRY WAY
WHEREAS, property owners along the frontages of Randy Lane and Larry 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 sidewalk
and streetlight requirements for these streets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby approves a
semi-rural designation with respect to streetlights and sidewalk for Randy Lane and Larry Way.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th 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
[7-1
.
701
æ~~;
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
FAX: (408) 777-3366
.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CUPEIQ1NO
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. /q
Meeting Date: November 16,2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Adopt a resolution approving the use of archived facsimile signatures for payments ftom the
City's deposit account with Wells Fargo Bank.
BACKGROUND
The City's Municipal Code dictates procedural requirements for the disbursement of funds from
the City's General Checking account. Facsimile or mechanical signatures have long been
permitted for authorizing payments, with such signatures being integrated into the City's
accounting software for use in processing accounts payable and payroll checks. Two signatures
are required - that of the Mayor and the City Treasurer. As a matter of procedure, each
December staff obtains the signature authority of the newly selected Mayor, scans the signatures
into the accounting software, and submits new signature cards to the bank. At times, check
processing can be held up awaiting the new signature authority.
Anticipating the transition of the City's banking services to Wells Fargo Bank effective
December 1 ", staff is recommending a new procedure to ensure the continuity of payment
processing, and to simplify the change of signature authorities each year. A new form (attached)
has been devised for archiving all Counciimember signatures for the sole purpose of authorizing
fund disbursements from the City's General Checking account. In the attached resolution, the
City Treasurer is responsible for submitting the proper authorizing signatures to the bank, not
only for the current transition date, but at any time changes in signature authorities may occur.
In the future, the form will document each Councilmember's signature as soon as they take
office, and will be maintained in the Councilmember's personnel file.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached ordinance, providing for the use of
archived facsimile signatures for payments from the City's deposit account with Wells Fargo
Bank.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~fA:~ fòr
Director of Administrative Services
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
11-1
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-444
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES IN
RELATION TO A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH WELLS FARGO BANK
WHEREAS, this City has established or intends to establish one or more deposit
accounts with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and/or one or more of its affiliate
banks (each individually, "Bank") from which funds may be withdrawn by checks, drafts
or other orders for the payment of money (collectively, "Items"), which Bank may honor
and pay, including Items payable to cash or to the person or persons who sign or endorse
them;
WHEREAS, this City, for its own convenience, desires to utilize the facsimile,
computer-generated or logo signature(s) set forth in an appropriate format as prescribed
by the City Treasurer (each individually referred to hereinafter as a "Facsimile
Signature") in connection with Items drawn on this City's deposit accounts with the Bank
(collectively, the "Accounts");
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that this City requests, authorizes, and
directs Bank and Bank's affiliate and correspondent banks to cash, pay, or deposit, as
requested, all Items drawn on or made payable ftom the Accounts when bearing, or
appearing to bear, any of the Facsimile Signatures as submitted by the City Treasurer;
RESOL VED FURTHER, that this City requests, authorizes, and directs Bank and
Bank's affiliate and correspondent banks to honor, pay, and charge to the Accounts all
Items drawn on or made payable ftom the Accounts, including those Items made payable
to cash or the person or persons who sign them, when bearing, or appearing to bear, any
of the Facsimile Signatures, and that Bank is instructed to perform the actions described
above regardless of by what means the actual or apparent Facsimile Signature may have
been affixed if the signature on the Item in any way resembles any of the Facsimile
Signatures submitted by the City Treasurer;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that in consideration of the foregoing, this City agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless Bank and Bank's affiliate and correspondent banks
(collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") ftom and against any and all losses, liabilities,
damages, claims and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) which any of the
Indemnified Parties may suffer or incur by performing the actions specified in the above
resolutions, including but not limited to the payment of any Items bearing or appearing to
bear any of the Facsimile Signatures, even if such Facsimile Signature was affixed by
copying or otherwise counterfeiting it, or by the unauthorized use of a device that
generates the Facsimile Signature, and this City further agrees that Bank shall have no
responsibility or liability for performing such actions, except to the extent this City
suffers loss on account of Bank's gross negligence or willful misconduct;
/1-:Z
CITY F
CUPEIQ1NO
The following signature is obtained for the sole purpose of authorizing payments, transfers or
withdrawals of City moneys in payment of City obligations in conformity with Chapter 2.24.020
of the municipal code. This signature documentation will be maintained in the Councilmember's
personnel file.
Signature of Authorized Individuals
Bank Account: General Checking
Account Holder Name(s): City of Cupertino
Reporting SSN/TIN: 94-6027368
Sign in Center of Box
Name
Councilmember
Title
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on ,
20_, and attest that the signatures set above the name listed on this document are their
genuine signatures.
Attested to by:
City Clerk
19-Y
,
7~1
I'\~t
~j¡-.-'
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
FAX: (408) 777-3366
.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CUPEIQ1NO
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.;;¿ 0
Meeting Date: November 16, 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Consider amending the Municipal Code to add signature authorities on payments made by the
City.
BACKGROUND
Section 2.24.020 of the City's Municipal Code outlines procedural requirements for the
disbursement of funds. Currently, it states that checks (drawn on the City's General Checking
account) are to be signed by the Mayor and Treasurer. Because each check requires both
signatures, facsimile signatures are obtained and integrated into the accounting software for use
in processing accounts payable and payroll checks. Facsimile signature stamps are available for
the authorization of emergency manual checks.
Staff recommends that the signature authority provided in the Code be expanded to allow more
flexibility in emergency situations. Under current regulations, in an emergency where facsimile
signatures are not available, actual signatures would be needed and not necessarily available.
Additionally, in the event that the Mayor or Treasurer's position is vacant for any time or reason,
payments with either of these signatures would not be valid. This ordinance change would grant
signature authority to the Vice Mayor and/or Deputy Treasurer should they be needed to
complete a payment's processing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the municipal code to add the
Vice Mayor and/or Deputy Treasurer to the signature authority for City payments.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~0'~~. ~
Director of Administrative Services
5W
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
.20-/
ORDINANCE NO. 1951
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 2.24.020 OF THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SIGNATURE
AUTHORITIES ON PAYMENTS MADE BY THE CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Amendment
Section 2.24.020 is hereby amended as follows:
2.24.020 Payment Procedure.
The Treasurer shall payout all moneys owed by the City including obligations incurred by
improvement bonds thereof on certification of the Director of Administrative Services that such
are due and owing. All payments, transfers or withdrawals of City moneys shall be checks signed
by the Mayor and Treasurer. In the event that the Mayor or Treasurer is no longer available, then
the Vice-Mayor and/or Deputy Treasurer are authorized to sign in their place. A facsimile
signature ef-the Mayor and Treasllfer may be used.
2. Publication Clause
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certifY to the adoption of this ordinance,
and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be
entered in the Book of Ordinances ofthe Council of this City.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 16th
day of November 2004, and ENACTED 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
20-,)
ORDINANCE NO. 1952
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 2.04.030 OF THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE CITY
COUNCIL .REGULAR MEETING PLACE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Amendment
Section 2.04.030 of the City's Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows:
2.04.030
Place of Meetings.
The regular meetings shall convene in the Council Chamber, Cupertino Community Hall,
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. All other meetings unless changed in the written
notice of meeting or order of adjournment shall be held in the Council Chamber of the Cupertino
Community Hall, Cupertino, California.
2 Publication Clause
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption ofthis ordinance
and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be
entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council ofthis City.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this
16th of November 2004, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this _ day of 2004, by the following vote:
Vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Members ofthe City Council
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
21~1
·.0
'ii'\\ "'
,,,,,,1-
City Hall
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3223
FAX: (408) 777-3366
kirnberlys@cupertino,org
F
CUPEIQ1NO
.
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 2.L
Meeting Date: November 16, 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Consider amending the Cupertino Municipal Code to change the order of business at regular City
Council meetings.
BACKGROUND
To better serve the public, Council may wish to consider changing the order of business on the regular
agenda so that the Oral Communications section is moved to a later time in the meeting. The result
would be to give priority to those who come to speak on a scheduled item. Also, the more complex
issues would be handled by the City Council earlier in the meeting, when both speakers and Council
members are most ftesh.
The public is still encouraged to speak under Oral Communications, but since the Council is prohibited
by law from taking action on any matter not on the agenda, that public comments would be received
later in the evening after the scheduled business was completed.
The ordinance also would add a new section titled Agenda Items to be Added to the Consent Calendar.
This would give Council members the opportunity to quickly dispense with items that had been listed
on other parts of the agenda, but for which there are no public speakers and no need for an in-depth
staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council conduct the first reading of the attached ordinance that changes the
order of business at regular City Council meetings.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~. ~
Kimberly ~ .
City Clerk
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
.2;2.-1
ORDINANCE NO. 1953
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 2.08.090 OF THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE ORDER
OF BUSINESS FOR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Amendment
Section 2.09.090 of the City's Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows
2.08.090 Order of Business
A. The City Council of the city ordains that the order of business at each regular meeting
of the City Council shall be as follows:
1. Pledge of allegiance
2. Roll call
3. Ceremonial matters - presentations
4. Postponements
5. Written communications
6. Agenda items to be added to consent calendar
7. Agenda items to be removed ftom the consent calendar
8. Consent calendar
9. Public hearings
10. Unfinished business
11. New business
12. Ordinances
13. Oral communications
14. Staff reports
15. Council reports
16. Closed session
17. Adjournment
2. Publication Clause
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance,
and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be
entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
22-cJ..
November 16, ~004
Page 2 of2
Ordinance No. 1953
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 16th
day of November 2004, and ENACTED 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
2~ - J.
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
I
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ,;)3
AGENDA DATE November 16. 2004
SUBJECT:
Report regarding Poppy Way street improvements
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council ask Public
Works staff to monitor the conditions along
this section of Poppy Way for one year. If
actual use of the street warrants some
modifications, the options and costs can be
identified and considered along with other
capital improvements.
BACKGROUND:
During the November 1,2004, City Council
meeting, 13 residents ftom Poppy Way, Plum
Blossom Drive, Flower Court and Wildflower
Way spoke under "Oral Communications"
regarding the curb alignment and street width
along Poppy Way. The Council asked that the
staff provide some background information for
its next meeting.
Poppy Way 28 foot curb to curb street section
On July 7, 2003, the City Council approved a use permit, zoning change, tentative map and
environmental determination to demolish the 39 unit Saron Gardens Apartment complex and one
single-family home that was located close to Poppy Way and construct 55 detached small lot
single family units. The property is located between Rainbow Drive and Poppy Way just south
of a row oftri-plex and four-plex apartments that directly ftont Rainbow Drive. The current
project under construction by Taylor Woodrow Homes is named Murano. The Murano
development has about 200 feet offtontage on Poppy Way.
During the week preceding the November 1, 2004 City Council meeting, staff attended a
neighborhood meeting attended by most of the same residents who spoke at the November I,
2004 Council meeting. Staff explained the development review process and discussed the fact
that trees are typically identified during the review of projects and sometimes the public street
designs are determined when reviewing specific development projects.
;? 3-1
Report regarding Poppy Way street improvements
November 16, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The residents raised two primary concerns:
I) The curb alignment appears unsafe.
2) The alignment seems odd relative to the remainder ofthe street width on Poppy Way.
Safety
The street section removed the parking lane and retained the two travel lanes and one parking
lane on the west side of Poppy Way. The section is sufficient for two-way traffic and parking on
the west side of the street. The configuration meets all appropriate engineering standards for
sight distance and lane width. The stopping sight distance for motorists has been improved over
what it was when the board fence was in place, although at the residential speed limit of 25 mph,
the sight distance was probably sufficient with the fence in place. The street is almost exactly the
same width it has been since it was originally constructed. Staff is not aware of any traffic
incidents in this area. Raised bars .have been installed at the intersection of Poppy Way and
Wildflower Way, presumably to slow motorists using these streets to avoid the Rainbow
Drive/De Anza Boulevard signal. Some residents spoke to the fact that these streets are
sometimes used by non-residents to cut through to businesses on De Anza Boulevard.
The streets in the Oak Valley development were designed to the same standard with two travel
lanes, one parking lane and trees installed in planters to calm traffic. Similar to Poppy Way, staff
is not aware of any traffic incidents in Oak Valley due to the street cross section.
Poppy Way
Oak Valley Road
The ali2nment seems odd relative to the remainder of the street width on Poppv Wav
Neighbors expressed surprise that the curb alignment wouldn't necessarily follow the standard
alignment of 36 feet ftom curb to curb along the street. Staff pointed out that it is not unusual
that street designs are altered in conjunction with development projects. For instance, Oak
Valley was also approved with the internal streets designed at a 28-foot curb to curb width with
landscaped islands and parking on only one side of the street to retain more of a rural character
and discourage speeding. The Seven Springs Ranch development completely redesigned the
alignment of Rainbow Drive to discourage speeding and cut through traffic.
¿}3-¡}..
Report regarding Poppy Way street improvements
November 16, 2004
Page 3
The road width issue was raised during the public hearing process by resident Sui Kung. While
the street design issue was raised during the public hearings, the public discussion primarily
focused on the dislocation of the existing apartment residents in the Saron Gardens Apartment
development.
Tree Preservation
Large trees are considered part of the established visual and environmental fabric of a
neighborhood. They typically host local bird populations and can be major identifiers to local
residents, such as the Palm trees along Palm A venue. Tree reports are routinely required as part
of the environmental review and every attempt is made to ensure the project works around
existing large trees. The mitigated negative declaration on the Murano project specifically stated
that tree protection measures recommended in the arborists report will be included in the project
conditions.
"J
..~
Blaney Avenue
Typically, preservation of trees does not affect the
alignment or design of the street but occasionally it does.
Cupertino has several examples of lane reductions to save
trees on Rainbow Drive, Cupertino Road, Blaney Avenue
Price Avenue and Palm Avenue.
Cupertino Road
Palm Avenue
Price Avenue
¡;)]- 3
Report regarding Poppy Way street improvements
November 16, 2004
Page 4
Numerous trees were saved or relocated on the Murano development site. The four trees that
were preserved along Poppy Way include one 19 inch Coast Redwood, one 25 inch Digger Pine,
one 18 inch Canary Island Pine and one 17 inch Blue Cedar. The trunks of these trees are
approximately seven feet ftom the edge of sidewalk which approximates the outer edge of the
drip line as can be seen in the following photos. Even with this separation some of the surface
roots were severed when the sidewalk was installed.
Traffic Calminl!:
Occasionally the City has installed special
street standards to slow or "calm" traffic on
residential streets. Most notable is the
curvilinear alignment of Rainbow Drive
between Stelling Road and Bubb Road. This
configuration was designed in conjunction
with the Seven Springs project to address
through traffic and speeding. Also,
numerous neighborhoods have requested
speed humps which have been installed to
slow speeds.
~
.~
~;
The most recent example of designing the
street to accommodate pedestrians and discourage excessive speeding is directly in ftont ofthe
library on Torre Avenue at Town Center Lane. In this instance, the Council approved bumping
out the curb and installing special paving treatment.
Summary Recommendation
The residents have experienced the street design primarily during construction. Safety barricades
were typically in or along the curb area, which further constricted the travel lanes. Staff
recommends that the Council ask Public Works staff to monitor the conditions along this section
of Poppy Way for one year. If actual use of the street warrants some modifications, the options
and costs can be identified and considered along with other capital improvements.
;;; 3-'1
Report regarding Poppy Way street improvements
November 16, 2004
Page 5
Chan2Ïne: the street improvements to conform to the existine: 36 foot curb to curb
dimension
Public Works staff has estimated the cost of retrofitting the street to conform to the existing
street width. Attached are estimates of the probable costs to rebuild Poppy Way along the
development's ftontage at a 36-foot curb-to-curb width. The first scenario assumes a separated
sidewalk with a park strip along the development's ftontage, while the second assumes a
sidewalk adjacent to the curb. The major difference is the estimated loss of value to the resultant
single-family lots based on the amount of land needed for separated or adjacent sidewalk. The
costs for acquisition of right of way, removal of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk and
installation of new improvements range ftom approximately $300,000 to $500,000. Staff does
not recommend that the Council consider such expensive redesigns under the current budget
constraints.
~
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Enclosures:
Estimated Costs to Re- Align Poppy Way
Resident photos submitted at the November 1, 2004 Council meeting
;2 3:5
Estimated Costs to Re-align Poppy Dr.
11/512004
'Ojÿ ~
k CöìltlViIIûii
EnQI_rirvlo'ameoomap
e~ltt~rev!8ëdm~ )1IiIn$
Titlitéódrecording:ooats
08moCOrt)-andGuttéiatidSid8W8Ik
GnIding
PIac$ new CUI)'GOtt*' end s~8Ìk
R~è YUIItIÑ ~ watet
RêJòOat.ùtliílil!Ì.'~~
RØIOOât&UU!aí8øMdIy
Pavlng~ 1ncIUde:n6W'~¡ OffI1aül;'þaseriX:ka1dAO
Remove trees
Lendscápé PaiJ( Strip
Easement (308OSF II $2OISF)
Loss of valUe to lotS (Sq ~sge & DëSIrabIIity
SUbtotal
0_
Ri' ,Ii
T-.k
fng","~ ~Q $f'I' ~'m~p, ': , "
~,to:¡Jfoduce'reYlåedi'npróveméirtpl8rlS
TitIe'8nd~'~ '
De..
nòtlcoèn,:lf
Est WI.
Qeit'lo CUrþ and GuIIèr éód S\d$litllilk
GnIding
P/a:::iclntfWCurbGutter8tidSid8Walk
RèIaCat8 utilities -water
ReIOc8tO utilities ~ $èWeI'
R81c:iciit8utiliUei-dry
PBvi:Jg -InClude nt!NIsubgrade, off haJl, bUØrQckai'ld At
Remove Ir69$
/..and$csptJ Park striP
E._(176OSF G $2OOF)
Lou ØfvalUeto'k)t$ (Sq1öOtäQe& OØii'tibIJity)~
__
Ova"",""
1'5,~
5,~
61.eOo
'01
1.500 E"",_.~to'_"",
1,500 eng_toþlOduœ""..'ffll"'-....piar1<
150 TitlifandtëCOl'dï:igêœts'
~00ö ~."d:~pðn~Ct@"',GUüi;I'
"" GnIding
6,cpo ~I,~~ (
1;000 uØÍI~Jt.ì~
,600
.1;0Q0
15¡œo
T.... ~moy..
""""-" Po", Stnp
E_('J08IJSFO$2I>SF)
LoosO\vaIuoIoJottISq_&DeoJrøbIiy
S_
OV......
5.000
$.000
61,600
368,731
~.481
000
ToioI $4..,
T",
366,7,31
47B,081
.,000
$486 08'1
.
3,000
,
~"'d~concfettéui;b.i:fGU.{<"
GnIding
Iniltilll CòiiCi'et8 SideWalk
UtllltyRelocatìOh
_...
1;$00
;1.500
150
bI
, COdV..-
1.Soo
1.500
'50
""
TOIl!
208,~
;293¡3'16
,81XX)
S301318
6.000
1.000
600
1,(X)O
15,000
InIUII Aåpt\altCØf1CNtti (ir",I)eëp'Utt
15,000
5,Q09
35,m
Loosofvaluoto...(SqI<...&..........".¡....
~Ubtot8I
-
2Óà.,..
; ,2:79.71'6
8'000
r. 1217 718
--rhe loss of value based on setback and desirabililv will be less with a reduced ROW take as easement or in fee
d'3-c"
".. 't~
.-..,",,,,,,';:~'
, I"'" ".';1'
';' ;:~?;:.;
': "'\'i~,,,",;¡
~.~:;~~
I!
~,
I
\
L
i
,
i
"'-1
~
..
f
\.
n'
r
'f "
~
"'"'q"
. "., ~ '
~..,;,
.,;..:.,..;"'-,...,., .,......,...~.._...,~,'~
,~,-
;;;'3~7
I
al
SECOND STORY PROPORTION
MODELS
Front
Elevation
3D View
a4
SECOND STORY PROPORTION
MODELS
3D View
Bird's Eye View
as
SECOND STORY PROPORTION
MODELS
3D View
Bird's Eye View
a6
SECOND STORY PROPORTION
MODELS
a7
SECOND STORY PROPORTION
MODELS
SECOND STORY PROPORTION
MODELS
Increased Mass and Bulk
Mass and Bulk
Modest
£Xh(b +
Cc.- IIf/I,1 ¡d
Ik;1; ~ II
~/C, 1
Council authorized this amendment in
October 2003
- Scope of Work
txl%r f
Cc- u(,/oLI
\ A- --/...J.- (/
- \ c....e..Yv\ -f-\- ð
MCA-2003-02
Rl AMENDMENT
.
· January 2004 to October 2004
- 18 Planning Commission meetings/study
.
seSSIons
- Survey
Introduction of Planning Commission
Recommendation
.
2
MCA-2003-02
EXPECTED OUTCOME Toni
. -
· Receive Public Input
· Comment on Commission
Recommendation
· Comment on Additional Issues
· Continue Item to Future Council Hearing
3
MCA-2003-02
Rl PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Back ound
-
Recent Rl Amendments
Public Survey
·
2004 Plannin Commission
Recommendation 2004 PC Rec.
·
Major Topics
· 2nd Story Area
· 2nd Story Building Envelope
Additional Issues
·
4
BACKGROUND
1999 R1 AMENDMENT
Before 1999
JJMass and Bulk"
Limit single-story heights
- building envelope
.
IS
Review Process
· Design Review for 2-
story projects with a
total FAR over 35 %-
must meet Design
Guidelines
· Exception process
- Emphasize FAR max
45%
Limit 2nd story area
Soften 2nd story wall
mass
Reduce
5
BACKGROUND
R1 AMENDMENTS (2000, 2001
bldg envelope
2000, 2001 Amendments
lightwells,
.
Minor changes such as
adjustment
Enacted by City Council
2003 Amendment
- Minor changes such as setbacks on narrow lots,
garage setbacks
- Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
.
new reVIew process
City Council wanted more
.
reVIew process
ublic outreach on
.
6
BACKGROUND
PUBLIC SURVEY
Sun" - Ri
The: PIi..Ii1a. ComIlÚÞÍOJl is .revitwi.. tttt RI OnJilUÞl« _d w01Ild Iilit' )'l)ar input! PIeaK fill....
mil sun1!y...d iu.bœit it to Cu,'IJaJI 1»' n.nd.,..ApriI i5.200.&.t S p;lii. It you ban'ttlmmcnh
.bÒllt spmr.J('''ddÍòlí'''lìlc:~ "lilt the OHnmeet 1It(t~ at Ih( nut of tlk .an~,..
The Crtyh&s a :tOO1ft8 ordinoocc (nfem:d fØ t11i lhe RJ OrJimmce) thai: lìmÎu wbat ¡:Dß be btùlt tKI 5ÌngJc..
f4llUìly rC$idçnti~ prtJPÇTtj~, 1ft tit<: 1* (990'. Ç1tpC;rtiR(l R:'!'ildçøl5 \-oic.cd OOIICCmli .abQ4¡t I11c $i...c orne\\'
tW{1~~' ~ in thc;-çomml,luity. I. 1999, ~Cit)' ~fcd Ben SÇÇ(X1d-!!~ n:gullltïon~ ~'lId çre$çd iii
dcsJsn rc\'~' pmccIS.- The purpotC øtdac RI ~- a ÌQ cosun: that Dew cmlstruction be ~Iy
OOIJSiskmt ìn sc.&c und dc:sisn with ncighbQring homcf.. \\'\:'II as pro(ct1ting !he pri\'~-- ofncïghbon md
tVÜlf(llrçÍnS ~1Q\\·inœnsil)' !letting in Cupertino qh~s.
f'Iauor d Ut aMtM ViHlndf:
~¡:-~Ã;;'~";~4ïi«'~--- ,---- -,-+-_'
D11OOtoo\\1'IL'fioCupertírø.> o Rentf:1ìnCupcrútJtj
D lloowbuildCf or &I¡~r in Cupatìoo [J Oihi.>J: ~_'"'__~~~~__,
1.. H_'_J~_..\'I'~.Ik-e4laCuptort""!
Dli4 05-9 010-14 015+ LJI¡J"IW-I¡iw"'('_4~tI¡'~.
3. Pbwd.rdi...that.,~:
o I rcooll1ly lmiJllI~'" btotnc in Cupt:i1ifiL'
D] ~jlJy bu¡ltart oornli,)fi\ó:O (¡um... 'I1Cupcrtirlo
[J My lIJilitù1tt"rnltw hlioiJà' \\<II.t k. a l!O.ibli.: b;mt~ ut CJt~ HlIlI
D J am '!)BI!:tghbut l)f ~k!<mc \\00 fi'œmly bo,t!.. I)Ç\\' hl'l]'¡o;1 ('of &1.1'1',';' "'~. "I""; ,,,.,
UN~()(tbcllbo:.;\\!
Plt1.,.,,· pnit.... :,t.'drrtrcoct ad4reø bdow. Oftly.." WUI"\t<y pi'r-"'ukhoW ..w bt ...."''''!>It'l1
ifi'/prMtlJl4)H wi/! M Jrl~tfl} c<mMnttklf). ~~. _~__
UYMflì1'r.tllwtatdløØdet-.ran:hlttJd.pJc.ø.. ,nn·1dtr dw.cfto1t IÍØtI",~"""~lru.. ." [I.n.,· ...,.'
YfIU _tRII...:
Created by
Commission
Mailed to about
2,000 residents in
March 2004
·
·
.;,.,
..
pntj....:l.
...-.J.........,.'..¡..p....dtnlm
'~I'''">'n
·~",·",x~~"
h h·"",
L"~
f1MrAruJùd.tFJ !! MliN
The It] ON!lÌllOOt:: Wòl"~ "Fk". ,\ri'I! R>lu<,~" ,1')\1<; it' IDnlllbe....,...., {.Clk-..... "1I¡O!i<-f,>;,.
1m: FAR is II Ið.M ð{d:Ic 1....1 aJ'-"'I ,'¡jhc-buildl.D(1liucludiu¡:. ù":p:uag.:. ."r ..,,,l,d ,,~ ; "
"fthlt~.. Slue, ilömos.:&nlø'C" n..", .o\t\.>a RtttWùr4~<)"ñæIl.>UlJ M ~I""" I", "'.J'~
"ìht,\...d '"I::t. ti,íf;)O Jk. . (t lot TW'h:l,<'0 ~O( ,; <If St...... ffiv-ik'è) b....IK< Ü'I/I ¡-¡~'.. " i
thJ~ ¡¡~Rc\~,pt'OCt'~, ,,'W f'IIh¡'¡"'liitarmp: b:fOl\'lbo: Iki.lotn ¡w.,..... I "'c'." 'h"
CultllniSllìoH.
Placed in April 2004
Cupertino Scene
491 responses
Exhibit J - results
summary
Exhibit K - results of
particular subgroups
Exhibit L - S -
graphs/maps
·
·
..
'" AftYIMlf'A8Ülar-,.,tlh dtrdl~l'tIIt'ð ~"""1Iu1k _4et- IMnotMt4
..lII ....._Hlkuach.r-dl., p~'kMø cmUnultY1
LJ Yft~ 0 N.) [0] N,}\.suæ
7
BACKGROUND / PUBLIC SURVEY
UESTION 7: 2nd Stor
Keep 35%
< 35%
36-40%
41-50%
> 50%
400
300
200
Responses
100
o
8
ProDortion
BACKGROUND / PUBLIC SURVEY
UESTION 7: 2nd Sto
Support
Increase
Oppose
Increase
400
300
200
100
o
Responses
BACKGROUND / PUBLIC SURVEY
UESTION 14: Desi n Review
Is the public benefit worth the cost to the applicant?
Worth It
Not Worth It
0 100 200 300 400
Responses
9
10
BACKGROUND / PUBLIC SURVEY
UESTION 19: Com atibili
Should new construction be consistent with
existing neighborhoods?
Should Be
Should Not
Be
400
300
200
Responses
100
o
11
MCA-2003-02
Rl PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Back ound
--
- Recent R1 Amendments
- Public Survey
·
2004 Plannin Commission
Recommendation 2004 PC Rec.
·
Major Topics
· Second Story Area
· 2nd Story Building Envelope
Additional Issues
·
12
Rl ORDINANCE / 2004 PC REC.
2ND STORY AREA
13
Rl ORDINANCE/2004 PC REC.
2ND STORY BUILDING ENVELOPE
14
Rl ORDINANCE / 2004 PC REC.
REVIEW PROCESS
15
Rl ORDINANCE
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
2004 PC Rec.
- "Clean up" amendments to Chapter 14.16 and
19.80 to reflect 2004 PC Rec.
Rl Ordinance
Administrative
- Courtesy notice policy
- Fee amendment to reflect
.
.
FAR
- Variance to Exceed 45 %
- R1 Hillside Areas
- Specific or Vague Language
- 300' Noticing (Correction)
16
MCA-2003-02
CONCLUSION
Receive Public InDut
·
Comment on 2004 PC Rec.
Comment on Additional Issues
Authorize staff to prepare:
· Courtesy notice policy
· Fee amendment
. 1/ Clean up" amendments
Variance to Exceed 45 % FAR
Sensitivity in Hillside Areas
Removal of Specific Guideline Language
300' noticing
Hearin
to Future Council
Continue Item
·
·