Loading...
CC 12-07-04 · CUPEIQ1NO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 16, 2004 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre A venue, 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. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS Mayor James reordered the ceremonial matters as follows: · Mayor James presented a proclamation to u.S. Marine Corporal Jason Poole, who had been severely injured in a terrorist bombing in Iraq, and acknowledged his service, leadership, and heroism. 2. Mayor James presented a proclamation to Dr. Fred W. Schwertley for his years of service to the community, including past military service, participation in all positions and offices of the Cupertino Host Lions, and over 30 years of medical practice. 3. Mayor James presented a proclamation to PG&E representatives Darren Deffuer and Jerry Timiraos acknowledging the work done to restore electrical power to the City after a recent construction accident caused a major power outage. I. Mayor James presented a proclamation to Barry Del Buono of the Emergency Housing Consortium, in acknowledgement of Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. · Mayor James said that a proclamation had also been prepared designating November 15- 19 as Youth Appreciation Week recognizing the City's youth for their accomplishments and dedication. That proclamation is being presented in another meeting this evening. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None Mayor James reordered the agenda to hear item No. 18 next. )-( November 16,2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 NEW BUSINESS 18. Auction of Surplus Property-Oak Valley lots, APN Nos. 342-58-011, 342-59-002, and 342-59-013. (No documentation in packet). Public Works Director Ralph Qualls said that two bids had been received for Assessor's Parcel No. 342-59-013. He recommended that the City Council accept the bid ITom Mr. Mark Whitcomb in the amount of $1,200,000, which was the minimum acceptable bid and which is slightly below the appraised value. He also recommended that the Council reject the $850,000 bid received ITom Mr. Robert Adzich for either lot 13 or lot II. Council discussion followed regarding the appropriate time to sell the properties, whether another round of auctions should be tried or if the properties should be sold through an agent, and how the funds might be used. Lowenthal moved to approve the sale of Lot 13 to March Whitcomb for $1.200,000. Sandoval seconded for purposes of discussion, and offered a fiiendly amendment to the motion to put the revenue ITom the sale into a specific line item so it can be specifically addressed in budget discussions, instead of putting it into the general fund. Lowenthal said he would accept the amendment if Sandoval would agree to earmark it for discussion in the goals planning meeting, but not create a new account. The City Manager said that although there is not an immediate cash flow problem, the adopted budget relies upon the sale of surplus property in order to balance the budget. Sandoval rescinded her amendment. He said that there are three reasons to sell the property at this time: (l) There is some level of uncertainty about future market prices (2) The present value of money tends to exceed the future value of money; and (3) Money in hand produces interest. The motion to sell Lot 13 for $1,200,000 carried by the following vote: Council members James, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: Council members Kwok and Wang. Absent: None. POSTPONEMENTS Item No. 14, regarding the Vallco Mall "Rose Bowl" development, was pulled ITom the agenda at the request of the applicant. It will be placed on a future agenda. Item No. 16, regarding a semi-rural designation for Camino Vista Drive, Dubon Avenue, and Prado Vista Drive, was deferred to the meeting of December 7 at the request of some of the neighborhood residents. :l-;l November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Levy talked about problems in the new Community Hall including temperature control, lighting for the Council and the audience, and that the large view-screens in the audience would be more effectively used if they showed the television broadcast. Mayor James asked for patience ITom the audience as the many new features of the new meeting room were being refined. CONSENT CALENDAR Lowenthal/Wang moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of item Nos. 4 and 5 that were pulled for discussion. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 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) Alexander's 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) 4. Approve the minutes ITom the October 18 and November I City Council meetings. The City Clerk noted that the minutes of October 18, 2004, should be amended to include the following corrections: · Page 2, 5th paragraph, correct the name to read Edward (Ned) Britt · Page 4, 2nd paragraph, correct the title to read Parks and Recreation Director · Page 6, 3rd paragraph, correct grammatical error · Page 6, 5th paragraph, correct text to show that the Council initiates the process 2-3 November 16,2004 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to adopt the minutes of October 18, 2004, as corrected. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 5. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for October 29 and November 5, Resolution Nos. 04-437 and 04-438. Wang/James moved and seconded to adopt Resolutions No. 04-437 and 04-438, on the condition that the City Manager provide information in the form of a memorandum explaining the status of San Jose Water and PG&E bills on property that the City is renting out. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS II. Consider amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance), Application No.(s) MCA-2003-02, EA-2002-19, City of Cupertino, Citywide. (This item was continued ITom 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 (RI) of the Cupertino Municipal Code" Senior Planner Peter Gilli reviewed a slide show illustrating the proposed changes to the R-I ordinance, with emphasis on these items in which the staff recommendation differed ITom that of the Planning Commission: (\) A variance to exceed a 45% floor area ratio (FAR); (2) Adjusting the trigger point for increased regulation of hillside projects; (3) Replacing specific language with more general language in the guidelines section of the ordinance; (4) Retaining story poles to illustrate the size and height of new second stories; (5) And a reduction in many of the fees because of the elimination of some public hearings. He also showed slides of models that compared second-story proportions allowed under the existing ordinance and proposed ordinance. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive, spoke in favor of keeping the R-l ordinance intact and retaining the story poles requirement to show how second-story additions will look. She asked that the Council not allow second stories to be increased to 800 square feet, and not to eliminate second story setbacks. Jan Parcel asked Council to take into account the size of the lot so that there is no penalty for those who have a small house on a larger lot. Sesha spoke in favor of the proposed new R-I guidelines, and a floor area ration (FAR) because it gives more flexibility. He said that the current rules make it difficult for families with children to have decent-sized bedrooms on the second floor. c2-~ November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Larry Matteekins said that he had participated in the R-I amendment process in 1999, and he urged caution in making changes. He suggested that the Council take steps to insure that the discretionary review at the commission level keeps the spirit and intent of the original R-l ordinance, which may require consideration of commissioners' involvement in industry in case of a potential conflict. Mark Burns, representing the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, said they were in support of the proposed changes, which would allow homeowners much more flexibility in adding bedrooms and bathrooms upstairs. Barry Chang said that he was in favor of the proposed changes, and that a ratio of 35% is too limited for a useful second story. Lowenthal moved to approve only the following changes: (l) RHS change; (2) Process change to require more review; (3) More specific language as recommended by staff; and (4) Increase second story maximum ITom 35% to 42%. Kwok seconded for purposes of discussion. James offered a fiiendly amendment for a second-story maximum of 40%. Kwok seconded for purposes of discussion. Wang offered a fiiendly amendment for a second- story maximum of 45% with 5% allowed for high ceilings; there was no second for that amendment. Lowenthal, Kwok, and James rescinded their original motion and amendment. Lowenthal offered a substitute motion and Sandoval seconded to approve the staff recommendation regarding these items (l) Sensitivity to hillsides in the RHS zone; (2) The process change to require more review; and (3) Using the specific language in the guidelines. Motion carried unanimously. Kwok/Lowenthal moved and seconded to keep the requirement for story poles. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: Wang. Absent: None. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded that the second story maximum be set at 40%. After discussion, Wang offered a fiiendly amendment for a ratio of 45%, and Kwok seconded. The motion to establish a 45% maximum for second stories carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: Kwok and Wang. Absent: None. Staff was asked to bring a revised ordinance back to City Council that includes the RHS change, the process change, specific guideline language, story poles, and a maximum second story area of 45%. ;¿-S· November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 6 Mayor James reordered the agenda to discuss item No. 22 next. 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." Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to table the item, and the motion carried unanimously. RECESS City Council recessed from 9:48 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Consider Application No.(s) EXC-2004-15, U-2004-01, 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 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 Applicant Greg Pinn gave a brief history of the project and the uses that had been considered for this site, including a hotel. He said that 80% of the side yard setbacks exceed the minimum requirements. He said they are requesting two exceptions: To improve pedestrian and vehicle access, and to accommodate the garage for underground parking. He said they have worked with staff for over 16 months on 7 different designs and 3 different submittals. The applicants also met with the Concerned Citizens for Cupertino to discuss some project variations. He said the current proposal would bring in $25,000 in parks and recreation fees and provide 4 below-market-rate units. He said that all of the residential units would be rentals, and the retail use would probably be something like a dry cleaner or a hair salon. Curt Anderson, the project architect, explained the side yard exceptions in more detail. The Council members discussed the project and their concern with the amount of residential use at this particular site, which they felt might be better suited to a commercial use. )-~ November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Greg Pinn explained the limitations on the site because of the long-term, very high lease rate, and how difficult it has been to build anything economically viable. The Council members discussed the possibility of continuing this item in order to rethink what kinds of uses they would like to see along Stevens Creek Boulevard, as well as obtaining an analysis by a neutral party such as Randall Mackley, and the applicant agreed to a continuance. Council member Lowenthal moved that the item be continued to January 4, 2005. The City Attorney said that the question for staff to study is whether there is a reasonable theoretical use of the property without constraint, as opposed to the use of the property with a $15,000 a month lease on it. Patrick Kwok seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 13. Consider Application No.(s) Z-2004-02, EA-2004-15, 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 ITom RHS (Residential Hillside to RHS-21 (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 ITom RHS (residential hillside) to rhs-21 (residential hillside minimum lot size 21,000 square feet)" Marcus Nelson, representing the owners, said there is a 20-25% slope ITom the building site to Stevens Canyon Road and that is too steep for access without significant grading and retaining walls. There is also truck traffic on that road, so that is why they need access to San Juan Road. Dean Sayer said he lived about 3 doors away ITom this property. He said he was not opposed to the project, but was concerned about its history, because it was legally but forcibly taken away ITom previous owner. He explained that the owner had tried to subdivide but was refused by the City, which then took part of the land for Stevens Canyon Road. He was concerned about the possibility of 3 large homes in this area. He also asked a question about the sewer capacity. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki said that the owner will be required to meet the Sanitary District's requirements to provide sanitary hookups and not impact other residents. He said that he would confirm that this unit meets the second unit zoning requirements. Kris Wang asked if this type of subdivision of lots had been done in other adjacent properties. Piasecki said that the Dor property is the most recent, and it is located farther south. He explained that this proposal is consistent with the city's plan for the area. 01-7 November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Wang asked if he saw a trend for the large hillside parcels subdividing into several smaller parcels. Piasecki said that the slope density formulas reduce building size based on the steepness on the slope. In this case, all that is happening is that the applicant is assigning the half- acre minimum formula to this parcel, otherwise the residential hillside formula already applies. He explained that the large properties near Regnart Road are under a more restrictive slope density because they are served by septic systems instead of a sewer system. Kwok/Lowenthal moved and seconded to grant a negative declaration. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: Wang. Absent: None. Kwok/Wang moved and seconded to approve the rezoning to RHS-21 (Residential Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet). Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: Wang. Absent: None. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Kwok/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 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. This item was pulled ITom the agenda at the request of the applicant. NEW BUSINESS (continued) 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. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to award the project 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. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 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 ,2-5 November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Avenue, and Prado Vista Drive, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925, Resolution No. 04-442. This item was deferred to December 7, 2004, at the request ofthe applicant. 23. Report regarding Poppy Way street improvements. Captain John Hirokawa, serving as the City's Chief of Police, said that there are other streets in the City with the same dimensions. In this case, where the street narrows in the northbound direction, there will be a red curb and no parking allowed. He said that the only other concem would be with line of sight, but that would be addressed if no parking were allowed. He said they had not had any experience on Poppy Way with an unusually high number of accidents compared to other residential streets. He said in Seven Springs, which also had narrow or curving roads, there had been some problems with drunk drivers. George Chien showed a DVD he had created which showed vehicles driving past the bulb-out, as well as scenes ITom the pedestrian viewpoint, which illustrated how narrow the street was and the difficulty that cars had in passing each other. The following individuals spoke, and their comments included: concerns about safety because of the sudden curb intrusion into the street; the new low curb is more difficult to see than the white fence which used to be there; removing the bulb-out could provide six more parking spaces; existing tall pine trees have branches which can break easily in a major storm; the neighbors don't like the new curb design and it may affect property values; improved street safety and aesthetics are preferred over retaining the existing trees; the neighborhood was not sufficiently notified and didn't realize what the changes would be until construction began; monitoring the street for a year, as suggested by staff, is too long of a test period; the neighbors had been told for many years that when the property developed the curb would be evened out; that the current design is both an encroachment and a privacy issue; the Murano development does not blend into the neighborhood or the community and an appropriate alignment was expected. Raymon Pon Fred Teo Allen Zhao Siu Kung Raj Natarajan Mohamed Shoukry Victoria Wang Rex Liu Julie Lin Larry Stovall Zhiping Yang Paicheng Chaung Arnona Oren Winston Shiah Chung-Cheng Tsao Greg Maleski Jim Hunts Dennis Whittaker Jane Kamvar submitted a petition signed by 120 individuals opposed to the new curb alignment. 2~1 November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 10 The Council members agreed that there had been insufficient notice to the wider community affected by this change to the street, because at the time the project first carne up, the emphasis was on Current resident relocation and the impacts of an increasing population. They also discussed the neighbors' perception of potential hazards and their preference for a wider street over tree preservation. They discussed whether to proceed with the irrevocable offer dedication of dedication for the right of way, and see how the problem can be addressed. Piasecki said staff will try to identity cooperator approaches to keep the developer ITom proceeding, and would report back at the next meeting with a time schedule. Lowenthal moved to direct staff to prepare for a public hearing on the matter and to give Council an update at the next Council meeting; Council also directed staff to accept the irrevocable offer of dedication for the right of way along Poppy Way. Sandoval seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 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. Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-443, approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for streetlights and sidewalk on Randy Land and Larry Way pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 19. Adopt a resolution approving the use of archived facsimile signature for payments ITom the City's deposit account with Wells Fargo Bank, Resolution No. 04-444. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-444. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 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." The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Kwok/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 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." )-10 November 16, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page II The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Kwok/Sandoval moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 24. Confirm the amended date of Thursday, December 2 at for the Council swearing-in ceremony and reception in the Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. (No documentation in packet). Council members concurred on the date and time of December 2,7:30 p.m. ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS 25. The next General Plan hearing is a community forum with the Planning Commission on Monday, December 6, ITom 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 At I :22 a.m., the City Council adjourned to a Council goals update and evaluation of the City Manager ITom 5:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 22 at Blackberry Farm, 21975 San Fernando Avenue. 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 ITom our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased ITom the Cupertino City Channel,777-2364. ,) -I ( · CUPEIQ1NO DRAFf MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting November 22, 2004 CALL TO ORDER At 5:08 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Blackberry Farm Conference Room, 21975 San Fernando Ave., Cupertino. 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Marcia St. Claire, Linda Vista Avenue, said that when roofs are replaced on her street, the wires are left hanging, and in fact there are 3 hanging ITom a telephone pole that are not even connected. She asked if the Cityhas a program like Palo Alto, to underground utilities when the poles need to be replaced. The City Manager said that, unlike Cupertino, Palo Alto owns its own power company. The Public Works Director said he would contact her about various options and how to reach PG&E. Craig Breon, representing the Santa Clara Valley Audobon Society, said that later in the day the Parks and Recreation Director would be discussing the master plan for Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch. He urged the Council to consider making 2005 the last year to run the picnic facilities as they are now, and begin the restoration on creek and wetlands. He explained how that timing would most benefit the City in terms of being eligible for a good portion of the $7 million in grant funds ITom Measure B. He said the only competing projects at that time would be internal water district projects. STUDY SESSION 1. City Council goals update. Each of the department heads as well as Captain John Hirokawa of the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office reviewed their portion of the handout titled City Council Goals 2004-2005, which listed the project goals, status and comments for each of the 17 goals. J -/1. November 22, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 The goals included: . Library and Civic Center · Trails Plan . Parks · Youth Issues · Pursue"Downtown" Opportunities · Street Safety & Walkable Community · Building Community/Unit · Economic Development · General Plan · Public Safety · Affordable Housing · Annexation · Sports Center Building Strategy · City Center Park and Intersection "Gateway" · School Partnerships · Senior Issues · Internal Improvements Additional materials handed out during the updated included a map titled Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project, Phase I, Exhibit R; a chart titled Stevens Creek Corridor Park Funding Implementation Strategy; a chart titled Daily Grade Breakdown (for the Cupertino Teen Center); and a document titled Work Plan for 2005 ITom the Cupertino Senior Citizens Commission. Staff was asked to place on a future agenda a discussion of the DACA lease (DeAnza Cupertino Aquatics Association) as well as the Heart of the City Plan and the Housing Element of the General Plan in January. RECESS Council recessed ITom 6:30 to 6:45 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 2. City Manager evaluation. At 9:29 p.m., the Council reconvened in open session and announced that they had provided feedback to the City Manager, and that no action had been taken. .J -I 3 November 22, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 3 ADJOURNMENT At 9:30 p.m., the City Council adjourned to Thursday, December 2 at 7:30 p.m. for the election of the new Mayor and Vice-Mayor, and for a reception for the outgoing Mayor. The meeting will be held in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue. 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 ITom our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased ITom the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. ;¿ - fL/ DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-445 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 12, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: ~J'J & ~Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~ day of December , 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino )~I 11/12/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO SELECTION CRITERIA; transact. trans_date between "11/08/2004" and "11/12/2004" CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 610145 V 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 611150 V 611436 V 611643 611643 611543 611643 611643 611644 611645 611645 611645 611645 611645 611645 611645 611645 611645 611645 CHECK 611646 611646 611647 611648 611649 611650 611651 611652 611653 611653 611654 .611655 611555 08/20/04 M ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 580 10/15/04 M 10/29/04 400 n!12/04 4 11/12/04 4 11/12/04 4 11/12/04 4 11/12/04 4 11/12/04 7 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 9 11/12/04 11/12/04 2982 2982 SD, VICKY GUPTA, ANJANA 580 11/12/04 2825 11/12/04 858 11/12/04 13 11/12/04 3210 11/12/04 28 11/12/04 29 11/12/04 11/12/04 2276 2276 LIFETIME TENNIS INC 5706450 11/12/04 2319 11/12/04 2298 11/12/04 2298 AT & T A T & T A T & T A T & T A T & T 1108501 1108501 1108501 1108502 1108501 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 1104540 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108508 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 5708510 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108504 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108505 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108507 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108509 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108501 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 5606620 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108503 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108506 ABLE UNDERGROUND ABLE UNDERGROUND 1108312 1108314 ACADEMIC CHESS 5806349 ACI HOLDINGS, INC. 1100000 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 AETNA 6414570 AIRGAS NCN 1108314 LYNNE DIANE AITKEN 5806449 ALHAMBRA ALHAMBRA 1104510 1104510 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERV 1108201 ARCH WIRELESS ARCH WIRELESS 1108501 1108602 RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:06:07 -----DESCRIPTION------ Refund: Check - SUMMER REFD: 298327 & 298328 SERVICE 9/27-10/21/04 OCT2004 STATEMENT OCT2004 STATEMENT OCT2004 STATEMENT OCT2004 STATEMENT OCT2004 STATEMENT LEGAL FEES KEYARTS 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 9/02-10/02 STORM DRAIN INSTALLATI REPLACE SEPTIC PUMP SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR JULY-SEPT 04 S.TAX FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC L.TERM DSBLTY NOV2004 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR BOTTLED DRINKING WTR BOTTLED DRINKING WTR CROSSING GUARD NOV04 n/01-12/01 11/01.-12/01 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 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 -90.00 -75.00 -20976.96 22.61 44.11 22.61 74.91 22.61 186.85 449.05 22.62 253.09 831. 69 95.83 149.82 24.18 512.32 300.60 294.79 49.97 2534.91 8970.00 8632.65 17602.65 5800.00 177921.78 182.83 3335.46 44.68 300.00 264.50 117.65 382.15 7786.89 40.13 44.69 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ]-"L 11/12/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans _date between "11/08/2004" and "11/12/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------~-----VENDOR-------~----- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611655 11/12/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1104400 11/01-12/01 0 .00 66.44 1020 611655 11/12/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1104400 11/01-12/01 .00 18.63 1020 611655 11/12/04 2298 ARCH WIRELESS 1106265 11/01-12/01 0 .00 61. 00 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 230. 89 1020 611656 11/12/04 2680 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC. 110 6/01-6/30 SERVICES o. 00 2448. 04 1020 611656 11/12/04 2680 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC. 1107501 9/18-10/15 o. 00 8671.30 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 11119.34 1020 611657 11/12/04 M SHALLA , VINITA 580 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 191.25 1020 611658 11/12/04 105 ELY M BRANDES 5506549 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 500.00 1020 611659 11/12/04 149 CASH 1107200 P CASH 11/03-11/09 0 .00 10.00 1020 611659 11/12/04 149 CASH 1102401 P CASH 11/03-11/09 0.00 21.54 1020 611659 11/12/04 149 CASH 1102401 P CASH 11/03-11/09 0.00 29. 94 1020 611659 11/12/04 149 CASH 4239222 P CASH 11/03-11/09 0.00 23 .78 1020 611659 11/12/04 149 CASH 1108101 P. CASH 11/03-11/09 0.00 8 .00 1020' 611659 11/12/04 149 CASH 1104100 P. CASH 11/03-11/09 0.00 10. 00 1020 611659 11/12/04 149 CASH 1103500 P.CASH 11/03-11/09 o. 00 27. 02 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 130. 28 1020 611660 11/12/04 2626 CHANG. CHEN-YA 1103300 CLIPPING SERV. OCT04 0 .00 200. 00 1020 611661 11/12/04 2871 JACKSON CHOW 5806349 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 4892 .50 1020 611662 11/12/04 M CHUA, MUI 580 REFD 300766 & 300767 0.00 494 .45 1020 611663 11/12/04 2000 CINTAS 1108201 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 61. 96 1020 611663 11/12/04 2000 CINTAS 1108201 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 83 .21 1020 611663 11/12/04 2000 CINTAS 1108201 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 61. 36 1020 611663 11/12/04 2000 CINTAS 1108201 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 91. 71 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 298 .24 1020 611664 11/12/04 1407 CUMMING HENDERSON TIRE 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 949.21 1020 611665 11/12/04 M Cheng, Grace 550 Refund: Check Class 0.00 30. 00 1020 611666 11/12/04 M Chiang, Shirley 550 Refund: Check - Full d 0.00 300.00 1020 611667 11/12/04 210 DEEP CLIFF ASSOCIATES L 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 7656.00 1020 611668 11/12/04 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES o. 00 694 .18 1020 611669 11/12/04 3117 DOLPHIN DESIGN INC 4239222 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 45000. 00 1020 611670 11/12/04 996 DU-ALL SAFETY 5606620 HAZ eUSINESS PLAN 0.00 2800.00 1020 611670 11/12/04 996 DU-ALL SAFETY 1108201 SAFETY CONSULT OCT04 .00 1900.00 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 4700.00 1020 611671 11/12/04 2664 KATHLEEN DUTRA 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 480.00 RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:06:07 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3<3 11/12/04 CITY OF CUPERrINO PAGE J ACCOUNTING PERIOD, 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA; transact. trans_date between "11/08/2004" and "11/12/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE Dr --------------VENDOR--·---------- FUND/DEFT -----DESCRIPTIQN------ SALES TAX AMOUNT l020 611.672 11/12/04 2239 EeS IMAGING INC 6104800 LASERFICHE SERV RNWL 0.00 13314 .18 1020 611673 11/12/04 1434 EDWARD S. WALSH CO. 2109612 MANHOLE HOOK A26636 0 .00 319 .42 1020 611673 11/12/04 1434 EDWARD S. WALSH CO. 1108303 REPAIR KITS O. 00 1392.86 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 1712.28 1020 611674 11/12/04 239 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1108830 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 179.75 1020 611675 11/12/04 1484 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING C 5208003 SOLID WASTE CONSULT. 0.00 5087.50 1020 611676 11/12/04 249 ESBRO CHEMICAL 5606620 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 111.53 1020 611677 11/12/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 COURIER SERVICE O. 00 10 .98 1020 611677 11/12/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 COURIER SERVICE o. 00 10 .98 1020 611677 11/12/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1106100 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 74 .72 1020 611677 11/12/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 2607401 COURIER SERVICE o. 00 10 .98 1020 611677 11(12/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1103400 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 37 .44 1020 611677 11/12/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 6104800 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 7. 81 1020 611677 11/12/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 4239222 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 13 . 15 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 166 .06 1020 611678 11/12/04 818 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, LP 4239222 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 0.00 389 .70 1020 611679 11/12/04 266 RYAN FORBES 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 1108.80 1020 611680 11(12/04 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108502 LOCK/KEY SUPPLIES O. 00 743.70 1020 611680 11/12/04 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 4239222 LOCK/KEY SUPPLIES O. 00 1194.15 1020 611680 11/12/04 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108512 LOCK/KEY SUPPLIES O. 00 743.71 1020 611680 11/12/04 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108502 LOCK/KEY SUPPLIES 0.00 10.20 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 2691.76 1020 611681 11(12/04 3076 G BaRTOLOTTa & CO., INC 2709450 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT O. 00 8530.57 1020 611682 11/12(04 281 GARDENLAND 5606620 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26022 O. 00 134.15 1020 611682 11(12(04 281 GARDENLAND 5606620 PARTS(SUPPLIES A26022 0.00 63.57 1020 611682 11(12/04 281 GARDENLAND 5606620 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26022 0 .00 53.63 1020 611682 11/12/04 281 GARDENLAND 1108314 PARTSISUPPLIES A26641 0 .00 540 .30 1020 611682 11/12/04 281 GARDENLAND 1108314 LANDSCAPE SPLY A26650 O. 00 332 .25 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 1123 .90 1020 611683 11/12/04 298 GRAINGER mc 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 395. 63 1020 611683 11/12/04 298 GRAINGER mc 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 12 .46 1020 611683 11/12/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 95. 73 1020 611683 11/12/04 298 GRAINGER mc 1108314 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 212 .79 1020 611683 11/12/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108502 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 22 .20 1020 611683 11/12/04 298 GRAINGER INC 5708510 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 148 .41 1020 611683 11/12/04 298 GRAINGER INC 5606620 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0 .00 4 .74 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 891.96 1020 611684 11/12/04 315 JILL HAFF 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR O. 00 337.50 RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:06:07 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING J~Y 11/12/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ACCDUN'TING PERIOD, 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA, transact. trans_date between "1]./08/2004" and ":11/12/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK ND ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------_ FUND/DEPT -----ÐESCRIPTION-----_ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611685 11/12/04 3249 HI-LINE UTILITY SUPPLY C 1108830 LADDER SPLY A27203 o. 00 71. 35 1020 611686 1l!12/04 2540 HILT! ll08312 SAWS-ALL 1'.26643 o. 00 437 .25 1020 611686 11/12/04 2540 HILT! 1108312 SAWS-ALL A26643 0.00 62. 13 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 499. 38 1020 611687 11/12/04 3239 HARUNA SHIOKAWA 5806349 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 1008.50 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 125.75 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108315 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 125.74 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108314 FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 124.53 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 124.53 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108315 FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 124.52 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 124.53 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108302 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 125 .75 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108302 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 124 .53 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108314 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 125. 75 1020 611688 11/12/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 125. 75 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 1251 .38 1020 611689 11/12/04 1981 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 2708404 SUPPLIES A26621 0 .00 247.89 1020 611689 11/12/04 1981 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 2708405 BARRICADES A26624 0 .00 389.70 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 637.59 1020 611690 11/12/04 353 IRON MOUNTAIN 1104300 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 392.61 1020 611691 11/12/04 369 KELLY~MOORE PAINT CD INC 2708404 PAINT SUPPLIES 20119 o. 00 27. 58 1020 611691 11/12/04 369 KELLY - MOORE PAINT CO INC 1108507 PAINT SUPPLIES o. 00 42 .41 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 69. 99 1020 611692 11/12/04 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1108005 SUPPLIES 0.00 69.90 1020 611693 11/12/04 2999 LESCO 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 131. 91 1020 611693 11/12/04 2999 LESCO 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 131.91 1020 611693 11/12/04 2999 LESCO 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 1147.45 1020 511693 11/12/04 2999 LESCO 1108314 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 131 .91 1020 611693 11/12/04 2999 LESCO 1108315 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 13l. 91 1020 611693 11112/04 2999 LESCO 1108302 FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 131 .91 1020 611693 11/12/04 2999 LESCO 1108321 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 131. 91 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 1938. 91 1020 611694 11112/04 400 LIFETIME TENNIS INC 5706450 REPLACE LOST CHECK 0 .00 20976 .96 1020 611695 11/12/04 2357 LIGHTHOUSE 6308840 TRAFFIC ADVR. A26611 o. 00 462. 19 1020 611696 11/12/04 M Letson, Jan 550 Refund: Check ~ Event O. 00 150 .00 1020 611697 11/12/04 1968 MAZE AND ASSOCIATES 1104100 AUDIT REPORTS .00 9000. 00 1020 611698 U/12/04 2713 REBECCA MCCORMICK 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR .00 300. 00 RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:05:07 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3- ,S ._.~_...._--_.~---._--~ 11/12/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA, transact. trans date between "11/08/2004" and "11/12/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACcr CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL 1020 1020 TOTAL 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 611699 611700 611701 611702 611703 611704 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 611705 CHECK 611706 611706 CHECK 611707 611707 611707 611707 611707 611707 611708 611708 611708 611708 611708 611708 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 11/12/04 1023 11/12/04 2726 11/12/04 465 11/12/04 M200S 11/12/04 489 11/12/04 M2005 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 1l/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 500 11/12/04 500 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 981 11/12/04 981 11/12/04 981 11/12/04 981 11/12/04 981 11/12/04 981 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 MASSOUD MODJTEHEDI ** MOSS & BARNETT 1107501 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108303 1101031 NAVICO, INC. 110 NIHALANI, MAHESH 5506549 NOTEWORTHY MUSIC SCHOOL 5806349 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OPERATING ENGINEERS PUB OPERATING ENGINEERS PUB ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:06;07 1103500 1106200 1106300 1106344 1101201 1101000 1107301 1104300 5806449 1104300 1103300 1106400 1101201 5806249 1104300 1101000 1104300 1104300 1104510 110 1108501 2708404 1108504 1108503 1108501 1108501 2708405 1108409 6308840 2708405 2708405 1108303 -----DESCRIPTION------ PLAN RVW SERVICES LEGAL SERV/COMPLAINT FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC ENCROACH BOND RELEASE INTRN'L LUNCH 11/04 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES REF; 263000922001 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES H & W RETIREES H & W P.W. EMPLOYEES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES ON-TIME DISC 10/26/04 PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES 20361 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26612 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20280 PARTS/SUPPLIES 27124 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20316 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20102 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 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 27290.00 556.50 29.17 500.00 40.00 3216.50 65.79 132.23 36.29 .34 .77 58.28 188.36 -15.30 27.63 86.90 94.47 26.07 45.55 18.19 14.70 9.72 2.60 15.30 823.89 3812.50 4436.00 8248.50 30.17 0.96 6.47 48.16 -9.78 5.70 81. 68 19.20 462.97 50.99 21.20 7.57 25.96 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING )-~ n/n/O-4 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA, transact. trans_date between "11/08/200-4" and "11/l2/200-4" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND TOTAL CHECK CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 611709 611710 611710 611710 611710 611710 611710 611711 1020 611712 1020 611712 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 611713 6U71-4 611715 611716 611717 611717 611717 611717 611717 611717 611717 611717 611718 611719 611720 611721 611722 611723 611724 611725 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 11/12/04 3195 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 M 11/12/04 526 11/12/04 526 11/12/04 M 11/12/04 545 11/12/04 546 11/12/04 1929 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 11/12/04 1693 11/12/04 590 11/12/04 842 11/12/04 2482 11/12/04 2833 11/12/04 M 11/12/04 3250 11/12/04 2170 513 513 513 513 513 513 2649 2649 2649 2649 2649 2649 2649 2649 ORIENTAL CUISINE EXPRESS 5506549 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PEARD, WILLIAM 5606620 1108407 4259313 1108502 1108502 5606620 580 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 1108101 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 110 PIMENTEL, SHARLENE JEFF PISERCHIO PITNEY BOWES INC LEON C. PIROFALO QUILL QUILL QUILL QUILL QUILL QUILL QUILL QUILL REGISTRAR OF VOTERS RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC ROBERT A BOTHMAN INC ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY THEA RUNYAN Renwa1d, Judith SAN JOSE DIESEL PUMP SAN JOSE GENERATOR RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:06:07 580 5606640 1104310 1107302 1101500 1101500 1101500 1101500 1101500 1101500 1101500 1101500 1104330 2109612 2708403 6104800 5806449 550 6308840 6308840 -----DESCRIPTION------ INT'L LUNCH 1104 9/25-10/25 9/30-10/29 9/30-10/29 9/30-10/28 9/30-10/28 9/25-10/25 CCCP LIBRARY LIBRARY Refund: Check - FALL; BMP SHEETS IMPROVE PLANS R20603 Refund: Check - FALL E SERVICE 10/27-11/09 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC GEN. PLAN CONSULTATION OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES MERCHANDISE COUPON INITIATIVE PETITIONS FREIGHT CHARGES REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEW K.STAMES W/E 10/29 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Withdr REPAIR ELEC. A26622 REBUILD STRTR A26651 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .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 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 6 AMOUNT 587.89 75.78 10.19 7.18 556.94 14281.17 218.62 61.10 15135.20 25.00 70.90 79.51 150.41 144.00 1995.00 166.06 4012.75 10.26 437.59 33.53 51.94 45.62 45.04 20.85 -30.00 614 .83 5027.60 150.00 4805.00 1184.00 551.40 275.00 431. 35 102.84 3-; 11/12/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "1.1./08/2004" and "1J./12/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR-------~----- FUND/DEFT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611726 11/12/04 621 THE MERCURY NEWS 1104510 TRAVEL COORDINATOR 0.00 582.30 1020 611726 11/12/04 621 THE MERCURY NEWS 5208003 2 COLUMN X4 DISPLAY AD 0.00 1984.00 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 2666.30 1020 611727 11/12/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 110831.4 8/31-10/30 0 .00 22.98 1020 611727 11/12/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/31-11/01 0.00 122.57 1020 611727 11/12/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/31-11/01 0.00 76.10 1020 611727 11/12/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/31-10/29 o. 00 123.82 1020 611727 11/12/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/30~11/01 0.00 40. 31 1020 611727 11/12/04 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 8/31~1l/01 0.00 122 .57 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 508 .35 1020 611728 11/12/04 979 CITY OF SAN JOSE 1104530 ANIMAL SERVICES NOV04 o. 00 13833 .33 1020 611729 11/12/04 626 SANTA CLARA CO DEPT OF R 1102100 CITATIONS SEPT2004 0 .00 3030. 00 1020 611730 11/12/04 630 SANTA CLARA CO PROEATION 1102100 DIV. OFFR. 7/01-9/30 o. 00 8161 .45 1020 611731 11/12/04 1648 SAVIN CORPORATION (SUPPL 1104310 H2400800225 NOV ~ FEE 0 .00 178. 50 1020 611732 11/12/04 2692 SBC 1108201 10/28-11/07 o. 00 253 .44 1020 611732 11/12/04 2692 SBC 1108503 10/28-11/07 o. 00 55 .44 1020 611732 11/12/04 2692 SBC 5606620 10/28~11/07 o. 00 162 .68 1020 611732 11/12/04 2692 SBC 5606640 10/28-11/07 0.00 198. 53 1020 611732 1l/12/04 2692 SBC 1108501 10/28~11/07 0 .00 116. 93 1020 611732 n/12/04 2692 SBC 1108507 10/28~11/07 0 .00 55 .43 1020 611732 11/12/04 2692 SBC 1108508 10/28-11/07 0 .00 61 .28 1020 611732 11/12/04 2692 SBC 1108509 10/28-11/07 0 .00 55 .43 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 959 .16 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SBC/MC! 1101000 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 190 .87 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1102100 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 159 .06 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCr 1101500 731-7142 OCT 2004 0 .00 349.93 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1104300 731-7142 OCT 2004 0 .00 282.86 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1103300 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 63.62 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1103500 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 95.44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MC! 1104000 731~7142 OCT 2004 0.00 95.44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCr 1104100 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 190.87 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1104200 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 95 .44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1104510 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 190. 87 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SeC/MCr 1106647 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 31. 81 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1104530 731~7142 OCT 2004 0.00 222 .69 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1104400 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 95 .44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1106265 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 222 .69 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1106100 731~7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 95 .44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCr 1106265 731~7142 OCT 2004 0 .00 509. 00 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/Mcr 1106265 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 63 .62 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1106529 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 31. 81 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1106500 731~7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 381. 75 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1107200 731~7142 OCT 2004 0 .00 95.44 RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:06:07 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING J-J n/1.2/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . traos_date betweeo "11/08/2004" and "11/12/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1107301 #731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 286 .31 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1101200 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 95 .44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1107302 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 63 .62 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCI 1108504 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 127.25 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SSC/MCr 1107501 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 413.56 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MC! 1107502 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 31.81 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SsC/MCr 1107503 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 127.25 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1108001 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 159 .06 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MC! 1108101 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 300 .49 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1108102 731-7142 OCT 2004 0 .00 31 .81 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 1106265 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 95 .44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108501 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 711 .82 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108503 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 907 .48 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108507 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 63 .62 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCr 5606620 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 318 .12 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/Mcr 5706450 731-7142 OCT '2004 0.00 381. 75 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108601 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 95. 44 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108602 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 127. 25 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 5208003 731-7142 OCT 2004 0 .00 31 .81 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 2308004 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 31.81 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/Mcr 5708510 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 254.50 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108201 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 219 .60 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MC! 6104800 731-7142 OCT 2004 0 .00 604 .43 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/Mcr 5606620 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 159 .06 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/Mcr 5606640 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 31. 81 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MC! 1107301 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 63 .62 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1106647 731-7142 OCT 2004 0.00 286.31 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108511 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 63.62 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108504 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 30.71 1020 611735 11/12/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108407 731-7142 OCT 2004 o. 00 14.49 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 9593.38 1020 611736 11/12/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108502 #2524620 8/1-9/27 LBR 0 .00 1103 .30 1020 611737 11/12/04 647 ELIZABETH SHANNON 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 600 .00 1020 611738 11/12/04 2051 SrADAT ENTERPRISES, INC. 6308840 CAR WASHES OCT2004 o. 00 45. 50 1020 611739 11/12/04 652 SIERRA SPRINGS WATER CO. 1101500 EOTTLED DRINKING WTR 0 .00 20 .60 1020 611740 11/12/04 3111 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1106344 OFFICE SUPPLIES o. 00 8.95 1020 611740 11/12/04 3171 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 5806349 OFFICE SUPPLIES o. 00 43.57 1020 611740 11/12/04 3171 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 5806249 OFFICE SUPPLIES o. 00 58.95 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 111.47 1020 611741 11/12/04 1027 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY CON 2109512 TRANSIT/SAND A26637 o. 00 300 .07 1020 611742 11/12/04 681 CONNIE BANDA STEVENS 5806449 SERvrCE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 644 .80 1020 611743 11/12/04 684 CHERYL STODDARD 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 375. 00 RUN DATE 11/12/04 T!ME 09:06:07 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING J-1 11/12/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER ~ DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "~1/08/2004" and "11/12/2004" FUND ~ 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT -~-~----------VENDOR~~~---------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX 1020 611744 11/~2/04 3248 SUCCESS CHESS SCHOOL 5806349 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 1020 611745 11/12/04 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 1020 61~746 11/12/04 708 NANCY THOMPSON 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR D. DO 1020 611747 11/12/04 709 LOU THURMAN 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR D. DO 1020 611748 11/12/04 3105 CELESTE TILLSON 5806349 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 1020 611749 11/12/04 2226 UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY T 2708404 MOVE KRAlL A26642 0 .00 1020 611750 11/12/04 738 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC D. DO 1020 611751 11/12/04 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 1106500 OFFICE SUPPLIES D. 00 1020 611751 11/12/04 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 5506549 OFFICE SUPPLIES D. DO 1020 611751 11/12/04 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 1106500 OFFICE SUPPLIES D. DO TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 1020 611752 11/12/04 754 BARBARA WALTON 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 1020 611753 11/12/04 1839 KRIS WANG 4230000 LIBRARY EVENT REFUND D. DO 1020 611754 11/12/04 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC D. DO 1020 611754 11/12/04 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC D. DO TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1020 611755 11/12/04 M West, Michael 550 Refund: Check - Addl. 0.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 TOTAL FUND 0.00 TOTAL REPORT 0.00 RUN DATE 11/12/04 TIME 09:06:07 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 9 AMOUIIT 622.50 109.60 303.75 1074.79 309.33 250.00 33.33 70 .34 19 .92 167 .72 257. 98 1792.00 250.00 160.75 1433.51 1594.26 26.50 470701.48 470701.48 470701.48 3 -11) DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-446 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 19, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: ~<, a. fÝirector of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this2!h_.day of December ,2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ]-11 11/18/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 511277 V 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 lO20 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 611516 V 611756 611757 611758 611758 611759 611760 611761 611762 611763 611763 611763 611763 611763 611763 611763 611764 611765 611765 611766 611767 611768 611769 611770 611771 611772 611772 611772 10/22/04 2522 ISSUE DT 4_~~~---------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 5506549 11/05/04 M 11/19/04 3 11/19/04 4 11/19/04 11/19/04 2275 2276 LYNN HELLER CHAO, CHARLIE A RENTAL CENTER AT & T ALHAMBRA ALHAMBRA NATASHA AUSTIN AW DIRECT INC Amaral, Darci Arnold, JoAnne BAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS JO ANN BARNEY BATTERY SYSTEMS BATTERY SYSTEMS BAY AREA ECONOMICS 580 1108303 1108501 5706450 1105265 5806249 6308840 550 550 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 5805249 6308840 6308840 1104330 BETTERPLY BUSINESS FORMS 1107501 5506549 VASANTHI BHAT CALIFORNIA BINGO SERVICE 5506549 ERIN CALLAGHAN CALIFORNIA CAD SOLUTIONS 6109853 5806249 CANNON DESIGN GROUP CANNON DESIGN GROUP CANNON DESIGN GROUP RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:38 11/19/04 2945 11/19/04 1032 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 968 968 968 968 968 968 968 11/19/04 78 11/19/04 720 11/19/04 720 11/19/04 3196 11/19/04 1305 11/19/04 3050 11/19/04 2633 11/19/04 2582 11/19/04 2953 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 1476 1476 1476 110 110 110 4~-~-DESCRIPTION~--~ SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Return SUPPLIES A26605 NOV2004 STATEMENT BOTTLED DRINKING WTR WATER DELIVERY AND DIS SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR LIGHTS A26652 Refund: Check Class Refund: Check - Trip c FY 2004~2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004+2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004~2005 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC NO-GROWTH ANALYSIS SUBCONTRACTOR BL FORM SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR BINGO DOBBERS TECH SERV MAPGUIDE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECT RVW SERV ARCHITECT RVW SERVo ARCHITECT RVW SERVo SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 1 AMOUNT -570.00 -300.00 22.50 22.61 87.20 43.50 130.70 1377.50 125.14 45.00 25.00 12.72 69.4 7 13 .34 -38.86 138.75 38.86 168.95 403.23 138.00 408.86 91. 90 500.76 16049.00 286.70 210.00 37.11 125.00 567.50 650.60 240.00 840.00 1730.60 J -I cl. 11/18/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact .trans date between "~~/~5/2004" and "~~/19/2004" FUND . 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611773 11/19/04 2103 CAREERTRACK 1106100 SEMINAR 1/14 0.00 179.00 1020 611774 11/19/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 SSGARNSMNT O. 00 103.84 1020 611774 11/19/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 11'0 CSGARNSMNT 0 .00 306.50 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 410.34 1020 611775 11/19/04 146 CASH 5706450 P.CASH 10/28-11/17 o. 00 43.45 1020 611775 11/19/04 146 CASH 5806349 P. CASH ~0/28-11/17 O. 00 50. 76 1020 6U775 U/19/04 146 CASH 1106343 P . CASH 10/28-11/17 O. 00 50. H 1020 611775 11/19/04 146 CASH 4239222 P . CASH 10/28-11/17 0.00 15. 67 1020 611775 11/19/04 146 CASH 1106200 P . CASH 10/28-11/17 0.00 84 .00 1020 611775 11/19/04 146 CASH 1106344 P . CASH 10/28-U/17 0.00 9. 50 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 253.79 1020 611776 11/19/04 1057 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 *FLEX DEP/240125 O. 00 151. 92 1020 611776 11/19/04 1057 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 *FLEX HLTH/240125 O. 00 771. 03 TOTAL CHECK .00 922. 95 1020 611777 11/19/04 1156 CHA 110 CHA 0.00 117. 00 1020 611778 11/19/04 2846 CLAP 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR .00 1016. 60 1020 611779 11/19/04 1612 BARRIE D COATE 110 ARBORIST REVIEW SERV 0 .00 400. 00 1020 611780 11/19/04 173 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 248 .08 1020 611781 11/19/04 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 COLONIAL/E7013899 0.00 363 .17 1020 611781 11/19/04 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 *COLONIAL/E7013899 o. 00 283 .08 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 646 .25 1020 611782 11/19/04 3100 COMCAST 1108512 10/26-11/25 COMM.HALL 0 .00 109.90 1020 611783 11/19/04 2857 CONCUR INC 2159620 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0 .00 36177 . 75 1020 611784 11/19/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP BIR . GARCIA O. 00 16 . 00 1020 611784 11/19/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP BIB . GATHERS 0 .00 16. 00 1020 611784 11/19/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP B/M. BARRGAN O. 00 70.00 1020 611784 11/19/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1108201 HEP A&B PHY/T.BLMQUST 0.00 205. 00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 307. 00 1020 611785 11/19/04 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5606640 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 31 .77 1020 611786 11/19/04 M D'Ortenzio, Arlene 550 Refund: Check - Trip c O. 00 25. 00 1020 611787 11/19/04 3215 D. ROSS EQUIPMENT REPAIR 6308840 ENGINE REPAIRS A26654 0 .00 482 .62 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108512 SPECIAL C.HALL/LIBRY O. 00 2534 .00 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 BATHROOMS LIBRARY o. 00 1895 .00 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108505 JANITORIAL NOV2004 0.00 3535. 12 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108508 JANITORIAL NOV2004 0.00 141 .53 RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:38 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING J-(3 11/18/04 CITY OF CUFERTINO PAGE] ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" FUND . 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND!DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108511 JAN"ITORIAL NOV2004 0.00 1163. 89 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 JAINTORIAL NQV2004 0.00 2399. 88 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 JAINTORIAL NOV2004 0.00 8051 .55 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108503 JAINTORIAL NOV2004 0.00 2008 .63 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108512 JAINTORIAL NOV2004 0.00 1865. 85 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC llO8303 JANITORIAL NOV2004 0.00 1521. 11 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108302 JANITORIAL NOV2004 0.00 760.57 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 JANITORIAL NOV2004 0.00 2228 .38 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5708510 JANITORIAL NOV2004 0.00 5311. 03 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108315 JANITORIAL NOV2004 o. 00 760. 57 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 JANITORIAL NOV2004 o. 00 4563. 39 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108407 JANITORIAL NOV2004 o. 00 1033 .22 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 CARPETS/CUPERTINO RM o. 00 300. 00 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 WASH WINDOWS C.HALL o. 00 7S . 00 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE AN2A SERVICES INC 1108314 OVERCHARGE REPAYMENT 0 .00 -1906 .34 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 JANITORIAL NOV2004 .00 346. 84 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 JANITORIAL NOV2004 o. 00 714 .28 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606640 JANITORIAL NOV2004 o. 00 901. 29 1020 611789 11/19/04 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 JANITORIAL NOV2004 o. 00 6244 .50 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 46449.29 1020 611790 11/19/04 210 DEEP CLIFF ASSOCIATES L 5806449 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 200 .00 1020 611791 n/l9/04 1838 DELL MARKETING L. P. 6109856 POWEREDGE ,700 2.4 GHZ 0.00 2863. 09 1020 611791 11/19/04 1838 DELL MARKETING L.P. 6109856 LATITUDE IDOL 14.1 XGA o. 00 1445 .76 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 4308. 85 1020 611792 11/19/04 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1101042 B.CARDS/S.KINOSHITA o. 00 57. 71 1020 611793 11/19/04 3038 RALPH DUBISCH 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 2831. 00 1020 611794 11/19/04 233 ECONOMIC DRIVING SCHOOL 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2310 .00 1020 611795 11/19/04 239 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1108830 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 191 .72 1020 611796 11/19/04 242 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 SIT/932-0014-5 o. 00 16754. 36 1020 611797 11/19/04 243 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 SDI/776-5260-0 0.00 1146 .23 1020 611798 11/19/04 250 EUPHRAT MUSEUM OF ART 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 4633 .50 1020 611799 11/19/04 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 1106265 LINEN SERVICE 0 .00 147. 00 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 COURIER SERV R25654 o. 00 14 .29 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 COURIER SERV R27584 o. 00 11. 08 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 COURIER SERVICE o. 00 32 . 08 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1101070 COURIER SERVICE o. 00 6. 68 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 6104800 RETURN/9 PKGS o. 00 92.67 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 COURIER SERVICE 0 .00 26.16 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1103300 COURIER SERVICE o. 00 3 .89 1020 611800 11/19/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 6104800 10/22 WEEKLY CHARGE o. 00 11. 00 RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28,39 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-(L( 11/18/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: S/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" FUND - 110 ~ GENERAL FUND TOTAL CHECK CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 611601 611801 611801 611802 611803 611604 611604 611604 611805 611806 611606 611806 611806 611806 611806 611606 611806 611606 611807 611808 611806 611808 611809 611809 611810 611611 611812 611812 611813 611814 ISSUE DT -----~--------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 1931 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 3187 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 2630 11/19/04 2630 11/19/04 2531 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 2522 11/19/04 2868 2843 2843 2843 281 281 281 1741 1741 1741 1741 1741 1741 1741 1741 1741 298 298 298 3211 3211 FOLGER GRAPHICS FOLGER GRAPHICS FOLGER GRAPHICS INC. INC. INC. FREITAS & FREITAS Feinberg, Shirley GARDENLAND GARDENLAND GARDENLAND **GOLDFARB & LIPMAN GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GOVCONNECTION, INC. GRACE, LARRY W GRAINGER GRAINGER GRAINGER INC INC INC 1103400 1103400 1107301 1104330 550 1108312 5606620 6308840 1104330 1104400 1103300 6104800 1103300 1104400 1104400 6104800 6104800 1103300 580 1108508 1106503 1108502 GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOC 6204550 GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOC 6204550 GURSHARN SIDHU Ghotbi, Nazi HARTFORD-PRIORITY ACCTS HARTFORD-PRIORITY ACCTS LYNN HELLER ROBERT BRUCE HILL RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:39 5606620 550 110 110 5506549 2809213 -----DESCRIPTION-~-~-- OCT2004 SCENE PRINT NOV2004 SCENE PRINT. GEN. PLAN FORUM P.CARD COMM DEVELOP CONTRACT Refund: Check - Trip c HONDA PORTABLE GENERAT PARTS/SUPPLIES FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC INITATIVE ANALYSIS ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE ACER 15" MONITOR NETSE Refund: Check - Return FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC OPEN PURC OPEN PURC W.COMP ADMIN. NOV2004 BILL RVW OCT2004 FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Refund: Check - Full r LIFE INSURANCE AD & D SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 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 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 4 AMOUNT 197.85 2730.04 2780.09 1659.18 7169.31 1123.75 25.00 935.24 343.39 114.64 1393.27 1770.00 98.36 3.03 4590.63 164.94 3.54 192.54 84.36 2345.03 84.25 7566.68 300.00 805.55 69.82 121. 79 997.16 1653.75 413 .49 2067.24 19663.00 300.00 5357.25 892.88 6250.13 570.00 339.37 )-j S 11/18/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 611815 611815 611816 611816 611816 1020 611817 1020 611817 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 611818 611818 611818 511819 611820 611821 611822 611823 611824 611825 611826 611827 611828 611828 611828 611829 611830 611831 611832 611833 ISSUE DT ~-~-----------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 1410 1410 2540 2540 2540 11/19/04 ME200S 11/19/04 ME200S 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 343 1898 1898 1898 11/19/04 M200S 11/19/04 2882 11/19/04 1237 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 2300 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 1602 3155 3155 3155 11/19/04 M2005 11/19/04 2567 11/19/04 2666 HILLYARD HILLYARD HILTI HILTI HILTI HOFFMAN, MABEL HOFFMAN, MABEL HORI ZON HOR! ZON HORIZON HOU, VICKY S. Hagey, Sheila Holden, Helen 5606640 5606640 1108501 1108501 1108503 5506549 5506549 1108407 1108315 1108312 sso 550 550 ITE ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 1108601 ROBERT A. KIM PATRICK KWOK Kopp, Rena BARBARA LAUX LEE WAYNE CORPORATION LEE WAYNE CORPORATION LEE WAYNE CORPORATION Loens, Edmund 1103501 4230000 550 5506549 1103300 1103301 1103301 550 MBlA MUNISERVICES COMPAN 1100000 5806349 MERRIE OLDE MISDU MUSIC FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 5806249 110 RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:39 -----DESCRIPTIQN------ SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES BINGO PIZZA 10/29 BINGO PIZZA 7/30 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC PARENT/CHILD GOLF Refund: Check Trip c Refund: Check - Trip c *ICMA GUAPO 05 ANNL FEES PC MTG COVERAGE 11/9 REFUND LIBRARY EVENT Refund: Check - Trip c SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR RETIREMENT GIFT ANNIVERSARY MUGS ANNIVERSARY MUGS Refund; Check Class S.TAX AUDIT 2004/2ND BREADFAST W/SANTA J TRYBUS 385960533 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 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 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 5 AMOUNT 30.09 324.21 354.30 62.13 578.38 446.31 1086.82 238.00 234.40 472 .40 217.76 49.16 67.77 334.69 90.00 25.00 25.00 7544.64 206.00 180.00 250.00 25.00 600.00 214.49 363.50 392.16 970.15 45.00 1250.00 475.00 221.50 940.00 )~f b 11(18(04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 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 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 611834 611835 611836 611836 611837 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 611838 61lB38 611838 611838 611838 611838 CHECK 611839 611840 611841 611841 611841 611841 611841 611841 611841 611842 611843 611844 611845 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEFT 11/19/04 471 11/19/04 M2005 11/19/04 910 11/19/04 910 11/19/04 302 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 501 11/19/04 505 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 513 11/19/04 3146 11/19/04 533 11/19/04 2022 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 833 833 833 833 833 833 833 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPAN 6308840 MYERS, LISA 5806649 N A T 0 A NATO A 1103300 1101031 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPEN 110 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 1104100 1104310 1101000 1104100 1107301 1107503 1107301 1107503 1103500 1101201 1107503 1107405 1107405 1101201 1107405 1104300 OPERATING ENGINEERS #3 110 ORLANDI TRAILER 6308840 PER S PER S PER S PER S PER S PER S PER S 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108508 PATTERNSOFT INC 5806249 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG 110 PLANTAG 1107503 RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:39 -----DESCRIPTION-~---- SUPPLIES 20288 BIRDING WORKSHOP ANNUAL DUES 2005 ANNUAL DUES 2005 *NAT'L DEF OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES REF: 263190989-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES REF: 263622066-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES UNION DUES HITCH SPLY A26658 PERS OE3 PERS EMPL Y *PERS BYBK *PERS BYBK PERS 1959 PERS EM/OE PERS SPEC 10/06-11/03 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR PERS LTC/2405 YELLOW LABELS 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 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 6 AMOUNT 57.22 50.00 510.00 500.00 1010.00 15925.04 34.4.9 28.23 133.85 -6.81 159.98 354.88 29.74 56.50 103.79 96.89 -8.77 8.44 17.84 64.50 16.46 39.18 4.16 1133.35 685.35 96.27 3188.48 18805.60 471.53 123.70 110.67 3188.48 175.80 26064.26 46.19 2090.00 104.42 18.95 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3 -f{ 11/18/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611846 11/19/04 2441 RENEE RAMSEY 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 870. 00 1020 611847 11/19/04 2482 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 K. STAMES WIE 11/12 o. 00 1184. 00 1020 611847 11/19/04 2482 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 K. STAMES WIE 11/05 0.00 1480.00 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 2664.00 1020 611848 11/19/04 3115 PATRICIA ROHDE 5806249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 567.50 1020 611849 11/19/04 601 ROYAL ERASS INe 6308840 AIR HOSES 20290 0.00 17. 68 1020 611850 11/19/04 602 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 VAMPIRE TOUR 10/29 0.00 588. 20 1020 611851 11/19/04 M S.M. I .B.F. 580 RPL CK#61l516 o. 00 300. 00 1020 611852 11/19/04 258 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 110 V ORTEGA 563312780 o. 00 588. 00 1020 611853 11/19/04 628 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 1102100 LAW ENFORCEMENT NOV04 o. 00 507771. 50 1020 611854 11/19/04 1150 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LE 1104310 5/03-5/04 OVERCHARGES o. 00 3751. 87 1020 611855 11/19/04 2397 SAVIN CREDIT CORPORATION 1104310 H2400800225 12/1-31 0 .00 182 .84 1020 611856 11/19/04 2692 SEe 1108504 10/26-11/25 o. 00 77 . 62 1020 611856 11/19/04 2692 SEe 1108501 10/28-11/27 o. 00 65. 00 1020 611856 11/19/04 2692 SEe 5708510 11/07-12/06 0 .00 55.18 1020 611856 11/19/04 2692 SEe 1108501 11/07-12/06 o. 00 55.18 1020 611856 11/19/04 2692 SEe 1108501 11/07-12/06 o. 00 55.18 1020 611856 11/19/04 2692 SEe 1108501 11/07-12/08 o. 00 55.18 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 363.34 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108504 #2522405 10/01-11/15 o. 00 15.83 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108505 #2719770 10/01-11/06 0 .00 89.43 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SBC/MCI 5708510 #2719770 10/01-11/06 0 .00 89.43 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108503 #2719770 10/01-11/06 0 .00 89 .43 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 #2719770 10/01-11/06 o. 00 89 .43 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SBC/MCI 1101500 #2719421 10/01-11/06 0 .00 245. 24 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SBC/MCr 1108501 #2719771 10/01-11/06 o. 00 89 .44 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108501 #2719421 10/01-11/06 0 .00 245 .24 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCr 1108503 #2719421 10/01-11/06 o. 00 245. 24 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SSC/MCI 5708510 #2719421 10/01-11/06 o. 00 245 .24 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108504 #2719421 10/01-11/06 o. 00 490 .47 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108505 #2719421 10/01-11/06 0 .00 245.24 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCI 1101500 #2719770 10/01-11/06 0 .00 89.44 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108501 #2719770 10/01-11/06 0 .00 89 .44 1020 611857 11/19/04 511 SSC/MCI 1108504 #2719770 10/01-11/06 0 .00 89 .44 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 2447 .98 1020 611858 11/19/04 891 JOAN SPITSEN 5506549 GRATUITIES 12/11 0 .00 50. 00 1020 611858 11/19/04 891 JOAN SPITSEN 5506549 GRATUITIES 12/15 16 o. 00 so. 00 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 130. 00 RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:39 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-(6 11/18/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CIry OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER ~ DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 611859 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 102Q 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK lO20 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 611850 611851 611862 611863 611863 611864 611864 611864 611864 611865 611866 611867 611868 611859 611870 611870 611871 611872 611873 611874 611875 611876 611877 611878 611878 611878 611878 611878 11/19/04 3171 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 11119/04 1011 11/19/04 677 11/19/04 529 11/19/04 1406 11/19/04 1406 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 11/19/04 695 695 695 695 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1107405 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 SUNGARD PENTAMATION, INC 6104800 SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S Sorenson, Virginia TARGET STORES TEREX UTILITIES WEST THE VAN'S RESTAURANT THEATERFUN INC 6308840 6308840 5506549 5506549 5506549 5506549 550 5806349 6308840 5506549 5806249 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSOCIATI 1108601 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSOCIATI 1108602 TRAN, MAl TREASURER OF ALAMEDA COU 110 ERIN TURI Thompson, Zara 580 5806249 UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY T 2708404 550 UNITED WAY OF SANTA CLAR no VALLEY CREST TREE COMPAN 1108408 VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZQN WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:39 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 701 11/19/04 3167 11/19/04 M2005 11/19/04 1763 11/19/04 11/19/04 M2005 M2005 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 1993 11/19/04 2665 11/19/04 M 11/19/04 2226 11/19/04 1154 11/19/04 737 11/19/04 310 11/19/04 310 11/19/04 310 11/19/04 310 n/19/04 310 5606620 1107501 5208003 6104800 1104400 -----DESCRIPTION------ OFFICE SUPPLIES PREPAYMENT OCT04 *PERS DEF DATALINE CHRGS aCT04 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SPITSEN FAREWELL PRTY TREASURE EVENT BINGO THANKSGIVING LUNCHEON Refund: Check - Trip c SUPPLIES 25896 ANNL CRANE INSPECT. VAN'S DEPOSIT 3/21 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 2005 DUES GUAPO 2005 DUES MV & CC Refund: Check - FALL: A LOPEZ JR 566398126 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Trip c MOVED K RAILS UNITED WAY TREES NOT TO EXCEED $4 #408456999 OCT2004 #408456999 OCT2004 #408456999 OCT2004 #408456999 OCT2004 #408456999 OCT2004 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 .00 .00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 8 AMOUNT 30.13 906.00 3960.86 36.38 41. 33 41.33 82.66 380.68 153.11 481.96 347.79 1363.54 25.00 18.00 239.08 300.00 295.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 90.00 253.84 2423.25 25.00 250.00 99.00 3766.30 43.90 213.73 43.90 47.89 42.95 "3-/1 11/18/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "11/15/2004" and "11/19/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR-------~~---- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1101200 #408456999 OCT2004 O. 00 67.38 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1104530 #408456999 OCT2004 0 .00 62.47 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1107503 #408456999 OCT2004 0.00 257.22 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108102 #408456999 OCT2004 0.00 202 .46 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1104400 #870248283 OCT2004 0 .00 17. 03 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1lO8201 #408456999 OCT2004 0 .00 488. 49 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108005 #408456999 OCT2004 .00 62 .48 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108501 #408456999 OCT2004 O. 00 624. 01 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108503 #408456999 OCT2004 O. 00 91. 79 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108602 #408456999 OCT2004 O. 00 180. 93 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 5806649 #408456999 OCT2004 O. 00 43 .90 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108504 #408456999 OCT2004 O. 00 400 .46 1020 611878 11/19/04 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108505 #408456999 OCT2004 O. 00 96. 75 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2987. 74 1020 611879 11/19/04 3252 VIRCO INC. 1108512 SUPPLIES 0 .00 343 .77 1020 611880 11/19/04 M Vasantharam, Vijaya 550 Refund: Check Needed .00 1670. 00 1020 611881 11/19/04 M Vidlock, Reva 550 Refund: Check Trip c O. 00 25 .00 1020 611882 11/19/04 M Voss, Joyce 550 Refund: Check - Class O. 00 45. 00 1020 611883 11/19/04 M2005 WASTE NEWS 5208003 WASTE NEWS SUBSCRIPT O. 00 89. 00 1020 611884 11/19/04 2904 WEBEX COMMUNICATIONS INC 6104800 NOV2004 WEB SERVICE O. 00 600. 00 1020 611885 11/19/04 2856 WESCO GRAPHICS 5806249 WINTER 2004 SCHEDULE O. 00 2002.39 1020 611885 11/19/04 2856 WESCO GRAPHICS 5806349 WINTER 2004 SCHEDULE O. 00 2002.39 1020 611885 11/19/04 2856 WESCO GRAPHICS 5806449 WINTER 2004 SCHEDULE O. 00 2002.39 1020 611885 11/19/04 2856 WESCO GRAPHICS 5606600 WINTER 2004 SCHEDULE 0.00 400.90 1020 611885 11/19/04 2856 WESCO GRAPHICS 1106500 WINTER 2004 SCHEDULE O. 00 600.65 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 7008.72 1020 611886 11/19/04 M Weismann, Gloria 550 Refund: Check - Trip c 0 .00 25 .00 1020 611887 11/19/04 962 LINDA YELAVICH 5506549 HOLIDAY SOCIALS 0.00 141. 15 1020 611887 11/19/04 962 LINDA YELAVICH 5506549 NOV2004 BIRTHDAYS 0.00 194.91 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 336.06 1020 611888 11/19/04 M Zankich, Catherine 550 Refund: Check - Trip c 0.00 25.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT .00 801030. 61 TOTAL FUND 0 .00 801030. 61 TOTAL REPORT 0.00 801030 .61 RUN DATE 11/18/04 TIME 07:28:39 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING J ~ ;2ð RESOLUTION NUMBER 04-447 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 19,2004 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 offunds 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 $ 414,651.90 Less Employee Deductions $(119,088.76) NET PAYROLL $ 295.563.14 Payroll check numbers issued 78307 through 78519 Void check number(s) CERTIFIED: ~:J ~ Director of AdííÍinistrative Services i"" ~Ct1^~rl PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December ,2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 4~1 · I i~: 1/.\ ~, .·/·7 ., i" City Hall 1 0300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014·3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPEIQ1NO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. C; Meeting Date: December 7,2004 SUBJECT Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report - October 2004. BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget reports for the period ended October 31, 2004. The report includes all funds in control ofthe City. Investments The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $35.6 million at October 31, 2004, with a maturity value of $35.7 million. The slightly lower market value of the individual securities (compared with cost or maturity values), indicates that rates have risen slightly since the time of purchase. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities plus interest earnings up through the maturity date. The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) yielded 1.890% in October compared to September's 1.771 %, and 1.596% a year ago. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.43% in October. Short-term agency yields rose in October. The economy continued to improve at a very moderate pace - the U.S. economy expanded 3.9 % in the 12 months ended in September, and inflation appears to be under control. Overall, the City's current investment portfolio decreased approximately $2 million in October, as planned expenditures exceeded incoming revenues. Investments which were laddered to maturity dates that would allow for projected cash flows required for the library and other capital projects are totally matured as of November 1st, leaving only callable instruments in the City's holding of agency notes. Note that many of the notes contain a "step-up" provision, which provide for an increased yield (at certain dates) if the note is not called. Printed on Recycled Paper ç--I The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law, and are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months. Revenue/Expenditure Trends Most General Fund revenues are still well below budget projections, due to the timing of major tax payments ITom the County and other tax revenues submitted in the month subsequent to collection. Revenues in general show an increase over the prior year. Hotel tax receipts are up 12% over the same period last year. Other taxes, mostly related to development, are $120,000 higher. But the largest increases are in the categories of Licenses and Permits (up almost $400,000), and Charges for Services, (up $167,000), reflecting both increased development activity and increased fees as of July 1. It should be noted that this year's "reallocation" ITom the State will come in the form of permanently reduced Motor Vehicle in Lieu fees (MVLF), to be offset by an increased allocation of property taxes. Last year's take-away was realized by a reduction in MVLF ($885,000) in the first quarter of the fiscal year only. In addition, starting with September 2004, monthly distributions of sales tax estimates are at the reduced level (by 25%) as a result of the "triple flip" provisions. These monies will be replaced by County ERAF funds in January and May. Budget adjustments between the MVLF, Sales Taxes and property taxes will be prepared in January, but should not alter the City's total tax budget. (Cupertino's share of the ERAF tax shift for 2004-05 - $618,600 - has already been budgeted as a reduction in property taxes.) Departmental expenditures are on track with prior year spending, and generally below budget. Community Development spending is the exception, as construction plan check costs rise with increased development activity. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for October 2004. Submitted by: Approved for submission: CaM (k~_ Carol T. Augu me Finance Director ~ David W. Knapp City Manager 'J-J- City of Cupertino October 2004 --f=. 3.13% 1,000,000 , --r==--- -=t- YIELD ADJUSTED --~- COST [,000,000 ~_ 998.070 ~~__J['930) MARKET UNREALIZE - VALUE PROFIT/LOSS ACTIVITY DATE ,PURCHASE MATURITY DESCRIPTION REF MATURITY VALUE ----.---..--.------ - --------+-- -- . --- ----.. ..- ------r--- ---- 06/28102,~04 FNMA,__ ~6k' 3.34% 650,053 650,000 _ 649,965-,---, (88) 08/10/04 08/10/07 FHLB©.slep --, --, 6,k ,- 2',00% " 1,200,000, ., [,2,00,000 ,,[,197,O,82--.J2,918) ~08/24/04' 02/24/06 FHLB©-~ -" -" --6, k ", - 2,75 %," -----¡,,200,0~0- -1,200.000;- 1:199,167 (833) 04/30¡¡¡;¡-- 04/30107 -F}iLMC© - - 6k----,-- 3.30% 499,979 - ----SOO,ÕOO - - 499,681 _~8) MO _ ± _ l- -~' -: - - ' , '__ ',' '__ 20,863,885 T _ 20,893,803 L--- 20,783,003 ' (80,882) US - US GOVE-9=-T SECUilT~ ~---=l=þ--=- 0 0 0 ~:::~:a~~e~:dPortfoIiO r-- --=--- _,I -'I ----2:43% 35,690,435 _ 35,720,353 ~609,553 ~~882) Average Leogth toMator.i.t!(io years)- _' -J= _1.5+_- -I -1=-----'- _=- ---=f= -±=- - 1= --I ,- -- ,-' ,- ---=t= - Ic,,~~l-o,"J7œ~.~'.'~M..Mt-I··1 .. ..I=--J ..1:: .... _1:"'0'" I ,w,~,c__··"~""-,,,.-k . ,~--""'~ -=- .".. -- ¡,,~-. TotaITrust~AgeO'YPOr~fOI1o _ __ + ~~_ 41.816 [ 41,816 41.816 0 b:l E"~'~"M.'¡=foLfO =-l~ --- -i ± _" ,:i'O"9~~-'- - '" - . ¡ CO""', -=- ~""~."._ - -+-. "",% "" , ",' 10/15=,02 ,__ _ l'IISFargo MoneY,-,Mkl, ---r __ 0,94% ___10,940 10,940 _~ _~___ _ " ,Total BondReserve portfo~_ ___---=~- ~ $ _ 10,994 _~0,994 ! to,994 0 =-l=-=r~ ~___--=__--=- _=[- ---=- _ ~ -+ _ _ _ ~t]_-=l·_H ...~;I, --8= { .... +~ .. ~---=t= -----:-.L=- - -- ---r- ,- -----;'- ,,~--,--l- ~-~¡~ +- ~ +-~~ -- --- ~AI Investments by Type Managed Portfolio US TreaSllIyNotes 0% Agency Notes 58% ¡¡~~~1).¡ f~~{~~~ii~~ ~~~~~~~~-~),. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~4r'-~~o.'~~~~~>' .~III~~~~»~~~I~ LAIF ~dn I.~ ~~~~~~~ 35% ~~~~~~ 1~~4r'-~). ~I~~~~~B I~~~ill~ ~ ~~"&I~~~~~~j, ~II~~~~~~~~~~~: .~~Œ~~~I~~~ ~II»~~?$.~~~II~~: ~~I~BII~I~~t ~~I~~~I~~~lf. ~~~~{~~f ~~~~~' ~ 4% CD'> )% I)"', I Rate of Return Comparison I 3.00% 1.50% ~ . ------- .............. ..... . . . . +- I ~~ I I ~. _-.__u I . . - -,.." ------- 2.50% 2.00% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 9f03 10/03 11/03 12/03 1 f04 2104 3/04 4/04 5/04 6/04 7/04 8/04 9/04 10104 )"-$'" COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY 1 . _ .. _ ÒtyofCupertio;'-- - ---T- -- -- - - ---- -- ----------,-- - -----1------ October31,2004_ ___+_______________ - --===---+__---=-__-=-=-=r-=====- ___ Category _-=- I =Standard = =I==comment_ ___ ~~~~:~::::~;g FHLMC)==~: :::::= ===I~::::::: .===- --- r~~~um Term Corporate Bonds/Notes - -t~~~ n:::~o~ rating____ _I~::::::: _____ ___ M~ney Marht Funds_=-=_=120%-=-=~_-lcomplies =-===- Maximum Maturities .25% up to ] 5 years .jS:0mplies -;;-- __---=-~-===IRem~inder up to 5 year; = . Complies==--=_= PerIssue; Max - ; 10% (except LAIF) komplies -------1------------- Bankers Acceptances__ __ ._180 days& 40Y____ _____ __¡Complies._ _______ CommerciaIPaper__ ____ -1270 days & 25%___ Complies_ __ ___ _ Negotiable Certificates of Deposit '30% IComplies Repurchase Agre~ments-=---_______1365 days_____-=--= - Complies·.=- == = Reverse Repurchase agreements ,Prohibited IComplies ')-0 City of Cupertino L 1 [ 1 General Fund Budget Report I - _ -1 1 ~ -t- _____ +- _____I ~ _ _- -== - - --- T _ _ k _ Actual ---L- Actual % ofBudget¡¡- 10/3l/200~_ _12003/QiJ3udget 2004/05 Bud4 iYrD-~03 YTD~I:04tOv~de~A~~~ --=- --=-_ =- ---=- _n__ T;:~~ Tax ~ _ -I 8,780,000 r ---g,400,O~ _ 2,358,51 ~,683,5~ -4.16% t~justment for 2003-04 $500k hIgher llia~ prevIOus adJustn1"IÎ{- -.1'!opertyTax _ _.i_ 3,800,0]JQC 3,748,000, + 340~5~ 319,662~. -74.4lo/~ecured¡;aymentsrec'dNOV-Jan&Apr_June - _____=__ Jransient Occupan"L... -I-- ..J...5.00,000 ----.!,560,00O[J .---.l45,920. _387,092 _ -25.56%. ,For July- Septembe,---- _ _ _ ____ Utility Tax. _ _ '. ---.1,750,00.Ot_2'740'2~. 1_ 645,963L_ 565,752.1- -38.06%ì~ryearcatcl1-uppay¡nentof$46kmadebyEnron _ ___ Franchise Fees_. =r _ 2,300,002.!.--. 2,312R22J._ . 339,237'_..l35,7891 _ -56.43% tp();July- September _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ SIllier Taxes_ _' 1,365,0001 . ---.1435,0001---+-~'~ _453,3261_ -5.23%1 1 Housing mil. fees up $42k; construction taxup $47k ____ _ l,icenses and Penni~ T ...1,285,0001 _1,600,00º"-.__497,544._ 896,538 _ 68.10% Building Pennits up $250k, plan_checks up $145k_ -----I Use of Money & Property ¡ _1,110,000_ 1,186,91JQL 1_ 377,059 L 306,IOL -22.63')'o~rtfolio yield down 4%; Investment balances down 28% _ _ ___ Intergovernment...at..... =r _. 2,605,03.±L- 2,820,6871 _ . 418,46.+-. . 548,4421 .. -----=i.....I. .67% TIM'. M. VLF redu.cedprior year (current. year's re.duction. pe. nnanentL_ Charges for Services -1-...i!O,OQ!JL ----..49o,0001---!- ~,8!±L _ ...is I ,825 r _J.1 5.40% ¡ 1 Engineering fees ul' $95k; zoning & planning fees up $70k _ ___ Fines & Forfe.itures. _. _....i..40,000.r _ 600,000___1()5,~_ _ 97,922. . _-51.04% '----- _ _ _.' _ _ _. _ ___ ()therRevenue_ __ ---i-- _.40,000 _162,00µ _-3,092 __. -2,0711_...-1.03.84%1_+-', .._.._ _ _'._ .'_. _.____ Sale of Property 1 i 1,500,000 0, 0, To¡';IRevenue= --t 265850141 ----Z85545llt- ¡-----s9443441- 694192it- -27.0~ _ --=-- . . - .. ".'=- .=-' ---- OperatingExpendItureS:-- - - ¡--- - ¡--=¡:=- - I ------.J -- , -- - - - .-. - __- AdministratIve-- -1- 1,308,305~ '1,365,026 -m,4~ 331,6351 ---=Z7.1i%] 1-- - - -- - - - _- LaWEnforcement--=+ 6,697,396 6,853,nçr 2,033,866J 2,080,298f--_ -8.94% - = --= ~_~ ~ --=- _ __~~ CommumtyService _ _ 680,3881_ 718,3~ _ 202,760~ 236,4~ ....:l.24~dCitywebSiteprogram_addedtoCommumtysefV1cesmJ.!l'03_ ~dmimstrative servic~l_ 4,180,215 4,191,024 I 1,403,2~ 1,379,986~ ----.:-1.22% 1__ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ _Recreation Service _ _ _ 2,220~__b261,2191-+ __~77,0181 _648,458 _-13.97'Yoj_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ CommunIty DevelopmeI1l..L --.b888,800j 2,823,8621- 1 _ 638,150_ 747,60U-- -20.5~~Contract plan reviews up $67k; Human svc grants ($40k)J>d____ Public Works ! 8.577.778 9.367.:;~~ -1-- 2.589.63~1 2.370.663 -24.0~ J - Total Expenditures_ j-- 26 5529+ 27580617 - 1 7878 16sr- 7795 rnr -15.21%0 -F-- Operating Transfers In T~ 631,950I=- i,737,36st--1-475,00ól-i.i12,4~ O.OÓ%µ''':':: Operating Transfers Out I -4.303.357, -4.864.0001.+ -1.651.66+--1.621.332 _O,O~----, NetIn~ome/Loss~' ~ '~=---- _-~ --+-! yt -..J Revenue Comparison 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 - ,- , ){ ,/ ') ,,-' o 2 3 10 11 4 8 9 -500,000 Expenditure Comparison 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 o 2 7 .YTD 10/31/03 ElYTD 10/31/04 12 1 Sales Tax 2 Property Tax 3 TOT 4 UlìlityTax 5 Franchise Fees 6 Other 7 Licenses & Pemtits 8 Money & Propelty 9 Intergovernmental 10 Charges for Services 11 Fines & Forfeitures 12 Other Revenue 1 Administrative 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Administrative Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Development 7 Public Works 5-2' City of Cupertino .. . ---L______~__'----__ ~æ""gctT-f=i l '..+ ',.:L=-+= .' ., ___- Description-=-~- . AC~i#-TA~~:t~:nt+ ~::;:teEx~:~~~~re .. 2004/0~ADO!TEDBUDGET ....-I-t=---=+_-=-± 3¡,285,O~ 31,890,ÖOO '=~':YO_-:-= -r '6;;:= --..:.. +..:.. ,,~,jt= --J-: ~,,,.,¡" Dep~entcarryovers... ... _=Fions .. .. .-.-=L. _258,±44= .----1= 258,445 REVENUËADJUsTMENTS:-==t¡-=== =-r ==+- = = t-= =-. --=- .. . . ··1=t- ...----t-=-t-- -- EXPENDiTURE ADJUSTMENTS:-+-· - ..- - --t - - -- -- -.---- RednceEcoPass&Conj.Mgmnt- .. _lDO-8005-7107 -f---- -17,9~____-I= -17,920 ~~~~:::~:£~n~~Z;:~:t;:ts_I=ili?:~:~~:j~:~-t-_=_ ~~:~m--==t= ~~:jj~ .. ~~ ~~:~::: :~~~~~:~::: :~::: ·-=1.--=1 ::~:~:~~:~~:: ..... ~-~_ 2~:~ _______ L ___ 2~:~:~ I I ' I 2004;~;AD.ruSTEDBUDGET _-L-+ -------1 ---=--t: 31,285,000+- 32,441~484 )-1 "."..I i.\~ · City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 kimberlys@cupertino.org CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No.l Meeting Date: December 7, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Receive a resignation letter ITom Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Julia Fu, and post an amended vacancy notice. BACKGROUND The City Council has already set interview dates for commissions with terms expiring in January 2005. On November II, Julia Fu submitted a resignation letter because she and her family are relocating. RECOMMENDATiON: Staff recommends that City Council take the following steps: A. Accept Ms. Fu's resignation. B. Direct staff to post an amended notice to announce the unscheduled vacancy. C. Consolidate this vacancy's application and interview dates with those already established: · Application deadline of December 28 · Interview dates of January 10 and 11 at 6:00 p.m. Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~~1i Kimberly Smit City Clerk QJL David W. Knapp City Manager Prínted on Recycled Paper &-( Page 1 of 1 Glenn Goepfert From: Julia Fu [huajuliafu@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday. November 11,20049:11 AM To: David Greenstein Cc: Glenn Goepfert Subject: resigation Hi, David, I am sorry to say that I would like to resign from the BPC effectively immediately. My husband has already moved back to China. I am pretty busy in between work and home and also trying different business opportunities in search of my new position and career that will suit me in China. As much as I like to stay with you and resign as late as possible, I feel guilty not doing too much while occupying the spot. I am sure there are many capable people out there in Cupertino who would want to serve in this important position. Thank the city and all the commissioners and staffs for the wonderful time I spent with you, for the opportunity to contribute in a way I have never had before. I really feel proud of myself for what I have done in the commission with the help ITom all of you. I appreciate all the friendship and learning. I wish you all a wonderful New Year ahead and great accomplishment of all you tasks. Best Regards, Julia Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.CQIll 11/15/2004 & -d I ¡~I , . CUPEIQ1NO PARKS AND RECREATiON ADMINISTRATiON STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number (Ii- Agenda Date: December 7, 2004 SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution authorizing application for grant funding under the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant Program for Stevens Creek Corridor Park. BACKGROUND Funding is available from the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant Program for outdoor recreation purposes and these funds may be utilized for construction of the environmental classroom that is ultimately envisioned for McClellan Ranch Park. We have begun what will likely be a multi-year effort to assemble the funding necessary to bring a community vision for the Stevens Creek Corridor to fTuition, and this is one more funding opportunity we would like to avail ourselves of. Funds currently secured for this project include: $ 220,000 - 2002 State Per Capita Bond 129,165 - Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant 834,000 - Urban Park Act 161,000 - Santa Clara Valley Water District 89,000 - Land and Water Conservation Fund $1,433,165 - TOTAL RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Resolution authorizing an application for grant funds from the Roberti-Z'Berg- Harris Urbanized Area Need-Basis Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of2002 for Stevens Creek Corridor Park. Respectfully submitted: ~ith' Director Parks and Recreation Department ~'City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\l stevens creek corridor\grant funds\rzh urban grant\staffreport 'n reso.doc Printed on Recycled Paper It{~( DRAFT RESOLUTION 04-448 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBANIZED AREA NEED-BASIS PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 FOR THE STEVENS CREEK PARK CORRIDOR PROJECT WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to eligible applicants, and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urbanized Area Need-Basis Program for grants and the grant Project shown above within the State, setting up necessary procedures, and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State, and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cupertino City Council hereby: I. Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds ITom the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urbanized Area Need-Basis Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002; and 2. Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project; and Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and 3. Certifies that the Grantee has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the Project, the required Match; and 4. Certifies that the Project conforms to the recreation element of any applicable city or county general plan; and 5. Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. 7 ú( -.,2. Resolution No. 04-448 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of Decernber 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino '; « -] , ! 7~! t.\~ I . . . PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION CUPEIQ1NO STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number , b Agenda Date: December 7, 2004 SUBJECT Adopt a Resolution authorizing application for grant funding under the Urban Streams Restoration Program ITom the State of California Department of Water Resources for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park. BACKGROUND Funding is available from the Urban Streams Restoration Program for creek restoration and erosion control purposes. This grant is intended to restore the natural value of streams and support community stewardship. The goals ofthis state program are consistent with what the City hopes to accomplish within the Stevens Creek Corridor. We have begun a multi-year effort to assemble the funding necessary to bring the community vision for the Stevens Creek Corridor to fruition. Restoration of the creek is a primary element of that vision. This funding source is particularly attractive because it will augment funds the Santa Clara Valley Water District will expend on riparian enhancements mandated by the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (F AHCE) settlement. Funds currently available for this project to date include: $ 220,000 - 2002 State Per Capita Bond 129,165 - Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant 834,000 - Urban Park Act 161,000 - Santa Clara Valley Water District 89.000 - Land and Water Conservation Fund $1,433,165 - TOTAL Printed on Recycled Paper 1b-/ RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Resolution authorizing an application for grant funds from the Urban Streams Restoration Program under the State of California Department of Water Resources for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project. Respectfully submitted: ~ Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department åS)L David W. Knapp, City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\l stevens creek corridor\grant funds\urban streams\staffreport 'n reso.doc Ib-~ DRAFT RESOLUTION 04-449 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES URBAN STREAMS RESTORATION PROGRAM FOR THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK PROJECT WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Water Resources is soliciting applications for the Urban Streams Restoration Program; and WHEREAS, this program supports actions that reduce property damage caused by flooding and bank erosion, restore the natural value of streams, and promote community stewardship; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated responsibility for the administration ofthe Urban Streams Restoration Program for grants within the state, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant's Governing Body to certify by Resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cupertino City Council hereby: I. Approves the filing of an Application for funds ITom the Urban Streams Restoration Program for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park; and 2. Acknowledges that the City of Cupertino will be the project sponsor; and 3. Certifies that the City of Cupertino will abide by the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in the execution of the project; and 4. Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project; and 5. Designates the Director of Parks and Recreation as the City's representative with the day- to-day responsibility for the grant funded project. ¡b-3 Resolution No. 04-449 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 2 I b~t' DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-450 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REVISED FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9655, LOCATED AT 10050 AND 10080 NORTH WOLFE ROAD, APN 316-20-084; DEVELOPER, MENLO EQUITIES, AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF REVISED FINAL MAP WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for approval and for authorization to record the final map of Tract No. 9655, located at 10050 and 10080 North Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-084, showing certain avenues, drives, places, and roads by Menlo Equities; and WHEREAS, said map has been approved by the City Attorney; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT a. Said final map of Tract No. 9655 is hereby approved. b. The offer of dedication for roadway and for easements is hereby accepted. c. The City Engineer and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign said final map. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 1-/ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 r ßA t'iu8) ì / / -j.:)jj Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. ..J.Jl DATE: December 7, 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, as amended by discussion at the meeting. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the following R1 changes on November 16, 2004: · Set the 2nd story proportion to 45% of the first story area · Retain specific design guideline language instead of generic language · Approve the Planning Commission recommendation for the new review process · Retain story poles as part of the review of two-story hornes . Require projects on sites with an average slope of 15% to meet RHS (Residential Hillside) regulations Options The City Council acted on the items above and there are two options for finalizing the amendment: 1. Take only the changes approved on November 16, 2004, without changes to any other sections of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Model Ordinance 1 reflects the current R1 ordinance with only the items the Council approved at the last meeting. This document is not prepared at this time, but will be delivered to the Council no later than Thursday afternoon. If the Council chooses the first option, then Model Ordinance 1 should be adopted. Printed on Recycled Paper (ð- ( ._----_.__.._.,--_._.._-~_.- .......-- _._-----'----~._-~~._~._...._~~- MCA-2003-02 Page 2 2. Continue to go through the Planning Commission's recommendations and approve or deny the remaining changes. Model Ordinance 2 reflects the Planning Commission recommendation, and has been color-coded to reflect the type of change being proposed for each item: :. Changes that reflect the items the Council approved. Changes that include rewording, corrections or reorganization that result in no change to the regulations. Staff recommends that the Council adopt these changes. Minor technical changes staff recommends the Council adopt. Changes that the Council should make a final determination on. .- . Yellow Attached to this report is Exhibit A, which is a list of all of the changes the Planning Commission recommended for the R1 Ordinance. The remainder of this report addresses issues raised by the Council at the November 16, 2004 meeting. DISCUSSION: Minimum Second Story Area Under the current ordinance, a second-story can be 35% of the first story. If a homeowner has a 1,000 sq. ft. one-story house, then 35% of 1,000 sq. ft. is 350 sq. ft. The ordinance has a section that allows for a homeowner to have a minimum amount they can build in any case. That figure is 600 sq. ft. The Planning Commission recommended increasing the second-story proportion to 50% with an 800 sq. ft. minimum. The City Council agreed to a second-story proportion of 45%. The appropriate minimum area for that proportion is 733 sq. ft (see table below). Staff recommends a round figure of 750 sq. ft., which is reflected in Section 19.28.060 (B)(2) of the Model Ordinance. 2nd Story Proportion and Minimum Allowed Size Current CC PC 35% 42.5% 45% 47.5% 50% 600 700 733 767 800 2nd Story Proportion Minimum Allowed Size I D-:2- -~_...__._..._._-------_..~---^--- MCA-2003-02 Page 3 First Story Side Setback The Council discussed the Commission proposal of a combined first-story side setback of fifteen feet instead of ten feet on one side and five feet on the other. Section 19.28.060 D(2) of Model Ordinance 2 reflects the combined setback. Retain Two-story Envelope The Council discussed the Commission recommendation to eliminate second- story side setbacks in favor of a two-story building envelope. At least three Councilmembers were opposed to eliminating the setbacks. The Council could consider retaining the Commission's two-story envelope in addition to retaining the second-story side setbacks. This would be similar to the City's current one-story building envelope that is used in conjunction with first- story side setbacks. Model Ordinance 2 contains the two-story building envelope in Section 19.28.060 G(3). Retain Second-story Side Setbacks and Surcharge The current regulations affecting the side setback of the second story is shown in the table below: Setback and Surcharges Current Initial PC Ree. Final PC Ree. Surcharge Combination of 25', 10' on both sides with each side at least 10' Eliminate in favor of 15' added to front two-story building and side, with at 10' added to front or envelope least 5' going to the side. side 2nd Story Side Setback Prior to adopting a two-story building envelope in lieu of second-story setbacks, the Commission recommended a simplification of the second-story setback and surcharge rules. The Commission recommended that the combination of side setbacks equal at least 25 feet, with each side being at least 10 feet. Please note that the effect of the Current regulation and the initial Commission recommendation are equivalent. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Commission's initial recommendation, and this is reflected in Section 19.28.060 E(2) and E(3) of Model Ordinance 2. (ð- '3 --~"_..._-..,--"._~._- ---------_.__._---"---~ -....---.--.--.-.-.--..--.... MCA-2003-02 Page 4 Exceptions The issue of R1 exceptions was raised at the last meeting. There will be cases where an exception is necessary, due to property constraints. The table below shows the number of exceptions approved by the Design Review Committee since 1999. 1999-2002 18 68 0.26 2003 16 24 0.67 2004 (up to 11/30/04 ) 25 34 0.74 R1 Exceptions Total # of Total # of R1 ORC Year Exceptions Projects Ratio of Exceptions Per Project Enclosures: Model Ordinance 1 (current R1 with only the November 16, 2004 changes) Model Ordinance 2 (color-coded) Exhibit A: Guide to Model Ordinance 2 Staff Report from November 16, 2004 Staff Report from November 1, 2004, with attachments Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ~Àl David W. Knapp City Manager ~-r:.r 5P. Steve Pi cki Director, Community Development Jb~~ EXHIBIT 1 Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. MODEL ORDINANCE 2 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 ~ ZONES Sections: 19.28.010 19.28.020 19.28.030 19.28.040 19.28.050 19.28.060 Purposes. Applicability of f'Regulations. Permitted ttUses. Conditional ttUses. Site-ilDevelopment f'ReguIations (Site). Development rel!ulations (BuiIdinl!). Lot eoverage, buildiRg setbaeks, height restrietioRs aRd pri'laey mitigatioR measures for RORaeeessory buiIdiRgs aRd structures. 19.28.070 Landscape Reauirements. 19.28.08019.28.070 Permitted yYard e.!!;ncroachments. 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permit. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. 19.28.11019.28.080 Exceptions for preseriptive desigR regulations. 19.28.090 ResideRtiaI desigtl appro-¡al. 19.28.12019.28.100 Development f'Regulations-Eichler (Rl-eR-le). 19.28.13019.28.105 Development f'Regulations-(Rl-aR-l1t). 19.28.110 Procedure for exeeptions and residential design appr6'1als. 19.28.120 Salar design. 19.28.14019.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.140 1.ppeRdix 1. LaRdscape MitigatioR Measures. 19.28.150 AppeRdix B Release of Prhaey Proteetion Measures. 19.28.160 .\ppendix C Prj-¡aey ProtectioR PIaRtiRg 1.ffidavit. 19.28.010 Purposes. __single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) I ¡ð-) ---- ---.....--.. ...--------.-...-...-..~-.~..----.. ------·-_____.._._________n_____ 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 I1!I'II-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 ~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 conformingwi.th th_rovisions ofCha ter19.80 of this title; D. ~~haPter 19.9~:·:::·:~= .----'~--'------'-'- 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; Small-famil da care home; fH. 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; tJ. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; :l-X. Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which is at least three hundred feet ITom 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; KoL. 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) City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 2 ID - b ---.--------,---------.-"..".----- --__________""____..M.___.._..."_____..._____ 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the ~.m 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 ~~ 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; Grou care activities with reater than six ersons; City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 3 (D -7 - -."_._,_._.._---~ _._----~---~_._-_....._._-----_._------_.._---~.-.- ,-------------- ~4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet ftom 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 _Development Regulations_ A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. I. Lot area shalliiiiond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the, ,'.' , , zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Zoning Symbol Minimum Lot Area in Square Number Feet I _ 6 6,000 7.5 7,500 10 10,000 20 20,000 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by 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 sixt feet measured at the ITont- ard setback lin I. Site plMs for all àevelopffiéJflt proposals shall iRelaàe topographieal iRfoFfflatioR at eORtoar iRtervals Rot to eJleeeà (eft fcet. ;'.reas ',yhere slopes fife thirty pereeRt or ~2. 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, City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 4 (D ~r -_..~~--,.._---_._-,.._---_.._-,_._._--_..-_._------_.--,,---------------- A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs. patios, porches and other similar features not substantiallv enclosed bv exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The obiective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the proiect is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I. 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured ITom the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-storv house and shall be counted as floor area. a. If the house is a two-storv house, this area will count as second storv floor area; otherwise, the area will count as first floor area. b. A floor area allowance of seventv-five square feet shall be provided for two-storv proiects to partiallv offset the stairwav area that would otherwise be counted under subsection B(3) of this section. C. Design Guidelines. I. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development sh~.~..!~J~'::2.i~!.:!!l!~~~.~.:!.:!:!!·1ine that the following items are met prior to ~ City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 5 /ô-1 c. not be a three-car wide driveway curb b. The design use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve hi her volume interior s aces; cut. d. No more than fiftv percent of the front elevation ofa house should consist of ara e area. f. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another verticallv and horizontallv and symmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. 1. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. D. Setback-First Story I. Front Yard. The minimum ITont 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. The combination ofthe two side vard setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side vard setback mav be less than five feet. At lea~t oae eftvie side yard s~t6a~ks HUlst be ae less Hum tea feet. The eth~r side yard s~t-eade mli~t be ao less tflaa fi,e feet. Notwit-hstaadiag t-he alJove, a lot less thaa sÎJety fe~t ia 'l/idth aad less tfllH! six tfHJlisaad square feet shall have a miaimum. side yard s~t6a~k ef fiv~ feet ea each sidc yar<i. Ia iastlH!~es ·,vhere aa additioa is Jre Josed te Ill! ~){istiag bliildiag h¡r¡iag both side yard set-eaeks less than tea feet, the wider setbaek shaH be reta,iaed tlfid the allffower setbaek mlist be !It least fi'''~ feet. Ia the ease ef a eemer lot, a miaim\lffi side yard setbaek eftv.·elve f-c~t ea the street side efthe let is requir~d. a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-vard setback on the street side ofthe lot is twelve feet. The other side vard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the RI-5 district, the side vard setbacks are five feet on both sides. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 6 (0 ~(D 3. 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an Rl district shall be set back a minimum of twent feet from a street ro ert line. a. E. 3. F. Basements. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 7 10-1( ---~~---,._-~---..._.__._---.._---------_._-,------------- 1. The number, size and volume oflightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation, except that in the case of a single-storv house with a basement. one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long:. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible ITom 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. 3. Building Envelope (Two Storv). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height of two-storv structures must fit into a building envelope defined bv: I. A ten-foot high vertical line measured ITom natural grade at the propertv line; 2. A fortv-five degree roofline angle proiected inward at the ten-foot hi h line referenced in subsection G 3 1 of this section. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 8 (D·-I1..- -~_._._-_.._--"._,.,._----~--~----_._^------ -.".--.--'--.-----~.--.---------'-----------------__r_____-----___~.__._.__..._ City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 9 ID-l J -_.~--~---"--_._._.-.---------_._._-.___.___.__._.._.____...__u________..._..n____n____________...,._.._________------_._----~ City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 10 (o-ry City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 11 ID -[ « ~Permitted Yard Encroachments. Bwhere a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback re ulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards one encroachin side ard setback ma be extended alon its existin buildin City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 12 rð -( b &.B. 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, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 13 (0-1/ .~---~---------------_.~--------,._-_._-----_. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 14 fD- f g -'-~~._----------'------"------_._---_._.._._--_.-...----,_._---~---- City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 15 (ð-/ ~ .----.-------_____~___._.__._.___._.___._._._.__,~._______..w____.....______._____.______~_____________.___._'__________________..___ _._.~_~____.__._ City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 16 /ð-;¿D ---'--_"'_'._._.~________...__.____.___.~______._"____.__n__ _.._.._.....____......_ City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 17 ID- d I ----.-........ ----.~--_...._-,._--~_._....._._---~--_._- - . --.-...-----.------------ Development Regulations-Eichler single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development r~u.!<t!i~. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned ~ In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition. A. Setback-First Story. I . The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. I. Entry features facing the street sha.!1~~~~ the roofline of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shall be ~ (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. The first floor shall be no more than twelve inches above the existing grade. 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 , the following is required for all second story windows: a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor; or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000) 19.28.195iSl~~fã¡tDevelopment ReguIations-~ RI-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned RI-a. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 18 /D-<2L ~-- ._----_.--_._-_...~._~--- .._----_..,-,._-_._--_._--~_._-----_._.__._,--_._-----------"- In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. 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 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than m area. D. Setback - First Story. I. Front Yard. The minimum ITont yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback - Second Story. I. Front Yard. The minimum ITont yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 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 ITont-facing wall plane(s) ofthe second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two-story wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving. No more than ofthe ITont yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than of the ITont yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: I. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured ITom natural grade and located ten feet ITom property lines; 2. A twenty-five degree roofline ang~rojected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)(JiI) of this section. \. Variation from the R I and R I-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cu ertino Munici al Code in the Rl-a district. J. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 19 (0<2J _..._._--_._~.._--~--_._._~._--~--~--_._----- 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. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. I. Second-story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured fÌom 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 hei~ of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 ~:c~ shall be considered a guideline in the R1-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. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed fÌom 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. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 20 (6-.[ '-f --_._._--_._-----_.._--_.~--_._,--,-_._--~---------_...".--. a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required ftont 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 ITont setback area. d. Eave Height. The eave height for a ITont 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. £. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping I. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms ITom the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations ~ bulk and privacy intrusion as required by Section ~ of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback ITom the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted ~ list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of __feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views ITom second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the ITont yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 21 10 - .1)" ~Findings. 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. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 22 ID-2~ Interpretation by the Planning Director. In 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, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 23 fD-17 Exhibit A Guide to Model Ordinance 2 Legend - Page 1 1. 19.28.010: R1 . Page 2 2. 19.28.030 D: 3. 19.28.030 H: - Yellow Changes that reflect the items the Council approved. Changes that include rewording, corrections or reorganization that result in no change to the regulations. Staff recommends that the Council adopt these changes. Minor technical changes staff recommends the Council adopt. Changes that staff would like the Council to make a final determination on. Page 3 4. 19.28.040 B(l): 5. 19.28.040 B(3) - B(5): Page 4 6. 19.28.050: 7. 8. 19.28.050 C: 9. 19.28.050 C(1): We can put this language in our applications. Doesn't need to be in ordinance. Page 5 10.19.28.050 D: 11. 19.28.060: 12.19.28.060 A: Add 5% to the lot coverage to allow for roof overhangs. This does not increase the FAR. 13. 19.28.060 B: Add language explicitly stating that the maximum FARs will be allowed only if other regulations and guidelines are met. 14.19.28.060 B(l): 15. Deleted 19.2_ 16. Deleted 19.28.060 B(3): ~ ( D<2{ . Exhibit A Page 2 17.19.28.060 B(3): adjust how high-volume area will be counted 18.19.28.060 B(3)(b): provide an allowance for stairways so they aren't double counted 19.19.28.060 C(l)(a): Page 6 20.19.28.060 C(l)(c): 21.19.28.060 C(l)(d): guideline that suggests that garages should not be more than 50% of the front elevation 22.19.28.060 C(l)(e): 23.19.28.060 C(1)(f): guideline that encourages new two-story homes to follow the pattern of side setbacks and garage orientation that is in the neighborhood. 24.19.28.060 C(l)(g): guideline that encourages symmetry and balance in design 25.19.28.060 C(l)(h): guideline that encourages porches, because they present a more friendly face to the street 26.19.28.060 C(l)(i): guideline that encourages living area closer to the street, with the ara e ushed further back 28.19.28.060 C(2): 27.19.28.060 C(l)G): 29.19.28.060 D: 30.19.28.060 D(l): 31.19.28.060 D(2): combines the first story side setbacks to 15 feet, with the smallest side 5 feet. The remaining deleted language is replaced in subsection a and b. Page 7 32.'9.28.060D(2){~ 33. 19.28.060D(3):· ..... ..··1,- ........ .... .... . 34.19.28.060 D(4): specify that the front face of the garage (the part with the doors) must always be setback 20 feet from the street to ensure that ade uate drivewa s ace is rovided. 35. 19.28.060 E(2): /ð - c2 ~ -------------,--- 36. Page 3 Exhibit A 37.19.28.060 E(4): 38.19.28.060 E(5): Page 8 39.19.28.060 F(l): allow single-story homes to have a larger lightwell as an ~.c.entiv. e for one-stor homes with basements 40.19.28.060 G:· ..... . .... . 41.19.28.060 G(3): two-story envelope: consider keeping in addition to .s_~.idesetbacks ... .. 42.19.28.060 G(4).. .. . ... . ... . Page 9 43.19.28.060 G(5,6): 44. Deleted 19.28.060 G: Page 10, 11 45.19.28.060 H: Page 12-17 48.19.28.080 A: Page 18 51.19.28.120 52.19.28.120 B 5 : 53.19.28.120 C: 54.19.28.130 10- 30 --- ---_.._-----------.-.__.__._--~~-_.".... ---..--..- Exhibit A Page 4 Page 19 55.19.28.130 C, G: 56.19.28.130 J: Page 20 57.19.28.130 K(3): 58.19.28.130 K(4): Page 21 59. 19.28J30 M(2 : 60.19.28.130 N: Page 22 61. Deleted 19.28J10: Page 23 62. Deleted 19.28.120: 63. Deleted 19.28.130: (D~ 3/ ---.-.---r--...-.------"-------'------~_____~__ ¡¡~I. :::::::J City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (40R) 777-TH::\ CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. DATE: November 16,2004 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: On November 1, 2004, the Planning Cornmission recommendation for the R1 Ordinance was introduced to the City Council. The Council took public input and continued the item. 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 fD ~ j;t ~I :::::J 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 Amendment In response to public concerns about new construction in single-family neighborhoods during the late 1990s, the City Council adopted new regulations in June of 1999. The new regulations can be summarized as follows: 1. Limit second story area to no more than 35% of the first story area or 600 sq. ft., whichever is greater. 2. Require wall offsets every 24 feet on second-story walls. 3. Limit the visibility of second-story wall planes over 6 feet in height to no more than 50% of the perimeter of the second story. 4. Limit single-story heights to a building envelope defined by a 12-foot height, five feet frorn 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 (0 ~3 3 Printed on Recycled Paper ,..---- ~-~---_..__._~------,._---~_._-------------_."'--_.__.~~--_..- --~~--- 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 forrnulated a new review process in response to lessons learned since 1999. The Commission approved these changes on a 4-1 vote. The City Council did not want to approve the new process change without further public outreach. DISCUSSION: Scope of Work On September 8, 2003, the Planning Commission requested that the City Council send the 2003 amendment back to the Commission for further study. On October 6,2003, the City Council agreed, but outlined a Scope of Work for the Commission's review (Exhibit C). The Commission's review began on January 26, 2004. Public Survey The Planning Commission received conflicting opinions from residents since the enactment of the 1999 R1 Ordinance Amendment. Some residents stated that the rules were not strict enough, some residents were happy with the new controls and others felt they were too stringent. As a result, they were not certain about what public sentiment truly was. To get a better sense of public sentiment, the Commission appointed two of its members to work with staff to formulate a public survey. Questions were created to cover most of the items that were in the Council's Scope of Work. In March of 2003, over two thousand surveys (Exhibit I) were mailed directly to all properties that had filed for a building permit since 2000 and those directly adjacent to those building projects. In addition, the survey was inserted in the April 2004 edition of the Cupertino Scene, which gave every resident inthe 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. Ketl 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 (ð - J Y 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 hornes (Question 19 - Exhibit R). Planning Commission Recommendation: After receiving the survey results, the Commissioners described their individual guiding principles for the R1 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 rnany issues, the current Commission carne 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. Relationship to Scope of Work Second Story Area: The City Council authorized a "minor" change to this regulation and stated that any increase should be "mitigated by other mass, bulk and privacy protection measures" (Exhibit C). The Commission recommends increasing the allowed second-story area from 35% of the first story area to 50%. In addition, up to 800 sq. ft. may be permitted in any case, an increase from the current 600 sq. ft. figure. The purpose of this increase is to provide sufficient roorn 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. 1'0 - .3) MCA-2002-03 Page 4 A B (A x 0.45) C o (C x 0.35) E F (E x 0.50) G Net 2nd Maximum Max 2nd Max 2nd Story Lot Size Floor Area 1st Story Story 1st Story Story Increase 5,000 2,250 1,667 * 583 1,500 ** 750 167 6,000 2,700 2,000 700 1,800 900 200 7,500 3,375 2,500 875 2,250 1,125 250 10,000 4,500 3,333 1,167 3,000 1,500 333 Table 1 Effect of New Second Story Area Regulation Current Regulation Proposed Regulation Notes: All Figures in Square feet >I- 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 limit to be used in conjunction with other regulations and guidelines to ensure compatible mass and scale. Thus, the foundation is set to reject proposals for second-stories using the 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. (0 - 3~ ____._____m~.~__...,..__._______.._.__.___~____.__.~.__.__ MCA-2DD2-03 Page 5 Second Story Wall Offsets: The Council's direction was to explore a minor change to this regulation so as not to apply it to second-story walls that are already screened by the first-story roof. The Commission proposes to shift this to a guideline that will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Privacy Planting: The Council direction was to explore ways to "expand or improve protection of privacy." The Commission did not recommend any new methods for privacy protection. Staff intends to request larger planting for cases where there is neighbor concerns with the regular privacy trees. Discretionary Review: The City Council provided the Commission with free reign on the issue of what projects need public review as well as what the review should be. The Commission recommended a process that is consistent with the 2003 recommendation (Exhibit H). Specifically, staff will review all two-story projects that do not need exceptions. Neighbors will be notified and will have the opportunity to participate. Exceptions will remain at the Design Review Committee. The proposed process will be better for all parties involved: . Local architects support a staff level review because they know it will be faster, cheaper and more impartial. They would prefer to have staff serve as the arbitrator in the event of a conflict because there is more consistency at the staff level than at the Commission level. · Concerned neighbors should support the proposed process change because they will have more input into what happens in their neighborhood. Also, they will not have to attend a public hearing at a particular time, which may be inconvenient. They will have a certain amount of time to report their comments to staff by mail, e-mail, telephone, fax or in person. · The City will be able to use its resources efficiently by cutting out the cost of unnecessary public meetings and reducing the need for as many staff reports. Recommended Changes not in the Scope of Work First Story 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. /D - 31 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 Commission supported using the variance process in these cases. Currently, an exception is required to exceed a 45% FAR. Staff recommends language that exceeding a 45% FAR should require a variance. Sensitivity in the Hillsides There are a number of properties in the 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 more sensitive than development on the valley floor. For that reason, staff believes that the trigger point for increased regulation of hillside projects should be adjusted. The City Council agreed and included such direction to the Planning Commission in the Scope of Work. The Commission chose to not study this topic until after the General Plan is approved. Staff believes that a reasonable adjustment to the current regulation can be made without significant study and without waiting until after the review of the General Plan. Staff recommends language that new construction on properties with an average slope of over 15% should have to meet the R1 and RHS regulations. Removal ofSvecific Language for Vague Language At the final Planning Commission rneeting on this amendment, a Commissioner proposed striking out language in the guideline section of the ordinance (Section 19.28.060 C(l)(a)) that states: "new 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" 10 - ,) t MCA-2002-03 Page 7 The Commissioner proposed to replace it with: "new construction should be harmonious in scale and design with the predominant neighborhood pattern." Since the item was raised on the same night as the Commission's approval of the Model Ordinance, staff did not have an opportunity to fully consider the effects of this change. Nevertheless, staff opposed this change at the meeting because it was taking language that was specific and replacing it with vague language. After further analysis, staff opposes this change for the following additional reasons: · The language proposed to be removed nearly matches Question 19 in the survey, and 70% of the respondents agreed that it was important that new construction meet the language in this guideline. · The author of the language "harmonious in scale and design" was former Mayor John Statton, who later described that meant having new construction not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights and entry feature heights, which is exactly the language that the Commission proposes to eliminate. · Removing it has the danger of an ad hoc definition (more or less strict) being formed without the approval or the knowledge of the City Council. o Neighbors who oppose two-story construction will interpret "harmonious in scale and design" to mean much more than the City intends. o Homeowners proposing two-story construction will argue that "harmonious in scale and design" is not defined and therefore should not be enforced. Staff recommends the language described remain in its current state. Story Poles Story poles are used to illustrate the size and height of new second-stories. The Commission proposes to eliminate story poles, citing usefulness, cost and potential danger. The Commission felt that alternative noticing techniques such as a posted rendering in the front yard and mailing reduced plan sets to adjacent neighbors provided sufficient information to neighbors that the story poles were not necessary. Residents may have grown accustomed to the story poles, as evidenced by over half of the survey respondents stating that the benefit of story poles is worth the cost to the applicant (Question 16). Fee Chanfes 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: 10- 3 ~ 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 (o~ L( 0 MCA-2002-03 Page 8 Fee $963 $1,339 $1,339 $1,339 $1,339 $549 Second Story Deck Extension of Non-Conforming Building Lines Rear Setback Exception 17'+ Gable End Outside of Buildin ** 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 amendrnent, minor adjustments will be necessary to the Accessory Structure (Chapter 19.80) and Heritage and Specirnen 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 rnaximurn potential. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Approved by: , 1lX David W. Knapp City Manager Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development fD - LIf 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 amended. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of October 2004 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Isl Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl TaghiSaadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Planning Commission G :\Planning\PDREPORTlRES\MCA-2003-02 reso.doc (D _L( 2.. ----~.,'-------_._,._----"_..,----_.._-"-,_. ------'-_.,_._._--~_..__..,,-_._----_.._.,_....."'-----._._---"~.__.._-----.---".__._---- 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 (R1) 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-t-) ZONES Sections: 19.28.010 19.28.020 19.28.030 19.28.040 19.28.050 19.28.060 Purposes. Applicability of rRegulations. Permitted üUses. Conditional üUses. Site--dDevelopment rRegulations (Site). Development regulations (Building). Lot coverage, builàißg setbacks, hcigbt restrictioßs aßd privacy mitigation measures fer nonaeeessory Builàings aßà structures. 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.0801 ').28.979 Permitted yYard e.!j;ncroachments. 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permit. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. 19.28.1 J 019.2S.989 Exceptions for prcseriptive desigß regulatioßs. 19.28.999 Resiàeßtial desigß a lpro·:al. 19.28.12019.2S.199 Development rRegulations-Eichler (R1-eR-le). 19.28.13019.28.195 Development rReguIations-(Rl-aR-Hi). 19.28.119 Procedure fer e!íceptioßs aßd residential àesigß approvals. 19.28.129 Solar àesigß. 19.28.14019.28.139 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.119 Appenàix i\ Laßdscape Mitigatioß Measures. 19.28.159 Ap !endix B Release of Privacy Protection Measures. 19.28.1 á() .'. I lenàix C Privacy Protection Planting Affiàavit. 19.28.010 Purposes. Rl R--+single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 1 /D - ~ '3 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 community; (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R 1 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 RI 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 ofthis title; D. Home occupations wheB aceessor/ to permit reqlliremeHts eOBtaiBed 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 activitics with six or fewer people: He!. 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; f.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-cL. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 2 fD _L(y 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the Rl R-+single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. S. Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6)m of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons; 3. Residential care facilities faeility that fall into the following categories: that is not reé uired to obtain a lieense by the gtate, County agency er department aad has siJ[ or less residents, not inelHcting tbe providers, pro'iicter family or staff; a. Facilitv that is not required to obtain a license by the State. Countv 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 agency or department license and seven or greater residents. not including the provider tàmi1v or staff. is a minimum distance of five hundred feet ITom the propertv boundarv of another residential care facility; c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license bv the State, Countv agency or dcpartmcnt and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider familv or staff. is a minimum distance offive hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 1.Residential care facility that haG the appropriate State, County agency or departnlent liccnse and soven or greator residents, not irlelHding the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five lmndred feet from the property !10undary of another residential care facility; 5.Residontial care facility that is Hot required to obtain a license by the State, Comity agency or department aFld flas seven or greater residents, not ¡¡,¡eluding the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five kIndred fcet from the property bOHndary of aHother residential care facility; Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 3 (0 - Lf ') ~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 SHe-DeveIopment Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. I. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the RlR-J- zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Minimum Lot Area Zoning in Square Symbol Number Feet Rl 2 5,000 R1R-J- 6 6,000 R1R-J- 7.5 7,500 R I R-J- 10 10,000 RIR-J- 20 20,000 The minimum lot size iR aR R I ZORe is Sill thousand sq,Iare feet. 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection AO) of this 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 ofthis title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the ITont-yard setback line. except in the RI-5 district where the minimum lot width is fiftv feet. C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. I. Site plans for all development proposals shall include topographical information at contour intervals not to exceed ten feet. Areas where slopes are thirty percent or greater shall be identified on the site deve10pment 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-J- 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, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § I (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 4 I D -L( ~ D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Citv (fees paid and pemJit number issued) on or before Januarv 1, 2005 mav proceed with application processing under the ordinances in effect at that time. 19.28.060 Development Re!!lIlations fBllildin!!).Lot Coverage, Ruilding Setbacks, Height Restrictions and Privacy Mitigation Measures fer Nonaccessory Ruildings and Structures. A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent ofthe net lot area. An additional five percent ofIot 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 Door area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in coni unction with the residential develomnent standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the proiect is compatible with the sun·ounding neighborhood. 1. The maximum floor area ratio of all stmctures on a lot shan be fortv-five percent.Any new single story HOHse, or sin¡;le story addition to an existing House may not cause tHe floor area ratio of all structures on the lot to exceed fort)· five percent. 2J.BY new two story house, or second story addition to an e)(isting HOHse, Inay Bot cause the floor area ratio of all structHres on tHe lot to exceed tHirty five percent, Hnless discretionary design approval is first oètaifled from tHe Design Revie",. Committee pmSHaRt to Seetion 19.2£.090. In BO event shall such floor area ratio ØJceeed forty five percent of the net lot area. 3.The floor area of a second story sHall not eJlCeed tHirty fi':e pereent oftHe existing or proposed first story or six hundred square feet, wHicHever is greater. 2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall be fifty percent of the existing or proposed fìrst stOry floor area. or eight hundred square feet. whichever is greater. 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet. measured from the floor to the top of the root~rafters. have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted as floor area. a. lfthe house is a two-storv house. this area win count as second storv floor area; otherwise. the area win count as first floor area. b. A floor area allowance of seventy-fìve square feet shall be provided for two-story proiects to partiallv offset the stairwav area that would otherwise be counted under subsection B(3) of this section. C. Design Guidelines. I. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to issuance of building permits: a. The mass and bulk of the design sAalJ-should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. Ncw constnwtion shall Rot be disproportim:ately larger tHan or out of scale with tHe neigH8orhood pattern in terms of8HildiRg forms, roofpitchcs, eaL/e heights, rid¡;e hei;;hts, and eRtr)" feature heights; Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 5 (O-l{7 b. New construction should be harmonious in scale and design with the predominant neighborhood pattern. &.c. The design sItatl-should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; e-,d. For projeets v;ith tlwee car garages oricnted to the pHblie right of way, tile wall plane of the third space shall be sct bade a miHÎ1num of two f-cet from the wall plaIlc of the other two spaees, or sHall iHeol"]3orate a taHdem space. There sItatl-should not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. e. No more than fiftv percent of the fTOnt elevation of a house should consist of garage area. f. Long, unarticulated, exposed second storv walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second storv. g. The CUTI"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 vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and placement. I. Porches are encouraged. I. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. k. All second storv roofs should have at least a one-foot roof overhang. 2.Ifthc Director does not find tHat the proposal is generally eOHsistent with this section, theH an application mHst be made for design a¡Jproval from the Design Reyiew Cemmittee pHrSHaIlt to Section 19.2S.090. D. Setback-First Story (Nonaccessory Struetures). I. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side vard setbacks shall be fitìeen feet, except that no side vard setback mav be Icss than five feet. }A least one of tv.o side yard setbaclcs must be no less than ten feet. The otiler side yard setback must be no less thaH Rve feet. Notwithstanding the above, a lot less than sixty feet iB width and less thaII six thoHsand square fcot shall have a miBimum side yard setbaek of five feet OR each side yard. In instances where an addition is proposed to afl existing building havin;; both side yard setbacks less than ten feet, the "vider setback shall be retained and the narrower setbaek must be at least fi'.'e foet. IH the case of a corner lot, a miFlimum side yard setback of twelve feet on the stroet side of the lot is required. a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-vard setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet. b. For interior lots in the Rl-5 district. the side vard setbacks are five fcet on both sides. Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 6 (D - c( ð .~_~__.._____ ___~_n.____.____"...._._______..__._ _______________._______ _____~_.~_________._._.___~,____ c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the front property tine and the rear property line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. The roar setback may be redueed to ten feet if, after the redtletion, the usable rear yard is not less than t','.enty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. a. With a Minor Rcsidcntial Pemlit subiect to Section 19.28.090, the rcar setback mav be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear vard is not less than twentv times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. 4. Garage. The front facc of a garage in an R I district shall be set back a minimum oftwentv feet from a street propertv line. a. For proiects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-wav, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from thc wall plane ofthc other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Floor (Nonaccessory Stnwtmes). I. The minimum ftont and rear setbacks are twenty- five feet. 2. In the case of a flag lot the minimum setback is twentv feet from anv propertv line. The n1inim.1Œ1 side setbaeks acre ten feet, provided tHat in tHe case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is hventy feet from any property line, and in the ease of a comer lot, a minimum. of twelve feet from a street side property line ami t'lIenty f-eet from any rear prÐporty line of an oxisting, developed single family dwelling. 3. In the case of a comer lot, a minimum setback is twelve feet ITom a street side property line and twentv feet from any rear property line of a single-familv dwelling. 3 .Setback Slli'charge. }. setback distance equal to fifteen f-eet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the ftont and side yard setbaek requirements speeified in subsection E2 of this section. A minimum offive fcet of the fifteen fcet shall be applied to the side yard(s). 1.l.ccessory Baildings/Stmctures. Chapter 19.80 governs setbacks, coverage and other standards for acceSSÐfY stmetmes. 5.The heib>ht of second story walls are regulated as follows: a.Fifty pereent of the total perimeter length of seeond stor]" walls shall not have m¡posed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall ha'le a minimum t'.vo foot high overlap of the adjoining Erst story roof against the second floor wal1. The overlap shall 8e structural and shall 8e offset a minimum of four f-eet from the first story e)(terior wall plane. b.All second story wall heights greater than sÎJ[ feet, as measured kem the second story firJisl1ed floor, are reqHired to have building VIall offsets at least every t'.venty fum feet, with a minimum two foot depth and si)( foot width. The offsots shall comprise the full heigbt ef the wall plane. e.}.!l seeond story roofs shall have a minimum of one foot eaves. F. Basements. I. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 7 10 -Lf 1 ventilation. except that in the case of a single-storv house with a basement, one lighlwell 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 Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R I zone shall not exceed twentv-eight feet. not ineluding fìrelJlaee ehimnevs, antennae or other appurtenances. 2. Building Envelope (One Storv). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height of single-storv structures and single-storv sections oftwo-storv structures must fit into a building envelope defined bv: I. A ten-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade measured at the propcliv line: 2. A twentv-five-degree roof line angle IJroiected 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 I!:able end of a roof enclosing an attic SlJace mav havc 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 Story). a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height oftwo-storv structures must fit into a building envelope defined bv: I. A ten-foot high vertical line measured fyom natural grade at the propeliv line; 7 A fortv-five degree roof line angle proiected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(3)(a)(I) of this section. 4. Second Storv Wall Heights. Fifiv percent @fthe total perimeter length of second storv walls shall not have cxposed wall hcights greater than six feet. and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap ofthe 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 storv exterior wall plane. a. The Director of Communitv Development mav approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D. 5. Entrv Feature Height. The maximum entrv feature height shall be fourteen feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 8 ( ð -S,U --------...-------..-- _._------".,....,_.~~_.__._---_._-."_._-_._-~_._-- 6. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council mav prescribe that all buildings within a designated arca be limited to one storv in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by afjjxing an Hi" designation to tbe R1 zoning district. G.AdditiOIJal Site Req,Iiremeflts. I.Height. a.MaxÎlmuR Bailding Height. The heigbt of aHY priHeipal dy:elliH¡; in àn R I zone sHall Hot exceed tweFlty eight feot, flot ifle\adin¡; tireplace chimfleys, afltennae or otHer ap¡JIlrtenanees. Ð.THe maximum exterior "...all height afld Ðuilàing height OR sing1e story stmctmes aHd single story sections eftwo story stmctures must fit into a b~1Îlding eBvelope dofiBed by: iJ. Ì'.yelve foot high vertica] line measured from flatural grade and loeated five feet from property liHes; iiJ. t'.venty fi':e degree roofline aHgle projecteà ifl'llard at the twelve foot high line referenced insllbsection F I Ði of this section. Natwithstandiflg the above, a gable eRd ofa roofene\osia!;aB attic spaee may have a maximum wall height aftweRty feet to the peale of the roof as measured from natmal grade. 2.HeiglHs exceoding tweHty foet shall Ðe subjeet ta the setback regalatiOIIS iH subsectioH E of this sectioH. 3..'\reas Restricted to OHe Story. The City COliHeil Hlay preseribe that alllmildiHgs within a designated area be limited to one story in hei¡;ht (not exeeeding eighteen feet) by affi)¡jng to the R I zoning district, the designation "i"; provided however, that the ]imitation ma)· be removed through ase permit approval, as provided in Section 19.2S.040B by the PlanniHg Cammissian. 4.The maximam effiry feature hei¡;ht, as meas~ffed from finisl, grade to the top of the wall plate, shall be fourteeH feet. 5.Na blank single storj' side 'Nalls laRger thaB sixteen feet shall faee a pllblie right of 'Nay withoat at least OHe of the following: (a) at least oHe offoet with a minimum Ì'.YO foot depth afld six f-oot witlÜl; the offoet shall eomprise the full height of the viall plane; (Ð) window of at least tHirty iHches by thirty inches; (e) entry fcature 1eatlin!; to a door; (tl) trellis with laRtlscape sereening. 6.EJlceptioHs for Hillside .'\reas. NotwithstandiRg aRY provisioHs of subsectioH PI of this sectioH to the contrar)', tile PlanniHg COfl'lmission Hlay fl'lake an exceptioH for heigHts to exceed tweHty eight feet ander certain cireuH1stances: a.The subject property is in a hillside area afld has slopes oftefl pereent or ¡;reater; b.Topographiea1 featares oftbe subjeet property malœ afl exccptioH to tile standard height restrictions r1ceessary or desirable; c.lnno case, shan the maximl'ffi ilei¡;ht e),ceed thirty feet for a prilJcipal d\'.'cl1ing or twenty foet f-or aH accessory building or dwelling; d.In no case, shal1 the mælÎmam height of a structure 10catetl OH promiHcnt ridgelir:es, on or abo'ie the four handred tin)' foot eontour eJ,ceetl twenty f€et ifl heibht. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into neighbOling residentia1 side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Penl1it subiect Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 9 I D - ') I .. ----_._._--_.__._--,._--_._-_._-_..~-_._"~------~ to Section 19.28.090 in order to protect the privacv of adioining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address ptivacy protection to the grcatest extent whilc still allowing the constmction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios. balconies, or anv other similar unenclosed tèatures. I. A second-storv deck or patio may encroach tlu·ee feet into the front setback for· thc principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-yard sctback shall be fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twentv feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter mav be varied for a stmcture utilized for passive or active solar purposes provided that no such stmcturc shall infringe upon solar easements of adioining property owners. Anv 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 ProtectioR RequiremeRts. I.ReqHired Landscape PlaHtiH¡;. a.Reqlotirement. IH order to address pri';,acy protectioH afld the reduction in visible bHildiHg mass of new two story homes afld additions, tree and/or sk.ffi plantin¡; is reqHired. b.Planting Plan. ¡\ building permit applicatioH for a new Ì'lve story heuse or a second stor)' addition shall be accompaflied by a planting plaft which idelltifies the 10catioH, Sj3ecies and canopy diameter of existing trees or shrubs subject to staff approval. New trees or shrubs shall be reqHired Oil the applicaHt's property withill a cOile ofvisioH sefilled by a thirty degree aIlgle frotH the side window jambs of all secolld story willdows (EJ(hibit 1). Ne>.Y trees or sh.."'tJbs are HOt reqHired to replace e¡¡istiH¡; trees or shrubs if an IHtemationally Certified Arborist or LieeHsed Landscape .'\rehitect verifies that the eKistia¡; trees/shrubs are eOllsisteat with the intent of .\ppeadi¡¡ .'.. .'.prEeOOls for aev;, two story homes and additions must plant a tree in froat of new secoHd stories in tl1e front yard setback area unless there is a conflict with the tree eallopies of the 3Liblie street tree (.\p 3endiJ[ /\, page 2). The planting is reqHired en the applicant's property, unless the options listed in sHbseetion Fld of this sectioH is applied. n1is option does ROt apply to tHe front yard troo plantin¡; reqHirement. c.PlaHtin¡; ReqHirements. The miHin1Hm size of the prsposed trees shall be Ì'lveHty four iHch box and eight foot minÎtRHm 31afttiHg height. The minimum size of the shmbs shall be .fifteen gallon and si¡¡ foot plantiHg height. The planting mHst be able to achieve a partial serceniHg within three years from planting. Tae species alld plallting distance betweeH trees shall be go'."emed by /\ppeHdix l.. The trees or sil.:1.ibs shall be planted prior to issaante of a final occapaFI6Y permit. ,'.11 affida'iit of plaHting is required in order to obtaiH the final occHpancy permit (,'\ppendi;: C). Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 10 IO-_)d-- d.Options. Where plantiRg is required, the applicaHt may plant OR the affected ]3ro]3erty ovmers lot iR lieu of their o".yn lot or the aiTeeted propcrty owncr may modify the n:lIHBers of shrues or trees, their types and locations by suemittiq; a waiyer to the COlHmHRity Deyelopment Department along with the Building permit (}.pfJendix B). This 8]3tion does not ap]31y to tbe rcqHired tree planting in tront yards. c..^.pplicability. This requirement shall a¡'>ply to secoAcl stor/ wiAdows aAd decks with views into neighboring resicleAtial yards. Skylih'flts, wiRdows 'Nith sills more tllan five fcet aboye the finishecl seeond floor, ·::iBdows with pemlanent, CJ[terior louvers :113 to six f-cet above tbe finished secoad Boor, and obscüred, noa o]3eRable wiRdows are ROt reqüired to pro'lide pri vacy protectioB plaRtiRg. f.MaintcRaHce. The required plants shall be maiRtaiRed. Lanclsca¡'>e plantiRg maintcRance iRclHcles irrigatioa, fcrtilizatioR and prHniag as aecesS<Jr/ to y:cld a growth rate expected for a pmiicular species. ''''bere required planting dies it must be replacecl '.yithiA thirty clays with the size and species as clescribed iR .^.ppeadix .tl. of t)¡is eha¡'>ter and aR upEiated planting plan shall be provided to t)¡e ComHlHnity Developl'ROBt Department. T)¡e aff;¡eted property OVifler with privacy protectioA planting on his or )¡er owa lot is not reqllired to maiAtain t)¡e landscaping. (Ord. IE6S, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; OId. 1831, (part), 1999: Ord. IE08 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1,1998; Ord. 1781, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. ]630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, EXA. f. (part), 1992) 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacv impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two-stOry homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide substantial screening within three vears of the planting. A. Applicabilitv. This requiremcnt shaH applv to new two-storv homes, second-story decks, two-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-storv decks or existing windows on existing two-storv homes that increase priyacv impacts on neighbOJing residents. Skvlights. windows with sills more than tìve feet above the finished second floor, windows with permanent. exterior louvcrs UP to six feet above the finished second Boor, and obscurcd. non-openablc windows are not required to provide privacy protection planting. B. Privacv Planting Plan. Proposals tor a new two-story house or a second storv addition shall be accompanied bv a privacv planting plan which identifies the location. species and canopv diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs. 1. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-storv windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by a thitiv-degrce angle on cach side window iamb. Thc trees or shmbs shall be planted prior to issllancc of a tìnal occupancy permit. a. New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an IntemationaUv Celii1ied Arbolist or Licensed Landscape Architect Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 11 /0 - )J - '-'._-~--_'_-------....------.- verifies thai the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics ofDrivacy planting species. subiect to approval bv the Director of Community Developmcnt. b. Affected propel1y owner(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own propertv. In such cases. the applicant must plant the privacv screening prior to issuance of a building pernÚt. 2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures mav be modified in anv wav with a signed waiver statement from the affected propertv owner. Modifications can include changes to the munber of shrubs or trees. their species or locations. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-storv homes and two-storv additions must plant a trec in front of new second stories in the front vard setback area. The tree shaH be 24 inch-box or larger. with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Community Development can waive this front-yard tree if there is a conflict with existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-of-wav. D. Species List. The P1anning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacv planting trees and shrubs. The list shall include aHowed plant species. minimum size of trees and shmbs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees. E. Covenant. The propertv owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that requires the retention of aH privacv planting. or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting. prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division. This regulation does not appl y to situations described in subsection BO )(b) of this section. F. Maintenance. The required plants shaH be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessarv to vield a growth rate expected for a particular species. G. Replaccment. Where required planting is removed or dies it must bc replaced within thirtv davs with privacv tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Communitv 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 Residential Permit and conforms to the following: to no less tIJafl tIJree feet from the property line i£the applicaEt obtains '.witten eOflsent from the adjoining property owner thcreby affected and reeeives approval fi"OHl the Direetef of Community De';elopHleJJt. Only one s~LÐh extcnsion shall be permitted for the life of sach building. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be eonotrued to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the reslilt of the granting of a vaÚance or eJlception, either before or after stich property become part of tl,e City. ] . The cxtension or addition mav not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall mav not be increased. 2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October I I, 2004) 12 (0 ~ ') 'i .--. ..._.~_______.____,~_.."'__.__.._____~_,_ __ _____._'_m__~~_____ __________~___ 3. The extension of any wall plane of a first-story addition is not pemlitted to be within three feet of anv property line. 4. Onlv one such extension shall be pelmittcd for tbe life of such building. 5. This section applies to the first storv onlv and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment bv any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such propertv become part of the Citv. B.The extension or additioR may Rot further encroach into aRY fCE[uired setbacl:; e.g., a single story may be m¡toRàed aloRg aR mÜstiRg five f-oot siàe yard setback eveR thouglI tlIe side yard does Rot eE[ual teR feet. HO'Ne'/er, in RO case shall any wall plane of a first story addition be placed closer than three feet to any Jro Jerty line. GoB. 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, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19,28.090 Minor Residential Permits. Proiects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reyiewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neigbbors with an opportunity 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 bv first class mail to all owners of record of real propertv (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adiacent to the subiect propertv, including properties across a public or private street. Thc notice shall invite public comment bv a deternlined action datc and shall include a cop V of the development plans, eleyen inches bv seventeen inches in size. S. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public conmlents, the Director of Communitv Devclopment shall approve, conditionallv approve. or denv the application. The penuit can be approved on Iv upon making all of the following findings: 1. The proiect is c011sistent with the Cupertino General Plan. anv applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. Thc granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to propertv or improvements in the vicini tv. and will not be detrimental to the public health, safetv or welfare. 3. The proposed project is hannonious in seale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adyerse yisual impacts on adioining properties have been reasonablv mitigated. C. Notice of Action. The City Council. Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action by first class mail and electronic mail. Any interested partv mav aPDeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136. except that the Planning Commission will make the tinal action on the appea1. D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Pem1Ît. Unless a building penuit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 13 10 - s-{ 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 pCl111it cxpircs tor anv rcason. the Minor Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Communitv Development may grant a one-vear extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Moditìcation to the Minor Residential Pem1it is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is providcd. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director ofCommunitv Development. a Minor Residential PemlÌt can be processed concurrentlv with other discretionary applications. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. Two-storv additions or two-story new homes require a Two-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this section. Two-storv proiects with a floor area ratio lmder 35% shall require a Levell Two-Storv Residential Pennit. while a two-storv proicct with a floor area ratio over 35% shall require a Level 11 Two-Storv Residential Pel11Tit. A. Notice of Application (Levell). Upon receiPt of a complete application. a notice shall be sent bv first class mail to all owners ofrecord of real propertv (as shown in the last tax asscssment toll) that are adjacent to the subject propcrtv. including propertics across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment bv a determined action date and shall include a copv oCthe development plans. eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice in the front vard of the subject site that is clearlv visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign. at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmlv attached to a five-toot 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 propertv. if the address is not known. b. A bricf description of the proposed project. the content of which shall be at the sole discretion oCthe Citv; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A deadline tor the submission of public comments. which shall be at lcast fourteen davs after the date the notice is posted; e. A black and white oI1hographic rendering of the front of the house. at least eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. The Citv shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B. Notice of Application (Level1I). Upon receipt of a complete application. a notice shall be sent bv first class mail to all owners of record of real propertv (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property. including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a cop v of the dcvelopment plans. cleven inches by scventeen inches in size. Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 14 (6 -')fo I. Posted Notice. The applicant shaH install a public notice consistent with subsection A( I) of this section, except that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead of a black and white orthographic rcndeling. C. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments. the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionallv approve, or den v the application. The permit can be approved onlv upon making all of the following findings: I. The proiect is consistent with the Cupertino Gcneral Plan, anv applicablc specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit wiH not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to propertv or improvements in the vicinity. and will not be detrimental to the public health, safetv 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 anv member of the public that commented on the proiect shall be notified of the action bv first class mail and electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. E. Expiration of a Two-Storv Permit. Unless a building pennit is tìled and acceDtcd bv thc Citv (fecs paid and control number issued) within one vear of the Two-Story Permit aDProval, 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 eXDires for anv reason, the Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Communitv Development mav grant a one-vear extension without a public notice if an aDDlication for a Minor Modification to the Two-Storv 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 Communi tv Development. a Two-Storv Penn it can be processed concurrentlv with other discretionarv aPDlications. 19.28.11019.28.11811 Exceptions forPreserifltiye Design Regulations. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Sections 19.28.060. 19.28.070 and 19.28.12019.28.100 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of ADPlication. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Communitv Development Department shall sct a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice by tìrst class mail to all owners of record of real proDerty (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subiect propertv. Properties that are adiacent to the subiect site, including those across a public or private street, shall receive a rcduced scale copv of the plan set with the public notice. B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionally apDrove. or denv the aDPlication based on the tìndings in this section. Anv interested Darty can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 19.136. C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building permit is tìIed and accepted bv the City (fees 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 II, 2004) 15 (~- )/ presctibed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit extJires for anv reason, the Exception shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development mav grant a one-vear extension without a public notice if an aPtJlication for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. D. Findings tor Approval 1. Issued hv the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development mav grant exceptions from the presc¡iptive design regulation desc¡ibed in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the following findings: a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible second-storv wall height regulation in that the numbcr of two-storv wall planes and the amount of visible second story wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. b. 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. c. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting propeliies. 2. Issued bv the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee mav 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 fol1owing findings: a. Thc litera] enforcement of this chaptcr will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b. The proposed development will not be iniurious to propertv or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public satètv. health and welfare. c. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum valiance that will acconlPlish the purpose. d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed ITom abutting properties. j\.IssHed BY the Director of Comm~lRity Development. 'NitR respect to a reE Hest for two story development which does not ¡fleet the development reE uiremonts eOHtained in Section] 9.2S.060H (Priyaey Proteetion Requirements) and Seetion 19.28.100C, the Comml±Rity Developmeflt Director may grant an e)(cefJtion to al1o'^, Ì\'/O story develo 'Jment i£the sOOject develo 'Jment, Based upon st±ÐstantiaI evidence, meets all of the following criteria: I.The literal enforcement of this chapter wiJI result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this cha¡Jter. '"). The 'Jro 'Josed developmeflt \" il1 not be injUlious to pro 'Jerty or improvements in the area nor be detrin¡enta] to the public safety, health and welfare. 3.Tl1.e proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan, any ap 'Jlicable specific plan, andwith tho pm-poses of this chapter. 1.The adjoining properties are otherwise 'Jroteeted from unreasonable 'Jrivaey impacts. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 1],2004) 16 16-)% ------"_._-~-----~~-_._-~_._~-------~ RIsslled by the Design Reyiew Committee (Other Prescriptive Design Regtllations). The DosiSH Re·/iew Committee may ¡;rant excoptions troHl the prcseriptiye dosigH regtllations described in Section 19.28.060 and Section 19.28.100 c;:c1asive of Section] 9.28.060G1 (Hillside Building Heights) tlpon mabng all of the fullowing findings: I. TIle literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inGonsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2.THe græJting oftHe exception will not result in a conditiol1 that is materially detJimental to tHe I'HibIie healtll, safety and welfare. 3.The e)cception to be ¡;rBRted is one tHat will require the least modificatioH of the prescribed design regulation and tHe mil1iffium variance that will accomplish the purpose. 1.The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. C.Issuod by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building Heights). Notwithstanding any provision of Section 19.28.060 G 1 to tHe contrary, tHe Planning Commission may grant aB eKception fur HeigHts to eKceed Ì\venty eight feet tlpOI1 making all of tile following findings: I.The subject property is in a Hillside area and has slopes often pement or greater. 2.Topographical feattlres of the stlbjeet property make an C1lCeption to the staBdard Height restrictions neccssary sr desirable. 3.In no ease shall the maximum height exeeed thirty f-eet for a principal dwelling or Ì\venty feet for an accessory building. 1.In no ease shall the maximlim hci/s.JJt of a structlKe 10eated on a prominent ridgeline, on or above tHe fOlK Hlilldred fifty foot eOflteur exeeed t'.YCRty eight feet. (Ord. 1868, (¡¡æt), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (¡¡art), 2000; Ord. 1841, § 1 (part), 2000; Or-d. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (¡¡art), 1999) 19.28.()9() Residential Desigfl f.JlJlFÐval. In tae eyeRt that a proposed developmeat of Ì\YO stories e¡weeds a thirty five percÐat floor arca ratio as prescribed in SectioR ] 9.28.060B, or in the eveRt that the Director of COl1nTIliaity De'lelopmeflt finds that the proposed Ì\vo story deveJopnlent does not cEmform to Section 19.28.060C, the app1icaat shall apply to tHe Design Re'liew Committee for Elesiga approval to allow for the developmcRt; provided, howevcr, in no eveflt shall slich application exceed a furty five percent floor area ratio. In addition to the ptlblie hearing and notice requirements described in Section] 9.28.] 1 0, at least tea days prior to the date of the Plielic hearing, tile applicaflt shall iflstall story poles to outline the proposed bliilàiag exterior walls and roof as further described by procedures developed by the Director ofCommtlnity DevelopmeHt. The Design Revic',v Committee may !;'Taflt a special permit oBly UpOB making all of the follewing findings: .A..The project will be coasisteHt with the ClifJertino Comprehensive CeHera! FlaB, an)" applicable specific plans, zOHiHg ordinances afld the pHrposes of this title. RThe grmHiHg of the special permit will not resli~t in a cOBdition that is detrimeRtal or injurious to property or improvements in the 'iiciBity, and will ROt be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) J7 (0 - t:1 C.THe ]3ro]3osed addition/home is harmoIliolols in scalc and desigIl witH tHe general neigIWorhood. D.The proposed additioF!/hon}c is generally consistcnt with dcsign Stlidelincs dcvclo]3cd by the Director ofComIlmnity Dcvelo]3mellt. B.The proposed additioF!/110me will not res lilt iF! siSF!ificant adverse visllal impacts as yiewcd from adjoining propeliies. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; OrE!. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1811, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; anI. 1808, (]3art), 1999) 19.28.12019.28.100 Development Regulations-Eicbler (Rl-e)(R Ie). R l-eR---l-€ 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 Rl -eR---l-€. 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. I. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shall be three-to-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.SeconE! story lJ\lilding wall offsets described iIl SectioH 19.28.060 B5b are not reqllired for homes in the R I e zone. 5. Section 19.28.060 G(4) shall be considered a guideline in the RI-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 19.28.060H, the following is required for all second story windows: a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor; or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000) 19.28.10519.28.130 Development Regulations-(RI-aR-l-a) 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 RI-a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 18 (6 -~D ..~_._._-------_.....- - ------_..__._---_.._--------_.._--,._-~._-_._-_._----------- B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: I. A second floor may be at least seven hundred square feet 700 sq. ft. in area. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred square feet 1,100 sq. ft. in area. D. Setback - First Story. 1. 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 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. 1.The setbaek slireharge ill SeetioIl19.28.060 £(3) does not a 3ply in this distriet. F. Second-story Regulations I. Second story decks shall conform to the second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane. 3. The ITont-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two-story wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fiftv percent ~fthe ITont yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than fOliv percent 4íf%-of the ITont yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from 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. 1. 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 Review Committeebased on Section 19.28.100. exccpt that the Desi gn Review Committee shall approve or denv the project at a public hearing based on the findings in subsection N( I) of this section.. Diseretionary reyiew proeesses shall be based Oil Section 19.28.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except as amellded by this ordiI:ance. 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 II, 2004) 19 /ð ~~ I Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. I. Second-story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a minimum four-foot depth and ten-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) E(5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in the RI-a district. ~.SeetioR 19.28.060 E(5)(b) shall Rot apply to the RI 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 ofthe property. L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. I. Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line. a. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height 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. Front 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 structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 20 rD -0).. 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. £. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping I. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms ITom the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required by Section 19.28.070 19.2&.060 H of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of twelve -h!-feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views ITom second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the ITont yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. Procedures aAd Process I.Posted Notice. For all Hew eÐHstructioH, tl~e aj3plicant shall iHstall a poolie Hotiee iH the front yard of the sllbject site that is clearly visible from the ¡')Helie street. The notice shall Be a 'NeatRef]3roof sibn, at least two fcet tall and tHree feet wide firmly attached to a fi'.'e root post. The flotice shall romaiH iH place until aH actioH has BeeH takeH OH the applicatioH aHd the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain tRe f-ollowiH¡;: a.The exact address ofthe property, iflŒow, or the 10catioB of the property, if tHe address is Bot Imown. B.}, brief descriptioH of the proposed project, the content of ',vHich shall be at the sole discretioH of the City; c.City cOHtact iBformatiol1 for IJIlblic inquiries; d..'\R I l"xl 7" illustration of tHe proposed House WHea vie'.ved from the street. 11-1 cases where desi¡:;11 review is required, the iUustratiÐH shan Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 21 10-0 ) -~--~-----~ - --_.-.__.~---,_._----~-- .._-'-_._---------_._--_._._._~~-.----~-_._._-_._--------------.- "-~ be a perspectiye rendering aFld shall inclHde the projected action date. Thc City shall approve the illustratioH or rendering prior to POStiH¡;. 2.Adjacent single family residential properties shall recei'ie a redHced scale copy of the proposed plaFl set with the mailed notice. ::hLFindings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project is consistent with the City's single-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. 19.28.11 II Procedure far Exceptions and Residential Design Ap lroyals. "^..PHblic Hearing Notice. Upon receipt of aFl application for approval, the Director of CommHnity Deyelopment shall set a time and place for a Pllblic hearing before tile relovant decision mal:er and order tho pHblic Flotice thereof. /\ notice of the hearing shall be sont by first class mail to all o',lRers ofrecord of real property (as sho',yfl in ilie last tm¡ assessment roll) witllin three IllliH:H-ed feet of the subject property. RExpiration of aH EJlCeptiOA or Residential Design "'\pproval. <'\ r!ecisioR for approyal wltich h¡¡s Rot beeR Hsed witllilJ. one yeæ- followiFlg the effective r!ate thereof, sllall become Hldl and void aHd of RO effect lli1less a shorter time period shall specifically be prescriber! by the eORditions of the exception. An appro'ial sllall be deomed to ha·..e beeR "used" wheR a complete bHilding permit application is sHBmitted to the ChiefBllilding Official, aRr! contin'.les to progress iR a r!iligeHt mar.ner. IR tile event tllat the ImiJr!ing permit application expires, the Residential Design /.pproyal shall beeome Imll and void. The Director of CommllIlity Development may ¡;rant ORe ar!ditioIlal one yeæ- O)[teRsioFl if an application is filed before the expiration r!ate withorn further notice and hearing. C.DecisioR. After closing the pUBlic heariIlg, tile decisioR maker sllall approve, cOlìditioIlally approve, or deny tho application. 0.,'\11 r!ecisioIls regarding approvals contained in this section may be Gl"pealed by aAY interested party pHrsuarJt to Chapter 19.136. /,n appeal of tile DesigA Re'..iew Committee decisioR snail be proccssed in the same mal-mcr as aR appeal from the deoision of the Director of Comm'.lnity Development. E.EJ[piratioR of an Exception or Residential Design ,^.pproval. A decisioB for approyal which has not beeB user! within ORe year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescriber! by the conditioRs of the eJ¡eeptioR. <'\II approval shall be deemed to ha'..e beeR "Ilsed" in the Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 22 (1r& Y event of the ereetion of a strneture whea sufficient 8uildiBg aetivity has eseuneà BREi, continues to occur in a diligcnt manner. The Direetor of Comm.anity Development may grant Ol:e additional one year extension if an applicatioH is filed bcfore the expiration date withotiÌ Ü:rthsr notice and hearing. F.Coaemrent .'\pplieations. NotwithstandiH¡:; any J3rovision of this eha¡Jter to the eOBtrary, an applieation for exeeption or resideHtial Eiesiga roview may, at the discretion of the Direetor of Community Development, be proeessed eOBcmTently with other land ass approvals. (Ord. 1&6&, (part), 200]; Ord. 1&60, § ] (part), 2000; Ord. ]&11, § ] (part), 2000; Ord. ]&31, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.120 Solar Design. THe setback and Height restrictions providcd in tHis chapter may be varied for a stmctme utilized for passi'¡e or aetive solar purposes, in R I zones, provided tHat ne SHCH stmcture sHall infringe apon solar oasements of adjoining property owners. .\ny solar strueture whieh requires variatioB from the setback or height restriction of this ehapter shall be allowed ollly Hj30n issHance of a conditiona1 usc permit by the Direetor ofCommuBity Development. (Ord. ]860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. ]831, (part), 1999; Ord. ]808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, £)[11.. 1'. (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 regu1ations and provisions of this 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, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Strike all sections ami e][l1.ibits after Seetion 19.28.]30 Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 23 ID -¿,f 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-l) 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-Ie). Development regulations-(R-Ia). 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 -1 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 community; (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part). 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Em. A (part), 1992) 2004 S- 2 Repl. 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, struCture or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, struCturally altered or enlarged in an R-l single-family residence district other than in 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, Em. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the R -I 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 aduit 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, ntaintenance facilities, or corporation yards: J. 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 sha1l administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; 29 (ð--Mo 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, Em. A (part), 1992) 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-l single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124: 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued by the Plamring Commission: 1. 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 Plamring Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or inttusive 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 propeny boundary of another residential care facility; 5. Residential ~are facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department 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. COrd. 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 Site Development Regulations. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. 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 Minimum 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 orGreater. 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 R-l zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. 3. No structure or improvements sha1I 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, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) ¡' ( D -& / 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. Any 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. Any 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. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shaI1 be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shaI1 determine that the following items are met prior to issuance of building permits: a. The mass and bulk of the design shaI1 be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shaI1 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 shaI1 incorporate a tandem space. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. 2. If the Director does not frod that the proposal is generally consistent with this section, then an application must be made for design approval from the Design Review Committee pursuant to Section 19.28.090. D. Setback-First Story (Nonaccessory Structures). I. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. At least one of two side yard setbacks must be no less than ten feet. The otber 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 eacb 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 YanI. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. The rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yanl is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. E. Setback-Second Floor (Nonaccessory Structures). I. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty- five feet. ID-&ó 19.28.060 Cupertino - Zollillg 32 4' nin. oIføt : ~ b '" ::::::a. 5' b CI ~ FuI height ....-. .§ I . sec:and N Ioor wall . . . } . I 2. The minimnm side setbacks are ten feet, provided that in tbe 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 minimum of five feet of the fifteen feet shall be applied to the side yard(s). 4. AccessoryBuildings/Structures. Chapter 19.80 governs setbacks, covera8e and otber standards for accessory structures. 5. The height of second story wa1\s are regulated as follows: a. . Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story wa1\s 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. . SeaxId Floor Plan .5 E ~ "'... .... ,- . Ë-t ..... ~ 24"'-G' 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 minimum 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. 10-(01 33 Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones l~.1S.ß6I) F. Basements. I. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shaI1 be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimnm side sethack for a lightwell retaining wall shaI1 be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shaI1 be ten feet. 3. LightweIls that are visible from a public street shal1 be sc:reeDCd by landscaping. 4. Railings for lightwells shal1 be no higher than three feet in height and shaI1 be located ¡mm""¡i"t~\y adjacent to the lightwell. 5. The perimeter of the basement and alllightwell retaining walls shaI1 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 shal1 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 stnIctures must fit into . a building envelope defined by: 1. A twelve-foot high vertical1ine measured from natura1 grade and located five feet from property lines; ü. A twenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high lin~ referenced in subsection Flbi of this section. Notwithstanding the above, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of twenty feet to the peak: of the roof as measured from natura1 grade. ~ . .... r~.. ~. PIaIe . =..-... ".- I ...-- I !1 ~ 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. shal1 be fourteen feet. 5. No blank single-story side walls longer than sixteen feet shall face a public right-of-way withòut at least one of the following: (a) at least one offset with a minimum two-foot depth and six-foot width; the offset shal1 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 certain circumstances: a. The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes of ten percent or greater; b. Topographical features of the subject property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or desirable; c. In no case, shall the 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. ID -70 19.28.060 Cupertino· 'loning 34 H. Privacy Protection Requirements. 1. Required Landscape Planting. a. Requirement. In order to address privacy protection and the reduction in visible building mass of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. b. Planting Plan. A building permit application for a new two-story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing trees or shrubs subject to staff approval. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property within a cone of vision defined by a thirty degree angle from the side window jambs of all second story windows (Exhibit 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 !he applicant's property, unless the options listed in subsection Fld 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 shall be twenty-four inch box and eight foot minimum planting height. The m;n;mnm size of the shrubs shall be fifteen-gallon and six-foot planting height. The planting must be able to achieve a partial screening within three years from planting. The species and planting distance between trees shall be governed by Appendix A. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. An affidavit of planting is required in order to obtain the final occupancy permit (Appendix C). d. Options. Where planting is required, the applicant may plant on the affected property owners lot in lieu of their own lot or the affected property owner may modify tbe numbers of shrubs or trees, their types and locations by submitting a waiver to the Co=unity 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, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. Where required planting dies it must be replaced within thirty days with the size and species as described in Appendix A of this chapter and an updated planting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department. The affected property owner with privacy protection planting on his or her own lot is not required to maintain the landscaping. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: 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, Em. A (part), 1992) 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, 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 constIUed 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, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.080 Exceptions for Prescriptive Design Regulations. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Sections 19.28.060 and 19.28.100 may be granted as provided in this section. IO-7f 35 Single-Family Residential (R-t) 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.IOOC, 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 19.28.06OG4 (Hillside Building Heights) upon making all of the following findings: 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 materially 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: 1. The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes of ten percent or greater. 2. Topographical feamres of the subject property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or desirable. 3. In no case shal1 the maximum beight exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling or twenty feet for an accessory building. 2004 S- 2 Repl. 4. In no case shall the maximum 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 confonn to Section 19.28.060C, the applicant shal1 apply to the Design Review Committee for design approval to allow for the development; provided, however, in no event shal1 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 shal1 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 bealth, safety or welfare. C. The proposed additionlhome is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. D. The proposed additionlhome is generally . consistent with design guidelines developed by the Director of Community Development. E. The proposed additionlhome will not result in significant adverse visual impacts as viewed from adjoining properties. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.100 Development Regulations-Eichler (R-1e). R-Ie single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural fonn through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shal1 apply to properties zoned R-Ie. 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. )ð - /,L 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 sball be integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shall be 3: 12 (rise over run). 3 . Wood or other siding materia1located 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 arcbitecturallines, rather than curved lines. 5. Second story building wall offsets described in Section 19.28.060 E5b are not required for bomes in the RI- 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. 1. 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). RI-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned RI-a. In the event of a conflict between· other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. 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 sball a second floor be more than 1,100 sq. ft. in area. D. Setback - First Story. I. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2004 S-2 Repl. 2. Side Yard. The minimnß1 side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. E. Sethack - Second Story. I. Front 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 sethack 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 sball 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 first-story waIl plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two- story waIl 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 waIl height and building beight 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. I. Variation from the RI and RI-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the RI-a district. J. Design Review. All two-story development shaIl 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 Guidelines. The guldelines in this section sball 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. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. (0 - 7"3 36A Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones 19.28.105 I. Second-story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and ohscured 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 m;n;mnm four-foot depth and ten-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 E (5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in the Rl-a district. 4. Section 19.28.060 E (5)(b) shall not apply to the RI-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 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 become part of the City. 2. ArchiteCtural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed 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. 20()4 S-2 ~I. 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 signiíicantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping. I. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms 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;n;mnm 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 shall 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. Desigu 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 shall be a weatherproof 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 has been tal<en on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known; (D-7t{ 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 II "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 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 pennit 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. (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 Connnunity 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 unless a shoner 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 pennit application is submitted to the Chief Building Official, and continues to progress in a diligent manner. In the event that the building pennit application expires, the Residential Design Approval 2004 S-2 R.p1. 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 =r 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 y= 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. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, an application for exception or residential design review may I at the discretion of the Director of Connnunity Development, be processed concurrently with other land use approvals. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.120 Solar Design. The setback and height resnictions 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 sttucture which requires variation from the setback or height restriction of this chapter shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use pennit by the Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In R-l zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this ID -7 ') 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) 19.211.140 Appendix A-Landscape Mitigation Measures. PRIVACY SCREENING MATERIALS I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES A. Cedrus Deodara-Deodara Cedar B. Melaleuca Linarifolia-Aaxleaf Paperbark . C. Pinus Helipensis-Aleppo Pine D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos-SilverdoUar E. Cinnamomom Camphora-Camphor F. Arbutus Marina G. Magnolia Grandiflora-Southern 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- l\fSlYÌmnm 20' 6' 10' 5' 20' IS' 20' The m;n;,nllm tree size shall be 24' box m;n;mnm 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. n. NON-DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A. Pittosporum Eugenoides B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium C. Pittosporum Crassifo1ium D. Pittosporum Undulatum- Victorian Box E. Cupressus Sempervirens-ltalian Cypress F. Podocarpus Gracilior- Fern Pine G. Privet Ligustrum-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 m;n;mnm shrub size shall be IS-gallon minimum and a minimum 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 other 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 Arborist or Landscape Architect stating 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. /0- l~ 19,28.140 Cupertino· Zoning 38 CfIY STREET TREE Spread Planting 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 P1um* 30' 15' 1. Mayten 30' 15' J. Melaleuca 30' 15' K. Eastern Redbud* 30' 15' L. Brisbane Box* 40' 20' M.LiquidAmber 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 Hackbeny* 50' 25' U. Elm 50' 25' V. Sycamore 50' 25' W.Mulberry 50' 25' X. Silk Tree 50' 25' Y. Raywood Ash SO' 25' Z. Medesto Ash 50' 25' M. Shamme1 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 currently exist as a street tree. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) /D-i7 ---- - ~~----- --~- -- - ---~--~- 39 Single-Family Residential (R-l) 'lones 19.11US\\ 19.28.150 Appendix B-Release of Privacy Protection Measures. Single-Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Family) requires that after September 21, 1998, all new two-story 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. IO-7f 19.28.150 Cupertino· ZoniDg 40 Date Property Location Address: I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single-Family Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: Address: Phone: Signature: (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part). 2000: Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) 10-1 Î 41 Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones 19.2&.161\ 19.28.160 Appendix C-Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit. PuIpose. To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according to the planting plan. Validaûon. An InternaûonaIly Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect shall certify the design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven by seventeen copy of the approved planting plan shall be attached. Submittal of this form shall be required prior to final inspection of the residence. Planting Certification I certify thaI the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at: address and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscapeplandng 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) ¡ð ~ (D 19.28.150 Exhibit 1. Cupertino - Zoning 42 30' Angle .. . Privacy Invasion Mitigation required in shadÈKf areas indaw Window Jamb " . Rear Yard Window Window Second Roor . I· , . I· , '. I {c- 0 I -----..-.-.-.-.-~----------~----~---~-________r____~_.___. ____~ EXHIBIT B Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendations for the R1 Ordinance Feb. 2003 Amendment (4-1-0 vote) Explicitly state high volume area regulation (double- countin Second-story can be 50% of first story or 800 sq. ft. Adjust high volume area regulation. Provide allowance for stairwa s. .ife~F:': ·i.¡'¡qé~~~â~ Section 19.28.060 (C) Design Guidelines: Any new house or addition should be generally consistent with Feb 2003 recommendation not adopted the desi n uidelines Remove specific language in Section 19.28.060 C(1 )(a) - replace with general "harmonious in scale and desi nil Ian ua e Convert guideline that calls for a third car space to be setback from the other two garage doors to regulation Add minimum ara e setback of 20 feet Change first-story side setbacks for all neighborhoods to a combination of 15 feet instead of 5 and 10 Same as Feb 2003 Amendment Use of rear yard setback exception requires minor staff a roval 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 IÐ~ð Á- Start the 1 Sl 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. ~,~¡.~~H~mI(tllª1IIf{f . Transfer Privacy Planting requirements from Building Development Regulations to its own section and Same as Feb 2003 Amendment re uire covenant on ro ert Deiete privacy tree documentation and include it as a se arate handout Start the building envelope at the side setback line All two-story projects need staff approval: adjacent noticing with a copy of the plan set, story poles, notice in front ard. DRC hears a eal. Exceptions require DRC approval: 300' notice, public notice in front ard Transfer Second Story Deck requirements from Accessory Structure ordinance to R1 Ordinance. Staff a roves second sto decks Variation from FAR, setbacks re uires a variance Limit the length of an extension to a legal non- conforming building line and the height may not be increased. Same as Feb 2003 Amendment except no story poles and appeal goes to PC Same as Feb 2003 Amendment except adjacent nei hbor ets co of the Ian set Minor staff approval: adjacent noticing with a copy of the Ian set Same as Feb 2003 Amendment Feb 2003 recommendation not ado ted Change solar design exception to a minor staff a roval Same as Feb 2003 Amendment except that a minor staff approval is required Allow staff to give exception for visible second story walls (Ô -6 3 --,._-----~---~- Work EXHIBIT C Planning commission Scope of Approved by City Counci recommended by staff and/or the Planning 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 appropriate for residential neighborhoods only with Use Permits Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Development Regulations Set minimum lot size for development without a variance Adjust trigger point for increased review of hillside projects Consider minor increase to allow 45% FAR one-story house with covered porches None Trigger for greater review of development in R1 hillside lots sizes RHS & R1 review for development on 30% slopes Minimum lot Process chanqe Minor technical chanae Set a maximum amount of the lot that can be covered by buildingp 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 Coveraae of 45% Lot Area Ratio of 45% Two-story over 35% triggers desian review Floor Any change should be minor and mitigated by other mass, bulk and privacy protection measures Process chanae Study item Limit the mass, bulk and privacy ·mpacts of new two-story development Second Story Area = 35% of first stOry ~ \ C>.¡-¡ -c:. Type of Change Staff Recommendation Part of the overall process Process change review ntent Applies fundamental guidelines to two- story homes even if it doesn't require design review to a Regulation Design Guidelines applied two-story homes rage nt); space at rear 0 air, quality of life Story Setbacks Front Setback = 20 feet, side- facin e can be 15 fee First None ight, houses for provision to reduce to Second Story Setbacks Review with Surcharge rule - explore simplified alternatives Review with Second-Story Side Setback rule - explore simplified alternatives None Provide sufficient space between second stories and neighboring properties to reduce mass and bulk Provide sufficient space to reduce mass and bulk = 25 feet and Rear Front item Stud space to reduce mass Make this not apply to second story walls that are screened by the first-sto roof item Minor technical chanqe Stud None mass and bulk of mass and bulk of mass and bulk of Provide sufficient and bulk Reduce apparent second stories Soften apparent second stories Soften apparent second stories Surcharge = 15 feet applied in combination to front and side Limit on Visible Second Story Walls 1 0 feet Side Setback = Prescribed second story wa offsets None foot 1 Second Story Eaves = Basement eu. .~¡recommenaauon :"': ',. .. :'" .... ......', ': ::P":' ,,:.:,:;,::;.,' ':"',.. .J.-.0':.-,: ,-:.' J.::::;).' to alloy.' single-story homes to lave one 1 0'x1 0' lightwell:" :J' .,'" .'...::>...... ../::>~>.,:.. ",,:: '-:: ,.:.-\/.-," ,:: ':'>',:X (encourage single7story :'" develòpment) ~ 'š :@]({ -+.,.,'+ Minor technical. <,': '>1::5';, changè(Feb "~¡: 2003) .y.. ,:t 'tJ&:: :i;:'~&'1~-,-':;~:~:~~~,:'~i:.:,:2(tg;j~l- '"e'; ...'~~~,> /:::.:<:: ", .... )/:: Li,W¡ting;th.~Jig~t-\ell$"to'')1alntains the :f~lIis~merge~,de~IJ.Qj£n of~?~ « basements - pre\tentexcessivègrading, . ::_:.""":!"':':"')""'.' ....." ::.\. ,.... -:/::':':<:-.+f',?>';;'::""": <;;<>'r. .. ','.... imlt ,~moat" effeces,",:" C / ~ \ =<? '-\ Type of Change Staff Recommendation ntent Regulation Change to remove attic requirement Remove - redundant after addition of Building Envelope requlation None Minor technica chanqe None None Limit the overa development Limit the overall mass and bulk to what is appropriate for single-story neighborhoods Limit the mass and bulk of one-story development Allow gable roofs inside building envelope to allow flexible designs - uncertain why it matters if the gable end ·s for attic space or vaulted ceilinqs. mass and bulk of = 28 Maximum Building Height feet Height Maximum Building Height In 1- story overlay = 18 feet Building envelope = 12' with 25 ree anqle I I I I I i I I I Minor technica change None Require mass that appears two-stories to meet second-story setbacks Reduce mass and bulk of large entries Heights exceeding 20 feet must meet second-story setbacks Maximum entry height of 14' onsider removing - has not appeared to be necessary Minor tecnn¡ca change Miscellaneous Blank single-story waffs racfng street Avoid plain facades facing streets - Study item Minor technical (, Feb 2003 PC recommendation change .(F~,b G' to remove list f¡'òm ordinance to 2003' /,~ allow:foreasier updates Feb 2003 PC recommendation to~pecific~.'IYireq~ire this: ,...... reference already;in the,Tree.' Ordinance, but not R1.\ '. '.. Consider ways alternatives to None item None Consider rn two-story Stud Provide neighbors opportunities their own solutions Provide reasonable level of privacy to nei hbors Ensure maintenance of a reasonable of privacy planting level of privacy to neighbors roval in Waiver with nei Planting not necessary certain cases Replacement Provide reasonable level of privacy to neiqhbors Privacy Protection Planting to block - ""'" \ ~ Staff Recommendation ;,~ß¡::" ",,::(~,<:/\:..y,:y.:,:,,:.>.,:~.;¿:. .....:.,; Feb 2003 PC recOmmendation. to r~mgv;~ peighbqriápproval . ... requirement and:nQtallow height ... ,..' ...... " .... .......;... ...:>..'':';....".> ::.:........<:y.;:...:.,.>.'.. '''he'?:: .....;...::;+.. tobeincreased:,r revent abuse' Type of Change part ways to Improve rocess review mprovement - part of review Process chan Process chan regula necessa Provide the city and neighbors wil opportunity to review mass and bulk impacts from two story development Special zoning rules for Eichler neiqhborhood ntent Regulation Miscellaneous is it Provide ability to vary from tions in cases where requlations Residential Design Approval rocess tions to R1 Exce Consider improvement - part of review None (includes Eichler regulations Procedures for review sto oles Process chan Interpretation by the Director Design Guidelines (not part of the R1 Ordinance, but part of development review process) uidelines that must be generally met for two story projects over a 35% FAR None the Allow exceptions for solar energy structures Allow the Director to make interpretations of the code based on ·ntent Solar desiqn None Part of process review ~mprove or possibly eliminate Process change Design Guidelines ~ c::::. I ~ ....J 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: IIÙtigations 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 ¡o-[r 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 limited by the current ordinance) Chen: 1. Flexibility for Good design. Relax rules. 2. Determine what compatibility is defined as. 3. Environmentally friendly design. 4. Balance owner & neighbor rights. Wong: 1. Stay within the intent of reducing mass & bulk. a. 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. /ð-ó1 First Story Side Setback 20 Minor adjustment Page 1 of4 Support First Story Side Setback Lots 5' & 5' Garage SUp¡Jort Narrow Lot Coverage 45% + 5% for overhangs Scope of Work Support ., i Y.,'tI,:",,J Delay discussion of the trigger point for RHS review of sloped R1 ot5 until the General Plan Work Saadati, Chen Miller, Wong Giefer Giefer prefers discussing ssue now Remove second-story side setback surcharge in R1-5 Keep privacy rules, require recorded covenant, encourage trees in affected neighbor's property Related to PC IChen, Giefer, recommendation from 2003 Miller, Wong Saadati Encourage larger planting In sensitive situations Recommend that construction on lots with average slopes over 20% should have to meet RHS and R 1 regulations Related to PC IChen, recommendation 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 I'íi!.í L_J\! Related to PC recommendation I Saadati, from 2003 Giefer Chen Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen, Related to PC Giefer, Miller, recommendation from 2003 Wong Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Milier, Wong Miller, Wong 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. Support 800 sf.: 1,000 sf wouid negate the 50% second-story proportion Support floor-to-roof height of 16 feet: This modification corrects the current definition to meet the intent of counting two-story mass and two- ncrease second-story area proportion to 50% of the first story scope of work, so long as other mitigation measures are added Saadati, Chen, Miller, Wong Giefer Action ange to this regulation authorized by Planmng Commission Specific Decisions EXHIBIT F Support 50% more Giefer believes 50% is too moderate increase, but the ease of much and is concerned calculating and explaining a 50% that this increase will lead figure is preferred. The difference of to future increases 5% is not significant. ~ I = --- Allow one 10'x10' lightwell for single-stories with basements Bu ilding 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 Streets Move Second Story Decks regulations to R1, make it a Director's Approval instead of pu blic hearing Extension of LNC Building Lines (remove neighbor approval, limit length to 15', no height increase, Director's Approval) Eliminate 2nd Story Setbacks for Tall 1st Story Walls Action Rear Setback Reduction Director's Approval Eliminate story poles posted renderings in of the subject site 300 foot mailing, adjacent neighbors get 11x17 plans rendering, site plan and elevations no floor plans n favor the front of yard 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 Wong ~t;ïi"'1IIiII!Ii1llll1lilflll ':'idÞ<i!ii ",i" .'. d'.."'.,' ,. " Part of Design Review Saadati, Miller, Process review Wong Giefer Chen Saadati, Part of Design Review Giefer, Miller, Process review Wong Page 2 of 4 Basis - - Scope of Work Related to PC recommendation Yes Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadatl, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, from 2003 Wong No Absent Notes 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 Staff Position Support Support Support Support Sup Jort he R1 survey. :ing except it should plans so neighbors will Ich windows apply to which second story rooms Support Support - ~ I .c::, --- Convert offset regulation the second-story wall into a guideline Page 3 of 4 Chen, Miller, Wong Giefer Saadati Giefer prefers to retain the offsets as requirements story area Support conversion since fFiere are instances of a project not needing the offset, thus a guideline is most appropriate Eliminate the second-story setback surchar£e Chen, Giefer, Miller, Won£ Saadat" Eliminate second-story side setbacks Chen, Miller, Giefer, Won£ Saadati Utilize Palo Alto'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 envelo¡>e Chen, Miller, Giefer, Won£ 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 the 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 accommodate the larger second- ncorporate key guidelines into the ordinance - Section 19.28.060 C exhibit (the will be placed in th, but will remain Part of Design Review Process review Saadati Giefer Chen Miller, Wong Support putting guidelines in ordinance: this is consistent with the Commission's guiding principles Use Exhibit G as the discretionary review J:>rocess Miller, Wong Miller and Wong have concerns with formalized review of two-story homeslsince it under 35% FAR [Qarties. Part of Design Review Process review Saadati, Giefer Chen Support Exhibit G: has the support 0 many local architects and builders saves time and money for al Action 'AU v·~<lQ%20'" _~,-"",gi~!!\'f,Sl"if,-,,~f Basis ,.¿ <::¡--. I -. ---- Allow for a Director's exception for visible wall height regulation 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 Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadatl, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Page 4 of 4 Support Support Support Action §\t~$I!lt\b~i'Í27\!'20A Create 75 sq. ft. allowance for stairways on two-story homes to allow offset the double-counting of high volume area associated with stairs Combined first story side setbacks of 1 5 feet, with 5 feet minimum instead of 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other Convert the guideline that a Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Support: this is t on work, but there ,~ ' total side setback. the scope of '- no change to the Saadati, Miller, Wong Chen, Giefer Chen, Giefer support the oriJ:¡inal 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. <R \ = - (#) I Exceptions Two Story over 35% FAR * Actions can be appealed ~ Consulting Architect review for Design & Staff ~ Review for Guideline Conformance to the CC through the PC ... ----. Story Poles, noticing 300' noticing 300 * FAR = Floor Area Ratio ** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming *** DRC = Design Review Committee **** PC = Planning Commission ***** CC = City Council -----------------. , , , , ... DRC *** (#) f--. Two Story under 35% FAR * , L Staff Review for Guideline confonnance -' ... Building Pennit bldg. Extension ofLNC ** line . Neighbor approval -þ Staff approval One Story CURRENT Rl DEVELOPMENT PROCESS EXHIBIT G ':J- <::3- \ <::> --- (#) 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 -II 300' noticing, l1xl7 plans to adj neighbor ~ Design Review Committee (##) Two-Story Permit Level II: over 35% FAR ..... Consulting Architect review for Design & Staff Review for Guideline Conformance f-Þ Story Poles, 300' noticing, II x I 7 plans to adj. neighbor, posted notice in ftont yard w/ colored perspective rendering under 35% FAR Two-Story Permit Level I .... Staff Review for Guideline Conformance ---. Adjacent noticing w/ 11xl7 plans, posted notice in front yard w/ b/w rendering .... , Director's Approval (no hearing) (##) l ... Courtesy I Notice Building Permit Permit (#) Minor Residential Adjacent noticing w/ 11xl7 plans ~ One Story EXHIBIT H DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS \." <::;-'- I ""'" -- EXHIBIT I Public Survey - Rl Ord....nce The Planning Commission is reviewing the Rl Ordinance and would like your input\ Please flU 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 RI Ordinance) that limits what can be built on single- family residential properties. In the late 1990' s Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new second-story regulations and created a design review process. The purpose of the R I 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: 1. Are you a: (check all that apply) o Homeowner in Cupertino o Homebuilder or designer in Cupertino o Renter in Cupertino D Other 2. How many years have you lived in Cupertino? D 0-4 D 5-9 D 10-14 D 15+ D I do not live in Cupertino 3. Please check all that apply: D I recently built a new home in Cupertino D I recently built an addition to a home in Cupertino D 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 D None of the above 4. Please provide your street address helow. Only one survey per household will be accepted. (this information will be strictly confidential): 5. If you are a homebuilder or architect, please provide the street addresses of up to three recent projects you worked on: 6. Are you familiar with the differences between homes built under the current ordinance adopted in 1999 and homes built under the previous ordinance? DYes D No D Not sure Floor Area Ratio IF AR) 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 a FAR over 35% must go through a Design Review process and public hearing before the Design Review Committee and! or Planning Commission. rD-7(P Second Story Area The Rl Ordinance allows a second-story to be as much as 35% ofthe first story of the 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 [¡rst story. lnall cases, a homeowner is allowed to have at least 600 sq. ft. on the second story. Therefore, ¡fyou have a 1,000 sq. ft. single- story house, you can build a 600 sq. ft. second-story addition even though it is more than 35% of the first story area. 7. I believe that the second-story proportion should be: (check one) o Over 50% of the first story 0 Less than 35% of the first story o Between 41 % and 50% of the first story D Don't increase it - keep it at 35% of the first story o Between 36% and 40% of the first story 8. I 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. I believe that the first-story setbacks should be: (check one) o Not changed 0 Increased 0 Reduced o Don't Know I 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 of25 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 0 Increased 0 Reduced o Don't Know I No Opinion Hei~hts In general, the RI 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." tI. I believe that the heights allowed by the building envelope should be: (check one) o Not changed 0 Increased 0 Reduced 0 Don't Know I 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. I believe that the entry feature height should be: (check one) o Not changed 0 Increased 0 Reduced o Don't Know I No Opinion Privacy The Rl 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) o Not changed 0 Increased 0 Reduced 0 Don't Know I No Opinion ID-11 Design Review Process Proposed two-story homes or additions that exceed a 35% FAR are required to participate in a Design Review. Two-ßtory homeß with aFAR of35% or below and ßingle-ßtory 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 proj ect. "Source: Contractors who build in Cupertino. 14. I believe the benefit provided to the neighbors is worth the additional costs to the property owner associated with the Design Review. (check one) o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know I No Opinion 15. I believe there should be Design Review for: (check one) o Two story homes or additions with aFAR D All new homes or additions resulting in over 35% (currently required) increased square footage o All two-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. I 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) o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know I No Opinion Noticine 17. I 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) o 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) o Strongly Agree OAgree ODisagree o Strongly Disagree ODon·t Know I No Opinion ( D~1!f Desi2n 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 b1ill:i/"V\V\V.Ct!12s~rtino.on.!./Dlanning - scroll down to the Design Guidelines section on the web page and click on the link to "Single Family Review Design Guidelines." 19. Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to have building forms, roof pitches, roof heights, and wall heights that are consistent with neighhoring homes. (check one) o Strongly Agree o Agree o Disagree o Strongly Disagree DDon't Know I No Opinion 20. Specifically, I helieve the following types of projects should meet guidelines that encourage huilding 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 o 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) o Less than 25% of the homes are rebuilt 0 Between 50% and 75 % of the homes are rebuilt o Between 25% and 49% of the homes are rebuilt 0 Over 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 10-11 EXHIBIT J R1 Survey Sumn,aries 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 Second Story Setbacks Responses 222 % of Group Total 46% 19% 46% support the current second story setbacks. 19% supþort an increase. 116 24% 10% 24% support a reduction, while I D-(D1J Question 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 All Respondants (4, Building Envelope Responses % of Group Total 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 % of Group Total 55% 27% 55% support the current privacy protection rules. 27% support an increase in the privacy protection measures while 12% support a reduction. What should go to Design Review? 184 % of Group Total 39% 23% 23% 15% 39% believe that only two-story projects with FAR's over 35% should go to Design Review. 23% believe all two-story projects should go to Design Review. 23% believe all one and two-story projects should go to Design Review. 15% believe there should not be Design Review for anything. Benefit of Story Poles Noticing Methods (can check more than one) ID~I D I Question 18 19 20 21 All Respondants (4. 155 % of Group Total 41% 32% 73% support courtesy notices for all projects. What Should Meet Compatibility Guidelines? :;1 66 14% 36% 32% 18% 36% believe that all two-story projects should meet compatibility guidelines. 32% believe all projects. whether one or two-story should meet guidelines. 18% believe that no projects should have to meet guidelines. 14% believe that only two-story projects with FAR's over 35% should meet guidelines. 101 % of Group Total 31 % 23% 22% 23% This question had the most even split. 31 % believe that if 25% of the neighborhood has been rebuilt, new construction does not have to be compatible with the original neighborhood. 22% to 23% each believe that either new construction does not have to be compatible when either 25-49% of the homes in the neighborhood have been rebuilt. 50-75% of the homes have been rebuilt or over 75% of the homes have been rebuilt. There is a strong possibility that respondents made mistakes when answering this question. While tabulating the results of the question, it was frequently observed that respondents who opposed regulations or guidelines often selected choices C (50-75%) or D (over 75%), when you would expect that respondent to favor the least restriction choice. likewise, respondents who favored stricter regulations and more design review often selected choices A (less than 25%) or B (25-49%). This question was also the least answered question. with only 443 responses from the 492 valid surveys. One respondent who left the question blank said: "Number 21 does not make sense. If it is to be consistent. it must stay consistent. The rebuilt homes are consistent. so more new homes would have to be consistent with that." /D-(DL( 10 9 8 7 125 58 23 26% 112% I 5% !'iiLtfd:) 22 17 11% 9% Second Story Proportion k1!f Familiar with regulations added in 1999 6 I~:;; 172 148 % of 36% 31% 3 7 3% 2 67 51 10% ;¡';~'(P'f:0 327 67% 1 Tenure Responses %of Ques fion Type of All Respondents (491) Respondent (can check more than one) 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 \..,..., <::> - I 0:::::. --- Question ill ~ ~ ~ V 15 R. % 1\ 1 7 Responses % 18 All Respondents (491) Residents that Built Additions or New Homes (88) Respondents that Answered "Yes" for Question 6 (163) (211) Neighbors of Residents that Built Additions or New Homes .~ Q - \ = ~ 21 20 19 Question All 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) \' ~ ----- \ ""'" - ;1!. ;1!. "" '" "" . '" "" . 0 0 "- . '" "? ... " '" '" :;: <h " '" ^ '" '" V '" .c ü "t) '" II II iii 0 II ~ .coo c: 0 1:: 0 C- O ... a.. ,.....:¡ ~ t-< 0 ü'#. .... ...... (J) r-- ço ...... 1J :r: c: 0 >< 0 µ:¡ GI (J) r-. c: 0 :¡:; II) GI ::::J a (0 -( ôt I ' I. ¡¡:v ne¡ue11 " --~p -;;} I . ~ ;1" N --Î'> .-. L;~ .:. : "."~. \ -.\ "~l " '..,' j¡g" .. "1 '~"./ ~ > -~ --~I~~-~' ~ '. ' ~ ........... r< .. ~ _ 2 .... ~ ~ . !.'I.: _ 'D i I- I' -------.J'_ _-~ II t ¡_r p~.i1U!1t¡¡¡S --\ - - \ , ! , . ", ¡' - 1"""'1..._ - . I I I ¡¡AVÁ"lTe[g . '" '"' ,U r< .....1 PHqqng I :. . , ø . ' '.-, . I .~ ",",. , ,",. " . ::;;: b - '" æ >< ~ . ,I.ef") r< , , , .' , ,. '- , '" ~ 'D '"'. . . ~~ ~ i:' = 0 0- "'~ ~" '" ; oC:::: i:j ] ~~ .. "" ~i::§~~~~.. ! U;::::l~^:;¡:~v~ ~ ð~ ~ IIDDriì 0 ~ ~ ~; 'II !.. ,.. ¿sH ~h' I" t3} ¡ j -r ! . 1 i '<C; i ! . . ~ Ñ ~ .-' I I , '.. 'N . '"' .)1 ð , ~ , ~ ¡., ,.I _:... , ~., .. '" . .., I ~. '" ø i~ ~ [ð-[D~ .\ .~ ~.. .-) .~, -~: ,^y""'" . J ~ 'J ~-~ . ," ......" I ¡f,t -, ·"il II!! :L m /,.,,=y,a "1":. 0 . >' i .:~' I~"' . "-. .. e I . _~~'I ,.qqo....,c. ~',. . ~ .. ~ i i-' ~ I~ . I . , ,. ~"" '", ¡V.: ',' ;'. . ';'? ," j , ....... 'I ~_._,~ . II . ~ ) ---.-1"7 1" II' :. 'I ,^yo"",,, I'" I c~ .. . , , . - .. 0::' . , - , : . '·r I. N' ~ : ;I^Y ~amYl1 - p'H~J]OM. _ ... .- .;" '" .. m .. II -~ ..~ jl t t~r t PM '"'II~S ~" \ '- - , I" ~ '" N. té . '" z ¡... - s x >< ~ . ~~ ~ ~ Q 0 o ~ p,"' ~"" " ~ o~ i:: 1:; =:; >"tI'1 ¡¡.¡ § t}; '" ~ i~~§.::§!í1 î ð;:l·ß;~~v§.( Ii! ð~îllDDmD : ~ 'Ir . I I . 'N _ N J, ð .. : ~ 2 .~ . ~ ~ . '" ¡;J ~;4 ~ rO-IID .-«( ~; 'Ii L~ Hi ~H tit f! f J ~ . I I ~~ ! . J¡ Ii "V""",:' :1 ~) ,"'HoM L_= I ~··-I-· ...,....~ .. ... '" r~ ~ " ~ ] , E o " t-. ,I D,-.J ~ \ p~gU!Ila s ·'1 I , o f-< § :r: ~ µoJ '. '" ": ~ , - " ~-~-----~ --~------~-~--~._-----~~-~-- ~ r .1, ", '" ¡¡"'\flamW . , '" '- \ \ '.j "J ! ! " - J "V''",,, II 11 ~L p^¡g=v;¡a . co '" co ~-; ---~~:: l~ ¡~ ]I -- . . y~ ~~.,. "~ i r ~ I._~ : .... ti\ ' 1_,...., ..-I '. .:! on ....0_ N ..~-_.' --r--- J'''''-!, , , o '" "'. '" I ... ,- ~ ~ Q. ,~ ~ > , c: ~ .~ ~¡ 8- ~.~ l ~ o ¡::::: Q iI ~ ....., .ß....... ~ i5 1< ~~~¡~~-§;~J~ u ;::s.S¡ rii ..; P g 8 51 -CI) t; '" f' ð~ & looml D ¡ mè1 /r' i '\i -)£ .. '" '" '" .... '" . , ,- .. i '" .01 '" . '" I lð ., :2 i·~ .~" '. ;I; .. r 0 -I) I .--< ~~ "",,, ¡ ~. "" 'š~ b. Hi \~~ tIt ¡ ~ , , I ¡ ~ ~ ~ Q.I.!:: ~ > § ~ + ~.~ ~ .~ Q,I"'... :> c~ëê.i~& ~ >... r:- r;s :E ;, t~~~~~~ ð=..ê~~~~ !~ £ IIDtjj o J.~,: " -. .... " " I' I ; . I ;¡:vne:¡uel I ','JI, II -----~ _ ~) ,"' [°M I~ --- -I ;L.-:-, -.-., I . I L, "'" ~j '" . '" _~"~I~ ': .' ~I :' "' II "' . .... ~L~_ ""--I, -:.~.... : ~ "_: ~ - ~ ". ,. I ....: !~ II . .. , ~! ,J a:la[]IW - \ \ .. "I Þ - !,.Ifl , P^,,~"v'a ~ --- -.... '- c', ....~.. , I I [eLf l . "'~II"S -~ \ .' " .. '" N N N ", Jo ~ 11 .] I_ o:i " 00 . ': ..... ~ - e ==-r-.,I p;qqng:' _ ~__ -~~ '¡.'~" . ..',' II!-ª . ,;. -.: :.' -II~~' ~I~.: 'I' J:'~ I - ," "B" -- Ii ,'''' 'ö / ." ~_' / I ": /->' ¡1". " ¿¡ ,~ \~L~H¡¡!1.IIOO:l III ---,,~....; .. . I ~ "I, "," rOo' -:II ('I. - .- . . "-. .... . . "" f-< ~ ~ .. ...", z... ~~ , 'U ~ ~ ~"'... lil 111 di , ' ~ ~ ! , 8 . . , f ~ ~ ! , ! 0: " .)1 '" IO~(ll. .- J: ,e, ' I ':V"~"l' .Lu~ ~ -L~""noM...l I,~ . -..··~rl-·- ~~L if N , ~ : -;,., ~ : >D, ¡ 11-.._ -;1 il -" '1;\ J ~ + , - , , o , ~ " > -- ! - ..... ~ .. ,0 . , ~ .. ~--_.-=--..---. " -¡ I i I' i "', ~ , II -\ \ P'MSUma¡s -. " I: t'-~ ~ ~ , ., ---, C/ f-< Pi ~ :r: :>< ~ '" N. ~ . '" <!AVlamw \\ \ , ,', I "j¡ '. ! p''''=Y'a " o N I!. __ P'MqqnS_- , , , . . . n, -- ~ ~ § ~ 11 :5 00 t ¡:¡..p., tz ~ ð t bb "'- ¡x: ~ ~ g , g>.~.( ~Þ3 ~ !~if~~i~~~ š2~IDDrr¡ID : ~, , - ð , , ¡ii ~ , -, . '" ~ .¡~ ¡::j 'Iii . ~ '"/¡;¡ ~. e-·/J. ~'~¡ I ~ ·-·--T--¡¡~'. ...I~ 4'" - r .. ____ . . . I' II '00 . V í .. ..... ". '" ./ ' ~ 0 . ~ __ '" ..~i "'~J~~.. .... .... .--.!:II <___.~* , " <t> . .. (0-11 ] >-0( ~; 'iI L. ,,, <!Iii -'] fh p I a ~ . I ¡ i' ~ . .J< .~- " ,-..- \~:"'-;':1' - , I /"- II ..... ~. I',. ,:uJ ~ __ -----1 ) PM"JloM ~.. ~ --~-\ 'D L '. ;J: J :.v',u.,,: ,. I '~I , .'~ II .r",. Ii . ~ ~ r - I I p^JHezuv..o .. II a '""" N rl I I _ I . . ~ .... . ¡::J ;;", ./-~ ...~. .e I J: PHqqns·.... I~ -, -,.'-- 'B' I. "",i " ? .j L N _ _~j .}(J ~~.,- -:': '.-"~-'--< .. '/ ~ N. ....~; ¡Ii I.. ll! r~~ fð! ~ ' , , , , , , I ~ '" 9: >. 'i a ~- ~!.. o· Ô·· ~.~ 9. ~~iJ ~! ~ o¡:::: ð ~ !!! 3: "f t'ö; ij ~ ~ ~ ~è~~~r§,¡¡ !! U:::I.,g &J..:aÆõ.( 51 è~ Ð IDD~I 0 ~ ~ '" '""" -~ " ¡ ¡ ~ " I . Dr-_J ::')0 o ~ IE . tU '""" ( .J¡ 'N N I i ,is , 0 ~ .s ~ ,.,., ;> '- ! -I~. \ \ P.M91I!1!"¡S , " .' ~, -- . . V··.¡:¡···', " .,<4." ~. -. C'J '!. .,_n...._. '" ¡j ri4 ~ .. ~ I-< @ ~ ~ X f.l1 '" rD-(fL( j:',".' -- rl . ~ I ' . 1':v",,",L.. '. / u_,1 ' _ { ,,', '¡ ¡ <o::t< I . "hVlamw C"1 _.... ''"' "';¡: 1__,^V""'[g. J'-,-.J 1_· '~~.I.,. .. '-7· r ' "co. II " . co" 10' · ~.. r· ....- i ... ~L i P^[g'ruv'<J .~~ II U . ~ 1_-- ] D J- - , ....... '" .. rl .. q- ~:: n \ ....~...... ./ I~! . '''IB-: ."00 !/..:g.' . . ,"~ I I ' // '({ ~ ", ::ii¡' r~~HII'",OO' ..':' :~:~.;. ) N. o N ." "II PHqqng ~ CI1 b @ ~ ~ .. ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c _ o . . ~~ ~ ~ . . ~ " . oç::: 8 a ~ ,§ £ ~~ § t ~ .§' §-~§i~~"5 u::s=¡-.<~z ~'" ~ IlnO\'! ãa& Ua1J * 1l'$1 ,- N N 15 h ~j ,.I ;". ~" . 1 ';./ , ir- ~ J4 ...c: 0' oF ~ , , ¡ii ~' ,.. W :5 1]] îìi ,0 ~ ~:3 ~ ~ j 0: ! J II J '" ID-{ I,) EXHIBIT T CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 1,2004 CONFERENCE ROOM C MONDAY The Regular Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of March 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: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Marty Mil1er . Staff present: City Planner Ciddy Wordell APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV 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 RI Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continuedfrom Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2004 10-11 it, Planning Commission. .lUtes 2 March 1, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Rl survey, which includes some modifications that were recently incorporated. · Asked for 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 ]9: 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 ] 9 Com. Miller: · Explained that the original question said "Everybody should be compatible with their neighbor." · Said he objected to the tenn "compatibility" · Tried to use definition of compatibility in the guidelines, which went along the Jines 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 wall heights · Original intent was to do away with the word "compatibility" because it means different things to different people, and to go with the actual words in the guidelines · Wanted to know why "eave" heights got changed to "wall" heights Com. Giefer: · Stated that the survey from the last meeting also showed "wall" heights rather than "eave" heights, but the word "consistent" was used instead of "compatible" Com. Miller: · Asked Com. Wong if he is suggesting that in neighborhoods where there is a major amount of redevelopment occurring, there should be more latitude for transitional neighborhoods Com. Wong: · Agreed that this is what he intended · Asked Com. Miner if he thought question number 19 should be replaced with the question regarding transitional neighborhoods (D-f 17 Planning Commission .nutes 3 March I, 2004 Com. Giefer: · . Said she had written Com. Wong's statement as: Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to be in transition and have architectural forms, roof pitches, roof heights and eave heights that are consistent with homes in the neighborhood. Com. Wong: · Need to strike the word "consistent", or it would delete the word "transition". Talking about neighborhoods in Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada and Monta Vista, they are in transition from the older 1950·1960 homes to more modem homes. Ms. Wordell: · Stated that Com. Wong is only speaking about neighborhoods that are in transition and focus should be on that. · Felt the proposed wording would be hard to follow · If commissioners want to find out how people feel about neighborhoods in transition, they should first agree to address transitioning neighborhoods and then decide on the wording to accomplish that goal . · The question on the survey is general and covers everybody Com. Wong: · Wanted to know if it would be possible to add one more question asking if the community is open to having neighborhoods that are already in transition to continue doing things the way they are doing them now · Current ordinance says the new development must be "compatible" ---he wants to get the heartbeat of what the community wants Com. Miller: · Said he had sense of what Com. Wong intends to convey · Remembered Mr. Hung's application, which had a wall height issue. Mr. Hung got signatures ITom 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 consisteut 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 . /0- (/2 Planning Commission "lUtes 4 March 1,2004 Com. Giefer: · Recollected that when the question was drafted, they wanted a "barometer" of what current opinion is: Should we 1eave the Design Guidelines as they are or should we expand them? Chair Saadati: · Some single-story homes may be taller and have features that neighbors may object to Com. Chen: · One of goals is to solve some of inconsistencies between Design Guidelines and RI Ordinance · The purpose of the question could have been to see if people want to be more far- reaching than the present Guidelines, in which case the question is appropriate Com. Wong: · Said he could see both sides of the issue, but is reluctant to go beyond what the Design Guidelines were meant to be---which is to address 2-story homes The commissioners agreed to remove the instruction "check all that apply" and to move (currently required) from under the check box 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: o Formatting issue: page 2, the box does not line up well in the "Between 601 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft." selection · Question 14: There should only be one text box under the heading of Design Review Process. The box should not be broken up into two parts o The text describing story poles should be above question 16, rather than question 14 o On page 4, the heading Design Guideliues should be in bold font Com. Wong: o Requested that a final copy of the survey be e-mailed to the commissioners before it is printed for the public o The timeline for the survey should be 15 days for the "Cupertino Scene" and on the website o Once the survey is formatted it will be mailed to 2,000 applicants, and counting 15 days from the mailing date, there will 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 o 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 Rl ordinance, divided into the six categories in the letter that Peter wrote Chair Saadati: o Depending on the time, at least one of the categories can be discussed at each meeting lð-((~ Planning Commission .J1utes 5 March I, 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 from 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 allowed for discussion would depend on the number of other items on the agenda Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer to approve the revised survey and to mail the survey to selected residents prior to publication for the public. Vote: (5-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2004. Vote: (5-0) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 3:00 p.rn. on March 2, 2004. SUBMITTED BY: /s/ Nancv Czosek Nancy Czosek, Acting Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Is! Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson ATTEST: /s/ Ciddv Wordell Ciddy Wordell, City Planner /O-/)..D Planning Commission _ ,lUtes 19 Apri1 12, 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 of24" by 24" windo in the doors · There should be windows in the walls---ifnot sheet ss walls Com. Miller; · More windows would be fme · That shopping center has been struggling, · The only concern is that the patrons m· ht "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. Gil1i: · These are the added con o The hours operation are II :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. o Lounge oms shall all have windows on the doors and on the walls. The windo on the doors shall be at least 24" by 24". The intent is to make as much of ro visible as possible from the hall o Par ng will be reviewed six months after the use opens o N alcohol will be sold on site or brought on site. There will be a sign on the door n the sign or the wall of the business stating the no-alcohol policy. There will be review by the Planning Commission if there are behavioral issues in the parking lot or inside the building. There will not be a time limit on this issue-if issues arise, it will come back to the Planning Commission. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller to approve U-2004- 02 as amended (Vote: 5-0-0) / OLD BUSINESS: 5. Preliminary schedule ofthe Rl ordinance review process Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner: · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary RI schedule and review information about approved projects and the ordinance approve in February 2003 · The schedule is flexible · Until May 24, public input and background issues will be review · From May 24 until August, ordinance changes will be discussed · In August, the design review process will be talked about---what will be reviewed, how will it be reviewed, etc. · There should be a final approved ordinance in September 2004, which will be sent to the Council in either late September or in October · The goal is to have it enacted at the beginning of 2005 IÒ -(.11 Planning Commission, . ..lUtes 20 April 12, 2004 Chairperson Saadati: · It is usual that one meeting is cance11ed during the summer. Wi11 that impact the schedule? Mr. Gi11i: · 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 Valleo, General Plan, etc. corning in, and with one of the meetings being cance11ed, 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.Gil1i: · 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 stil1 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 from other cities would be valuable · One meeting could be saved by not having "Commissioner's Guiding Principles" and Commissioner's Objectives" · Perhaps regulations rrom other cities could be discussed during a study session prior to a public hearing. During the public hearing, items that require a vote could be discussed Com. Chen: · Use study session time to digest information and have commissioners' discussions, and use public hearing time to focus on public hearing issues Com. Giefer: · Since the deadline for receiving the surveys is April 15, is there any way for the commission to receive the infonnation more quickly than is listed in the schedule? /ò -(J.~ Planning Commission .__,lUtes 21 April 12, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · At the rate the City was receiving the surveys prior to the "Scene", the information could have been available on April 26. Since the survey appeared in the "Scene", they are being returned faster than can be input into the computer · Part of the results can be available on the 26th, but they will not be complete Com. Giefer: · Understood that the principles and objectives were already set by the City Council Mr.Gilli: · These principles and objectives are going to be 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 12-RI issues on sloped lots Mr. Gilli: · That topic is on the first sheet of the Scope of Work · One commissioner had said he was happy that we are looking at 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 ID -{ L3 Planning Commission _ _lUtes 22 April 12, 2004 Mr.Gilli: · The next two Planning Commission mee(jngs 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 wi]] be dependent upon how much detail the commissioners want on the regulations in other ci(jes · Information has been received from a]] the cities in the county except Monte Sereno and Milpitas · Because this is an Old Business item, it is not an advertised public hearing. It would be best if the commission refrains from going into detail and stating individual stances on the 2003 recommenda(jons until there is a public meeting · A study session could be a public mee(jng Ms. Wordle]]: · 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 mee(jng, and no date was set · We wi]] need to re-advertise if we want it to be a public hearing. These are a]] 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 pu]]ed up in any way desired · If any of the commissioners have ideas on what types of information they would like to have pu]]ed 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 ca]] 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 RI zones from 1999-to the present. Stated that it is good to take the time to look at these projects on the computer because they are three-dimensional and it is easier to get a feel of whàt the project looks like than from the plans · Each of these projects went through a public hearing · Asked each of the commissioners to let him know if they see a site that they would like to have photographed and presented to the other commissioners · Presented a brief overview of the RI 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 sec(jon of the ordinance specifies when an interior area is double counted. There is no explicit explana(jon 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 stairwe]] with a ceiling over 15', then the part that is over 15' wi]] count as second story area. In a one-story house, the applicant ¡O-/2L( Planning Commission. .lUtes 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 double counted areas o Guideline Conformance: All new homes or additions would have to be generally consistent with the design guidelines. Currently that only applies to two-story additions or new homes. Since 2000, we have reviewed two-story homes that have not gone to design review just to make sure they meet the guidelines in a general sense. This is to make sure that a house that is clearly not going to fit into the neighborhood is caught o Two-story review: All two-story additions or new two-story homes would require discretionary approval. Unless an exception is asked for, it is handled at staff level approval. Neighbors are notified, they comment to staff and staff would acts on it. If there is controversy, it is appealed. Some of the commissioners felt that it was a waste of the applicant's time to come to a design review meeting if there was no controversy rrom neighbors o Exceptions: This would be renamed as "design review" rather than "exception" to eliminate the negative cOlU1otation. The idea was that RI is a "one size fits all" and that doesn't work. There are cases where exceptions should be done, and the past commission wanted to encourage that o Narrow lots would have 5' side setbacks: A narrow lot should have smaller setbacks o Side-facing garages on comer lots: There should be enough of a driveway to park cars on o The building envelope would start at the side setback line: Currently, the building envelope starts 5' in rrom the property line, goes up 12' and then comes in at a 25 degree angle. The recommendation in 2003 was to start the building envelope at the side setbacks, which are 5' and 10'. That would make a minor reduction in height on the 10' side o Basement lightwells: If a basement is built, it will not count as floor area as long as the lightwells are as small as they need to be. It was suggested that, as an incentive to build a single-story house and a basement, without having a second story with its impacts, one lightwell that serves more as a patio would be 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 al10ws 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 Rl ordinance and the past commission wanted to make sure people knew about it o Second story decks: This proposed to move the rules out of the Accessory Structures ordinance and put it into RI o Variation to FARs and first story setbacks requires a Variance: Everything needs an exception, which has [mdings 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 wal1 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 shal1 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 D -flS- Planning Commission _",lUtes 24 April 12, 2004 · All of these changes are in the scope of work, so commissioners can do any/all! or none of the changes as they choose · Council wanted to have the two-story review process and the exception process reviewed closely · Staff recommends approval of the schedule as amended and that the next meeting on April 26 will be a study session where the regulations of other cities will be discussed · The amendments to the tentative schedule are as follows: o April 26: Study session on regulations of other cities o May 10: Public hearing at 5:00 on survey results and compilation of all 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 RI Ordinance as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: NEW BUSINESS: None Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Housinl! 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\i 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 Jty. Ma or's Monthl Meetin With Comm· sioners: The key information shared by Mayor James was the ballot initiative attempt by th Cupertino Concerned Citizens. The group is currently collecting signatures to have an initiat" e put on the ballot. The City has 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 ~ at the results might be if the initiative is approved by Cupertino residents. The cost of the study, ill be approximately $100,000. The study should be available in 4 to 6 weeks. The Cuperti Concerned Citizens has asked the City to discuss some of their agenda items so they might ot need to proceed with the initiative process. The Council declined the invitation and asked e Citizens group to continue to attend the public hearings and the General Plan Task For meetings. If the initiative is placed on the ballot, the cost to the City could range from $70 00 to $240,000 depending on whether there will be a special election or a general election. A statue called "P rspectives" has been installed in the City Center Park (which will be renamed City Center PIa The Teen Co ission reported that the new name for the teen center at the sports center is "The Down Under' . The library, s 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. ( ô-¡ J..~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 5:30 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MAY 13, 2004 CONFERENCE ROOM A THURSDAY The Planning Commission study session of May 13, 2004 was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director City PlaIUler Senior PlaIUler 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 RI Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2004 (D-¡ 1. 7 Planning Commission ~. _Jy Session Minutes 2 May 13,2004 Chair Saadati: . Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the RI 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 ÍÌ"ont 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 10-/2/ Planning Commission ~ ..Jy Session Minutes 3 May 13, 2004 Cnair Saadati: · Design review seems to be a big issue. A lot of neighbors have concems 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 ofthe issues, or just a few Mr. Piasecki: · Suggested focusing on the "big" issues, because all of the other issues will come through in staffreports Chair Saadati: · One of the largest issues is the second floor to first floor ratio · Feels this should be the number one item · Asked each commissioner to identify his/her top three priorities for discussion at the public hearings Com. Giefer: · Agreed that it would be a good idea to identify each commissioner's top three items and see what are the most heavily weighted issues among the commissioners · Wants to understand better what the right fIrst/second floor ratio is, if change is necessary, that will provide flexibility for people who want to 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 ITom 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. I Ò -12 ~ 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 ordinance needs to be sensitive to the fact that things have changed---particularly important in the neighborhoods where it is clear that re-building is going on or should go on. In some ways the current ordinance is too restrictive and is holding back the revitalization. · Revitalization is important for the City and there should not be an ordinance that holds it back · The second guiding principle is the "diversity versus conformity" issue · Developments are built two ways: I) A large developer buys a mass of land and builds tract homes where everything looks the same. 2) Neighborhoods are formed when the property is sold off piecemeal and individual homeowners buy and build or individual builders build spec houses, and everything is different · One could look at one neighborhood and say it is great, then look at the other neighborhood and say it is equally great. It is not clear that diversity is a bad thing · The current ordinance penalizes diversity · There are a lot of diverse styles in Cupertino that were acceptable in the past which are no longer acceptable under the current ordinance · Would like to see the flexibility to have diversity brought back into the ordinance · The third guiding principle is "achieving a balance between property owners' rights and neighbors' rights. Before the 1991 ordinance, the balance was shifted more toward the homeowner and neighbors didn't have many rights. Some argue today that the balance has switched so that the neighbor might have more rights than the homeowner. The balance may need to be readjusted Com. Saadati: · Questioned Mr. Piasecki about how the ordinance currently addresses the owner's rights versus the neighbor's rights · It seems that our process allows 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: /D-(]O Planning COl1U11ission c .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. Pennits under design review are not approved until everyone is pretty well satisfied with the outcome Com. Chen: · In addressing changing cOl1U11unities, the fIrst priority is to provide an RI 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 cOl1U11unity · 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 mendly 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 sti1l achieve the intent of reducing mass and bulk · Second principle would address the Design Review Guidelines o Make them user mendly to applicant, staff and public o Fold Design Review Guidelines into the RI ordinance · Third principle should address affordability. Fees are being raised throughout the area. A lot of things in the ordinance are there to improve design, but the review process needs to be streamlined and take into consideration how much the applicant must go through in the review process without being "broke in the end" 10-1]1 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 ra60 needs to be flexible. We can be flexible by increasing the ratio and tying it to the setback by adjusting the setback--the more mass on the second floor, the more setback · The focus should be on how we can build homes that are nice and compatible with the neighborhood. Compatibility does not mean having tract homes that all look the same and don't enrich the neighborhood. The more desirable neighborhoods are those that have individual homes that are not all the same Mr. Piasecki: · Getting this inforrna60n from 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 attrac6ve 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 allowing the public and neighbors to get involved with privacy issues. If someone builds a house and the next-door neighbor is not happy, it will affect his attitude toward the City and toward the homeowner who built the house · Currently there are requirements for planting trees or using frosted windows for pnvacy (D-/]d.- Planning Commission ~ .~dy Session Minutes 7 May 13,2004 · Concerned about the 3-year period that it could take the trees to grow to afford privacy. This is not acceptable to many people · There is some concern with frosted windows that they can block the view or may not appeal to some people · Anyone adding a second story to his home concerns to be sensitive to the concerns of his neighbors Com. Giefer: · Asked Mr. Gilli the size of the trees required for privacy planting Mr. Gilli: · The trees need to be 24-inch box trees or 15 gallon shrubs Mr. Piasecki: · There is a physical restraint against getting larger trees into existing yards Chair Saadati: · Asked if the principles need to be rewritten to combine the common elements from the commissioners' proposed principles Com. Wong: · There is already a tentative schedule proposed, and a lot of the guiding principles listed, such as a less restrictive second story area ratio and privacy planting can be discussed at the May 24 meeting · The May 24 meeting would cover the guiding principles and any objectives outside the scope of work. Start with the minor modifications staff suggested regarding comer lots and other minor issues · The June 14 meeting would include second story area ratio and high volume ceilings and second floor setbacks · At the June 28 meeting, everything could be finalized and privacy could be discussed · July 12 meeting: Lot coverage and comer garage setbacks could be discussed with the minor modifications from 2003 · The July 26 meeting is scheduled to cover single-story privacy impacts, second-story setback for tall walls-regarding gables, heights and attic space . · The review process and design guidelines could be discussed on the August 9 and everything should be wrapped up by August 23 Mr. Piasecki: · The principles will be assigned to the appropriate categories, then they'll be opened up to public for discussion. The Commission will discuss the topic and provide direction to staff on how to craft that section of the ordinance · By the end of the process, there will be a draft ordinance that can be revised if necessary Com. Wong: · At the end of the public hearing, each commissioner will give his feedback on every major segment, such as second story area, etc., and say"... this is what we want." · At the next meeting, we can talk about it and make sure that is what we want and vote on it and then move on to the next topic (0 -(3 J Planning Commission c .dy Session Minutes 8 May 13, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Staff had envisioned possibly WTiting the whole ordinance and letting commissioners review it · It seems that the preferred method is to listen to the discussions and then write the ordinance rrom the results of those discussions Com. Miller: · This method would be less confusing and would allow commissioners to take public input before committing to a particular position Mr.Gilli: · This process will slow down the schedule · These steps will need to be taken: o The commissioners will talk about the issues and try to establish a consensus direction o Staff will draft that section of the ordinance o Commissioners will respond to the draft section at the next meeting to make sure that language reflects what was intended o Commissioners will then discuss another issue and try to give staff enough to write language for another draft section of the ordinance · If we look at past issues that have been handled in this manner, it has taken two or three meetings to finalize Mr. Piasecki: · There doesn't seem to be another practical way to manage the process · Some of the guiding principles conflict with one another and staff couldn't write a section of the ordinance right now if commissioners asked them to Ms. Wordell: · Another way to do it would be to not visit it until the end and then say, "Here is what you said in the last few months." Mr. Piasecki: · That method could be done, and in that way the issues would not be debated at the next meeting · There would be a record of what commissioners intended for each topic and there could be a wrap-up meeting at the end to go through everything one more time · Wants to be an advocate of keeping the process simple so there 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 · W11en the survey data was reviewed, roughly 5 percent of the homeowners in Cupertino said to keep the first to second story ratio the same · Probably one percent of the total population responded to the survey, so we need to listen to the feedback rrom everyone who participates Com. Wong: · The survey is only one tool in the process ID -fj) 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 will combine all the principles that were shared by more than one commissioner, but otherwise leave the list as it is · Commissioners can decide at any meeting to combine topics for discU$sion as long as at least three commissioners agree to the discussion Com. Wong: · Wants to discuss slope lots and RHS at a different hearing, even though they are within the scope of work for the Rl Com. Chen: · When this was discussed before, it was determined that siope lots and RHS were more of a zoning issue and belong in a different category Mr. Piasecki: · Finish the RI, and on the heels of it, bring up the slope lots and RHS · The RI ordinance may be amended twice-we'll write an ordinance without it, and on the heels of that, you'll discuss the slope lots and RHS and we'll write another 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 tllfee-hour meeting, not counting public input · Commissioners have a lot to talk about on each issue · Staff will not be proposing recommendations. The commissioners will discuss the topics and come up with their own recommendations Ms. Wordell: · The discussion schedule is also dependent upon what else is on the Planning Commission agenda · If there are two and a half hours of public hearing time for applications, there will not be three hours to discuss the 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 I D -I J~ Planning Commission J\._;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. Giefer: · Supports the project · Ideal use for the facility Com. Miller: · Supports the project · Concur with Com. Chen; the project is a major im rovement on the site Vice Chair Wong: · Support the project · Recommending adding two more space Chair Saadati: · Concurred with other co · Supports the project Motion: Motion b Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application i: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 ofthe 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 will result in more interior area being double-counted · Discussed the second story area (minimum allowed size) as outlined in the staff report o Staff recommends 800 square feet as a starting point · Discussed high volume ceilings as outlined in the staff report o Staff recommends increase from 15 to 16 feet for ceiling height Cary Chien, Felton Way: · Said he was pleased with staff recommendation to increase rrom between 45% to 50% of the second story ratio I ð -/J 1 Planning Commission ¡L.¡utes 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. MiUer: · Said he was pleasantly surprised by staffs 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 rrom 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 fÞ-IJt Planning Commission l\~_.lutes 14 May 24, 2004 Com. Giefer: · Recommended language for the high volume ceilings is good · Like the idea of increasing the minimum second story to 800 square feet; it will eliminate some of the poorly designed crows nets seen on some single story homes and will help some of the smaller lots achieve the home they want · Idea of having other measures; how to really develop high quality, well designed homes within the community · Like the idea of building within the daylight plane provided we have the mechanism in place for the design review and the quality · We are a community with a lot of engineers; they tend to like function before form · Want to give 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; would go up to 100% if assured that every home would be reviewed by an architect for specific design elements to be sure we were building beautiful buildings in our city · Not certain which is the best way to go now Vice Chair Wong: · Agreed that it would be nice to have an architect on the DRC, but no budget for it · If using Com. Miller's idea of a daylight plane, they could all go through the DRC to make sure there is the design we want in Cupertino; we wouldn't have to worry about percentages, high volume ceilings · Agree with Mr. Chen that they are exclusive · Strongly support the daylight plane, but if it were to fall back to double count high volume ceilings, it penalizes residents, and when they go to the property taxes, they will double count area that is not livable, don't want to double count high ceilings · Regarding minimal allowable sizes, it is nice staff suggested 800, but I would go for 1,000 minimurn based on what staff gave in Exhibit B, for smaller lots in Rancho and Monta Vista, it would be difficult for them even for 800 to fit 3 bedrooms above · Agree with staff that 50% is good, but still advocate daylight plane and have it go through design review Mr. Gilli: · Clarified that if there was an architect on DRC, it would be at the applicant's cost, not the city's · Explained the fees and deposits involved Chair Saadati: · Measuring the height based on the outside vs. the ceiling is more appropriate; it lifts many restrictions · Increasing the second story ratio would be appropriate; 50% is easy to apply · Regarding daylight saving plane, need to learn more about it; there is not enough information; don't feel we need to go that route · Some commissioners want 1,000 square feet in one area, 1,000 square feet if it is done nicely won't make much difference; provides flexibility; 2,000 on first floor, 1,000 on second floor · Increasing the second story would help to open up the land and help the environment to some extent · Later in the meeting, following discussion, said he would go back to 800 minimum to allow for flexibility · Feel this is the direction to go I ô--/31 Planning Commission 1-..,mtes IS May 24, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Weare not doing much in the arena that Palo Alto or Los Gatos does; it is not a good budget year to add costs to applicants or staff functions to the city; there are gradations of design review, simple things, such as symmetry, balance and alignment of architectural features, helps with the design of the building and architects will emphasize when they review something · You could go to the next level and say you are interested in looking at details such as materials, colors; some communities spend a lot of time focusing on those types of issues as well as the issues of privacy impacts, massing and bulk · If the Planning Commission is interested in looking at that, it would take more time Com. 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 bringing back more information on how Palo Alto's daylight plane works or if anyone else uses that, would need to be done Mr. Piasecki: · The earlier discussion of how to avoid somebody building a two story box if you don't have design standards, the daylight plane doesn't prohibit it from happening · Agree with Com. Miller that it may be an effective way of supplementing some of the other mechanisms we use to offset second story massing, if you get something within a daylight plane · Not familiar enough with how Palo Alto does it to provide good feedback Com. Chen: · Good design to provide maximum flexibility to develop a good design and also to reduce the mass and bulk are equally important · What is the impact to provide both; one solution might allow maximum flexibility and provide good design but might not guarantee, what is the potential for daylight plane option to provide the amount of flexibility for good design · Would like to have design review process to apply to that one, with professionals on board · The other option is to go within the box we give them · Support staff recommendation on high volume ceilings; makes more sense than existing ordinance · Support the increase to 50% of the first to second floor; stay with 800 square feet minimum (0 -fL(ð Planning Commission h...JUtes 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. Gilli: · Said most of the population would rather know what they can get at the beginning, than have the ambiguity of hearing it is in the building envelope and have to go through the process and may not end up with as much as the building envelope might 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 potential to maximize the use of the space Mr. Gilli: · 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 will 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 1,000 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. GiIIi: · 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 { O-fY( Planning Commission l\__.,utes 17 May 24, 2004 · Said that relative to affordability, the applicant 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. GilIi: · Said in the interest of planning for having a document at the end of this process, what he heard was 50% is a good number; verified that at least three are happy with that figure; Com. Miller said two Planning Commissioners said 1,000 and would support it as a backup plan; and the other two are sti11 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 proj ect 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 sti11 had to come back to DRC and the staff recommendation on that particular one in Monta Vista, staff recommended Yes. Mr. Gilli: · There was no point in saying No because the mass was already there Vice Chair Wong: · We can literally enforce it and staff could have said No Mr. Gilli: · Said it was his opinion that it would not hold up at the City Council level to say No when the volume is already there and it only adding a floor in Vice Chair Wong: · On these particular ones since it is not open; it doesn't open out to a living room area; it is just the staircase area; instead of it being double counted, said he was not opposed to allowing this type of ceiling IO-(lf,L Planning Commission ÌYullUtes 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 wi1l 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 15 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 COlU1t it? · Another approach may be that if it is in the stairwell, which has to be there by definition if you have a second story, why not not-double count it in the stairwell and then double count it anywhere else Mr. Gilli: · Minor drawback is if the stairwell was never double counted; you may get people who exaggerate the size of a stairwell, and have it be larger than it needs to be; or an exemption of up to a certain will not be double counted Com. Giefer: · What Mr. Gilli said about having a certain amount of space that would not be double counted that was dedicated to the stairwell makes sense; it may work as well · If you said you were going to give a 4 by 6, or whatever the correct dimensions are; that this will be double counted. However, if you have an 18 x 36 foot foyer that is part of the stairwell, the Planning Commission will not accept that it is part of the stairwell; it will be double counted · Accepts staff's language Com. Miller: · It seems fair Mr. Gilli: · Staffwi1l look through the plans to see the average size of the stairwell and put the number in · One note on the recommendation; based on wanting to consider a minimum of 1,000 square feet; in that case for the regulations to make sense and work together, the Planning Commission should explore the idea of a second floor that is 60% of the first floor because if ID~(Lf3 Planning Commission ~."Jutes 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 people 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, ifthey go with 1,000, look at a higher proportion. Chair Saadati: · Suggested a one hour study session to review the material Com. Chen: · Said she understood Vice Chair Wong's concern about flexibility for the second floor design. · Qualify the distinction in the ordinance that the 1,000 applies to certain lot size, with the design review process in place which will take everything into consideration Mr. GilIi: · 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 return to the Planning Commission in two weeks. None ( ð-IL/Lf Planning Commission l\Hnutes 9 June 14,2004 5. MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 ofthe Municipal Code (RI 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 penn it, not a design review project, that is a two story project with an FAR of 35% that didn't need design review, that they had to add in an offset where it didn't really need to be done to reduce the mass and bulk of the second story · Along those lines, staff reconunends that the offsets not be required in cases where the exposed wall height of the second story is less than three or four feet and whichever figure is more comfortable with the Planning Commission or even higher or lower; that is a ballpark amount that staff believes is reasonable. Com. Miller: · Requested that second story wall heights be added to the discussion (19.28.060, Section FA) · Said that in looking at the requirements, he had a general concern as it is a complex ordinance. · Said he felt the daylight plane would simplify the discussions in tenns 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. GilIi: · Said it was not in the scope of work trom 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 materia] from them for the Planning Commission before the next meeting. Mr. GilIi: · Said city of Palo Alto staff would not be available until August. I D -( L( ,j Planning Commission !\..,jutes 10 June 14,2004 Com. Giefer: o 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. GiIli: o It would be the person who built the two story house. Acting Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Susan Lui, Woodburry Drive: o Asked for clarification on second story surcharge in addition to the setback. o Asked if changing the second story minimum square footage from 600 to 800 was being continued for discussion. o 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: o It is being continued in discussion. Mr. Gilli: o 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. o 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. o 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 all of the surcharge on one of the sides and make one of the side setbacks 25 feet instead of 10, or put most of the surcharge on the front, where that will result in a front setback on the second story of 35 feet and one of the sides will be 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 will already preclude anybody from maximizing a second story that would fIll up all the setbacks. o Acting Chair Wong had answered the second question. o The fIrst story setbacks that were specifically in the scope of work that the Council gave to the Planning Commission were in cases where there are narrow lots. What the Planning Commission may still want to pursue is make some recommendations that aren't in the scope of work and staff can present that to the City Council for endorsement. o There have been people in the past bringing up the idea of splitting up the sides; although there have been people on large lots as partially reflected in the surveys, that believe the large lots, over 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: o Wanted clarification; for the second story surcharge, what is the purpose of it again, since we already have second story setbacks. (0 -!L(b Planning Commission !vllnutes 11 June 14, 2004 Mr. GilIi: · When the rules were put in place, the idea ~as 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 Rl, that has been discouraged by the City Council. In one respect it was to require more, but in a flexible way. Acting Chair Wong: · Currently, are they any other cities that have this surcharge. Mr. GiIJi: · 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. GiIIi: · 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. GiIli: · 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 from looking the same: it precludes the architect from 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? ¡D-f L/ 7 Planning Commission JvllÐutes 12 June 14, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · Said he could only speak to the projects that have been approved wÜh the second story at 35% or in some cases 40% of the ground floor; they have never maxed out the allowable area on the second floor within the setbacks; so there has always been extra setback area that has either been on one side, both sides, the front or the rear, and that leads to a lot of variety and flexibility in design. .1 do not know if the second story is 50% if that will still exist, I believe it will, but there may be some cases where you could have a second story that fills out ¡he entire second story building envelope. Probably that would be on smaller lots. Com. Chen: · Basically do not disagree with second story setbacks, although I think the surcharge might be a little too much restriction; without a decision on the second story area, it is a difficult decision to make. Mr. Gilli: · With all of these rules you can't really make a decision on one until you really know what the whole picture is, because they are inter-related; but the process that we are trying to do is to try and take it issue by issue and then when it is brought together at the end, see if it meshes or there are conflicts that need to be explored further. Com. Chen: · Agree with the second story setback; it is a regulation with good intent and would like to keep it. · The second story wall offset is a good requirement; concur with staff recommendation of privacy planting. · Agree that all the privacy planting has to be recorded for the protection of all the property owners. · Rancho Rinconada: staff recommends the surcharge be eliminated; agree with that. · Relative to staffs recorrrrnendation that the Planning Corrrrnission 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 recorrrrnendation 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 idea] 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 ¡b -/ vt Planning Commission ~wlUtes 13 June 14,2004 neighbor's lot at her expense as opposed to having frosted windows and louvers In the neighborhoods other than those specifically designated Eichler neighborhoods. · Supports staff recommendation with regards to the second story offsets. Com. Miller: · Relative to privacy, the majority of people in the survey said àe-oot 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 concern about the privacy. · Moving to the topic of small lots and sections of town such as Rancho, said he was göing to suggest something perhaps radical. There are a number of planned communities in town that are somewhat similar and the one that comes to mind, is Seven Springs, and many of the lots are similar to the size of the lots in Rancho that we have to deal with, and yet Seven Springs is a development that I think was done very well. Allowing that kind of development in areas where we are dealing with small lots is a good idea; furthermore picking up on what Com. Giefer said about moving the second story setback on the front up, I am not convinced that it creates ugly buildings, we just approved earlier tonight an application where there was no second story setback, and everybody commented how well that was designed and it didn't appear to us as enhancing bulk and mass at all. · That again gets me back to where I started earlier this evening and I think we need another way of looking at this; I keep coming back to the daylight plane, it would allow us the flexibility to get better designs and different designs and not have every house look the same. In fact if the ordinance itself forces houses to look the same if we got rid of the complexity of regulations and we went to a simple concept like the daylight plane, I think we could solve the bulk of our problems. Palo Alto is using it very successfully and no one would claim that there are bulk and mass issues in Palo Alto. Asked the Planning Commissioners to reconsider looking at it in a different way and getting rid of the incredible number of regulations, restrictions, that someone has to figure out. No other city in this area has this except Cupertino; there is a better way of doing this. · Not in favor of the setbacks or the offsets; would rather see it done differently. · Feel surcharge is not necessary; there may be one other city that uses surcharge, but no other city in this area. Acting Chair Wong: · Second story setbacks and surcharge: Concur with Com. Miller that if the people from Palo Alto come and discuss daylight plane, the Planning Commission would not be looking at all these unnecessary ordinances and procedures; it might simplify the process, which is one of the principles he said he was advocating. · Regarding the Rancho Rinconada area, support staff recommendation to eliminate the 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 stin 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. (ð-fL{ C! 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 Rl, it wouldn't happen because of these wall offsets. Mr. Gilli: · The difference between the townhomes in Civic Park and other townhomes and what is in Rancho Rinconada is the townhomes are 25 feet wide and they are designed that way. The Rancho Rinconada lot will be twice as wide so there will be the opportunity to have a wider first story and even possibly a wider second story, to provide some articulation on the side. Acting Chair Wong: · Regarding the second story wall offset, the recommendations that if the Planning Commission determines that a design review is necessary for all two story homes, then the Planning Commission may leave the regulation as is, but requiring the approving body of two story projects determine that the offsets are effective on a case by case basis. I really have strong reservations regarding having staff review all two story homes; I think that the current way allows flexibility so I don't support that. · Do not support unnecessary offsets. · Regarding the privacy planting, Com. Miller brought up a good point on Question No. 13, in the survey that 55% didn't really have a strong concern, and of those who did understand the R I ordinance, 60% did not have a strong concern on privacy planting. · Agree with Com. Giefer that putting louvers or frosted windows or even 12 foot trees would not really address those privacy planting; communication is the most important thing regarding privacy planting by strategically planting the trees. · Do support updating the landscaping trees and shrubs with the handout vs. putting it in the ordinance. · Second story setback and surcharge: Agree with Com. Chen that second story surcharge is a little stringent; would agree with her too; can staff come back and suggest something more flexible but still keeps with the intent, because there is too much regulation and it should be user friendly for the designer/architect to have good design. Com. Miller: · Suggested more discussion on the small lot issues and staff providing comments. Asked what the objection would be to allowing the flexibility on small lots in Rancho that was given to the Seven Springs project. Mr. Gilli: · There is no objection to looking into that; it is part of the reason why in the recommendation on the second story setbacks and at a later meeting on the first story setbacks we have recommendations that make it easier to build in on the RI-5 lots. It is difficult to compare because Seven Springs was one whole development but is along the Jines of a special neighborhood plan. Before going too far, it should be determined if the Rancho residents want that, because a lot of people supported annexation because they had a concept of what the rules would be, and there is a need to be sensitive to that; as well as sensitive to the people wanting to build in Rancho because it is difficult because of the size of the lots. J D -/ S7J Planning Commission I\ú.¡utes 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 detennines 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 infOlmative 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. rð-(S-l 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. · 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. · Regarding simplification, at least two commissioners support it, which he expressed concerned about. Asked staff to come back with more information on flexibility. · 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. · Regarding the unnecessary offsets, the commission is split; regarding the privacy planting, all agree that it should be as is. · Said he supported having a presentation from Palo Alto regarding the daylight plane, and asked Corns. Giefer and Chen to comment on whether they are interested in hearing a presentation from Palo Alto. Com. Giefer: · Said she was agreeable, and would like to specifically understand what their issues are with it, what they have run into on a regular basis, and what they believe would be the impact if they did not have the design review coupled with that. Com. Chen: · Said she would agree to learn from their experience. Com. Giefer: · Relative to second story wall offsets, agree with staff. Com. Miller: · I think that is an increased restriction and I don't agree with that. Com. Chen: · I agree with staff on this one. Mr. Gilli: · On the issues that are split 2/2, one was the wording change in the surcharge; Corns. Giefer and Chen wanted to go with staff recommendation on the wording, and Com. Miller and Acting Chair Wong did not want to go with that, primarily because you wanted to explore a method that didn't have a surcharge. Com. Miller: · Yes, if the Planning Commission goes along with exploring a different method, that is my first choice; if we are going to stay with the current method, then I would go with the revised wording. Acting Chair Wong: · Said he concurred. (ð-I)~ Planning Commission 1vl1nutes 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. GilIi: · 1 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: · Defmitely 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 conununication 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. rö-I f3 Planning COnmllssion :r\...~dutes 18 June 14,2004 · Relative to the offset recommendation in the staff report, if the design review is agreed upon for a\1 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 a\1 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 ca\1s 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. Miller: · Said that if everyone is lanning on being on vacation, it doesn't make sense to hold it, but suggested they move rward with RI if commissioners did not have conflicts. y meeting, to cancel the one prior to the City Council Com. Chen: · Said it was logical cancelled meeting. 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 sll felt they would not meet their schedule ifthey canceled a meeting. · Felt thery'were many things that they required information for; suggested that Palo Alto may be ab~o attend the meeting to discuss daylight plane. ,. ID - r '0-/ Planning Commission Nl1nutes 31 July 12,2004 Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public mment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Saadati moved the agenda b 4. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance) Continued from June 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council Date: Not Scheduled. Mr. Gilli presented the staff report: · Said it was the 12th meeting on the RI ordinance. · Topics for discussion will include: Design Review - What is reviewed; tools for review process; who does the review; where Cupertino should be on the spectrum. · Reviewed Exhibits E - Alternative I, Expanded Review; Exhibit F - Alternative 2, Streamlined Current Methodology, and Exhibit G - Alternative 3, Reduced Design Review Vice Chair Wong: · Said other items for discussion included story poles, design review guidelines, and notification. · Asked for staff report on notification; what does sending out the II by 17 plans entail, and how far does that go out? Mr. Gilli: · Said that the issue of poles and notification, because they are both on the exhibits, will hit at the same time. · There are certain times in each of the alternatives that story poles are required and that certain levels of noticing is required. · Currently, exceptions require noticing 300 feet; it is a piece of paper that has legal language saying there is a hearing; · Two story over 35% FAR, they have story poles and the noticing, and the story poles have to be up at the time it is applied and remain up until the action. Vice Chair Wong: · Regarding the guidelines, do you want to tie it into the process? Mr. Gilli: · Said you could not talk about these items individually, e.g., if you talk about story poles, are they good, bad; that depends on what we are talking about, story poles are useless for one story houses; you do have to talk about it with the other things. · In the case of two story, that's typically where story poles are more useful because people can see it; so we can try to talk about it separately, but I think they are also interconnected; it is extremely difficult. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he felt story poles were dangerous, a safety issue. · Said he met a year ago with former 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? (0 -I )) Planning Commission lhillutes 32 July 12, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · The issue of story poles is not something staff needs; the survey indicated many peopJe 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 leveJs 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 Jevel 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 wouJd need to have them and expand on them, and for status quo, you could reduce them sJightly, 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 PJanning Commission look at residential design approvaJ; 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 Jooking 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 Jike 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. I D - / )0 Planning Commission lh,nutes 33 Ju1y 12, 2004 · Questioned how valuable the story poles are in terms of neighborhood notification; Said he felt it was likely better to notify them and/or give them some kind of picture of what they are looking at; because story poles don't represent what is actually going to be up there when it is constructed. · Noted that only Los Gatos and Cupertino are currently using story poles in the surrounding area. (Others commented that Palo Alto and Los Altos a1so 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 prob1ems, 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 concerned. He has on the DRC for two years and currently is the Chair on the DRC; and a lot of people who do come in either through notification seeing the story poles or word of mouth, and are most concerned about not knowing what is being built, and once they come in and see the plans and have the regulations explained, they are calmer. People need to take the time to contact the neighbor and ask them what they are doing and the neighbor will show them. · There are other ways to notify the neighbors; we are taking one notification away by taking away story poles which is a health and safety issue, but you can also notify people by sending the application and plans, elevation only to the immediate neighbors and if they really want to learn more, they can either contact the applicant or go to City Hall and contact the professional planner. · Other concern is money-wise, it is very expensive; some folks know how to do it correctly, some do not. Other cities don't do it except for Los Gatos. · One constituent talked to me about when they put the story poles, they hammered them into the building and it caused damage to the building, if you put it up during the winter months, water can go into the building and damage the building; it is not a good process. · Want to streamline the process, and especially staff is willing to use another way of notification and not have story poles. · Does not support story poles. r 0 -I JÎ Planning Commission hHnutes 34 July 12,2004 Com. Miller: o 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. o As Vice Chair Wong pointed out, they can cause damage to the building. Chair Saadati: o 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. o 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. o 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. o Said it was an alternative that he would accept. Mr. Piasecki: o Asked for the definition of "an appropriate drawing" Chair Saadati: o 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: o No question that we want to expand the notification. o Support doing that in whatever method deemed appropriate; it adds more information and reduces confusion. Com. Giefer: o Agree with Com. Miller; would like to see notification expanded. o 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. oWe are talking about sending them an II x 17 elevation as part of the noticing. o 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: o Suggested using legal size paper as II by 17 is difficult to work with. o 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. o Later in the discussion, he said that if there are copy machines to easily copy II x 17, he stood corrected. Mr. Gilli: o Asked if there was agreement to have the site plan with it. Com. Miller: fD -I SJ .~-~_.._--~-~--- Planning Commission ,.Ûnutes 35 July 12, 2004 · Said the site plan is fine. Vice Chair Wong: o 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. o Regarding privacy. if they are concerned, they should make the time and come to city hall to look at it, when they get the noticing for the DRC, it is a second opportunity for them to come. o It if raises a concern to the immediate neighbor, they should come and see the full set of plans at the counter. o Want to make it cost effective for the applicant. o The other concern is no story poles, but if we increase that notification for the DRC to more, they can also get the notification to come to the DRC to see the second story addition. o It is very important to keep the DRC so that it is another way of notification. o Recommend legal size, much better for economic reasons. · Summary: Will have a site plan, the elevation, the renderings, no floor plans; and also a contact information ITom 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 11 x 17 is a better fit because the plans generally start out at a certain aspect ratio that works better with 11 x 17. Chair Saadati: · 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 notification; one is there is an action that the city is taking, in which case, in the alternatives, staff has this as one of the elements and then the other is right before a permit is about to be issued, it would be a letter saying the owner of this address is receiving a building permit to do an addition. Vice Chair Wong: o Do the courtesy notices. Com. Miller: o 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. o 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. o 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 ( ð - {)7 Planning Commission l..,nutes 36 Ju1y 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 rrom the community at large, which would not be an extra expense to either the applicant or the city. Chair Saadati: · Basically you are keeping the 35%. Com. Miller: · Yes, leaving it the way it is. Mr. Piasecki: · On the point of adding a volunteer architect, you may have to go outside the city to get one; we would normally go to the Santa Clara County AlA. Com. Giefer: · I am somewhere between keep it where it is today, but I would like to suggest modifications to that: I agree with what Com. Mil1er said in terms of taking the highlights and strong points from our guidelines, and incorporating them into the RI, but 1 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 ftom 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 maj orly 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 ftom 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. Ib -I LrD Planning Commission ,..mutes 37 July 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 fmd 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 Val1ey College; he did not live in the City ofCampbel1 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 ofthat even though he was not present. Mr. Gilli: · Larry Cannon's comments are incorporated into the staff report. !()-ffc ( Planning Commission lHmutes 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. MiUer: · I understand that, and most of the time you would expect if we had someone participating as a member of the committee, he would be there and it is not the ideal case that he is not there; but it is somewhere in between; 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 consultant 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 ofthe 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 terms of should we be moving towards more architectural review, 1 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 (ð-/ b J... Planning Commission ...mutes 39 July 12, 2004 and then create guidelines for what architectural items we are going to review and not going to reV1ew. · Not sure I am prepared to support that, right now we look at mass and bulk and periodically there are some other issues that come to mind where architectural input is important but not necessarily to the point that we are going to have an "architectural review" of the house structure. Mr. Gilli: · From my experience if the commission believes and is comfortable with still maintaining the focus on mass and bulk, if that was the philosophy the Planning Commission wanted to pursue, I would agree with the speaker, that you don't need the architect at the meeting, and in many cases you don't need the meeting because the ordinance rules and the very basic guidelines which the commission can spend more time at a later meeting, going through, takes care of the mass and bulk issues. · If mass and bulk is going to continue to be the main focus then a process like Exhibit F or G would be what we would recommend; it would save the applicants significant time and money; it would save a lot of staff time as 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 alternative for folks, because you have to notify people to come to the DRC; this is your second opportunity; once you just do the notification, with 11 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. GiIli: · Generally it will cost an extra couple of thousand dollars if you go to hearing at applicant's expense. )D -{ & 3 Planning Commission ¡hlUutes 40 July 12, 2004 Chair Saadati: · I served on the DRC for almost two years and with the exception of privacy, a lot of applications went through without a lot of problems. Mr. Piasecki · What Mr. Gilli was saying, it gets back to what your philosophy is; if it is mass and bulk, the last thing you want to do is bring an architect in to talk about architectural details and if the roofleaks. · You want to keep it focused and keep the messages pure and unmixed. Vice Chair Wong: · It should be about mass and bulk and I 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 arid 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, I 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 oflegal non conforming building lines, at the last meeting it was unanimous that the concept of having this at adjacent noticing with a Director's action after hearing if the neighbors have problems with it or not; there was agreement then, Ijust wanted to 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. I~ -/& tj Planning Commission "Únutes 41 July 12, 2004 · Should that stay in this model or is that off the table now. Vice Chair Wong: · I think we should take it out of this process and address it differently, because I remember clearly the second story decks were going to be a Director modification; it wasn't going to go through DRC, because it saves money on that. · Can't respond on the others because of lateness of meeting. Com. Giefer: · Suggested that it be continued to help review entire process and be able to see that it really will help streamline the process and makes it easier for the applicants. Vice Chair Wong: · Requested that the staircase issue be discussed at the next meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) to the Planniug 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 Val1co Rosebowl development was reviewed and she was asked to sh e the following comments: The Housing Commission recommends that the applicant maxi tze 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. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No verbal report given. ADJOURNMENT: The eeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 5:00 p.m. on July 26, 2004, followed by the regul Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary (0 -I ft,.S"' 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. ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chairperson: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner City Attorney: PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Angela Chen Taghi Saadati Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Peter Gilli Charles Kilian 1. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) Citywide location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Continued from Planning Commission Study Session of August 23, 2004. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Peter Gilli, 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. ID .-( &/ç 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 eliminated if we go with the building envelope. Staff recommends that they remain because they provide a benefit even if we had a building envelope; but at this point it appears that the Planning Commission recommendation is going to be for two story review of all homes, so the offsets can be converted into a guideline since staff has seen cases where offsets have been required in cases that they didn't appear to be necessary. · In summary 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. GiIli: · 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 earlier meeting there was a split decision to increase the minimum width of the offsets to 8 feet, but at the same time there was a majority opinion that the offset shouldn't apply in cases where the fIrst story roof was covering a certain amount of the second story wall. Com. Giefer: · Do you feel that if we looked at adopting a second story building envelope, that it would impact or change the rrequency and requirement of where the offsets would be; is there any tangible difference between the way our prescriptive method is and the way it would be after ......s a building envelope? Mr. GiIli: · If you had a building envelope without any wall offset requirement or guideline then there would be no regulatory method to have an offset; you could have a second story that could be a straight wall over 20, possibly even over 30 feet in length. 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 guideline for enforcement. Mr. GiIli: · 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. (ð-(&7 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 concem for the first story placement. Mr. Gilli: · Said yes, if they did not have a single story envelope then a property owner could propose a one story house that had 15 foot height on one side and a 19 foot height on the other side, in terms of the wall height. · The ordinance is currently limited to: on the side with the 5 foot setback, the height is limited at 12 feet which translates into plate height of between 10 and II 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 terms of the success they are having using the daylight plane. · I believe it simplifies the regulations quite a bit which is always a desire; I appreciate Mr. Gilli's point that laymen will have difficulty potentially understanding daylight plane; however, the people who actually design the house will not have difficulty understanding it and normally the owner does not design the house, he hires people. Those people won't have any problem. Palo Alto's experience is that those people don't have a problem with that. · Also sensitive to Don Burnett's remark last time which is he was in favor of going in this direction and felt that the Palo Alto ordinance actually did a better job than Cupertino's. · Supports the daylight plane. Com. Chen: · Many changes will be made if going for the daylight plane, specifically regarding the single story heights. · It is a major change and not within the authorized scope of work, will likely delay the process and create confusion. · Said he feels the existing plan works well, and will support staff's recommendation. Com. Giefer: · Several things were solved by the Palo Alto daylight plane policy; during their presentation several concerns that I had; one of them being privacy and I think my understanding of the way the plane works is the higher you want your walls to be the further in you need to go and that is always a concern of mine. I think we have issues with how to design around the existing one story; that was very attractive to me. I think there are several things we would need to work out with regards to the detail relating to height; I would not want to see us use daylight plane and make any changes to single story RI because that is not our directive rrom City Council. · I think we would create a lot of confusion, and going into this, if we are recommending a change, I think we would have to acknowledge people who have traditionally built in Cupertino and have invested time and effort understanding our current ordinance; this is a re- education process and I am not sure how we address that, or if we have a way to address that within the building community in Cupertino. · I want to see some setbacks required, am not completely comfortable tossing them out and saying they are all guidelines because it is new; so I have a concern regarding the setbacks that would be building a lot of lovely tissue boxes within the building envelope, and I wouldn't want to see that happen. ( 0 -( b! Planning Commission c ..,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 1 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 10 see !he overall height as high as Palo Alto allows for single stOll'; I wouldn't want to change that. Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr. Gill;) . If we were to go with the Palo Alto daylight plane, our maximum height of our Rl ordinance is currently ~ 28 feet, so even though the envelope goes over ~ 28 feet, which would supercede, the envelope or the height of 28 feet. Mr. Gilli: · It is always going to stop at 20 feet. Even our current envelope on some lots will go over 20. No one can go over 28 feet. Vice Chair Wong: · The design review guidelines would help mitigate some of the concerns of the designs that you were concerned about to make sure that the design was important to you; and that is how I felt that by using the daylight plane it allows flexibility; · Asked 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 form, but it is very limited if it is under 35%, in the new proposal, it will be a more formalized 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. (6 -/ h ? Planning Commission ~...Jy Session 5 September 13,2004 Com. Miller: · Supports two story daylight plane. · Supports reducing the complexity of the ordinance if it made sense, but if the majority of the commissioners are concerned about what that impact might be on the first story, we are going to make recommendations to the City Council and it appears to be an open field. Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr. Gilli) . Asked staff to explain what the concern is about if it is one story; why is staff so concerned about not having proof of one or two story. Mr. GOO: · 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 ITom 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. GOO: · 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. lð-/70 Planning Commission ~ _Jy Session 6 September \3,2004 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. Miller: · 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. Miller: · 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 staff s recommendation if you implemented this to take out the surcharge, to possibly even take out all language about the side setbacks and with the wall offsets. · If there is a review of all two story houses, it works better in guidelines. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked Commissioners to review their previous comments and decisions. Com. Giefer: · June 28, SS-7 with regard to allowing 10 x 10 lightwell for single story basements; voted No, and since then had a conversation with Mr. Gilli and better understand it and support it; change from a No vote to a Yes vote. · July 12, Page SS-8 with regard to the story poles; I really want story poles and I know it is not popular, but I vote No in terms of eliminating story poles; I want them. It is the best way of 10 -(7/ 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 fi-om 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.Gilli:· · 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. Gilli: · Will strike much of it; a final decision was not made and they will move to this meeting. Vice Chair Wong: · Clarification on June 28th - asked Com. Miller ¡fhe 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. lD~n2.. 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. · 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. GilIi: 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. MiUer: 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. GilIi: . 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 formal; 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. GilIi: o The draft language now is rather vague; it al10ws 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 formal review process and an informal review process. Mr. GiIIi: 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 formalized review, staff sees it before the plan/check stage before all the structural drawings are done, so if there (6 -f/3 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. · 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. · The notice board will be put out when staff feels the project is close to being approved; if a project comes in and doesn't work architecturally at all, then we would not recommend to put up the notice up yet because it would be the wrong elevation possibly; but once the design gets to a certain point, that is when we would do the notification and the rendering. Com. Chen: · Summarized that staff will be involved in the project with applicant early on in the process and the immediate adjacent neighbors would be notified if it is a two story under 35% square feet, but that is after all the design review is done and accepted by staff. · That work is not going to be reviewed by people around the 300 square feet radius; it is going to be reviewed by adjacent neighbors. The larger than 35% will trigger the official design revIew process. Mr. GiIli: · 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: · The expectation is to try to write the guidelines as objective as possible. Let staff prepare it and bring to you in a meeting with the ordinance; study it; if it has to be continued that is fine. · Staff wants the opportunity to make sense of it. Vice Chair Wong: · Said Com. Chen had appropriate questions. They agreed that there would be a 300 foot distance; adjacent neighbors would get the II x 17 plans, elevations. · Said he was not comfortable using the floor plan because he felt that if they really wanted to come inside to see where the windows were showing, that the nearby adjacent neighbors would come to look at it. · Asked Mr. Gilli about staffs position, said he did not recall their position regarding having floor plans. Mr. Gilli: · We think if it is going to be a case where the neighbors are getting notification of a two story house next door, it is going to be important to the affected neighbor which room is looking at them, and if you just look at the windows you don't know what room is behind them, you may not be worried if it is the bathroom, you may be only worried if it's a bedroom, but if you don't have the floor plans, you are not going to know. (D-FN Planning Commission, ly Session 10 September 13, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: o 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 information as the average person would want and our position is we think the average person would like to have the floor plans so they can see what is going to be the room that is looking down. Com. Chen: o Palo Alto plan limits the square footage. Mr.Gilli:· · The Palo Alto situation is if you have a 5,000 square foot lot you get 45%; as the lot gets larger, the FAR goes down. When you get to lot sizes of 7,500 to 10,000 the FAR is about 35%, with an acre in the Rl zone in Palo Alto, the FAR would be .3. Com. Chen: o Palo Alto has a maximum home size, Cupertino should consider having maximum home size. o Too many two story homes exceed the 35% coming forward and getting approved as a standard process; it takes longer and delays the project. o 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. o The plan is to review all two story homes now, but nobody needs to go to a hearing unless they have an exception. The idea is to save time for all parties and save money which would translate into less fees. As it is now, our Rl design fees are not as inexpensive as they were and if we go to a process without a hearing, they can be reduced. Com. MiUer: (To Com. Chen) · Wanted to clarify: in terms of the process, the process that everyone agreed upon is that staff gets to review everything, and if there is an exception it goes to DRC; if there is no exception, it doesn 't. Was that something you agreed with or were you concerned? Com. Chen: · Agrees with that. Vice Chair Wong: · If applicant disagrees with staff recommendation and it is appealed to DRC, and if the DRC rules in favor of the applicant and not go through the process of the DRC, Planning Commission, City Council; he said he would like to see a change in that; because the applicant keeps paying and paying. · Streamline the process; reduce the time. rõ-n )' Planning Commission ~ ly Session 11 September 13,2004 Mr. Gilli: · The applicant only has to pay for an appeal once; it is not extra cost; it is extra time. · The current practice is that the action of the DRC is treated like the action of the Director's minor modification, and Director's minor modification goes to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then to City Council. The Rl rules were made to mirror that. · If they wanted to appeal the Planning Commission decision, they would have to pay again and go to the City Council. · What is in the model ordinance is going to stay with that process; instead it goes directly to the Planning Commission and stops there; the idea is that the DRC is only two people, and if it is a controversial issue then it should be something that can't be tied; that is in the model ordinance. Vice Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input. Jennifer Griffin: · Urged caution about adopting the daylight plane until the ramifications have been fully studied on how it affects Cupertino, particularly. · The second story setback is necessary and how they are affected by the daylight plane still remains to be seen. Said she hoped that these changes would not be made to the 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 27'" 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 (() -/ 710 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair ong, second by Com. Chen, to approve Applications 003-09. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Saadati moved the agen a back to Item 2. 2. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Citywide Location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RIOrdinance) Continued from 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 ofthe 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 itseif; 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. fD-{ 77 Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · This case is within 3 inches, if you do the trig, it is the closest map. Com. Miller; · Page 2-43: 4. We have had some people come, some neighbors of houses we have reviewed, with the comment that rather than see roof they would rather see a window, and that particular requirement is not always in the best interest of a pleasing design. · My comment there is perhaps we might consider making that a guideline instead of a requirement in the ordinance. · Page 2-48: (top of page, first line, re: noticing) I think at least in my view, the only plans that need to be distributed are the site plan and the elevations, we should specifically say that in the ordinance as opposed to development plans which leaves it open to possibly reproducing 12 or 15 pages of development plans, II x 17, and distributing them to a lot of people with matter that is unnecessary. . · Section B.3. , Page 2-48: Concerned about the word "design". The ordinance talks about mass and bulk and this is the first instance of including design into the ordinance and ask that the word be removed. · The word has been used elsewhere, and am concerned about us getting involved in helping people design their houses too much. · Page 2-49: B.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, I would like to include some notes that give the reason that the Planning Commission voted to remove the story poles, namely that they are expensive and of questionable use. Cupertino and Los Gatos are the only two cities that require them; so much comment in favor of keeping them, yet the vote was to eliminate them; I would like to add some comment to that side as well. · Page 2-86, August 9: comment that Corns. Miller and Wong may have misunderstood the intent, regarding incorporating key guidelines into the ordinance; said he did not misunderstand the intent at this point. · Vote remains not to do it. Com. Chen: · Page 2-40: Same question regarding the 50 square feet of bonus which was not in there before; has there been discussion about adding that in. Mr. GiIli: · 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: i9.28.075: 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. /() -nJ' Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 27, 2004 Mr. GiIli: · 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 smal1 two story residential permit; do we talk about the title being smal1 and large, or have we discussed a possible change to a different title, major or minor. Mr. Gilli: · It was presented as smal1 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 al1 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: 11 x 17 plans, agree with Com. Miller that we should specify what other charts need to be distributed; no problem with II x 17, black and white or color; the rules for two story 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, 11 x 17 color would be appropriate. Com. Giefer: · Also request one cut of the survey data we did earlier and I know Mr. Gil1i: ran this and I am not sure if it was distributed to all commissioners; I would like to see the second story ratio as the answer was given by home owners in the area; I think that is a real1y 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 I was considering this because I went in thinking it didn't matter if it was 100% second story but I think the data collected was so overwhelming that we need to give it consideration and I would like City Council to see that data. · In the Rl 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 specifical1y as you get to larger lots; many of these are located at the base of the hil1side 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. /D~/)9 Planning 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 I considered, waiting to rezone those Rl lots at the base of the hills and in the hills, but I think those properties are currently getting subdivided and sold off and I don't think we can wait for the General Plan designation to change. · If those lots are blocked by property owners in legal suits, which would be another concern, there is a lot of building and massive homes that could be built in the hillsides. I would like us to add a maximum home size under Section 19.28.060, Page 2-39; that no 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, 1 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 staffs attention that there may be seasonality involved in replacing trees that are designated for privacy screening; some trees are just not available for transplanting all year round; I don't know how we address that. Would like to give them some opportunity to choose the tree they like, which would prevent them from replacing the tree within 30 days if the tree is not in season. I don't want it to go on indefinitely. · Page 2-48: One of the things I was looking for in reading the 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 rrom 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. (ð -( tD 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 ofthem sent. · 1 would also suggest that we have the staff review on the matrix of RI regulations, recommendations for changes, and study. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the process change is not included in this document and is only in the flow diagram, wil1 Council understand that it is a process change. Mr. Gilli: · It wil1 be in our presentation to them that there is a process change; it is not known whether they would be able to gather that by reading the ordinance. Com. Giefer: · It is a positive thing and adds value to the process without slowing it down or creating incremental fees. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he shared many comments made by his colleagues. · Regarding the group care activities with 6 or fewer people, asked staff to review. Mr. Gilli: · It is a change we considered minor because under conditional uses you are allowed to have group care with over 6 people, you would infer that as pennitted 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 small lots in Monta Vista and Rancho Rinconada, but they cannot be subdivided below 6,000 square feet. One thing that makes Cupertino unique is our RI ordinance and our single family homes. · Regarding the staircase, 50 square feet is too small; want to allow more flexibility; and talking to colleagues if we could compromise some and allow perhaps 75 square feet, staff was open to a little higher, maybe 100 might be too high for some; suggesting it go to 75 square feet. · Regarding design guidelines, I like how they are incorporated into the ordinance, that it should be "should" VS. "shall". · Regarding three car garages, said he discussed it before Com. Giefer became a Commissioner, that there shouldn't be any three car garages. Said he liked what Com. Giefer said, that maybe you could include a third car as a guideline with an offset originally, but I think the three car garage should be included in here, but should be offset and should be in the guidelines. · If they are on a pie shaped lot, I agree with Com. Giefer that if you set the three car garages far back, there may be enough room to have it, so it might penalize those residents on the cuI de sac and we need to take that into consideration. · Page 2-41, H: (living area should be closer to the street, while garages set back more); a lot of our houses are older stock, ranch style houses where you have garages up front and when the people tried to remodel their homes, you might have one or two houses that have houses stick out in front and the garages are in the back. Being that one of the goals is being hannonious, I don't see that as being hannonious. I would rather see that as a guideline vs. in the ordinance. (0-1 6/ 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 1ength 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. ll.C: front yard tree planting: Feels 24 inch box or larger as excessive. · Page 2-48, top of page: development plans: I want to be specific, we did agree in the matrix of the Planning Commission tentative decisions that we agree that would be the site plan and elevation plan that was on Page 2-85; four commissioners agreed to that. · Page 2-48, B3: When I read the goals of the Rl were to reduce mass and bulk, make the guidelines user friendly, etc., design is in the eye ofthe 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.I.: Regarding posted notice, agree with Com. Mil1er 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 wil1 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 I think that it would be easier, either to include both their comments or not include either of them and they could just read the minutes in the report. I appreciate My. 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 po1es; 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 fi:ont; 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 wil1 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 concerned, they should go down to the City Hall. · Regarding the 6,500 square foot maximum, I understand where Com. Giefer is coming from, but I see this as a private property issue that if you are lucky enough to have a very large lot that is on a flat piece of area, you should be able to build to what is in the ordinance; we did agree that regarding some areas that should be in the RHS, that should be done through the General 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. (6 -( tL 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 I 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 friendly 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 wil1 appreciate. · Relative to the 50% ratio for second/first story, one of the things leamed from 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 ffeR! of the house should not be more than 50% garages; do not recall seeing that. Mr. GiIli: · Said it is not in the ordinance or the guidelines. Chair Saadati: · If we put that in, that will take care of the garages taking over the whole house; it is one item we should emphasize. · Page 2-39 regarding the porches; somehow I wasn't sure if using unenclosed porches and patios would clearly explain what we are looking for. Is there any other way; if it is enclosed by glass, it is closed, but it can be viewed; privacy is going to be impacted. ID-( {J 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 should change "should" to "shall" and on lots with 60 feet, with no car garages, basically you can't fit them based on the 50% rule. · Page 2-41: was hoping for a clearer definition on the garages being set back and also comments from other commissioners about some of the existing homes and garages are sitting in front of the rest of the homes and what may address the issue is the new homes be harmonious in a design compatible with others, would that override this requirement. Mr. 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 frosted glass or other things that we discussed. We have heard from the public that the trees are not enough. · Page 2-48: Had same concerns regarding small or large; probably should corne 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. GiIli: · 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, Corn. 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 (D ·-1 tL{ 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; ¡fyou put in a curved stairway, you need a lot more space. 75 feet would be a good compromise, I am willing to concur, to provide some flexibility. · Agree that first class mailing and e-mail both should be used to make sure all information is received. · The building envelope is an improvement; it provides a guideline and flexibility for people to build their homes within a given space and if they chose to build more on the second story, they push the building back, resulting in a nicer home. Vice Chair Wong: · Agree with Chair Saadati and Com. Chen that the draft language on the name "large and small" homes may not be the right name in the eye of the beholder. · Instead of having large and smaller homes, perhaps it should be two story residential homes that are under 35% and two story residential homes that are over 35%. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the definition of smaller home is under 35%. Mr. Gilli: · Yes, that is correct. Com. Giefer: · Suggested the alternative of two story residential I, and two story residential II, then you have no judgmental language; it is not confusing and not a long name. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Pleased with 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 RI when annexed into Cupertino when Rancho carne 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. · Concem is that many of the changes proposed for Rl will have negative impact on small lots; the Rancho community is at risk. · She is a homeowner attempting to protect family investment in property. · See changes to Rl being counter-man ding 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. IV -( t f Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 27, 2004 . I hope that everyone will see fit to keep Rl as tight and strong and as effective as it has been; it works for me; it appeared ftom the survey and I was here in January of 2004 which was the first time I was aware that this document was being changed for RI, the consensus was that the neighborhood property owners did not want to change significant portions ofRI. . Urged everyone to keep 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 ftom 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 ftom 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 I· 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 öf 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 ftont, 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. ;0 - [[ ~ - 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 concems of Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller relative to the issue of the R I- S zone, Page 2-39 of the staff report. · It is included because there is an R 1-5 area which is Rancho Rinconada and it recognizes the fact they exist. You cannot rezone an RI-IO to an RI-5 and then subdivide; the RI-5 has a density of slightly over 5 units per gross acre, whereas the rest of RI has a density of under 5 units an acre; so you actually cannot rezone from RI-6 and above to RI-5, without changing the General Plan. The notation is just recognizing we have a neighborhood that is RI-5; in that zoning category its lot area is 5,000 square feet. Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller: · Said the clarification answered their concerns. Mr. Gilli: · On stairway bonus, there were two for 50, two for 100, but the 100 said they would consider 75 which the Chair specified. Are there three Commissioners comfortable with having the stairway bonus being 75 square feet. Com. Miller and Vice Chair Wong: · Said they would go with 75, and Vice Chair Wong thanked the Chair for compromising. Com. Giefer: · Recommended minor word change on Page 2-46: Under E: "the covenant...." Change "new" to "all" because there may be existing privacy plantings that would not be recorded unless we say "alP'. 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 /O-/5t Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 27, 2004 made, staff would suggest the minimum always be 5 and the other side be 10, but ifthey 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 generally 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 smallest side allowed to be 5. It may still hold true on the larger lots, but on the smaller lots brought in from San Jose, the RI-6, RI-7.5s those do not necessarily work as well. Com. Chen: · No preference; 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 ifthere are safety issues regarding the fire department. Mr. GiIli: · Said the fire department would likely prefer more clearance. Some neighborhoods, most of Rancho has setbacks of 5 feet on both sides, and there are small lot areas in neighboring cities that have 5 and 5; it may just be an issue for the Commission that do you think the larger lots should have a larger setback or can it be averaged out. Com. Giefer: · Before going with a split the difference approach, would need to give it· more consideration than has been given. Vice Chair Wong: · The Planning Commission voted recently on Santa Clara Avenue, that one minimum had to be 5 feet and when it came to the DRC, the other size was only 3.5 feet, so I can see where you are coming from, but it would be dependent on the situation. We have approved something that one side was only 5 feet and the other side was less than 5 feet. Chair Saadati: · My position is we could have mlmmum 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. GiIIi: · 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. /6 -( rt Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 27, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Put the flexibility in as long as the neighbors have no objection or their input is received. Mr. Gilli: · The only way to do that is require a minor residential permit for anybody who wants to use that amount of flexibility; that is the only way to get the neighbor input. Chair Saadati: · How many projects in the past have come and requested to have different setback than what is in the ordinance. Mr. GUll: · 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 torn 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.GilIi: · 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 leam 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. (ð - {rr9 Planning Commission Minutes 16 September 27, 2004 Mr. GilIi: · 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 tenns that the layman would understand and spell out what plans and pennits are available for public review in the Planning Department, it may eliminate the need for an extensive amount of infonnation 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 infonned 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 lmow there is a new development going in and what it looks like. · Supports eliminating the story poles, but feel it is helpful infonnation to have the storyboard ready to help neighbors understand how this new development will be like in relation in tenns of height, look with neighbors. Questioned if it should be a requirement in the ordinance. Mr. GilIi: · 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. /0 -( 9b 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.GilIi · Asked if there was a majority of the group that accepts the general language that the plan sets will normally 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. GiIli's proposal. Mr. GiIli: · Is there agreement on the naming of the two story processes, instead of "small" and "large" name it "two story residential permit F' and "two story residential permit IF' or is there another term that is more appropriate. The majority agreed to the suggested new titles. Mr. Gilli: · All comments about wanting additional information 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 if it 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. (û-IQ/ Planning Commission Minutes 18 September 27, 2004 Com. Miller: · Also spoke to this point and agree. Vice Chair Wong: · No wording change, it is a good language; just as a guidelines. Mr. Gilli: · It was part of the ordinance in 1999. Com. Chen: · Since it is not part of the scope of work, I would just leave it. Com. Giefer: · Concurs with Com. Chen that because it was not part of the scope of work, I would leave it. · Said she appreciated what Vice Chair Wong said about the design element, and as long as we have staff reviewing the design, if the design merits it, then a Director's minor modification can be made to let the design stand and that is one of the advantages of having the staffreview. Vice Chair Wong: · If we had a DRC because it was staff's recommendation to have the skirt around the turret, it was the DRC that ruled differently, so that it will not come to the attention of the Planning Commission unless the applicant wants to appeal the case. Time is money; there is one instance of an emergency meeting for the DRC last Friday and the applicant was honest that the setback was not done correctly so they had to do a modification vs. the next door neighbor did not bring it to staff's attention. Once something is set, it is hard for them to ask for a change or ask for another public hearing, so hopefully someone will reconsider. Mr. Gilli: · It is one of the more difficult rules. If you look at what it is trying to achieve, it is not possible to simplify it; it is calling for the second story wall over a portion of the house, over half of the elevation to be pushed back from the first story wall and then to have a roof. In the cases that Com. Wong cited, that didn't have anything to do with this rule; Mann Drive was not asking for an exception to this rule and in the case with the turret, it was a judgment that the mask could use the breakup, but it wasn't to address this rule either, because the turret is straight up and there is no offset. · If the Commission is split on this, one idea that is in the middle would be that allow exceptions to this rule without going through the full exception process; if there is a case where, the design doesn't need it, that the design has mass bulk that is reasonably compatible with the neighborhood, staff has no problems with it, the neighbors have no problem with it, let this be one of the things that avoids having to go through the public hearing and pay the extra fee and have this also be an exception that the director can approve; that allows flexibility but also lets the neighbors have a voice ifthey like the concept. Chair Saadati: · Having the second level set back, this is similar to some guidelines or ordinances which other cities have in place. ID-(9L 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. GilIi: · It would have to add a section to the exception language to say there is one particular case that the Director can approve an exception, where all the other exceptions will be at the DRC with hearings; and we would also have language at the regulation that says you can ask for an exception according to this rule. Com. Miller: · Both ways would achieve the same thing; the only comment I would have is the way the staff is suggesting, is a little more complex, by moving it to a guidelines we are not really changing the requirement because everything goes through staff and you are going to review it in that regard. It does allow the flexibility for an application like the one with the turret that it doesn't require an exception and you are proposing some other way of doing it; my comment it is more straight forward to move it to a guideline. What you are proposing will work as well. Mr. 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. ! D ;- {7' J Planning Commission Minutes 20 September 27, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · But staff recommended that they should have it; staff implemented the recommendation; there is no third party like the Planning Commission; I think that it makes the process simpler but then there is no oversight from the Planning Commission and that is what my concern is. Chair Saadati: · How does that differ 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. Gilli: · As the code is now, if they didn't meet that rule, they would file for an exception and go to the committee, so the idea was making something in the middle that was cheaper, quicker. · In the case of the roof element on the tower, it was a recommendation of our architectural consultant that it broke up the mass 'of the tower, and the applicant did not indicate to us that they had a problem with that; so had they indicated they did not want it, it may not have ended up as it was presented. Vice Chair Wong: · Said when people come to the DRC, he asks them what they want; sometimes feel that they are not communicating with staff based on the fear of not having the application passed. Then look at the ordinance to see if there is some flexibility. · Asked if the current way it is, if they oppose it, it goes to DRC. Mr. Gilli: · Currently, because it is a regulation, if they don't meet it, it would be an exception and they would go to the DRC. Vice Chair Wong: · If the exception goes to the Director, that is fine with me. Chair Saadati: · Does the maj ority concur? Response: · Yes. There was consensus that the ordinance return to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. (ð -(C¡Y Planning Commission Minutes 21 September 27, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Asked for clarification on the three car garages. Mr. Gilli: · There were some people who said it should be guidelines, that it should be a regulation, but there weren't enough people who said one way or the other to change what the language is in the draft. · There was not a majority on any issue regarding garages. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he believed the three car garages should be a guideline; agree with Corn. 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 ofthe plane. Com. Chen: · Agrees with Corn. 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 norrnally take 20 feet; it would meet the 50 foot rule. Mr. GiIli: · Staff recommends it be made a guideline because there will be cases where it may be 55, but it is all they could reasonably do on the lot to get a 2 car garage. Com. Miller: · Prefer staff suggestion of a guideline. Com. Giefer: · Asked if there was agreement on a third garage having a mandatory inset; as opposed to being in the same plane even ifit meets the 50% rule, just to break it up. ID~ (9J Planning Commission Minutes 22 September 27, 2004 Mr. GiIIi: o As it is now, having a 2 foot offset on the third car garage is in the guidelines; what Corn. Giefer is saying is make that a required ordinance requirement that if you have a three car garage, the third one has to be minimum of 2 feet. . Com. Miller: o 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: o Said that they could apply for an exception. Com. Miller: o Said it was a minor point, and would agree with the other commissioners. Chair Saadati: o Said his position remained the same. Com. Giefer: o 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: o Com. Chen reported that the meetin Housinl! Commission: o Com. Giefer reported that the eeting was postponed and cancelled. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl!: Com. Giefer reported: o 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 managementto get those. o 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. o The status of e three initiatives by the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino is it is currently looking as tough is going to be a special election in February and the cost to the city is $371,000 r that ballot initiative. The Chamber of Commerce is opposing those particular initiative nd trying to organize some response to them. o 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. rð -! 7~ Planning Commission. lUtes 2 October 11, 2004 Minlltes of the September 27,2004 Planning Comm· sion meeting: Com. Chen: Page 1, Roll Call: Chen" ce to "Gilbert Wong" should read "Angela 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 "snggest" POSTPONEMEN SfREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None 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) Motion: WRITTEN COMMU would be discussed und ATIONS: Chair Saadati reported that an e-mail was received and Old Business: Planning Commission Procedures For Public Hearing. None 1. MCA2003-02 (EA-2002-19) City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Continuedfrom September 27,2004 Plonning 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 wan offsets not being required in R1-e there win not be wan offsets, so you don't need that language. What was added was referring to the visible wan height regulation as a guideline in the R I-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 win 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 !D -111 Planning Commission l..utes 3 October II, 2004 have a requirement that all two story development has to be approved by the DRC so all that is changed is the reference to the section and the reference to the finding. · Page 21: There is a large section at the end that is crossed out, staff is recommending that it be removed because the RI noticing procedure matches what the Lynwood Acres neighborhood agreed to, there is no need to have the language in there; it is repetitive. With that unless there are other things that staff missed, based on the last meeting, staff is recommending that the Commission recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and the model resolution based on the latest version of Exhibit 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 roof rafters, is counted as floor area; if it is a two story house it is counted as second story area; if it is a one story house, it is counted as first story area. If it is a one story house, it is counted twice, but not counted as a second story addition. If there is already a second floor, that is already a floor that has been counted. Com. Miller: · Under design guide1ines, the design guide1ines 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 Guide1ines la.; Page 1-15, 19.28.075, B3, there are three different ways of describing this; he suggested reducing it to one way; preference "that it is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" and dispense with the details shown in Section 19.28.060c which goes into a lot more detail. · Said to him harmonious means that you can have different kinds of construction or forms but they give a pleasing effect; and his preference is that they leave it and take words such as "compatible" and getting into the details of eave heights which has created a lot of discussion in terms of whether it should be II feet or 12 feet or something of that nature; and this kind of change would give more flexibi1ity. · Noted that on the matrix, although four commissioners voted to e1iminate 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 ofthe 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 exp1icitly state that exceptions don't apply to a particular rule and that a variance is necessary. !D -/9! Planning Commission. .lUtes 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. Gilli: · Currently the process for going over 45% is the same as the process for having a larger second story; it is just an exception. Com. Giefer: · Referred to Page 14, 19.28.076, Section B regarding noticing, and said there was no reference to the notification by both first class mail and e-mail, which was agreed to. Mr. GiIIi: · 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. GiIIi: · 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. Gilli: · 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. Gilli: . Explained the appeal process: Using the two story residential pennit as an example, Section D, Page IS, 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. (0-(71 Planning Commission. .lUtes 5 October II, 2004 · The appeals process for minor residential pennits, has the same language except it is C instead of D, but with the same paragraph. The final appeal will be the Planning Commission. · The flow chart can be included in the application fonn. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Said she was surprised at the number of proposed changes for Rl because of the size of the docúment and the number of strikeouts and replacement of text, which is a compilation of the last four months. · Cautioned that Rl is a fine document as it stands, and sees no reason to change it. · Believes that the retention of story poles, as evidenced by public input the last several weeks, is very important. · Opposed to increasing the proposed second story to 800 square feet; if it is being proposed she asked that there be an addition to that statement in the RI document stating that for R5000 properties, it be kept at 600 square feet because of the negative impact to the neighborhood with the very small lots. The sensitivity should be kept for the neighborhood. · The 800 square feet is a very large second story and does not work well in some neighborhoods in Cupertino. · The second story setbacks should be retained, and if the documents are trimmed, there should be strong adequate wording in the document to protect what has been kept by the current R I document since 2000. · Suggested that different colored documents be sent out when they are noticing residents; she noted that the County sends out different colored ones. · Keep the Rl in tact. Mark Burns, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors: · Said they were working hard on "reasonably compatible and hannonious" but emphasized that they were trying to make these neighborhoods great for everyone and there is a tight set of rules for R 1 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 f D- )JTÒ Planning Commission k.,lUtes 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 fonner 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 atttactive and not something that only a y, of it is upstairs and % downstairs, with the pinhead on the large body. That would make a great difference in improving the quality of the neighborhoods, the way the neighborhoods look, and give builders the rreedom to build the houses that buyers are demanding in Cupertino. Kwon-Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive: . 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 infonnation 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. GiIli: 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 rrom a light gray to a darker gray would not be a problem; but changing from a light gray to a bright orange could require that the approval be amended. Having the color on the board unless there is some evidence that it is a significant cost, according to an architect consulted, would be an insignificant amount. Unless there is infonnation that it is costly, the addition of color only adds to the effective noticing and it is not going to tie them 100%; it would take an extreme change in order to have to amend the approval. Yvonne Hampton, Oakview Lane: o Expressed concern about color control rrom 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. ID -)1) ( Planning Commission j .utes 7 October II, 2004 o It is wise for a city to look to the future with understanding of the past so that someone doesn't put a space age home in the middle of a rustic neighborhood; that is the purpose of guidelines. o Make sure we are friendly to each other but not forced to put on a 35% upstairs when we really need 3 bedrooms and a master bedroom to support our family. Roy Hampton: o Supports the proposed changes. One concern is that the Rl-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 Rl-a category. o Said the flexibility is good; and commented that the more you expand on the first floor, in his case they do have opportunity to expand on their first floor and not violate the lot requirements, but it would be better if they could expand more on the second floor, still respecting their neighbors and save more of their lot and their trees, since they have many trees on their lot. o The more you force the ratio to be bigger on the bottom and 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. o Said he concurred with his wife's other comments also. Mr. GiIli: o Said that RI-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. o If the home is in the R I zone now, it will stay there unless a long process is undertaken. Rhoda Fry, San Fernando Ave.: o Said she would like the Planning Commission to be more empowered to encourage outstanding architecture in Cupertino and do design reviews for all second story homes; preferably all homes. o Said she was in favor of story poles, and provided costs of story poles in different cities, stating that the costs were minimal costs for a project running between $700,000 and $ \.5 million, and also something that will last for generations and is going to impact the look and feel of the city. o Why is it that other cities have attractive architecture and Cupertino does not? From what I can tell, the current rules allow the property owner to build a small second story without a design review, which means you can build something pear shaped without a design review or pinhead or all these other descriptions, without adhering to anything that I have seen that resemble great American architecture such as Greek revival, Victorian and craftsman homes. Design reviews may take more time, but I think it is more than worthwhile because it will shape the look for our city and generations to come. o Please toss out the percent rules and do more design reviews. Susan Louie, Woodbury Drive: o Supports not requiring the residents to put up story poles when they have additions because they are dangerous because they stay on top of the roof and may cause leakage. o Some people may feel that $3,000 to $5,000 for story poles is a 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. fD -1-0 l Planning Commission t .ùtes 8 October II, 2004 Com. Chen: · Said in the past months they have worked hard with extra study sessions to come up with this rule, and she appreciates the public input; it is divided into two parts and some people want the rules to be more restrictive, and some want them to be more relaxed for different reasons. · The Planning Commission's role is to create a vision based on the need of the community and also to try to protect the homeowners and property owners as well. · The efforts that staff and the commissioners put in and the public input provided has helped create this set of rules that is much more relaxed than before; it provides the flexibility for a reasonably good design and also protects the neighborhood for other property owners who want to maintain the city in a different look. · She thanked everyone for helping develop the RI ordinance, and staff particularly for working so hard in the past few months to develop this rule. She said she supported the R I ordinance change; and will make the recommendation to City Council and hopes for support from all the commissioners. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, to approve the negative declaration and model resolution. Com. Giefer: · Reiterated her concern that throughout the process there was limited public input. · Said this meeting was one of the better attended meetings; the meetings were 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 concerned about that, but it is because of the lack of data and the lack of input. · Suggested that they separate the second story ratio; and stated for the record her concern. · Said she supported the document and agreed with Com. Chen; they have done a lot of work; there are many good things in the new R I, but reiterated her concern about the lack of public input in general; and the one data point from 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 Burns 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. ! D - :LO J Planning Commission l\,...utes 9 October 11,2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Commented to Com. Giefer that the process began two years ago, and it was sent to the City Council and because there were a lot of concerns, and was sent back. · Said he believed with the public input that was done with the surveys as well as the study sessions for about six months, and a lot of compromises as well, it is a fine document. He commended staff, particularly Peter Gilli for taking the time and especially communicating with him. · Believes that putting the boards in 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 from the second to first floor, that will give more flexibility. · He said many speakers talked about extended families in one home and the fact that some people wanted to live in a bigger house. · Agreed with Com. Miller that the intent of the ordinance was to address mass and bulk, and said he would like to see the document discussed more about addressing mass and bulk vs. design, which could be addressed through staff. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Wong. Chair Saadati: · Following Com. Miller's comment regarding the transitional neighborhood, he said there is flexibility for people to change their home and that has been evident by building two story homes in one story neighborhoods. He said he felt that has changed and the ordinance will change it more and provide more flexibility relative to the design aspects. · Echoed other commissioners' comments and thanked the public for their input; added they have been working on the item for quite some time, including many study sessions which the public attended, although they wished more people would have attended; there was ample of advertising and noticing for the meetings. Vice Chair Wong: · Said if his colleagues agreed, taking into consideration one of the public comments made, a minor amendment would be to make everything generic in black and white; and secondly was Com. Miller's suggestion of stressing the mass involved vs. design. Com. Chen: · Said she would agree to change the language to focus more on the mass and bulk, but was not in favor of changing the rendering from color to black and white; said she felt it was not a change; but what they were requiring everybody to do at this current point. By changing the design review process they gain a lot of time already; and her position is that providing the service to the neighbors is not too much to ask for. Com. Giefer: · Agreed with Com. Chen that the color adds benefit and helps one's neighbors visualize more what the project will look like. · Relative to the language changes proposed by Com. Miller; she said they do mean different things in the sections he pointed out; and she would not support the language change. 10 - iðy Planning Commission}, .ùtes 10 October II, 2004 Chair Saadati: . Said he favored the color rendering in lieu of the story poles; the added cost is insignificant compared to the benefits of the color renderings. . Mass and bulk --a little more language 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. GilIi: · Summarized that Com. Miller proposed to strike 19.28.060 C.l.a; "That the mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattem, new construction.... and entry feature heights." Mr. Piasecki: · Summarized Com. Miller's suggestion, for Section 19.28.050 which discusses mmor 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. GilIi: · 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 Rl document and vote on that separately; in lieu of voting on it as a whole within the document. Com. Giefer: · Said that she supported the work done; all have worked very hard, but she is concerned that they have one 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. ID -J.Df Planning Commission I\- _,utes 11 October II, 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 ifit 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 !D-10~ Planning Commission !\ 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 pul1 it out and vote separately on the 50% rule; so al1 you are voting on is if you support leaving it as is you would vote YES; if you do not want to leave it as is, then you would vote NO. If you want 50%, you would vote YES. It allows Com. Giefer to go on record as opposing it if that is what she chooses, and the Council can see she wanted to change it, and the remainder of the commission mayor may not. Amended motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Wong. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain). Com. Giefer: · Said she abstained because of her concern stated earlier that the public thinks either they are doing a tremendous job and that is why they are not coming; or they have given up and they don't think their comments are appreciated when they attend the meetings. · In her professional opinion, the data col1ected 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 infonnation 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 tlng for public comment. Robert McKibbin: · Commented on t procedure for public hearing items, stating that it lists the outline in regards to the Chair intr ducing the application, etc. · Noted that in e Cupertino Scene it mentioned the city had Helen Putman Awards that were for two ite s; both of them dealt with the staff reaching out to the citizens for public participati 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. /D -)ð 7 EXHIBIT U City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department CITY ÙF CUPEI\fINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff Use Only EA File No. EA-2002-15 Case File No.MCA-2002-03 ¡Attachments Project Title: Amendment to the R1 Ordinance Project Location: Citv-wide Project Description: Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to sinqle-familv residential development in the R1 zoninq district. Environmental Setting: Standard sinqle-familv subdivisions. predominantlv on flat terrain. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - N/A Building Coverage - N/A% Exist. Building - N/A s.f. 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) 0 Monta Vista Design Guidelines 0 S. De Anza Conceptual 0 N. De Anza Conceptual 0 S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual 0 Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual 0 Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - N/A Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required s.t. FAR - 45% Max. N/A Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ŒJ N/A NO o (0 -)ð! Å. CUPERTIWO (jEWERÞ.l PlAfI SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continuedl 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. CALTRANS 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 MapsfSCVWD 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 CodefSpecific 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 1 g. Community Development Dept. List Substances Site 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan SetfApplication 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.ill! 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 (ð-,Äð9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: »- ,,_ 0 ,,- _ " I: c: :.¡::¡ n:I æ ..... -"'- m ra 0 ca - .!!! 0 0 ¡::U..c:~O ..c: 0 0 0 ISSUES: -",,~ ""-'" 1-",,'" o '" " .- I/I.-.:¡: C)00 cn'- c. zOo [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) " E CI) c .- "- 1/1 " E E õ.~- Q)CI :!::o Q).~- - -J .- :;;; 0 c..C/ C/ " -JC/ - I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 ŒJ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 ŒJ including, but not limited to, trees. rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 ŒJ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 ŒJ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 ŒJ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 ŒJ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 ŒJ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] ! 0 ~ ) ID ;.,.... 1::.... 0 1::-;: _I:: I:: I:::¡:¡ -(t .... <Ø (t 0 (t <Ø(t .... .... III u ~.g,¡;.~'õ '¡:uU u .- U rø ISSUES: ......,g I-..,<Ø o <Ø c: ._ UI .- .!j; C> c. en'- 0.. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" c: E U)C =1- UI c: E .E õ.~- Q) en ._ 0 QI C>_ c..en ..J.- 2 u ..Jen en I:: - 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 jir:!gLudJI1.gL!2.':It~~tJimited !Q,JTla.r:~J:1, ve'!1i1L__ _________________________ _________ ______ (D -J )( :-,.... '" .... 0 "'.... - '" :: t: :¡:¡ '" -I'll.... rei I'll 0 I'll rei I'll"" .... ~ut.) ~u..c::'=5 J:ut.) t.) ISSUES: '" ~ ~ ""....'" 1-",,'" o '" CI)'- ';¡: ","- U)'- c. z"- [and Supporting Information Sources] .2;!t:E II) s:::: ., 1- CI) '" E E o .~- Q)tD ._0 Q).~- ...1'- :¡;; f.) Q.(/) (/) '" ...I(/) pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 [)9 of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 [)9 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 [)9 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 [)9 the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 [)9 the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 [)9 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 [)9 those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury. or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 [)9 delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthauake Fault Zonina Map issued bv the rO~:;2I¿ ;.,- I: _ 0 1:- - I: c: C::.¡:¡ I: -ra- n! ra 0 n! n! ra- - CG U ~,g.;~~ .!: U U U = 0 m ISSUES: I: ~ ª 1-<='" o n! "'.-.;¡: OJ c. (1)'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" c: E U) t= +:I 0 '" c: E E õ.~- Q) C) ._ Q) .~- ...J.- :æ; U c..en en I: ...Jen State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 Œl [2,5,10,44] ili) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 Œl liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10.39,44] 0 0 0 Œl b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 Œl loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 Œl 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 0 0 0 Œl 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 Œl 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 0 0 0 Œl 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 Œl 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 0 0 0 Œl hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile fb - 1- r J ».... c .... 0 c.... -c c c :¡o c -1U.... !G IU 0 (Q !GIU.... .... m I.) ¡;.g.s'1i:5 l:: u 0 0 ~ 0 ca ISSUES: c~¡; 1-",,'" o '" In .- .;¡; C) C. tn'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) <:: E J)J:: +:2.... In <:: E E õ.~- Q) C) ._ 0 Q).~- c..cn -J(ñ :æ; g ..Jcn of an existing or proposed school? .-. [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 ŒJ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ŒJ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] 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 ..-------. ----~---~-_. --- -"--- .-.-,.. (6 -).1 L( »... 1:'" 0 1:'" - I: t: c: := I: -CU'" IU CU 0 IU IUCU'" .... (I 0 ~.g~~\5 L:OU U ;:I U ca ISSUES: <= ~ ê 1--='" o '" (/).-.:¡: o>c. en'- Q.. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" <= E en z::: :,¡::¡ 0 (/) <= E E õ.~- Q) C) ._ '" 0>_ -' .- ::;; u c.en en I: -'en e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 ŒJ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 ŒJ quality? [20,36,37J g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood 0 0 0 ŒJ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 ŒJ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 ŒJ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 ŒJ mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ŒJ community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 ŒJ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ŒJ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ŒJ mineral resource that would be of value to --_._._._--------------~~---_.~---_._"_."-,. ..--.------. ..-....---..--......------. -----------... -.-. ..--...-----.-- fð-J-\) ».... c.... 0 c.... _ C I:: I::;::J c -CU'" CUcu OCU CUCU'" ... cu t..I ~ u .- '- .1:uO 0 ISSUES: ;,;:¡ u ns I-~=ñio 1-",,'" o '" !: ~ º UJ.-·;:: ",c. CIJ'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] .. !: E u s::: .- '- UJ !: E E õ.~- Q) C'J == 0 Q) .~- ...J.- :¡;; u D..t/) t/) c ...Jt/) 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: -- I-- -- -- -- 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] L-_ ----- ----.------.---------- -- -- --------- (6-21 ~ -- ».... 1::.... 0 1::.... - I:: C I::.¡::¡ t: -fU.... n! fU 0 fU n!fU.... .... !U 0 ¡;'UJ:'::I'õ .!:UO 0 +:I 0 n:s ISSUES: I:: !!: ¡; ""....", 1-",,'" o '" If .-.:¡: ",0. (1)'_ C. zo. [and Supporting Information Sources] .scE en s::: :.¡::I..... If I:: E E o .~- Q) CJ ._ 0 Q).~- ...J'- :¡;; c..> Il.CI) CI) I:: ...JCI) -- 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] 0 D 0 ŒJ Police protection? [33,44] D D 0 ŒJ - Schools? [29,30,44] 0 D D ŒJ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] D 0 0 ŒJ Other public facilities? [19,20,44] 0 0 D ŒJ XIV. RECREATION -- ~- a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 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 0 ŒJ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATlONITRAFFIC-- Would the project: --- a) Cause an increase in traffic which is D D 0 ŒJ substantial in relation to the existing traffic 16-)..17 - »... t:'" 0 t:'" _ t: t: t::;::I nsæ..... ëãnJõ <II <II 0 <II .... .- U tI\ FUJ:;:;::Iõ .!:uU U ISSUES: ~~ª ",...tI\ I-l :tI\ o t'II "'.-.:¡¡: C> C. 1/)'_ C. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] ( ) c:: E U')!:: ~.... I/) c:: E E õ.~- Q) en ._ a Q).~- ...J'- :2: U tl.rJ) rJ) c ...JrJ) 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 Œl 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 Œl 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 Œl 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 Œl [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 Œl [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 Œl programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment . 0 0 0 Œl requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 Œl 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 Œl new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] ~. fO-J.-I! -- »- ,,_ D ,,- - " t: t:-;¡:¡ C -1U- rara DIU ralU- - IU U ¡:~.£~; ..c: U' U U .- U ns ISSUES: -"" I-""ns o ns ¡¡¡ ,= ~ U) .- .;¡: C> C. eI)'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] en s:::: :.¡:::I.... U) C E .5 õ.~- Q) CJ ._ 0 U).~- ...J.- :æ; U Q..(/ (/ C ...J(/ 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, and local D D D ŒJ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] (D ~ 219 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? [] c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] o o o IKI o o o IKI o o o IKI PREPARER'SAFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. . ~ 4Ø, Preparer's Signature h Print Pre parer's Name Peter Gilli. Associate Planner 16 - 22D 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. D Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources D Geology /Soils D Hazards & Hazardous D Hydrology / Water D Land Use / Planning Materials Quality D Mineral Resources D Noise D Population / Housing D Public Services D Recreation D Transportation/Traffic D Utilities / Service D Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: IRI The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed pr ,t, nothing further is required. ! Staff Evaluator 1)~~ Sc-O -' .r-, / Date c¡ II \ I U2- Date ERC Chairperson (Ó -1 L I EXHIBIT V CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 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 REQUEST Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single- family residential development in the R1 zoning district. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The 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. .... (4I....~.L - Steve Piasecki Director of Community Developrnent g/ erc/REC EA-2002-15 ID -;¿2 2- EXHIBIT W CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 DECISION MAKING BODY The Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. 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/ercjnegEA200215#2 IQ - ,)2J 15~41 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERJINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. 11 ~ AGENDA DATE December 7. 2004 SUBJECT: Receive report regarding process to consider altering the approved site plan for the Murano development and adopt resolution accepting the offer of dedication for the Poppy Way street improvements. Back!!round: On November 16, 2004, City Council heard ITom numerous residents seeking to increase the street width along Poppy Way to Poppy Way 28 foot curb to curb street section accommodate a parking lane and to match the remainder of public improvements along the street. The Council directed staff to accept the offer of street dedication along Poppy Way and asked staff for a memo explaining the process to modify the approved plans for its next meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to advertise a public hearing to consider an amendment of the Murano use permit to alter the site plan and street improvements along Poppy Way, and RI Ordinance exceptions for two single-family homes and adopt the attached resolution accepting the offer of dedication of the right of way along Poppy Way. The Murano project, original1y referred to as Saron Gardens, was approved 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 and construct 55 detached smal1-lot single family units. Subsequent to the Council approval, the applicant, Centex Homes, received site approval to construct two single-family homes on the Poppy Way ITontage. The setbacks and size of the two homes were based on the larger and deeper lot that exists with the existing approved curb alignment. The building permits 11-1 Receive report regarding process to consider altering the a\1\1roved site \1lan for the Murano deve!o\1ment and ado\1t resolution accepting the offer of dedication for the Poppy Way street improvements. December 7, 2004 Page 2 to construct the two homes were issued on November 5, 2004. On November 17, 2004, staff revoked the building permits to ensure that new construction, which would conflict with the Council's acceptance of the right of way, could not be started. Location: The Murano development is located between Rainbow Drive and Poppy Way just south of a row of apartments that directly ITont Rainbow Drive. The Murano development has about 200 feet of ITontage on Poppy Way. Discussion: Altering the site plan to realign the curb to match the remainder of Poppy Way will reduce the lot depth by approximately 14 feet and lot size by 1,185 square feet for parcel one and 1,324 square feet for parcel two. There is also a small 331 square foot dedication located between the two lots, but this area does not affect the home or lot size. The homes originally approved would no longer meet the current RI ordinance in terms of ITont setbacks or allowable floor area ratio (FAR). Consequently, the Council should determine if it is willing to consider Rl Ordinance exceptions for setback and FAR to accommodate the approved plans or if the applicant would be forced to redesign the homes to meet the ordinance requirements. Cost of chanl!inl! the street improvements to conform to the existinl! 36 foot curb to curb dimension Public Works staff has estimated that the cost of retrofitting the street width could approach approximately $80,000. Further, Public Works staff intends to reconstruct the street improvements using the City's sidewalk, curb and gutter contract (awarded by the Council on November 16, 2004). However, by diverting this effort to Poppy Way, sidewalk and gutter repair projects on a number of other residents' properties will be necessarily deferred or delayed. Other projects on the list may need to be delayed should the improvements be approved. Submitted by: r-Sl:ú~~cflv/~ Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Wt- David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Resolution Accepting Street Dedication and map attachment (l - c1- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-451 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION ALONG POPPY WAY, AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9547, MURANO, LOCATED ON RAINBOW DRIVE AND POPPY WAY; DEVELOPER, CENTEX HOMES, A NEVADA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, at its regular November 16, 2004, meeting, City Council determined that the irrevocable offer of dedicated along the Poppy Way ITontage of Tract No. 9547, as made on the approved final map of Tract No. 9547, Murano by Centex Homes, Inc., a Nevada General Partnership, shall be accepted in order to facilitate the construction or relocation of public improvements and necessary appurtenances: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT said irrevocable Offer of Dedication along the Poppy Way ITontages of Lot 1, Lot 2, and the Common Area of Tract No. 9547, Murano, is hereby accepted. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 11- 3 (A Found Brass Pin in Monument Well Per 124 Maps 16 N .. ó :;:1 , TRACT NO. 9547 ~ MURANO I AP!\i td:\I~: ).. 589"'5O'4.4"W :"'I: I I;BO.,j 75.19'- ~ g''''''1 .::;'"î~ ¡ 1RAE\OCAa£ ŒFER I fJ!ßt(!i' IT DlDlCA1KJI POPPY .AY.'i¡.;~.'·'· I 1185 sq. It. DEIMCA 1101 1""; .'. 1 ;"- 1 1,160 sq. ft. 1~,f::;. I"'N 1 G ~"i I N. ,i!! 7665 It. .....'1.1- ,sq. 1 ~I' ]~! ~ 1.,t1.r., i m /'~,,) I õ .¡J ~ <II ~ I ~I ).. I ¡:;' CL.~8 a.. :.. is ~ g Z 8 Z ",:()} 1 ;t,.~. 1 ,;¡¡~;, I :.J!~r ILtJ j: )3.,I~ ~t":IG . .<&Ii> ,,,,-;C "" ;: :1>1 )O!i. ¡¥.¡~ .:'CT'I J!' I , """ !Dill .. 12.1 Y -;:' <t:";t!', ,,<.0.1- ;.1 IiREI'OCAII£ ŒFER IT DEDICA 1KJI 331 sq. It. 53.26' PlJEHAE 71.26' SB9"S0404 85.76' 2 7.B73 sq. It. 5" PSI)[ Found Brass Pin in Monument Wen Per 12. \p" 16 '\ '!\.-':( IJ''''''' ......... .......0 c. ~. ....-ß Found ran P;n ~. in Monument Welt Per 124 Mapa 16 \ \ g ,.; r , \ \ \ .:;,5~)-19-42 f! I I 366-19-¿l,3 ... . PUE TYP. 129.75 5" PSI)[ 26 54.02" ~I I 2.512 sq. It. ~ .._.~Æ,~·~J.. ~ 25 64.83 ¡: 511 1,783 sq. It. ~¡:¡L .Ll5'PSI)[ '" 8 ~.83' z on N '" N õn '" ¡;; 22 2.075 sq. It. .J 62 '" !oj N ¡;:¡ '" N... t:f ~~i ~~w ~:J~ 8 ~ õn ~'in .. .... N-' ~ 1.83' H89'SO' 44"\ "8 oi I 0.33' I. ,~ I· inl~ ~I :! I 0.33' 5B.so· 60.3.3' l- I. I~ 31 "8 ¡;:¡ 1.915 sq. It. -'I .. L..L.~~50·._.. 1" 40' I I ,. ,:5 I::; 1,659 sq. It. I L 45.00' ~.. ..----.. 3.25' 30 '" ...' """ I 3.25' !: 15¡ 29 ~:::; 1,659 sq. It. ¡.....,L.~~5I¡'. .. r- I. 3.25 28 1:5 I'" 1,659 sq. It. :;.. L. :!LOO', _ .. 3.25' 27 1,765 sq. It. 60.33' N89"SO· 44"[ C()I W lJ,ta PIÆ. S!I. 29.65· 18.84' 10.81' 1.83' õn ~ .; :!! 40 (i-V 80 , feet ¡¡ in N47'32'34'"W (R) n NB9"SO' 44"[ u. I" 56.50' 1- IC> 20 ... 1,814 sq. It. ¡""= ¡::¡ 3.25· '" I 60.33' ~ ¡.¡-.45:""sri'.--- !: >:5 19 ~~ ~:~ 1.659sq.fl 8 1 in 9.-450 z: 1.83' 60.33' 51.50' .,r ··1-- -- 5B. ..-.-.. 0.33' 51.00' ~ ;!! 3.25' ~ 4.0()' ~ 7.45 ~ 18 ~ ~ 2t . ..; õn 18.00' 2.~26 sq. fl ~ z Í- 2.141 sq. ~ -1 ~ "8 71'.' - =_J ___ 59.50'- 41.00' #.00' . L ~~I:¡~fn:~~s~m:~p~ T PSl)[J 589"'5O'4.4"W - ~PSI)[l 2338 OR 389 "" I Trdd N~. 2015 / 1 24 !vie! PS 1 t: 40 , scale o ·..:'\ i €r~ . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 Fax: (408) 777-3366 CUPEIQ1NO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No: I).. Meeting Date: December 7,2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review and approve year-end budget adjustments for fiscal year 2003/04 and mid-year budget adjustments for fiscal year 2004/05. BACKGROUND During the year staff reviews the budget, compares it to actual revenues and expenditures and proposes mid-year and final budget adjustments to more accurately reflect the status of operating and capital project accounts. Our guidelines require that budget adjustments be approved by the City Council. The following adjustments are recommended by staff for your consideration. Year-end budget adiustments for fiscal vear 2003/04 The City has deferred funding ofreserves in the areas of retiree medical actuarial obligations and PERS increases. Due to one-time departmental savings at year-end of $2.7 mi1lion, monies are currently available to fund these reserves for fiscal year 2003/04. Staff proposes two reserves be established for year end: ~ Retiree Medical Costs Reserve (Based on actuarial report dated 12/2/03) $1,151,000 );> PERS Averaging Reserve $1,000,000 Both reserves establish funding for known or anticipated increased costs. The Retiree Medical Reserve amount was established based on an independent actuarial study performed by Bartel Associates in November 2003 (see attached excerpt from the report). The PERS reserve amount is an estimate based on anticipated increased costs. PERS has just notified us that our costs wi1l increase by 4.078%, effective July I, 2005 (see attached letter from PERS). In addition, staff proposes to use the additional savings to help fund the fiscal year 2004/05 mid- year budget adjustments in the amount of $549,000. Proposed budget changes are explained in detail in the following chart. Printed on Recycled Paper /2-/ Mid-Year Budget Adiustments for Fiscal Year 2004105 The following items represent changes in program needs, new grants received and other items not known at the time of adoption of our fiscal year 2004/05 budget in June. SCC Request for Homeless Survey 50th Anniversary Costs COPS Grant/SRO Other Revenue - SRO Share Workers' Comp Shortfall Sales Tax - Anderson Chevrolet, etc. Senior Center Parking Fees/Case Manager Noticing of General Plan Meetings General Liability Claims Field Rental Revenue Stevens Creek Corridor Grant: Urban Park Act Land and Water SCVWD Year End 2003/04 one time savings Total BMR impact Total General Fnnd impact FISCAL IMP ACT Source BMR GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF ClP Revenue/Other Expenditure 5,101 25,000 100,000 100,000 20,000 20,000 300,000 -126,000 13,000 25,000 100,000 14,000 834,000 834,000 89,000 89,000 161,000 161,000 549,000 5,101 1,654,000 1,654,000 GF The year-end close allocates $2.7 million of one-time department savings to fund reserves for retiree medical costs projections of $1,151,000, PERS increases of $1,000,000 and FY 2004/05 mid-year adjustments of $549,000. Additional proposed midyear adjustments for fiscal year 2004/05 will have zero impact on the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Approve the year-end budget adjustments for fiscal year 2003/04 and the midyear budget adjustments for fiscal year 2004/05. Submitted by: (!A /ì~ 0. ahu-tT"ð-~ / Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: ~ David W. Knapp City Manager /2-J-- ~~- CalPERS Actuarial & Employer Services Division P.O. Box 942709 Sacramento, CA 94229-2709 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf - (916) 795-3240 (916) 795-3420 FAX (916) 795-3005 October 19, 2004 MISCELLANEOUS PLAN OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO (EMPLOYER # 691) Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2003 Dear Employer, Enclosed please find a copy of the June 30, 2003, actuarial valuation of your pension plan (a separate report is included for each plan). This valuation report cDntains important actuarial information about your pension plan at CaIPERS. CalPERS staff actuaries are available to discuss the actuarial report with you. Changes Since Prior Year's Valuation There are several changes in the June 30, 2003 valuation compared to the prior year including: the actuarial investment loss for 2002/2003. plan changes from amendments if applicable, new actuarial assumptions, the actuarial value of assets set to 110% of market value, and improved industrial disability benefits due tD settlement of Arnett case and mandatory pooling fDr plans with less than 100 active members. The effects of these changes on your required employer contribution for 2005/2006 are shown on page 10 of the report. Future Contribution Rates The exhibit below displays the required emplDyer cDntributiDn rate and Superfunded status fDr 2005/2006 along with an estimate of the contribution rate and Superfunded status for 2006/2007. The estimated rate for 2006/2007 is based on a projectiDn of the mDst recent information we have available, including our latest best estimate of the investment return for fiscal 2003/2004, namely 16.0%. Please disregard any projections that we may have provided to you in the past: Fiscal Year Employer Contrib.ution Rate Superfunded? 2005/2006 12.393% NO 2006/2007 12.2% (projected) NO Member contributions (whether paid by the employer or the emplDyee) are in additiDn to the above rates. The estimate fDr 2006/2007 also assumes that there are no amendments and nD liability gains or IDsses (such as larger than expected pay increases, mDre retirements than expected, etc.). This is a very important assumption because these gains and IDsses do occur and can have a significant effect on your contributiDn rate. Even for the largest plans, such gains and losses often cause a change in the employer"s contribution rate of one or two percent or larger in some less CDmmon instances. These gains and losses cannot be predicted in advance so the projected emplDyer contributiDn rate for 2006/2007 is just an estimate. YDur actual rate for 2006/2007 will be provided in next year's report. We are very busy preparing actuarial valuations fDr Dther public agencies and expect to cDmplete all such valuatiDns by the end Df October. We understand that YDU might have a number of questions about these results. While we are very interested in discussing these results with your agency. in the interest of allowing us to give every public agency their result, we ask that. if at all possible, you wait until after October 31 to cDntact us with questions. If YDU have questions. please call (888) CalPERS (225-7377). Sincerely, ~~ Ronald L. Seeling Chief Actuary, Actuarial and Employer Services California Public Employees' Retirement System Lincoln Plaza - 400 P Street - Sacramento, CA 95814 /2 -3 CALPERS ACTUARIAL VALVA TION - JUNE 30,2003 MISCELLANEOUS PLAN OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO EMPLOYER NUMBER 691 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Assets and Liabilities Retirement Program Market Value of Assets for the Retirement Program Present Value of Projected Benefits Entry Age Normal Accrued Liability Actuarial Value of Assets Unfunded Liability Funded Status Superfunded Status 1959 Survivor Benefit Program (First or Second Level) Market Value for the 1959 Survivor Program] Present Value of Benefits for Current Beneficiaries Actuarial Value of Assets Unfunded Liability Required Contributions Employer Contribution Required (in Projected Dollars) Payment for Normal Cost Payment on Amortization Bases 2 Total (not less than zero) 3 June 30, 2002 June 30, 2003 $ 32,738,776 $ 33,044,555 46,954,152 52,289,682 35,125,628 40,199,604 36,012,654 36,349,011 (887,026) 3,850,593 102.5% 90.4% No No $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fiscal Year 2004/2005 Fiscal Year 200512006 $ 766,401 $ 103,709 870,110 822,251 489,916 1,312,167 Employer Contribution Required (Percentage of Projected Payroll) Payment for Normal Cost Payment on the Amortization Bases 2 Total (not less than zero) 3 7.324% 0.991% 8.315% 7.766% 4.627% 12.393% ~ '-h 01 g % \ Y\ CJ\.I.1I.A...L The investment returns of - 7.2% for 2000/2001, -5.9% for 2001/2002 and 3.9% for 2002/2003 have each produced actuarial losses compared to the assumption of8.25% for those years. Because of the asset smoothing method, only a portion of the total loss for these years has been reflected in your employer contribution rates through 2005/2006. The balance of the loss will have an adverse impact on your employer contribution rate in subsequent years. Refer to Appendix A for additional details. 1. This is for First and Second Level only. The Third, Fourth and Indexed Levels are independent programs and are bi11ed separate1y. More information on the 1959 Survivor Benefit Program First and Second Level can be found on page 4. 2. Details regarding this payment can be found on Page 11 for the current valuation. 3. Prior to 200512006, the contribution for the 1959 Survivor Benefit program First and Second level was ca1cu1ated for each agency on a stand-aJone basis and included with the contribution for the retirement program in those prior reports. Beginning with 2005/2006, the contribution for the 1959 Survivor Benefit program First and Second Level is ca1cu1ated on a pooJed basis and bi1Jed separate1y. Page I 12-Y City of Cupertino June 30, 2003 Retiree Healthcare Actuarial Study In February 2003, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GAS B) issued an exposure draft concerning recognition and disclosure guidance for public entities sponsoring other (than pensions) post-employment benefit (OPEB) plans. This report is based on that exposure draft and subsequent GASB deliberations. Certain elements of the 2003 ED will be re-exposed January 2004, with the standard scheduled to be final June 2004. The final standard shifts recognition ITom a "pay-as-you-go" recognition to an "as benefits are earned" recognition. GASB refers to this shift as a "pre-funding" recognition, even though pre-funding is not required. Before we discuss the City's retiree healthcare plan funded status, annual benefit cost and reserves, it's important to understand some basic terms. Understanding these terms makes it easier to understand how well the City's retiree healthcare plan is funded. BASIC DEFINITIONS Present Value of Projected Benefits: When an actuary prepares an actuarial valuation, (s)he first gathers participant data (including active employees, former employees not in payment status, participants and beneficiaries in payment status) at the valuation date (for example June 30,2003). Using this data and some actuarial assumptions, (s)he projects future benefit payments. (The assumptions predict, among other things, when people will retire, terminate, die or become disabled, as well as what salary increases, general (and healthcare) inflation and investment return might be.) Those future benefit payments are discounted, using expected future investment return, back to the valuation date. This discounted present value is the plan's Present value of projected benefits. It represents the amount the plan needs as of the valuation date to pay all future benefits - if all assumptions are met and no future contributions (employee or employer) are made. The City's June 30, 2003 retiree healthcare Present Value of Projected Benefits is $24.1 million. $9.8 million of this is for people that have already retired. Actuarial Accrued Liability: This represents the portion of the present value of benefits that participants have earned (on an actuarial, not actual, basis) through the valuation date. The City's June 30, 2003 retiree healthcare Actuarial Accrued Liability is $15.7 million. Again, $9.8 million of this is for people that have already retired. Normal Cost: The Normal Cost represents the portion of the Present value of projected benefits expected to be earned (on an actuarial, not actual, basis) in the coming year. The City's June 30, 2003 retiree healthcare Normal Cost is $756 thousand. FUNDED STATUS Once the above amounts are calculated, the actuary compares plan assets to the Actuarial Accrued Liability. When assets equal liabilities, a plan is considered on track for funding. When assets are greater than liabilities, the plan has Excess Assets. When assets are less than liabilities, the plan has an Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability. C':\.. ... \!\¡) œ, ::;,,[ CUPfRJINO /2- 5' City of Cupertino June 30, 2003 Retiree Healthcare Actuarial Study Page 2 To consider a retiree healthcare plan funded, there must be assets set aside that can not, legally, be used for any purpose other than to pay retiree healthcare benefits. The City's retiree healthcare plan is not funded. Annual Required Contribution (ARC): Actuaries don't require an agency to make up any shortfall (unfunded liability) immediately, nor do they allow an immediate credit for any excess assets. Instead, the difference is amortized over time. An agency's Annual Required Contribution is nothing more complicated than the current employer Normal Cost, plus the amortized unfunded liability or less the amortized excess assets. Simply put, this contribution is the value of benefits earned during the year plus something to move the plan toward being on track for funding. For the City's valuation we have calculated the ARC as the Normal Cost plus a 20-year amortization (as a level percent of payroll) of the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability. This results in the following (OOOs omitted): · Normal Cost $ 756 · UAL Amortization 897 · Total Annual Required Contribution 1,653 Net OPEB Obligation (NOO): An agency's Net OPEB Obligation is the historical difference between actual contributions made and the Annual Required Contributions. If an agency has always contributed the required contribution, then the Net OPEB Obligation equals zero. However, an agency has not "made" the contribution unless it has been set aside and can not legally be used for any other purpose. Annual OPEB Cost (AOC): GASB will require the Annual OPEB Cost equal the Annual Required Contribution, except when an agency has a Net OPEB Obligation at the beginning of the year. When that happens an agency's Annual OPEB Cost will equal the ARC, adjust for expected interest on the Net OPEB Obligation and reduced by an amortization of Net OPEB Obligation. This results in the following: · Annual Required Contribution $ 1,653 · Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 0 · Amortization of Net OPEB Obligation 0 · Total Annual OPEB Cost 1,653 (ß) 2 !i CUPflulNO /2 ~Io City of Cupertino June 30, 2003 Retiree Healthcare Actuarial Study Page 3 The following shows the City's June 30, 2003 retiree healthcare plan funded status (OOOs omitted): CEA Public Works Ml!;mt./Conf. Total · Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) · Actives $ 1,995 $1,946 $1,926 $ 5,867 · Retirees 4,051 1,316 4,423 9,790 · Total 6,046 3,262 6,349 15,657 · Plan Assets 0 · Unfunded AAL (UAAL) 15,657 The following shows how the City's June 30, 2004 Net OPEB Obligation would be calculated: · June 30, 2003 Net OPEB Obligation · Annual OPEB Cost · 2003/04 Benefit Payments (estimated) · June 30, 2003 Net OPEB Obligation $ o 1,653 -521 i\('ìuI1L~ Ij(!:l.- 1,132 Ac'crV /11... -=- ¡¡s/ ¡ FUTURE PROJECTIONS The following table projects the City's Net OPEB Obligation, Cash ("Pay as You Go Cost") cost, and Annual OPEB cost for the next 10 years, while the chart on the next page projects the Cash and Annual OPEB cost over the next 30 years. ~.'.'...'.' \ L\-1,1 3 ~ -if CUPElQ1NO 12~ ? City of Cupertino June 30, 2003 Retiree Healthcare Actuarial Study Page 4 Beginning of Annual Year OPEB FYE Net OPEB Cost June 30, Obligation Cash (AOC) Payroll 2004 $ $ 52-1- 50,2 $ 1,653 $ 9,809 2005 ..J..,-BZ1,/5"1 595 1,706 10,177 2006 2,244 648 1,763 10,558 2007 3,358 706 1,821 10,954 2008 4,473 768 1,882 11,365 2009 5,587 862 1,946 11,791 2010 6,672 955 2,013 12,234 2011 7,730 1,054 2,082 12,692 2012 8,759 1,159 2,155 13,168 2013 9,755 1,262 2,231 13,662 30 Year Projection $5.000 $4,000 $2,000 ---~ . -_...---....~.---_... ...:-------- ...--- 't ....-'- , - ....--..-- ....-' , ..--- ----~---- $3,000 $1.000 ,- 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 I --..-Open Group 8"I!"fitPaymenls , ___AQe -- \\baserverlbartel_associates\c/ientslcily of cupertinolopeb\2003 va/\draft staff report 04·01 -09. doc ([D.. . ,..'....' :.\.i \, ¡ 4 .. ClIPElQlNO /2-6- km'·;'~'·"'.",,,.ì . .,"" t~ Cit)1Rall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM /3 AGENDA DATE December 7. 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Resolution No. 04- if 5).. , 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 Mnnicipal Code requirement that City standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights be installed along street ITontages 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 ITontages 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 /3--{ In terms of safety, the waiving of streetlight and ~idewalk 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 from their respective frontages, neighboring properties without these improvements may be subject to water ponding along their ITontages, 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- ~)'.6 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: ~.. ~~.... fØII- Rã P A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission to the City Council: ~ David W. Knapp City Manager [ 3-,ì--.- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-452 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A SEMI-RURAL DESIGNATION FOR CAMINO VISTA DRIVE, DUBON AVENUE AND PRADO VISTA AVENUE. WHEREAS, property owners along the ITontages of Camino Vista Drive, Dubon Avenue and Prado Vista A venue 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 A venue and Prado Vista Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ..., /J-J :-------¡ I r~7-_; -- ;1001'1 r----I.-.- u_oo~,~___ \ I i -1 I --I -j I .-j i i 1 _-J ~ ':) ,0 ,0 I~ -10 13 -j I J ! i I I I j i ! I ! \ ",0 , " >--10016 ;i ..i Ie' ::!i ~' r¿, Ii] ,NL ~l., I'I~ ~,. ~' : ' : :N: : L._..I_L__L.-L-----' i " Ii?' ~¡ i' ~ N., ~ !It 1 . . :';;¡ ~ ~! ~ 1'1 10006 ~ o t- '" '" '" CO "' '" '" 0> '" "' '" '" 0> ~ "' '" '" 0> "' "' '" '" 0> '" "' '" '" 0> '" "' '" '" "lVO "''' _..._~.- '----------.'--- '" --.,--' 22E.6' "''' ^ ~ . " :---""1 I '<tr :e ... ~ I æ ~ N: N N o o .......---..-.-...- STEVENS CREEK 1·'--" ··\-7C--"--., I 10196 I 10199 1__.·.._c___L.:~6:____.. 10223 110212 110171 i·-···-·_····-c-¡--.,.-.~..___.. [-..---.------- õ3 110231 I 10181' . 10237 I Q..; '. _L. ) ..----'1 _DUBON. "' rI-<O~ ).... .~ ~ /" I I // f I~' ~ ~ ¡ ~ / t$' ! ~ ~ ~ ¡~ 10110 ~ "'" I 1--...-- 1 I 10132 ¡ i , ! ! 10148 i i '" '" 0> co '" 10120 10130 1----- , 10140 I -,--..-".".,.,-.---.--.- I i .10131 ~.._-- -.----' 10141 10150 .__·h_,_____ -----.- 0151 10164 10160 10161 --.-.,.---,- 10180 10190 10191 10206 10222 10236 -.._-- 10250 10256 10264 I '-----l·---i . I ~ :lZ ~ i re '" CO "' '" '" '" "' '" '" ... "' '" '" '" '" '" CD ;ta '" '" '" en '" o I I ]~;;;!'l I______._-~, i 1« '-.-"1 10129 ¡......; i U) > o r ---- -.-- .. Z ! 10145 ~ --·u '" '" en '" o 10011 '" ! __ 1 10133 ~ " " , I~ --109 I---c-- ! 10153 . --',110 111 T "'- N" 0> .....J '" 0 10112 i-·---- I 10120 10157 ...-.------- ,..---. 10128 10159 10136 10167 ~.._._._."-------, 10144 10169 10152 10177 10189 10168 10170 10201 10180 10215 ).., 7°70/1 .', ~'7·· I '. °7B I ~ \ <' ~ \ is' \. , I ...........10.22 Z ---J - ---I :r: 10239 I- ·-0 a 10251 u..: .. ., '" co '" '" óÞ :g ¡; '" ~ '" '" '" o '" '" 0> '" '" t- '" '" '" '" Area 2 ~ Pickler N Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Ave/ Camino Vista Dr 01 I , 11012 '. -- 'ó '" '>0 , , i 1017 ! l___ 101 0 : 10 5C J...._ 0270 0290 J-y.J i 1-1 '10027 , I-~-'''''''---¡ , ' i-!oo~_1 l'0007 ,....~, , --!-_~I 1001& ..I ' : ! I ~I; ~i ~) m, ¡¡¡i ,-¡"''-: ~i1 f:j~ ~l ~j U .LLLJ II>j . . ~ ~¡. .' if .-'", ,!;. N ~r S N '" "'I... r ~ ,,,.. '-"-'~.,'----------.__._'- 1000. "''' 22670 . -> B ~ i-I i ; :~i~~;:8N° N' N !!3N ~ N ~ '" 0) 0) 0) 0) '" 0 ., "' '" '" '" ~ "- "' "' "' '" "' "' "' '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .'--..- --I ! --I i -""" J i b :0 -10 1$ I~ -0 ,0 -I~ i ! -- .-~-'----'---, 10110 10120 10130 -~_..."'-- i i 10131 00 STEVENS CREEK '" '" '" '" '" _._---~ '" ... '" '" ~ , I I I ~--..,--I-~~J -..cJ 10121 I .. ! f--~.. . _._~,._",_....._, __..! 10129 i~ -.---- I U) 10128 i--- "------ > .___! 10133 0 l_________ Z 10164 I --- 10145 ~ I ~-~180----l---------- (§ j 10153 I .. ----L,----- I ~0::~__1~~~6:--- I 10212 I 10171 l1023~--1_--1~181 ) . DUBON. },:'-~:.e8 I 'ì-~'<\ 10···"·. I i 1, \ '11", I... I ~. , 0 G' \ ~ i \ i....' \. '1U:) ". ~oo~~ 1107 /0...; ( )"I'~ /Î I ~ ! ~------ 10140 i I ,1____.__' 10141 '" '" '" '" o '" '" '" 0) o -, ,--¡-l j I ,~_. 1113 i ! 112 106 109 ~~110 10150 ....._--_..--~~ -~--_. 0151 1--- i 10161 ----.....-..-... 10112 10116 I L____.-.. 110132 I 1------ , , 10148 I ( '_"'--~--',,_.,_._- 10120 111 T J N-·, '" ' 0) , '" o 10160 --~. ""-'-~"-"-" ¡ 10190 10191 --"."-- 10136 10144 10168 10170 10180 -~-,_..- 0' '" '" o ~ o '" '" o ~ '" ~ '" o ~ 10157 10159 10167 10169 10177 10189 10215 2,---i-i -I, 'I 10239 I- --0 d 10251 L.L..: '" '" '" '" b? :g " ! ..j^.':":'~,_._.~",,,,,,,,,,,,; 10206 10199 '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0) '" '" o '" '" ., '" '" "- '" Area 2 /J Pickler N Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr 10222 10223 10236 10237 "" 10250 10256 ,,_...~-- n'ó\ \0> 10264 1 l___,___.._~ , I ' / '" ., '" '" itZ , '" I", '" "- '" '" '" '" '" '" 01 110 12 " -- ,--' 'ó '" '>0 v 1101' I Lu 101 0 i 110 5C ~ 0270 _.~- 0, ..--- /3- ) _ .J '-..----, ; : '--J [10027 i·-'-l._-! pO~~ ,~.0007 I --1 --1 , --I ..J ':::I o ---:a !ª -It) o i--.J. --i I ! \. ...'=:1 ., -..-_! 10'" 10006 ~ o ... N N '" '" '" N N ....__.---_.._~_. 10110 10120 10130 1---- , 10140 i -.-- 10150 ._~----- 10160 10190 10206 10222 10236 10250 10256 10264 L I ., ! ~ "" "'.. 'n_~ '----__._.._'-- 106 ! ;;;1 ~i..1 ..Î ~i ~¡ ~! a¡ !! ~ '-, .... N', 'h N Lj _LL:.i.--1 , ;¡j! ~J ~ .. or ~¡;¡! ~ ; ".,-' , !,'j"i, ~ ~,... N :;' ... :~ ..i ~ N ,! j--~ en '" '" N N en '" '" N N en ., '" '" N -- 22670 . .. . . i i I ' : ~ I ~ ~ ¡IN! IN U L~~ ~ 10011 ;107 en '" '" '" N en ~ '" N N o o -- STEVENS CREEK 10157 .- 'ó '" 10159 '>0 10167 17 10169 10177 11017 L_ 10189 101 0 10201 10215 -, ~ N N ... ... en co '" ·-'--:·--·'---T"---~·_"·-"- .. ¡ , '10131 10141 ------.-..--.----.,-...-...-.. . 0151 10161 10191 10199 ~ ... ... en '" o ... ... en en o ! '11~U~2-111 I 1\)-., ... , en ' '" o 10223 .. ..--- ,,--,--~....:-,-~_.. 1 a... ~/\ >" . <0\ ./)..'~ \0'"& , l / ' //~ I "," ' " 10237 ., ... '" N , I., ¡'" '''' I", '" ..,. '" '" .-----.-----..-... '-'.--, i L--J._~,_) ._~ 10121; I . . !.-.., _.~-"._----, i 'e::( ---,j 10129 ¡.....; ! U) 1___._....___ > a ..._._________. z 2 <3 ----...,,-.- J ., '" '" N 10116 10112 /------ 10120 .-.-----. 10128 ~-_._---- -- 10136 . ...--.------".'" 10144 I. I 10152 L_. _ __ i I 10132 ! i , ! 10148 10133 10164 10145 1-~~18~ ----J---~-- ¡ ! 10153 i I 1_--- -.--..., 1---."'--':";"'- 1__1:196___1.... 1016: ¡ ! i 10212 I 10171 C~~231 -----r~0181----- . i' ) -DUBON I I~ o ~ ~----_._- _________1 1 10168 í I ---·'-----f 10180 I __._____ ___J 10170 ) TOTll-· ., 8 "'< ~.--; '.".'." \. TO "" .,. ~\, 7.9<, .'.., ~\ , ' ! W227_1---1 '---1. I I- m_a ,q lJ...: 10239 10251 '" '" '" ~'> ¡j o ., '" o ~ '" ~ '" o ~ ., ... '" ., '" '" '" '" '" o N N o ~ ., '" '" N '" ~ '" '" '" '" it!) '" ., o '" ., en '" Area 2 ~ Pickler N Prado Vista Dr!Dubon Ave! Camino Vista Dr / / 01 I , !10 12 - . ( , ,- I i 10 5C I ~- 0270 0290 (3-0 t-··---¡ -.J 110027 r~7'--;··ï 1- '---,-- ' ¡ '--,--~.., 10018 [..I :.1 i ,I ~i Si 1:¡ iii, if 0_1",-: ::111 ~~:el ::t LlLL'.LJ ¡ ;¡;¡ "i... ... S, 1e, Ie :í; ª ~ ~ N'! N ::Ii N'" ~.~ 22&70 i . .. , . ì!1 ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~I ~ . ~ ~ N 0 0 r '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 '" '" '" '" r ,... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ..- ..---- I , I ----1 ---I I I ~ .J o o :~q ! ' ! ; -0 '0 '--I 1! I J 100" L:I,OOO!_ .~---- 10110 10120 10130 , ¡- 10140 -..-..------,..""--- I , I-.~.._~ 10141 I i 10131 1_- 10150 - 0151 10160 -'-~_......_.._--..- 10190 10191 10206 10199 10222 10223 10237 ---. 10250 10256 ,- ....'~- 10264 STEVENS CREEK '" '" '" '" '" 10161 ._-_..~. ~ ~ Fl L_1;11~ J,~~;11---) 110132 I--,-~-,_·) I ' I~ ,,---.j 10129 ¡......; , I CJ:) 10148 i'-~- --- > I 10133 0 i--..,......."..,...--.....".~._..Z 10164' --- : I 10145 :z i---,---,·--~-"~, ".'. '.'" ',' « I 10180 r-·-c-;;---, () ¡ ,¡101~3 r-~·'--:--"h-~-- i 10196 i 10161 I I I--··~·__J!-__~,-'--·__ " I ::: _+ ,~:::_ [ ) _DUBON I I~ 10 I r -,-,-,,-- "U:I ~ 106 10011 , 1107 ;0... -- \ " ~I \r;t<;'\ ,/ y I ,,.. / ! ,.' I / I;:) 0' /' .~ I ~ . ~ I 0 I I' T"" . ¡-""""""" 1108 '--j , I--------¡ , , ! ~,.., ,113 : U112 109 / ~.110 / 111 )' I ~-'\ en ' '" o -..-,......,-.......... J _I 10112 ¡-----.,--."'.---.' 10120 10157 --..---..-'-.. . 10128 10159 ......_,-_._,----- 10136 10167 -..---,........-.-"... 10144 10169 10152 10177 10168' 10189 10170 10201 , 10180 10215 ) 707.il .'. e ""'" -~.7.."....... I' 1, \. 07S< "" I ,,;. \ ___ I ~ \ , ! , ' _t0227__I--I --I ---' 'I 10239 ¡......; --·-0 a u.: 10251 '" '" I '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ,... i '" '" "" '" '" r '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ., I ., ., ., ., i U) ., 0 '" '" ,... ., '" '" '" I '" '" N '" N N ., '" '" '" '" "' '" r '" o r .;> f<i Area 2 ~ Pickler N Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr 01 !10 12 , '- '>0 ;0 -'0 I i 101" i i l_ , 101 0 \.~ i 110 5C , I ~- 0270 07 ~7 . . ~027 . í .. -; , i 10017 -1 r'~_1 c.....:!.OOO7 ~ o I"- '" '" "' I - ----I i I ----" i i I -1 I I -, , I I I -j :::¡ . -.:> - ]~ ·-10 ,0 1--1 1 I J I I , ¡ '\ ....I::J ',- ~ 10016 ,..I I .,.. !'.Ii. ."..j ..I ~ ,- ... ::1- '"¡ :.-,NL ~;'., ~~ ~l ~' iU .:LJ~\--j : ¡ , ~i ~! ;,'" '" ~ N' ~ lei ~ Ie ~l;NNiN:N 2286& 10006 II) ., <0 '" '" en <0 <0 '" '" en II) <0 '" '" en '" <0 '" '" -'---~ '--.- ,,,.. 22670 . -:, '> en '" <0 '" '" en ~ <0 '" '" ø ~-_.- STEVENS CREEK .-_._--..---_. 10110 ,...". 10120 10130 r----~-- . 10140 .__._---_...._,-..~- , 10131 10141 ""--'-',-..- 10150 -------~.._--,.._-- ---"- 0151 r-·"7-····,·_'·',-- , 10160 10161 10190 10191 10206 10199 10222 10223 10236 10237 -"--. .,--- 10250 10256 .,...--' "<o~ ~(j. 10264 / / " / ¿¡ ~ I I ,~-----¡ ~I I . i C') (I') I \'I) co "'" I (0 ~ ~ i~ / '" II) <0 '" '" '" en '" .. ;0..: .\ " -~ /" '---<' / '" ... <0 '" ) DUBON. }...::ee "¡-...-; .'... \ 70 '. > \ 79" I ~ \ I "to \. r~",,, I [---- I I 10132 I I i , I 10148 i L____.._. ,~HI _J-····~·~~l;-·-··-J I . / I·-····~_···_··, ! ,« ..j 10129 ¡.....: I U) ,-..----- > o l.....__..__.~... Z 10164 I .- I 10145 :2: .._--_._.--_.~....-. . « 10180 ¡--...---"---- 0 . 10153 . i 1-- . ---.~----- 1_:01~:"'.I ... 1016~_._ I i i 10212 I 10171 [---. ._...--i....~.--..~,- C_110181 '", 106 10011 '" 10133 . , . N N g i . N N I 1108 o '" .", o ~ '" ~ '" o ~ ... o '" o ~ 109 ( ._"'-110 '" o '" '" o ~ '" '" <0 '" '" ~ <0 '" '" '" <0 '" '" o <0 '" en II) -"--.-..',...--". _J ~-'\ '" ' '" o 10112 ¡--.----....---- ... 10120 10157 ."--~..,._~"-- 10128 10159 10167 -. 10169 10177 10189 ---"'--'---.- 10136 "._~-'--'" 10144 1---·- 1 10152 I---·~--- - 10168 ----·--·-1 10201 10170 i ----...-. '--'-1- - 10180 I 10215 1- '-'--".-. _JQ22I_!-.J --I. I: 10239 I- ---'0 d u...: 10251 '" '" II) .;? " '" I"- "' '" <0 II) '" II) II) Area 2 ~ Pickler N Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Avel Camino Vista Dr 01 , , , 1,10 12 i i I >0 ;0 '>0 ". 11017 i L 101 0 l:5~ 0270 0290 1]-0' J ,--,-- ~27.._ . 110017 '---I \- '--'-- : LLOOD,~ I i , i I _-.J i I ..-J , I I I -1 o 10 ---;0 .!.<:::. 12 --10 o i--.J -j I i , -- 'I 1 I \ "I:;) , '- i , --10016 ¡..I I ! ~j ~I. .I:¡ .. ;;;1 , N' ¡e- N' :8' lei i L N1] 1'0: NÎ N ; i i ! Ni i L-..! ._i.....-.!-~~ : j; t ffi : N "". ~ o l"- N N '" '" '" N N ( ) '" '" N N ( ) '" '" N N ( ) '" '" N N ¡,:i ~ ¡:;,' a N '--...-. -.-J "''' -_~_ '--_._..'m_·~ ,,,.. 22670 -:. ~ --I i ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ( ) N '" N N ( ) ~ '" N N 00 ~_. STEVENS CREEK 10110 '" '" ( ) Co> '" 10120 10130 r----~ . 10140 I i 10131 i__._. 10141 10150 ---......--.-........-.-..- 0151 10161 10160 10190 10191 10206 10199 10222 10223 -~~~--_._.,._. 10236 '0..; I ( <;,\ )..'--</ \o?; . / / I /" I / ".:: " ! 10237 ---- 10250 10256 ,.--~ r---" 10264 , L___ , I , I I I", I"- '" OJ L ) _ DUBON _ }..~~e& I ~,<. -.".. I ... II \\'0,.9<> ....,-. ?3 CP'\, I ~ I \ .~ , ~ i ¡¡¡ I o I - ---- --.l I 10116 JI-_- _-.1 ---- J l__.___ __ 10121 ! ì ! : 10132 1__ -~----.---;« ¡--.-j 10129. tn ¡1:~48____r~133 6 "___..--_. Z 10164 i I 10145 2 1"--- -·-·----1. _ « ! 10180 r·-----~-- u i ; 10153 '. I I-------·-'·l I 10196 i ---~ I .' 10161 I"-_··_-"--,,----I--.--,,._-~.._. ! 10212 I 10171 1----------------" l, 10231 '" '" '" ( ) o 10181 o '" OJ o ~ OJ ~ N o ~ o N OJ o ~ '" '" '" N '" '" '" OJ '" '" I'" iN '" ... '" OJ '" '" '" OJ '" ~ '" OJ '" OJ '" '" o '" '" ( ) '" I ,-- 1101- 10177 i I I L.......--- 10189 101 0 10201 10215 10011 ~ . N N !1~:l ¡- ; :112 " -~J10 / 111 )' '1v:) 106 ';107 .__..,.._......,...._·..c.._ J ~ '-109 1\)-., '" . ( ) '" o - \Õ!2L..._!.....J .....J. II: 10239 I- -0 o 10251 u...: Area 2 ~ Pickler N Prado Vista Dr/Dubon Ave/ Camino Vista Dr 10112 !---------- 10120 10157 ,.,..~-_.,..._.,. 10128 10159 ----'-.",--.-,..-- 10136 10167 10144 10169 10152 10168 10170 10180 -----,....--....-..- '" '" '" '" þÞ :g " '" I"- '" '" '" '" 0\ i i10 12 /-' 'Ó ;0 "'0 ,.. r I , r- I i 10 5C ~- 0270 O~ 1}-1 I ".~i æ~-] ____ I .-~,-- ..--! . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPEIQ1NO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 11 AGENDA DATE December 7. 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approval of the First Amendment to the Agreement Providing for Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban RunoffPollution Prevention Program. BACKGROUND In April 1990, the City Council approved an Agreement providing for the Implementation ofthe Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (program). This Agreement joined Cupertino, twelve other cities in Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District together as "Co-permittees." The Agreement allowed these entities to jointly apply for, and implement their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permits and area-wide programs including cohesive program planning, water quality monitoring, and outreach and education programs. In June 1990, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) issued its first NPDES permit to the Program. The permit was reissued in 1995 and again in 2001. In 1999, a revised Memorandum of Agreement changed the name of the Program to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and was approved by the City Council to allow the City to once again apply for ajoint NPDES permit with other co-permittees. The term of that Agreement is five years and is about to expire. Program members are once more preparing to submit a permit reapplication to the SFBRWQCB in 2005. The proposed Amendment to the Agreement provides for the continuation of the Agreement on an on-going basis. Any party may terminate their participation in this Agreement by giving the Management Committee at least a thirty-day written notice. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 04- t../G3, authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement Providing for Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban RunoffPollution Prevention Program. Submitted by: J, ~.." UG«Jtf Director of Public Works Approved for submission: ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper {ll-f DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-453 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SANTA CLARA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council the "First Amendment to the Agreement Providing for Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program", between the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the First Amendment will provide for continued city participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to ensure the continued systematic and orderly compliance with permit requirements, increase Program performance and promote efficiency, and low cost-share savings; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the "First Amendment to the Agreement Providing for Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program", and authorize the City Manager to execute the 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 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino I~-;L FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (the "Amendment") is entered into by and between the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRJCT, a local public agency of the State of California ("District"); CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; and CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipal corporation of the State of California. All of the above-mentioned entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Parties" or individually as "Party." RECITALS A. The Parties previously entered into that certain Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the "Agreement" or "MOA") pursuant to which the Parties established certain terms and conditions relating to the implementation and oversight of the Santa Clara V alley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the "Program"). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Appendix A. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement; B. The Agreement provided for a five year term, which, based on its execution, is currently set to conclude on or about March 10, 2005; C. The Parties expect to utilize the Program to submit a reapplication for the NPDES Permit in early 2005 and to otherwise address a variety of matters related to assisting the Parties in effectuating compliance with the Permit after March 10,2005; D. below; The Parties therefore desire to extend the term of the MOA as set forth I )'-{-5 E. Section 7.02 of the MOA provides that it may be amended by the unanimous written agreement of the Parties and that all Parties agree to bring any proposed amendments to their Councilor Board, as applicable, within three (3) months following acceptance by the Management Committee; and F. The Program's Management Committee accepted this Amendment for referral to the Parties' Councils and/or Boards at its meeting on October 21,2004. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Extension of Term of Agreement. Section 6.02 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 6.02.01 This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect on an ongoing basis and beyond its original termination date of March 10, 2005, unless otherwise terminated by the Parties in accordance with Section 6.03. [remainder of page intentionally blank] 2 !Y-1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment effective as of March 10, 2005. Santa Clara Valley Water District: By: Name: Title: Date: County of Santa Clara: By: Name: Title: Date: City of Cupertino: By: Name: David W. KnaDD Title: City Manager Date: 3 /1-/- S- Appendix A Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as fully executed as of March 10, 2000 IL{~ r ,"""",1 ,.\~ , <.--' .-',/ , .-:--.,------ ; . CUPEIQ1NO Parks and Recreation Department CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number I ç Agenda Date: December 7, 2004 ISSUE Adoption of the revised Facility Use Policy and Procedures recommended by City Council subcommittee. BACKGROUND The mayor asked that a subcommittee of Councilmembers Wang and Sandoval work with staff to review City policies regarding the use of Parks and Recreation facilities. The subcommittee met with staff three times on revisions to the existing Facility Use Policy and Procedures and incorporated the Community Hall into the inventory. The attached matrix summarizes our rental inventory and highlights the differences in the proposed rental of the Community Hall building: · The Community Hall is not proposed to have a "sliding scale" hourly rate (offering discounts to residents and nonprofits). · The Community Hall is proposed to be rented at the flat rate of $80/hour Monday through Thursday and $250/hour Friday through Sunday. · Reservations may be made one year in advance for the Community Hall, and there are no restrictions on ongoing reservations. Ongoing, revenue-generating use is encouraged. · Some heavy wear-and-tear uses may be deemed inappropriate for the Community Hall. The recreation supervisor in charge of the facility will have the authority to make that call and may direct customers to more durable City venues. · Decorations at the Community Hall will be limited to table and ITeestanding decorations only. The use of tape or other adhesives on the paneling is prohibited. · The Library will be allowed some number ofrent-ITee uses of the Community Hall facility to be determined yearly. This year that number is estimated at 14. Each year the Library use of the Community Hall will be reviewed during the fiscal year budget review. Other aspects of the policy that the subcommittee asked for clarification on include, but are not limited to: · Restricting fee waivers · Clarifying the alcohol policy · General wordsmithing The attached final draft reflects the subcommittee input. Printed on Recycled Paper 1)-1 December 7, 2004 Page 2 of2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Council subcommittee that the full Council adopt the revised Facility Use Policy and Procedures. Respectfully submitted: ~~ The e Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department U David W. Knapp, City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\facilities\reports\adopt revised policy cc 120704.doc (J- ;:L DRAFT City of Cupertino Parks & Recreation Department Facility Use Policy and Procedures GROUP DESCRIPTIONS CITY PROGRAMS - Group I: City of Cupertino activities that are open to the public. Official City-sponsored programs. CITY CO-SPONSORSHIP - Group II: Clubs with 51 % resident membership, recreation events and programs with full or affiliated City co-sponsorship that are open to the public. Group II may make consecutive reservations over a six-month duration. Renewal of the reservation will be accepted during the fifth month of the current reservation. CUPERTINO NON-PROFIT - Group III: Any organization claiming status, as a Cupertino-based non-profit organization, must demonstrate in writing on the organization's letterhead that it is located in Cupertino, has 51 % Cupertino resident participation, and has a federal non-profit organization number. Group III may make consecutive reservations over a six-month duration. Renewal of the reservation will be accepted during the fifth month of the current reservation. CUPERTINO RESIDENT - Group IV: Private functions not open to the public. These functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, employee training, memorial services, etc. Residency is defined as an actual permanent place of abode within the city limits of Cupertino. Proof of residency is required in the form of a current utility bill with the applicant's name and address printed on the bill. Group IV may only make a single date reservation and the reservation date must pass before another request is submitted, except for Community Hall reservations, which may be ongoing. NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT - Group V: Programs and events sponsored by non-resident non-profit recreation, education, or community services. A non-resident non-profit organization must demonstrate in writing that it provides service to Cupertino residents and has a federal non-profit organization number. A member of this organization who is a Cupertino resident will submit the reservation and must attend the event. Group V may only make a single date reservation and the reservation date must pass before another request is submitted except for Community Hall reservations, which may be ongomg. CUPERTINO RESIDENT BUSINESS - Group VI: A business whose principal place of business is within the city limits of Cupertino and whose event in the facility is promotional and business related. Business events that are negotiation or direct sale are not permitted at the Quinlan Community Center. Proof of business residency is required. Group VI may only make a single date reservation and the reservation date must pass before another request is submitted for the Quinlan Community Center. Please note that the regulations in this section do not apply to Community Hall reservations. Ongoing reservations, up to six months in advance, will be accepted at the Community Hall. 1)-3 DRAFT RESERVATION INFORMATION Reservation applications must be completed in person at the Parks & Recreation Office at the Quinlan Community Center for all facilities except the Senior Center, which handles its own reservations. The Community Hall may be booked with the City Hall receptionist or at the Quinlan Community Center. Reservations must be made with no less than ten (10) days notice. No reservations will be taken by telephone. Cancellation of reservation may be made no later than one week prior to reservation for a refund to be issued. Contact in writing the Parks and Recreation office where you made your reservation. The City reserves the right to cancel any use of a facility with two weeks advance notice. If you have made consecutive reservations to use the Community Hall and cancel more than two of them in a six-month period of time, the remaining reservation dates may be cancelled. City Programs - Group I City Co-sponsorship - Group II Cupertino Non-Profit - Group III Cupertino Resident - Group IV Nonresident Non-Profit - Group V Cupertino Resident Business - Group VI Advance reservations may be made as follows: Mondav-Thursdav 13 months 6 months 6 months 3 months 2 months 3 months Fridav-Sundav 13 months 1 year 1 year I year 2 months 3 months SETTING UP YOUR EVENT The City will provide a limited amount of tables and chairs for your reservation use inside the facility. The Parks and Recreation office will mail a room set-up diagram to you one month prior to your event. The department staff will perform the requested table and chair set-up. Only one room set-up will be done per event. You are responsible for putting up any decorations and for all special preparations necessary for your activity. Decorating and delivery of equipment is to be done during your permitted reservation time. You may use masking tape to hang decorations at City facilities with the exception of the Community Hall. The only decorations at the Community Hall are table and ITeestanding decorations. You may not use the following items in any facility: Cellophane adhesive tape, nails, staples, thumbtacks, push pins, screws, etc. To comply with the Uniform Fire Code under the direction of the Santa Clara County Fire Marshal, candles and other open-flame devices may not be used in any City facility. Flammable materials must be treated with flame retardant before entering any City facility. Facility Use Rental Schedule Per Hour Page 2 of? December 7, 2004 /)-'/ DRAFT DURING YOUR EVENT The City will furnish light, heat, and washroom supplies. Trash and recycle containers are provided. Doors may not be propped open and a clear passage to and in front of the doors must remain at all times. Smoking is not permitted inside any facility. The City has the right to assign staff members to enter and supervise the facility during the event. Birdseed may be thrown at wedding receptions, but only outside the buildings. Rice and confetti are not allowed. AFTER YOUR EVENT Decorations must be taken down and any special preparations or personal property owned or rented must be out ofthe building before the expiration of the permitted reservation time. You are responsible for cleaning up spills and debris in the kitchen area. You are responsible for any and all damage to City equipment or property. Department staff will be responsible for taking down table and chair set-up after your event. Room janitorial service is included in your rental fee. Please do not offer gratuities to City employees; they have been instructed not to take them. ALCOHOL REGULATIONS The request to serve alcoholic beverages must be made at the same time the reservation application is made. The City reserves the right to place restrictions on the use of alcoholic beverages in accordance with State law and City policy. The serving of alcoholic beverages is limited to seven hours during a reservation. The reservation group may serve wine, beer, and champagne. Only an authorized state liquor establishment can serve hard liquor and an Alcoholic Beverage Waiver form provided by the Parks and Recreation Department must be submitted. No extra insurance is required beyond that carried by the authorized state liquor establishment. . The age of servers must be the legal drinking age of 21. Alcoholic beverages may not be consumed outside of the facility except in the enclosed patio or deck area. The City will contract with security staff to be present during the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages. This staff expense will be included in your reservation fee. Facility Use Rental Schedule Per Hour Page 3 o£1 December 7, 2004 I )-S-- DRAFT USE OF THE FACILITY Each individual in the group must obey all applicable City, State, and Federal rules, ordinances, laws, and regulations. If you do not, your permit may be revoked, you may forfeit your security deposit, and you may be asked to leave the facility and/or be subject to legal action. For use of the Community Hall, parking impacts to the Library and City Hall will be considered in evaluating the application. The person or organization granted the permit assumes all responsibility for use of the facility. When any group applies for the permit, a contact person must be named as the sole authority to make changes or submit additional information. This person must attend the activity. The City of Cupertino is not responsible for accidents, injury, illness, or loss of group or individual property. Groups composed of minors (under 18 years) must be supervised by adults at all times. The number of adults required will be based on the size and age of the group. The permit is issued to a supervising adult. Permits cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet and groups may use specifically permitted areas only. Commercial, concessions, or profit-making activities are not allowed at City facilities, except for the Community Hall. Fundraising events are allowed for Groups II, III, and V at all City facilities. Proof of insurance may be required depending on the event. All facilities must be closed by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. The earliest a facility may be rented is 8:00 a.m. Changes to these hours must be approved by the City Council. FACILITY USE RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR All rental fees shall be paid in advance. The balances of the fees are due 14 days prior to the rental. Fees begin at the time applicants enter the facility to prepare for events and/or accept deliveries. Rental fees are applied for preparation, actual program, and clean up after the event. The City reserves the right to change fees periodically. Reservations already negotiated will not be affected by rate changes. Fees are not retroactive. Facility Use Rental Schedule Per Hour Page 4 of7 December 7, 2004 } (J-b DRAFT Ouinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stellin!! Road Group II Group III Group IV Group V Group VI Social Room Group II Group III Group IV Group V (Mondav - Thursdav) /Per Hr $ 30 $ 30 $140 $ 50 $265 (Fridav - Sundav) /Per Hr $ 80 $ 80 $230 $140 $265 Cupertino Room $ 20 $ 20 $ 45 $ 25 $ 60 $ 60 $ 90 $ 75 Ouinlan Community Center - continued Conference Room Group II Group III Group IV Group V $ 10 $ 10 $ 40 $ 25 $ 25 $ 25 $ 60 $ 50 Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue Monday - Thursday Per Hour Rental Fee $ 80 Friday - Sunday $250 Senior Center, 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard Reception Room (Evenings & Weekends) Per Hour* $ 80 $ 80 $230 $140 Group II Group III Group IV Group V Classroom. Conference Room. Arts & Craft Room, and Bay Room Group II $ 60 Group III $ 60 Group IV $ 90 Group V $ 75 * Senior Center rooms are available for rental Monday through Thursday, after 5:30 p.m., and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. Facility Use Rental Schedule Per Hour Page 5 o£1 December 7, 2004 ( )-7 DRAFT Portal Park. 10225 N. Portal Avenue Building (Monday - Sunday) Group II $ 5 Group III $ 5 Group IV $ 10 Group V $ 20 Creekside Park/Wilson Park. 10455 Miller Avenue/l0249 S. Portal Avenue Building (Monday - Sunday) Per hour $ 15 $ 15 $ 30 $ 20 Group II Group III Group IV Group V Monta Vista Recreation Center. 21840 McClellan Road Classroom (Monday - Sunday) Per hour $ 15 $ 15 $ 30 $ 20 Group II Group III Group IV Group V Kitchen Group II Group III Group IV Group V $ 15 $ 15 $ 25 $ 20 RENTAL FEE WAIVER For community events, the City Council may choose to waive rental fees. The decision to waive fees is normally made during adoption of the fiscal year budget. Specifically, the City shall waive all room rental costs relative to the event. The sponsoring organization pays for the cost of staff and janitorial services for their event. COMMUNITY HALL USE BY THE LIBRARY There will be a predetermined number of "free" Library uses of the Community Hall approved by the City Council each year during the budget review. Facility Use Rental Schedule Per Hour Page 6 of? December 7, 2004 {)-,( DRAFT SECURITY STAFF Required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. OVERTIME FEE Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first half-hour, and $150.00 for every half-hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security deposit. This applies to all City facilities. SECURITY DEPOSIT A security deposit shall be required for Groups II, III, IV, V, and Vi. Security deposit is due at time of reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time. F acilitv Quinlan Community Center: Cupertino Room - Groups IV, VI - All Other Rooms - Group IV - Group II, III, V - All Rooms Community Hall: - Groups IV, VI - Groups II, III, V Senior Center: Reception Hall Reception Hall - Group IV All Other Rooms - Group IV Groups II, III, V - All Rooms Portal Park Creekside Park / Wilson Park Monta Vista Recreation Center Deposit Amount $750 $300 $300 $750 $300 $500 $750 $300 $300 $100 $100 $100 g:\parks and recreation admin\policies\facility use policy procedure revised nov 192004.doc Facility Use Rental Schedule Per Hour Page 7 of? December 7, 2004 { )-1 No library fundraising; City functions NO Library fundraising; City functions NO Library fundraising; City functions NO Library fundraising; City functions N() Library fundraising; City functions - November 18,2004 $150 up halt hr.; , every hal thereafter $150 up to first halt hr.: $150 tOI every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first halthr.;$150for every half hr. thereafter $25 $150 up to fir: halt hr.; $150 every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first halt hr.; $150 tor every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first halt hr.; $150 for every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first halt hr.: $150 tor every half hr. thereafter Minimum restrictions Minimum restrictions $25 City of Cupertino Facility Rental Matrix II $750 $300 No $300 No ce QCe Social Room I Ves I 80 seated 13/mos To 13fmos in advance $25 Minimum restrictions $25 Minimum restrictions $25 Minimum restrictions No No No $80-90 $300 $80-90 $300 $50-90 $300 - - Page I of2 May nol ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofil May not book ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofit May not book ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofit May not book ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofil 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 3/mos 13/mos in advance 20 seated Ves acc Conference Room Senior Center- Reception Hall 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 40 seated Ves Senior Center - Bay Room 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 40 seated 26 seated Ves Ves Senior Center - Arts & Crafts Senior Center- Classroom IV - See Policy - groups II to * *Ranging from Cupertino nonprofit to business matrix. doc ~ ---- ç:y g:\parks and recreation admin\facilities\facility use City of Cupertino Facility Rental Matrix No Library fundraising; City functions No Library fund raising; City functions No Library fund raising; City functions No Libra ry fund raising; City functions NO Library fundraising; City functions - November 18, 2004 $150 up to first half hr.; $150 fOI every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first half hr.; $150 for every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first half hr.; $150 for every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first half hr.; $150 for every half hr. thereafter $150 up to first half hr.; $150 for every harf hr. thereafter $150 up to first half hr.; $150 for every half hr. thereafter $25 Minimum restrictions $25 Minimum restrictions $25 Minimum restrictions $25 Minimum restrictions $25 Minimum restrictions No $100 $15-30 No $100 $15·30 No $100 $15-20 No No $100 $100 Page 2 of2 $5-20 $15-30 3/mos to 13/mos in advance - ~*Ranging from Cupertino nonprofit to business - groups II to N - See Policy ~:\parks and recreation admin\facilities\facility use matrix.doc May nl ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofij May not book ongoing reser. unless City or CuPt. nonprofit May not book ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofit May not book ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofi1 May not book ongoing reser. unless City or Cupt. nonprofi1 May not book ongoing reser. unless City or CUDt. nonprofil 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 10 seated Yes Senior Center- Conference Room 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 60 seated Yes Creekside Park Building 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 184 seated 396 standing Yes Monta Vista Recreation Center - Classroom 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 24 seated 49 standing Yes Monta Vista Recreation Center - Kitchen 3/mos to 13/mos in advance 50 seated 40 seated Yes Yes Portal Park Building Wilson Park Building , I~~¡ p--' ". i "' . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (40S) 777-3366 www.clloertino.ofQ F CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No. I b Meeting Date: December 7, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consider renewing the voluntary cap of $20,000 for campaign expenditures for the 2005 City Council election. BACKGROUND In 1997 the City Council set a voluntary campaign expenditure limit of$15,000. In 1999, the expenditure limit was increased to $20,000 because of the additional cost of mailing to the recently annexed neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada. The limit of $20,000 was then renewed for the 200 I and 2003 elections. Although the restriction would be voluntary and would have no force of law, candidates could agree in writing to abide by the limitation. In that case, the sample voter's ballot will show a black diamond by the candidate's name indicating that they have agreed to honor the expenditure limit. Please note that this resolution would have no effect on the campaign contribution limits of $100 per person or agency, which was set by Cupertino Ordinance No. 1885. RECOMMENDA nON: I. Adopt the attached resolution setting a voluntary expenditure cap of $20,000 for the election of 2003; or 2. Adopt an amended resolution setting a different expenditure limit; or 3. Take no action, which means there will be no limitation, voluntary or otherwise, on expenditures by Council candidates. Submitted by: . ~ Kimberly Smit - City Clerk Approved for submission: ~ David Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper 16-( CITY OF CUPERTINO RESOLUTION NO. 04-454 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REGARDING CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES FOR THE 2005 CITY COUNCIL ELECTiON WHEREAS, the City Council believes that candidates should make every effort to limit overall expenditures in their respective City Council campaigns, thereby allowing both candidates and office holders to spend a lesser proportion of their time on fundraising and a greater proportion of their time communicating issues of importance to voters and constituents. WHEREAS, on May 19,1997, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution No. 9854 setting a voluntary campaign expenditure limit of$15,000; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 1999, the City Council increased the voluntary expenditure limit amount to $20,000 in response to the annexation of a large population in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that $20,000 was an appropriate expenditure limit for the elections in 2001 and 2003; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1) That candidates for City Council are hereby requested to limit their campaign expenditures to $20,000 for the City Council election of2005. 2) That this request does not establish a recommended voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling within the meaning of Government Code section 85400 et seq. It is the intent of the city council in adopting this resolution, not to trigger the enhanced campaign contribution limits contained in Government Code section 85402(a) et seq. 3) In the event that any candidate wishes to abide by the campaign contribution limit requested by the city council, he or she may file with the city clerk a written notice of his or her intent to limit his or her campaign expenditures to $20,000 for the 2005 election, and such intent will be indicated in the official voter's pamphlet. 4) The provisions of this resolution have no force of law. (b-).... Resolution No. 04-454 Cupertino City Council Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members ofthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino (1- 3 ·,7'-1 .. ,.\~~ I . City Hall I 0300 TaITe Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPEIQ1NO kimherl}'''~!(,'lpp.l-tiM f\~ Agenda Item No. 11-- SUMMARY Meeting Date: D..{(~h.u- 7,:Ltc 'i OFFICE OF THE CITV CLERK SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consider charging City Council candidates for the cost of candidate's statements. COST OF BALLOT STATEMENTS City Council elections are held in November of odd-numbered years, and typically there are three to five candidates vying for two to three seats. Candidates have the option to submit a statement of qualifications up to 200 words (the Candidate's Statement), which is printed in the Voter's Pamphlet. In previous years, the city's elections budget has absorbed those costs, which totaled approximately $1 ,000 per election year. Beginning in July, 2003, the County of Santa Clara raised the fees for printing and translating each candidate's statement ITom a fixed rate of$370 plus printing costs to a fixed rate of $1,138.25 plus printing costs. The total cost to the city in 2003 was $4,553 for four candidates. California Elections Code Section 13307 (c) allows a local agency to estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate's statements, including the costs of complying with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Each candidate may be required to pay in advance an estimated pro rata share as a condition of having a candidate statement included in the voter's pamphlet. In the event of underpayment, the City Clerk can require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the City Clerk would prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess within 30 days of the election. IMP ACTS There may be a chilling effect upon citizens who wish to run for City Council but are unable or unwilling to pay the cost of the candidate's statement. On the other hand, candidates have the opportunity to collect campaign contributions to recover these and other costs. Also, Elections Code Section 13309 sets for the procedures to be followed if a candidate alleges to be indigent and unable to pay the costs, at which time the City will pay the costs. If the fee discourages candidates who are not seriously interested in running for office, in some cases it could result in substantial savings to the City. For example, if the remaining number of candidates matches the number of vacant seats an election can be avoided entirely. Printed on Recycled Paper /7-{ December 7, 2004 Page 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mayor Sandra James and Council member Richard Lowenthal cannot run for re-election in 2005 when their terms end because of term limits and would not be affected by this change. However, Council members Patrick Kwok, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang may be affected if they chose to run for a second term and submit a candidate's statement. Therefore, those three Council members have a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves ITom participation or voting on this item. RECOMMENDA nON I. Conduct a random drawing to determine which Council members with a conflict of interest will be authorized to vote in order to constitute a quorum. 2. If the quorum is in favor of recovering printing costs ITom candidates, then direct the staff to prepare a draft ordinance to that effect. Submitted for approval: Approved by: ~~7{ Kimberly Smith City Clerk £nL David W. Knapp City Manager f7- ;2 CITY OF CUPERTINO RESOLUTION NO. 04-455 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REQUIRING CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL TO PAY ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE VOLUNTARY CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT. WHEREAS, budget constraints have forced the municipal government to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of full cost recovery in all areas of local government; and WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 13307 (c) allows a local agency to estimate the costs associated with printing, handling, translating, and mailing candidate's statements, and to require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance his or her pro rata share; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I) Candidates for City Council who wish to file a candidate's statement shall pay to the City of Cupertino his or her pro rata share of the costs associated with that statement. 2) The estimated pro rata share of costs shall be paid to the City of Cupertino at the time the nomination papers are filed;, 3) Candidates are requested to pay their pro rata share of the costs in the form of a cashier's check, a personal check, or a check drawn upon the candidate's campaign account. 4) A candidate that alleges to be indigent and unable to pay the fee in advance may submit a request for waiver of this requirement pursuant to Elections Code 13309. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /7-3 i 'i~¡ If.ì~ /, J~ CUPEIQ1NO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (40R) 777-3223 FAX: (40R) 777-3366 kimbcrlvsrä\:uoertino or!! . OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No. L Meeting Date: December 7, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Amend Ordinance No. 1885 related to City Council elections and campaign finance disclosure. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 1757 was Cupertino's original campaign ordinance adopted in 1997. It was later amended and/or replaced by Ordinance Nos. 1797, 1818, 1887, and 1885. It is necessary to amend the ordinance to delete obsolete references to Proposition 208, which is listed as the statutory authority. That proposition was contested for many years in the courts, and only a few of the original provisions remain. The city's ordinance still references Government Code sections that are no longer in effect. The Council may wish to make other revisions at this time, or to repeal the ordinance in its entirety. In that case, future candidates would be bound by the requirements of the State's Fair Political Practices Act instead of Cupertino's more restrictive laws. EXISTING ORDINANCE The main provisions of the Cupertino's current ordinance are: I. Candidates can accept only $100 ITom each person or agency 2. The contribution limits do not apply to a candidate's personal funds contributed to a campaIgn 3. The forgiveness of any debt constitutes a campaign contribution 4. Candidates and independent expenditure committees must stop raising funds 5 days prior to the election 5. Candidates and independent expenditure committees have an extra, "Cupertino-only" tiling responsibility four days prior to the election 6. Fundraising may not begin earlier than 6 months prior to the election 7. Candidates must retire all campaign debt ITom personal funds by January 1 8. A committee that makes an independent expenditure of $1 000 or more shall not accept contributions in excess of $250, and must retire all debt from campaign contributions by January I 9. Violation of any of the provisions of the ordinance is a misdemeanor Printed on Recycled Paper It-I December 7,2004 Page 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mayor Sandra James and Council member Richard Lowenthal cannot run for re-election in 2005 because of term limits. However, Council members Patrick Kwok, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang may be affected if they chose to run for a second term. Therefore, they have a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves ITom participation or voting on this item. It should be noted that three votes are required to amend an ordinance or adopt a new one. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Clerk conduct a random drawing to determine which Council members with a conflict of interest may be authorized to vote in order to constitute a quorum. The voting Council members should then take one of the following actions A. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to amend the provisions of Ordinance No. 1885 to reflect the current legislation, as well as any other changes agreed to by Council, or B. Repeal Ordinance No. 1885 in its entirety so that future candidates will follow all provisions of the Fair Political Practices Act. Submitted for approval: Approved by: . ~ ~ - Kimberly Smlt City Clerk ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment: City Attorney's written opinion Draft ordinance I J- :J-- TO: Kimberly Smith, City Clerk FROM: Charles T. Kilian RE: Status of the Law Regarding Campaign Finance Ordinance DATE: November 3, 2004 MEMO Kim, You have requested an opinion regarding the current legal status of the City's campaign finance ordinance (Chapter 2.06 Cupertino Municipal Code). Cupertino's present ordinance generally provides for the following: I) Limits campaign contributions to council candidates and candidate-controlled committees ITom persons (including corporations) to $100. 2) Limits campaign contributions to council candidates and candidate-controlled committees from "small contributor" committees or political party committees to $200. 3) Limits campaign contributions to "committees making independent expenditures" of $1,000 or more from any person (including corporations) to $250. 4) Exempts from the above-described limitations a candidate's use of hisfher own personal funds. 5) Limits the acceptance of contributions by council candidates to 6 months prior to an election and to no later than 5 days prior to an election. 6) Limits the acceptance of contributions by a committee making independent expenditures of $1 ,000 or more to no later than 5 days prior to an election. 7) Requires full disclosure statements to be filed by candidates 40 days prior to an election, 12 days prior to the election, 4 days prior to the election, and on January 31st of the year following an election. Memo to K. Smith re Campaign Finance.doc fò-j The ordinance was originally adopted in 1997 and was significantly amended in 1998 and 2001. In order to analyze tlte ordinance's current legal status, it is necessary to review the recent legal history of campaign finance regulation in California. Since contribution limitations necessarily infiinge on the contributor"s ability to engage in free communication and association, they impinge on First Amendment freedoms. However, the City's interest in eliminating the appearance of impropnety and actual corruption associated with large contributions justifies the burdens placed upon First Amendment rights. Bucklev v. Valeo 424 DSI, 21-28, 96 S.Ct. 612 (1976). Restrictions on contributions, however, still face a "rigorous" standard of review. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC 528 US 377, 120 8.Ct. 897 (2000). Restrictions on contributions may be sustained if tlte city demonstrates a sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational ITeedoms. Buckley v. Valeo (supra). To date, the courts have recognized only corruption, tlte appearance of corruption, and a circumvention of otherwise valid campaign finance regulations as sufficiently important governmental interests to support restrictions on campaign contributions. Buckley v. Valeo (supra). Notably, the goal of equalizing political opportunities between candidates and parties has been rejected as a sufficiently important governmental interest, and cannot be used as the basis for a limitation on campaign contributions. Bucklev v. Valeo (supra). On June 7, 1988, California Voters approved two initiatives both amending and supplementing the Political Reform Act of 1974. The measures established limits on campaign contributions made by individuals, corporations, political parties, and political committees. Proposition 68 established a system for publicly financed elections, while Proposition 73 specifically prohibited candidates from accepting any public financing. Proposition 73 received more votes in the election. Because the measures both regulated the same subject matter, the California Supreme Court determined that only Proposition 73 became operative. Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. FPPC 51 Cal3d 744 (1990). In 1992, the United States District Court invalidated Proposition 73's campaign contribution limitations. On November 6, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 208, another initiative statute amending provision oftlte Political Reform Act pertaining to campaign contributions, campaign expenditure limitations, and lobbyist activities. Proposition 208 replaced a number of provisions enacted pursuant to Proposition 73. On January 6, 1998, the United States District Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FPPC from enforcing any of the Political Reform Act enacted pursuant to Proposition 208. California Pro-Life Council PAC v. Scully 989 F. Supp. 1282 Memo to K. Smith re Campaign Finance.doc 2 U-ý judicial challenge, the council may wish to re-visit the contribution limits and authorize a study which would support specific contribution limits based upon the size of the local electorate, available news coverage and cost of media, signs, printing, staff support and other campaign costs. The council may also wish to study campaign contribution limits of other similarly situated agencies in order to be in a position to establish limits which wil1 meet constitutional muster. If you have any questions, please call. cc: Dave Knapp Memo to K. Smith re Campaign Finance.doc 4 IJ-Ic DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1955 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.06.020 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1757 was enacted on May 19, 1997, and implemented a number of reforms related to City Council campaign financing; and WHEREAS, the City Council amended those provisions by enacting Ordinance Nos. 1797,1818,1877, and 1885; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the text of Section 2.06.020, Statutory Authority, so that it correctly reflects current legislation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 2.06 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 2.06 CITY COUNCIL-CAMP AIGN FINANCE 2.06.010 Purposes. A. The proper operation of democratic government requires that elected officials be responsible to the people; that monetary contributions to political campaigns on behalf, or against, a candidate, while a legitimate form of public participation in the political process, should not be so great as to permit particular individuals or organizations to exercise a controlling or undue influence on the election of City Councilpersons. B. This chapter is intended to minimize the potentially corrupting influence and appearance of corruption caused by excessive contributions to City Council campaigns or on behalf of, or against a candidate, by providing for reasonable contribution limits for candidates and "independent committees" as part of the election process. C. This chapter also is intended to lessen the potentially corrupting pressures on candidates, officeholders, and committees, for fundraising by establishing sensible time periods for soliciting anß accepting campaign contributions. D. This chapter also seeks to enable each City voter to cast an informed vote by requiring that candidates disclose all campaign contributions prior to a City election and by requiring independent expenditure committees to reveal the source of their funding prior to a City election consistent with ITee speech principles contained in the Constitution of the United States and the State of California. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) /J>; Ordinance No. 1955 Cupertino City Council Page 2 2.06.020 Statutory authority. Section 8S7Qé(b) 81013 of the California Government Codc, adapted by the 'aters af the State efCalifomia Oil Nevember 6,1996, as part efPrepesitiefl208, authorizes the City to impose lower contribution limitations or other campaign disclosures or prohibitions that are as, or more, stringent than set forth under the applicable provisions of state law. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) 2.06.030 Definitions. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, an words and phrases in this chapter shan have the same meaning as are defined in Title 9 of the California Government Code as then exists on the date of enactment of this chapter or as it may be later amended. Words and phrases not specificany defined shan be construed according to the context and approved usage of the language. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) 2.06.040 Conflicts with provisions of state law. Where conflict occurs between any provision established by this chapter and any provision of applicable state law, the more restrictive or stringent of any such provision shan apply. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) 2.06.050 Constitutionality. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shan not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The Council declares that it would have passed this chapter, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases had been declared invalid or unconstitutional. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) 2.06.060 Construction. The provisions of this chapter, and an proceedings under it are to be construed liberany with a view to effect its purposes and to promote justice. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) 2.06.070 Prohibited acts defined. Whenever in this chapter, any act or omission is made unlawful, it shan include causing, anowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or concealing the fact of such act or omission. (Ord. 1757 § 1 (part), 1997) 2 ft-% Ordinance No. 1955 Cupertino City Council Page 3 2.06.080 Penalty for violations. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) 2.06.090 Remedies cumulative. All remedies provided for in this chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive. All remedies contained herein shall be in addition to any criminal or civil penalties contained in Section 83116 et seq. of the California Government Code or any other applicable provision of state law. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) 2.06.100 Contribution limits. A. Except as provided hereinafter, no person, other than small contributor committees or political party committees, shall make to any candidate for City Council or to the candidate's controlled committee, and no such candidate or the candidate's controlled committee shall accept ITom any person, a contribution or contributions totaling more than one hundred dollars for each election in which the candidate is attempting to be on the ballot or is a write-in candidate. B. No small contributor committee or political party committee shall make to any candidate for City Councilor the controlled committee of such a candidate, and no candidate shall accept ITom a small contributor committee or political party committee, a contribution or contributions totaling more than two hundred dollars for each election in which the candidate is attempting to be on the ballot or is a write-in candidate. C. The forgiveness of any debt constitutes a campaign contribution and any forgiveness greater than the contribution limits contained herein, either for a candidate or an independent committee, is prohibited. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a candidate's contribution of his or her personal funds to his or her own campaign committee. Candidates can contribute to their own campaigns at any time before or after the election. The provisions of this section limiting campaign contributions shall apply to contributions rrom a spouse. (Ord. 1797 (part), 1998; Ord. 1757 § 1 (part), 1997) E. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.06.100 and except as provided hereinafter, any committee making independent expenditures of one thousand dollars or more shall not accept ITom any person any contribution in excess of two hundred fifty dollars for each election in which the committee is participating. 3 [ð-7 Ordinance No. 1955 Cupertino City Council Page 4 2.06.11 0 Restrictions on when contributions may be accepted. A. No candidate or committee may accept contributions more than six months prior to the election for which the contributions are to be utilized. B. No candidate may accept contributions later than five days prior to the election. In the event that a candidate incurs more debt in his or her campaign than can be paid by contributions, the candidate must retire the debt ITom his or her own personal funds prior to January 1 ofthe year following the election. Failure to retire the debt by that date constitutes a violation of this chapter. C. No committee making independent expenditures of one thousand dollars or more may accept contributions later than five days before the election. Any debt incurred by such committee which is not retired ITom campaign contributions prior to January 1 of the year following the election constitutes a violation of this chapter. D. This section shall not apply to any funds raised for the purposes described in Section 85305(d) of the California Government Code (related to attorney's fees, cost of recounts, and other costs described in Section 85305(d). (Ord. 1757 § 1 (part), 1997) 2.06.120 Disclosure statements. A. Forty days prior to a City Council election, all candidates and independent expenditure committees shall file with the City Clerk two originals of the first pre-election disclosure report required by the Fair Political Practices Commission disclosing the name, address, employer and contribution amount of all persons making contributions exceeding ninety- nine dollars. Contributions requiring disclosure include "in kind" contributions of a fair market value of ninety-nine dollars or more. In addition, committees making independent expenditures of one thousand dollars or more must also disclose the name, address, and employer of all officers of the committee. The filing period for the initial disclosure is January 1 of the current calendar year through forty-five days prior to the election, and the deadline is5:00 p.m. in the City Clerk's Office. Facsimiles and postmarks are not acceptable. B. The following disclosure statements must be filed by candidates and independent expenditure committees twelve days prior to a city election: (1) Two originals of the second pre-election disclosure statement required by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The filing period is forty-four days prior through seventeen days prior to the election and the deadline for is 5:00 p.m. in the City Clerk's Office. Facsimiles and postmarks are not acceptable. 4 /t-(O Ordinance No. 1955 Cupertino City Council Page 5 c. The following disclosure statements must be filed by candidates and independent expenditure committees four days prior to a city election: A City of Cupertino disclosure containing the same information as the disclosure statement required by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The filing period is sixteen days prior through five days prior to the election. The deadline is 4:00 p.m. in the City Clerk's Office. Disclosure statements must be personally delivered; facsimiles and postmarks are not acceptable. D. The City Clerk shall make all disclosure statements available to the public upon request and by posting them on the Cupertino Internet website by the first day prior to the city election. E. On January 31 st ofthe year following a city election, all candidates and independent expenditure committees shall file semi-annual disclosure statements with the City Clerk as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The filing period for the final disclosure is ITom the sixteenth day prior to the election through December 31 of the year of the election, and the deadline is 5 :00 p.m. in the City Clerk's Office. Facsimiles and postmarks are not acceptable. F. The filing of the above-described disclosure statements do not relieve candidates or committees ITom filing disclosure statements as required by the Fair Political Practices Act. (Ord. 1797 (part), 1998: Ord. 1757 § 1 (part), 1997) 2.06.150 Criminal proceedings. Any criminal proceedings against any person for a violation of this chapter will be prosecuted by an independent city prosecutor selected by the Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. (Ord. 1757 § I (part), 1997) INTRODUCED AND ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 5 ( Ò-/J ITYOF CUPEIQ1NO ¡~-I ;?/!('i\...... ., I-~~?· . 71 __,,--------J 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,·CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No..Lj Agenda Date December 7, 2004 SUBJECT: Request for a study session to review a development proposal Toll Brothers in the Valko Park planning area for 451 residential units and 100,000 sq. ft of retail space on27 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council set a date for a study session to review the applicant's proposal. DISCUSSION: Toll Brothers requested an agenda item on the December 7, 2004 to request a second study session for their development proposal. The staff report for the August 17, 2004 study session is attached. Project Comparison Oriainal Proposal Council Direction Revised Project Units 565 300 451 Retail 50,000 - 80,000 150,000 100,000 Park 3.5 acres Retain 3.5 acres 1 acre? Land Use Issues Density The Heart of the City plan allows for a maximum residential density of 35 units per acre. Based on the information provided by the applicant, it is not clear if the project conforms to this density. Parks and Open Space Based on the policies of the General Plan, a General Plan Amendment may be necessary for the conceptual plan due to the lack of open space. . Policy 5-45 requires at least three acres of park land for every 1,000 residents in the City. Assuming two and one half persons per unit (which is a conservative estimate), 451 units will generate 1,130 new residents. To meet this policy, the project must provide at least 3.4 acres of park land Printed on Recycled Paper /1-( Valko Park Place December 7, 2004 Page 2 · Policv 5-47 states that parks should be at least 3.5 acres in size for" flexibility of use. If · Policv 5-49 states that parks should be bounded by public streets to ensure that it is visible and easily accessible to the public. · Policy 5-53 states that new residential development in non-residential areas shall provide park space and facilities and that the need for dedication of public park land "shall be determined when a master plan is submitted for development." In addition to the park dedication, the residential project will require private and common open space for its tenants. Traffic, Parking and Circulation A full traffic report will be part of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be funded by the applicant as part of the processing of this application. The following are key elements that the plan should incorporate: · 3.4 acres of park land in addition to any private and common open space (General Plan) · Activation of Stevens Creek Boulevard (General Plan) · Gateway Feature (General Plan) · 150,000 sq. ft. of retail Area: based on Council direction on August 17, 2004 Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: "\ ~. t'. ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Toll Cupertino: Conceptual Site Plan Letter from Toll Brothers, Inc. dated December 1, 2004 August 17, 2004 Study Session Minutes August 17,2004 Study Session Staff Report r c¡ - ,:). EB TOLL CUPERTINO Retail Scheme G 4S1 Total Units I Retail: 100,000 SF Parking: 522 Cars North Parcel Cottages ] 09 South Parcel Terraces 164 Villas 118 Affordable units 60 TotalUnjlS 4S Legend :¡~, C]Residentia1 ~\:::IJ, DRetail ...nT1 D Mixed Use ~ _Community Facilities .. D Open Space. Public Parks ~ DCourtyards r I ,. ~~ 0 50' 100' -- B == '-... ~ ~ JI~~ þ~ f .= ~ N EB 150' V aUeo Park Place Toll BrothCI'1l Jnç '" 17 == o~ "- <f't?D ""c;v I ~ ~ "~ Iln-l___i-~ ! I_u_~ , , , , L..._ " _, o I rr;¡r¡:=; 1DJ1ffi~1F1r Nov. 19,2004 - ~ \ V..\ Toll CJ3rothers AmcdaÙ¡ I..ußuy &me Bw7dI!f'~ December I, 2004 City of Cupertino City Council Attn: Dave Knapp 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Knapp: Toll Brothers is requesting a second Study Session with the Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission to discuss revisions to our proposed project Vallco Park Place. We would like to request the Study Session for a date as soon as is reasonably possible. We intend to share revisions to our proposed land use site plan, which incorporates comments and feedback we received at the August 17,2004 Study Session at Blackberry Farm. Subsequent to the second Study Session, we anticipate submitting our application for a General Plan Amendment to the Community Development Department. We look forward to discussing our request for a Study Session at the December 7, 2004 City Council Meeting. " Enc: DRAFT Site Plan, Valko Park Place / 1- L( ~ CITY Of CUPEIQ1NO APPROVED MINUTES CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Tuesday, August 17, 2004 CALL TO ORDER At 4:30 p,m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Blackberry Farm Retreat Center, 21975 San Femando Avenue, Cupertino. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. COUIlcil members absent: none. Planning Commission members present: Chairperson Taghi Saadati, Vice-Chair Gilbert Wong (4:35 p.m.), and Commissioners Angela Chen (4:44 p.m.) and Marty Miller. Planning Commissioners absent: Lisa Giefer. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Senior Planner Peter Gilli, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. STUDY SESSION 2. Joint study session (City Council and Planning Commission) to review a development proposal ITom Toll Brothers in the Val\co Park planning area for 565 residential units and approximately 50,000-80,000 sq. ft. of retail space on 27 acres. Planning Director Steve Piasecki did a brief orientation and said that this is a development concept provided for early feedback ITom the Council members before the applicant submits formal documentation. He said that any residential development on this site would trigger a General Plan amendment, and that consideration should be given to land use issues, such as activation of Stevens Creek Boulevard, viability of the commercial market square, and the feasibility of a commercial "big box" use; parks and open space, including common open space and a public park; and traffic, parking and circulation issues. Jim Meeks, Toll Brothers, reviewed a series of Power Point slides and explained their plans to create a useful park that would be a resource to the community as well as creating a commercial area that would become a destination retail shopping area. Dan Solomon, a consultant specializing in infill projects, explained that they propose 7 acres of housing and 17 acres of mixed-use, with retail uses concentrated in a compact way to /1-) August 17, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 activate Stevens Creek Boulevard, as well as relating to the "rose bowl" site and creating a new residential boulevard. Jack Sellman, Architects Orange, discussed various alternatives for the market square, which could include 50,000-70,000 square foot of retail, including two to three major high-end tenants, and some additional food and non-food uses. It would emphasize a strong street presence on Stevens Creek Boulevard and create many walkable connections, especially to Vallco. Dan Solomon discussed the proposed housing types, including two- ITonted units that face both open space and street ITontage, a townhouse over a flat on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and some denser, stacked units. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of placing a "big box" retailer in this location, and what physical changes would be necessary to the existing road to make that feasible. Meeks said that it would be better to do two medium-size stores of 25,000 square feet each. Randal Mackley, consultant, said that Cupertino has a number of issues, one of which is a lack of fine dining component. He said the proposed concept has a good chance of success and is very flexible, and has buildings of a size that are easy to fill if a tenant leaves. He said the community has tremendous wealth here, and the city should take advantage of that by providing more restaurants. Discussion followed regarding the appropriate amount of retail and parks, the pros and cons of "big box" retailers as opposed to more "mid-size" retailers; the importance of linking this development with others, and the feasibility of creating a "Santana-Row" feel and creating revenue-generating opportunities in what is Cupertino's last large undeveloped area. Jim Meeks summarized the comments made by the City Council and the Planning Commissioners, which included: Less residential; the location of parks is in question, and the applicant should build more than the minimum require parks; connectivity to other retail sites is important; applicant should work with other retailers; more retail is important, suggested range is 80,000 to 120,000 square feet; skate park is requested; appropriate density is 45 dwelling units per acre maximum; and three stories are acceptable, but there is resistance to four stories. ADJOURNMENT At 6:25 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. ( 9-~ 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 August 17,2004 SUBJECT: Study session to review a development proposal from Toll Brothers in the Val1co Park planning area for 565 residential units and approximately 50,000-80,000 sq. ft. of retail space on 27 acres. BACKGROUND: Toll Brothers requested this study session to introduce a conceptual development plan to the City Council and Planning Commission. The plan calls for the development of a vacant 18.7-acre parcel on Stevens Creek Boulevard and the demolition of an existing office building on an 7.9 acre parcel. The project includes 565 housing units and about 50,000-80,000 sq. ft. of retail space on 26.6 acres. The plan would require a General Plan Arnendment for the housing units, a Rezoning, Subdivision Maps, Use Permit, Architectural Site Approval and possibly Exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The purpose of this study session is to: 1. Familiarize the Council with the applicant's proposal; 2. Provide the applicant with an opportunity to get Council input early in the development review process. Following this hearing, the applicant may ask for City Council authorization to proceed with a General Plan Amendment for the proposed project. History: The City Council held a study session for a mixed-use development proposed by Compaq Computer Corporation on June 11, 2001 on the vacant 18.7-acre site. At the time, the proposed project was for 734,000 sq. ft. of new office space, an 11,000 sq. ft. conference center, 387 housing units and 11,000 sq. ft. of retail space. On September 3, 2002, the City Council authorized a public hearing to consider a General Plan Arnendment to increase the residential allocation in the Heart of the City planning area by 170-300 units for the Compaq project. Compaq and Hewlett-Packard subsequently merged and the property is now under the ownership of Hewlett-Packard. Printed on Recycled Paper 11-1 Valko Park Place August 17, 2004 Pa~e 2 DISCUSSION: Project Site: The project site is bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, Tantau Avenue to the east, Interstate 280, Calabazas Creek and Valko Parkway to the north, and the Rose Bowl and Menlo Equities "Metropolitan" project to the west (see attached Vicinity Map). To be consistent with the Toll Bros. plan set, the office site north of Vallco Parkway will be referred to as the "north parcel" and the rest of the project site will be referred to as the "south parcel". Project Information: The project consists of retail uses in the southwest corner of the vacant property with medium to high-density residential uses on the remainder of the south parcel and on the north parcel. The proposed gross density is 21 units per acre, which is below the maximum of 35 units per acre allowed by the Heart of the City plan. Finch Avenue is proposed to be abandoned and converted from a public street into the primary entrance to the retail section surrounding an open space area referred to as Market Square. North Parcel The applicant proposes 215 units on the north parcel made up of 175 units in a three to four-story condominium building and 40 three-story townhouse units on either side of a 1.5-acre open space area, labeled Park C. South Parcel The south parcel consists of between 50,000 and 80,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 350 units. Two four-story condominium buildings make up 220 of the 350 units, leaving the remaining 130 in three-story townhouses. A one-acre open space area labeled Park B is in a central location with residential units surrounding it. About 28,000 sq. ft. of the retail space fronts onto Stevens Creek Boulevard, and will provide some activation of the north side of the Boulevard. The General Plan limits building heights on this site to a 1.5:1 slope (for every 1 foot of height, a 1.5 foot setback is required). This makes the tower elements shown on page 9 of the plan set taller than what would be allowed. The maximum height of typical buildings is 60 feet. The remaining commercial space is located around a Market Square, which will provide opportunities for civic events such as art and wine festivals and farmers markets. ¡c¡ -t Valko Park Place Aug-ust 17, 2004 Page 3 Land Use Issues Activation of Stevens Creek Boulevard The proposal incorporates many of the attributes discussed by the Council in the past including walk-ability, "mixed-use main street" encompassing 50,000 to 80,000 square feet of commercial space and some activation of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project has commercial frontage for the westerly 800 feet of the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage, which is about half of the project frontage, leaving the remaining 800 feet with residential uses siding or backing up to the street with a minimal setback of 50 feet. The retail fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard on the west side of the project provides an ample buffer for adjacent residential units from traffic noise. Staff has concerns with the residential proximity to Stevens Creek Boulevard on the project's east side. If the City is to allow residential to directly front Stevens Creek Boulevard with no frontage or ground floor retail then staff prefers to see a greater landscaped setback of 75 to 100 feet. This will provide ample space for visual screening and noise reduction. Viability of the Commercial Market Square Only 28,000 of the proposed commercial space is located on Stevens Creek Boulevard, where the traffic volumes approximate 25,000 ADTs (average daily trips) based on the City's last traffic counts (2002-03). Randol Mackley of Retail Real Estate Group previously stated that in general, typical retail tenant spaces require adjacent traffic volumes of at least 20,000 ADT to be marketable. The remaining retail space is situated around the Market Square and will require attracting customers into the shopping area. Staff does not expect that 20,000 ADT will enter the site on a regular basis, which raises concern about the viability of the retail space around the market square. Additional study in this area is warranted. Commercial "Big_box" The General Plan Task Force recommended against residential uses in the Valleo Park planning area, citing the importance of retaining this area for tax-generating uses. Staff concurs that residential uses should be considered on this site only after the City is assured of a substantial retail or business-ta-business sales tax generator with the project. The north parcel is a good candidate site for such a "big_box" retailer, given the excellent freeway access from Wolfe Road. Unlike standard retail tenant spaces, a "big- box" will be act as a magnet for shoppers and will have a regional draw, so the location away from Stevens Creek Boulevard is not an issue. The General Plan has a retail allocation of 150,000 sq. ft. for a "big_box" retailer such as Costco, Lowes or Home Expo, which could generate more than $1 million in annual 19-7 Vallco Park Place Aug-ust 17, 2004 Page 4 sales tax revenues for the City, while filling a need of local residents. These retailers have expressed interest in locating in Cupertino. It is possible to place the "big_box" retailer on Stevens Creek Boulevard, but it would be difficult to create a walkable, street-friendly presence on the boulevard with a "big- box", which is encouraged in the Heart of the City specific plan and the General Plan. The proposed Toll Bros. project would take a potential "big_box" retailer site and use it for low to medium density residential. Staff believes that the project should be adjusted to incorporate a "big_box" retailer, with a corresponding reduction in the number of housing units, possibly to the 300 units that were considered with the previous developer. The City may want to consider abandoning the eastern section of Vallco Parkway to allow this land to be incorporated into the parking lot for a "big-box" tenant if it will improve the likelihood of such a retailer on this site. Gateway The General Plan states that "gateways are important in creating a memorable impression of a city, often using formal elements - arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting and/or public art or landscaping." Policy 2-27 states that gateways should be incorporated into the review of properties near community entry points. The corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue qualifies as a community entry point. The Heart of the City plan suggests an archway design, which can be incorporated into this project. Parks and Open Space Sheet 3 of the ValIeo Park Place indicates that the project will have 3.5 acres of park, with 0.5 acres in the Market Square, 1 acre in Park B in the southern section of the site, 1.5 acres in Park C in the northern section of the site and 0.5 acres of greenways. The project was reviewed for conformance with the following policies of the General Plan related to parks and open space: · Policy 5-45 requires at least three acres of park land for every 1,000 residents in the City. · Policy 5-47 states that parks should be at least 3.5 acres in size for "flexibility of use." · Policy 5-49 states that parks should be bounded by public streets to ensure that it is visible and easily accessible to the public. · Policv 5-53 states that new residential development in non-residential areas shall provide park space and facilities and that the need for dedication of public park land" shall be determined when a master plan is submitted for development." ( q - /6 Valko Park Place August 17, 2004 Page 5 Staff believes that the subject site is appropriate for dedication and development of a public park. Appropriate Park Size Based on Policy 5-45, there should be 3.5 acres of park for every 1,000 residents. According to the 2000 Census, the average household size of owner-occupied units is 2.8 persons per household, while the rental household size is 2.6 persons per household. Staff believes the 2.6 persons per household figure is appropriate for the type of housing that is being proposed by Toll Bros. Multiplying 565 units by 2.6 persons per household results in about 1,500 residents. The project, as proposed by the applicant, should have at least five acres of parkland. With a reduction in units to provide a "big-box" retailer, it is likely that the standard 3.5-acre public park will be sufficient. Qualifications of the Proposed Open Spaces as Public Parks: · The one half-acre Market Square functions more as a commercial amenity than as a park for Cupertino residents. · Park B is a one-acre park, but narrows considerably on the east side, making much of the park function as a landscaped median. Park B may be suitable for residential common open space, but its location, shape and size keep it from being considered a public park. · Park C is located north of Valko Parkway and includes a community facility with a swimming pool. This park is suitably shaped, but its small size does not meet Policy 5-47 of the General Plan, which sets a minimum 3.5-acre size for public parks. Heart of the City Common Open Space A residential project in the Heart of the City area requires a minimum of 60 sq. ft. of common open space per unit. For 565 units, over 'I, of an acre of common open space must be provided. This is in addition to parkland dedication or in-lieu fees. The proposed open spaces (Parks Band C) would satisfy this requirement. Necessity of a Public Park The Metropolitan (Memo Equities) project paid in-lieu park fees because their site could not physically accommodate a public park. If approved, the Valko Rose Bowl project will pay in-lieu park fees of $1.4 million to the City, since the Rose Bowl site cannot physically accommodate a public park. The Toll Bros. site has sufficient area to provide a large public park. Staff does not believe there is adequate land available elsewhere in this section of the City for a public park, and the City Council considered the inclusion of a large public park on this site to be critical when reviewing the prior Compaq proposal (see the attached minutes from the June 11, 2001 study session). (1-1 r Valko Park Place August 17, 2004 Page 6 Factoring in the 107 units approved for Metropolitan (Memo Equities) and the potential for 204 units in the Valko Rose Bowl and assuming the Toll Bros. project is reduced to 300 units, this section of Cupertino will have over 600 new residential units without a public park. For this reason, staff considers the inclusion of a large, visible public park to be essential for the development of this site. Traffic, Parking and Circulation Based on the traffic report for the Valko Rose Bowl project, the buildout of the Valko Fashion Park allowed by the Valko Development Agreement, coupled with the new Kaiser Hospital at Homestead and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara, will cause several intersections to be below Level of Service (LOS) D. Any construction on the Toll Bros. site will worsen the traffic conditions. Typically, development projects have to mitigate the traffic impacts that they generate, but not correct traffic problems that already exist or are the result of previously approved projects. A full traffic report will be part of an Envirorunental Impact Report (EIR) that will be funded by the applicant as part of the processing of this application. Criteria for General Plan Amendments The City's Municipal Code Section 20.02.025 contains criteria that the City Council should use to initiate consideration of a general plan amendment. The decision to consider a General Plan Amendment should be primarily based on the degree to which the amendment will benefit the community and is compatible with the existing General Plan policies and goals. In addition, the amendment should meet at least one of the following criteria: 1. The amendment appears to support the existing General Plan goals and objectives (although the degree of public benefit could not be fully ascertained until the project is fully assessed.) 2. The proposed amendment represents an unforeseen land use trend that had not been considered. 3. The existing General Plan policy, which precluded the proposed land use activity is based on outdated or inaccurate information. The Cupertino General Plan contains policies and strategies that relate to the proposed project: Land Use/Community Character Element: The Land Use elements states that the Heart of the City plan was developed allow diverse uses (including mixed use) along Stevens Creek Boulevard that promote pedestrian and business activity and that "housing is strongly encouraged along the boulevard." I q-!.Á- Vallco Park Place August 17, 2004 Page 7 Strategy 3 of Policy 2-24 states that projects in the Valleo Park area have: a. Active retail uses facing the street or outdoor pedestrian corridor with appropriate connections to the interior mall shopping activity. b. Parking designed and sited to avoid creating pedestrian barriers and parking islands. c. Buildings sited to develop a strong street presence. d. Projects including pedestrian amenities: landscaping, furniture, fountains, canopies, special paving materials and other features to enhance pedestrian activity . Housing Element: The General Plan has an allocation system for residential units by planning area. The proposed Valko Rose Bowl project exhausted the available pool of residential units for the Heart of the City area. For this reason, the applicant will need a General Plan Amendment to increase the housing allocation for the Heart of the City area. Many new housing projects in the City have been for individual ownership. This has resulted in very little increase to the City's rental housing stock since 2000. Even the 206 unit Verona/Montebello project that was expected to be rental units have been recently offered for sale. Policy 3-4 states that the City should "encourage the development of a diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate cost housing) and affordability levels." The applicant should be encouraged to provide a portion of the proposed housing units as rental units, and that the bedroom count of all of the units including two-bedroom units, in addition to the standard three and four bedroom units. Future Steps The General Plan goals and objectives support a mixed-use retail/residential project on· this site; however, the balance of the two uses should be further explored. Staff recommends that the City Council direct the applicant to: 1. Incorporate a "big-box" retailer or a comparable sales tax generator into the plan, preferably on the north parcel. To accommodate this, explore incorporating VaIleo Parkway east of Finch Avenue into the parking lot area for the retail site. 2. Reduce the number of housing units, possibly to the 300 units that was originally discussed with the previous developer. 3. Provide a 3.5-acre public park that is clearly visible to the public. The park should connect Stevens Creek Boulevard and the creek. Improvements to the exposed portion of the creek should be explored. 4. Return to a second study session with revised plans. 11-13 Valko Park Place August 17, 2004 Enclosures: Vicinity Map Vallco Park Place: Concept Proposal June 11, 2001 Study Session Minutes Summary of June 11, 2001 Study Session Minutes Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Approved by: ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Pa¡;e 8 11-rl{ ~ IV SÞ {Ji ø~ -s--'-: õ G.) '--' o '- a.. ~ ( J .c:: 2"õ ~ ~ ;:...CD .:t::_ ~5 - ~~ ~ I.(~J peat! GjlOfv',. 1=1 ~ .J!! ::I S .:II:: 'II CD '- Ü 01) c; !f <I> - (f. (1-(') APPROVED MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Monday, June 11, 2001 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 5:05 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in Conference Room C/D, 10300 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal, and Council members Don Burnett and Michael Chang. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Public Works Director Ralph Qualls, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Senior Civil Engineer Mike Fuller, City Planner Ciddy Wordell, Senior Planner Aarti Shrivastava, City Attorney Charles Kilian, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. Also present: Planning Commissioner Marc Auerbach and Planning Commissioner Chuck Corr. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None STUDY SESSION 1. Review of a request ITom Compaq Computers to amend the General Plan for a mixed-use development consisting of office, retail and residential uses. The property is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd., between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. Aarti Shrivastava, the city's project planner on this item, highlighted the proposal by Compaq. She said it would be a mixed-use project on 26 acres, comprised of 8.5-acre and 15.5-acre areas. There would be two residential segments of 4-5 stories each constructed over underground parking, totaling 388 units. Compaq also proposes a conference center, four office buildings, and some open spaces. She said that the jobslhousing balance formula indicates that for every 1,000 square feet there should be 2 housing units. Mr. Tom Quaglhia, project manager for the Riding Group, discussed the proposal in more detail. He said that the project would create a high-quality pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development including retail, office and residential uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard. He said the project also provides a residential rental component and a residential for-sale component in a high-density residential area. He hoped the Council would allow the initiation of a General Plan amendment for further analysis of the project. Keith Dias ITom Compaq said that the corporate headquarters are in Houston, but that this is a substantial part of the business and is the sales headquarters on the west coast. f1-11c June 11,2001 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page 2 City Attorney Charles Kilian mentioned that the skateboard park issue would be discussed at the next City Council meeting in closed session, and also said that any of the ongoing operational amenities that are obligations of the applicant should be written in a development agreement. Dias said that the sales tax issue had been discussed within the corporation and the sales tax for everything they sell in the Cupertino offices would be directed toward Cupertino. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, summarized the amenity space and said that amenities, such as a daycare center and 5-10% of a conference center, wouldn't be counted against the order of base level square footage. He suggested finding sources in the current general plan to draw down for existing square footage allocation, such as an existing retail space, rather than amending the plan to add additional square footage. He said that this way the jobs/housing imbalance wouldn't be exacerbated. He commented that the applicant did a good job in planning around the open space areas and that there is a proposal to add 12 more affordable housing units. Quaglhia explained that the residential area would consist of 5 stories total, 4 stories residential over retail and the office buildings would be a combination of 4-5 stories. Ernie Vasques said that the retail is actually an amenity to encourage walkability among the residents in the area. He said that the plan is for the plaza to become the central point. Greg Randall talked about planting colorful trees and moving the sidewalk back ITom the curb about 10-12 feet to enrich the streetscape. Bumett felt the proposal by Compaq was a thoughtful design, but his concern was about the 50,000 square foot "headquarter bonus" and the additional 200,000 square feet. He said that because of the General Plan and commercial development the City is required to provide 2700 housing units, which would mean high-density housing, but the need is actually twice that. He said that if the General Plan is executed then the housing situation would become worse. He said that Compaq has already received a benefit in the form of additional square footage and he didn't see sufficient tradeoffs in amenities to offset the 200,000 square feet. He said he wanted to be sure that the comers of Finch and Stevens Creek and Tantau and Stevens Creek are pedestrian fiiendly intersections. Chang said the plan is headed in the right direction, and he liked the mixed-use proposal, especially the placement and amount of retail. He said that he didn't see the need for additional footage for Compaq and couldn't justify it to his constituents. He said that the basic conditions of development versus the additional amenities, need to be weighed in importance to the City. He thought 5 stories was too high and the buildings would be more balanced at 4 stories. Lowenthal said many of the things he had hoped to see in the plan were not proposed. These included uncovering Calabasas Creek, and enhancements to the trail along the culvert. He liked the mixed-use proposal, but felt that the band-stand area that is proposed would be an amenity only for Compaq and it belongs over in the residential area instead. 11-/7 June 11,2001 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page 3 James summarized the Council comments and said that they all seemed pleased with the mixed-use aspect of the development but there was not a lot of support for extra square footage. She said that the community wouldn't support additional office space, except for possibly amenities such as a childcare center or more affordable housing. She would like Compaq to consider a sales tax agreement such as the one the City has with Apple since it's mutually beneficial. City Attorney Chuck Kilian clarified that if Compaq wanted to pursue the sales tax agreement that it would not be exactly the same agreement as with Apple. NEW BUSINESS 2. Consider establishing sample voter ballot designations for candidates who have agreed to voluntary campaign expenditure limits, Resolution No. 01-125. The City Council concurred with the City Clerk's recommendation that only the Code of Ethics ITom the Fair Political Practices Commission be distributed to Council candidates for the November 6 election. Lowenthal moved to adopt Resolution No. 01-125. Chang seconded and the motion carried 4-0. ADJOURNMENT At 6:35 p.m. the meeting was adjoumed. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk Iq-IO' ATTACHMENTB CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS - JUNE 11, 2001 STUDY SESSION (COMPAQ) o Mixed-use concept - Liked the mixed-use concept including residential units. o Office area - The current office allocation for the site is 490,634 (not including 50,000 sq.ft. bonus for headquarters). The project as proposed (at 734,000 sq.ft.) is almost 244,000 square feet over the allocation. The 50,000 sq.ft. is questionable since headquarters are not in Cupertino. o Amenities - Amenities are requirements in projects. Amenities included so far do not justify extra office allocation. o TobsÆousin~ - About 2 housing units are required to offset every 1000 sq.ft. of office. The applicant was proposing 734,000 sq.ft. of office space (requiring 1468 units) and 387 units were not enough to offset that. o Height of buildings - Lower both office and residential to 3-4 stories along Stevens Creek Boulevard. o Public open space - The plan should include a large park and public gathering space along Finch to hold events (such as in Memorial Park). Open space should connect to creek. The opens space between Buildings 3 & 4 is formal and appears to be part of the office campus, not for the public. o Creek connections - Creeks and open. spaces should be enhanced and connected and available for walking and biking to the public. o Improved pedestrian connections alon~ Stevens Creek Boulevard and crossin~s at Finch and Tantau - The development should improve conditions for walking along Stevens Creek Boulevard as well as along crossings at Finch and Tantau Avenues. o Design -_ Design around a village concept emphasizing walkability. !1-r~ DRAFT 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 ITom RHS (Residential Hillside) to RHS-21 (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-2 I (Residential Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet) ; and is made part of the 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 of the 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 7th day of December 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino )O~I ORDINANCE NO. 1951 DRAPr 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.tàe Mayer IIIld Tfeasw-e£ 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 ofthis 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 7th day of December 2004, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 2\-1 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1952 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: I. 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 A venue, 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 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. 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 7th day of December 2004, by the following vote: Vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Members of the Citv Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 22 - ! ARCHIVES CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Phone (408) 777-3308 Fax (408) 777-3333 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Mayor and City Councilmembers Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ßð December 2, 2004 Item 10: R1 Ordinance Amendment: Model Ordinance 1 The report for Item 10 stated that Model Ordinance 1 was not completed when the packet was sent out yesterday. Enclosed is Model Ordinance 1, which is the current ordinance with only the changes that the City Council approved on November 16, 2004, which include: 1. Hillside Protection 2. Review Process 3. Specific Guideline Language 4. Story Poles 5. 45% Second Story Proportion EXHIBIT 1 Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. MODEL ORDINANCE 1 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 (R-l) ZONES Sections: 19.28.010 19.28.020 19.28.030 19.28.040 19.28.050 19.28.060 Purposes. Applicability of regulations. Permitted uses. Conditional uses. Site development regulations. Lot coverage, building setbacks, height re~trictions and privacy mitigation measures for non accessory buildings and structures. 19.28.070 Permitted yard encroachments. 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permit. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. 19.28.11019.28.11811 Exceptions fer lreseri ltiye design regulatious. 19.28.11911 Resideutiul desigu u l lro'."ul. 19.28.12019.28.1110 Development FRegulations-Eichler (Rl-eR-H!). 19.28.13019.28.10S Development FRegulations-(Rl-aR-l-a). 19.28.11(} Procedure for exce ltious aud resideutiul dcsigu u l lrOyals. 19.28.140 19.28.120 Solar design. 19.28.150 19.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.160 19.28.110 Appendix A-Landscape Mitigation Measures. 19.28.170 19.28.150 Appendix B-Release of Privacy Protection Measures. 19.28.180 19.28.U;1I Appendix C-Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) I 19.28.010 Purposes. R-l 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 parce1s; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in sca1e 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-l sing1e-family residence district other than in confonnance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicab1e 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 pennitted in the R-l single-family residence district: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit confonning to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use pennit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to pennitted uses and otherwise confonning with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D. Home occupations when accessory to pennit 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 1ess residents, not including the provider, provider fami1y 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; J. Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which is at 1east three hundred feet from any other large-family day care home. The Director of Community Development or hislher designee shall administrative1y approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; 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) City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 2 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-l single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use pennit: 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 pennitted use. The conditional use pennit 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 s01ar design features that require variations fTom setbacks upon a detennination 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 pennit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use pennit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. . B. Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. 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 detennines 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 fTom the property boundary of another residential care facility; 5. Residential care facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department 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) City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 3 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 symbo1. Examp1es are as follows: Minimum Lot Area Zoning in Square Symbol Number Feet R-l 6 6,000 R-l 7.5 7,500 R-l 10 10,000 R-l 20 20,000 The minimum lot size in an R -I zone is six thousand square feet. 2. Lots, which contain 1ess 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 applicab1e requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the fTont-yard setback line. C. Deve10pment on Properties with Hillside Characteristics. Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. I. Site plans for all development proposals shall include topographical infonnation 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 properties with an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent on a portion of a lot with slopes of thirty pereent 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 Rl 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 ofthirty 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), 1992) D. An application for building pennits filed and accepted bv the Community Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before February 4,2005 mav proceed with application processing under the ordinances in effect at that time. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 4 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. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be forty-five percenL^.l1)" new siRgle story house, or siRgle story addition to an ÐJ[istiRg house may Rot ealise the floor area ratio of all structures OR the lot to exeeed forty fi'/e pereent. 2.}.ny Rev; t'NO story house, or seeond story addition to an existing hmlSe, may ROt ealise the floor area ratio of all struetHres OR the lot to e)[eeed thirty five pereeRt, uRless diseretionar)" design approval is fimt obtained from the Design Re'¡iew Committee pursuant to SeetioR 19.2&.090. IR no event shall sueh floor area ratio exceed forty five pereent of the net lot area. 3.The floor area of a seeond story shall not e)[eeed thirty five pereent of the existiRg or preposed first story or six hundred square feet, whieheyer is greater. 2. The maximum floor area ofa second story shall be fortv-five percent of the existing or proposed first stOry floor area. or seven hundred fifty square feet. whichever is greater. 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-famiJy residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall detennine that the following items are met prior to issuance of building pennits: 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 sca1e with the neighborhood pattern in tenns ofbuiJding fonns, 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.Ifthe Direetor does not fiRd that the proposal is geRerally eonsistent with this seetion, then an applicatioR must be made for deGign approval from the Design Review Committee pursuant to SeetioR 19.2&.090. D. Setback-First Story (Nonaccessory Structures). I. Front Yard. The minimum fTont yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be fiftéen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. At 1east 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 City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 5 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 minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. The rear setbaek may be redueed to ten feet if, after the reduetion, the usable rear yard is not less than t'.yenty times the lot width as measured from the front setòaek line. a. With a Minor Residential Pennit subiect to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. E. Setback-Second Floor (Nonaccessory Structures). I. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. The minimum 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 oftwelye 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 minimum of five feet of the fifteen feet sha11 be applied to the side yard(s). 4. Accessory Buildings/Structures. Chapter 19.80 governs setbacks, coverage and other standards for accessory structures. 5. The height of second story wa11s are regulated as follows: a. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story wa11s sha11 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 wa11. The overlap sha11 be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first story exterior wa11 plane. I. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D. b. A11 second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, are required to have building wall offsets at 1east every twenty-four feet, with a minimum two-foot depth and six- foot width. The offsets shall comprise the full height of the wall plane. c. A11 second story roofs shall have a minimum of one-foot eaves. F. Basements. 1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwe11 retaining wa11 shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwe11 retaining wall sha11 be ten feet. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 6 3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by 1andscaping. 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 ofthe basement and alllightwell retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as detennined by the Director of Community Development. G. Additional Site Requirements. 1. Height. a. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R-l zone shall not exceed twenty- eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenances. b. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: I. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located five feet from property lines; 2. A twenty-five-degree roofline ang1e 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 seventeen t'.venty feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade. or UP to twenty feet with a Minor Residential Pennit. . 2. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to the setback regulations in subsection E of this section. 3. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing to the R-l zoning district, the designation "i"; provided however, that the limitation may be removed through use pennit 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 wan plate, shall be fourteen feet. 5. No blank single-story side wans longer than sixteen feet shall face a public right- of-way without at least one ofthe following: (a) at least one offset with a minimum two-foot depth and six-foot width; the offset shan comprise the fun 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. é.Exceptions for Hillside .'\Teas. Notwithstanding af!Y pro'iÎsions of swsectiof! PI of this section to the contrary, the Planning Commission may malce an exception for heights to exceed t...,enty eight feet under certain circumstances: a.The subject property is if! a hillside area and has slopes often percent or greater; s.Topographical features of the swject property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or desira13le; City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 7 e.In no ease, shall the maximHm height exceed thirty feet for a prineipa1 dwelling or twenty feet for an aecessory lmilding or dwe ]ing; d.In no ease, shall the ma¡¡iml±lR height of a strueture loeated on promiaent ridgelines, on or above the fDHr hHndred fifty foot coatoHr m[eeed twoaty feet in height. H. Privacy Protection Requirements. I. Required Landscape P1anting. a. Requirement. In order to address privacy protection and the reduction in visible building mass of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. b. Planting Plan. A building pennit appJication for a new two-story house or a second story addition shaU be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing trees or shrubs subject to staff approval. New trees or shrubs shaU be required on the applicant's property within a cone of vision defined by a thirty degree angle [rom the side window jambs of aU second story windows (Exhibit 1). New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees òr 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 un1ess there is a conflict with the tree canopies of the public street tree (Appendix A, page 2). The planting is required on the applicant's property, unless the options listed in subsection Fld of this section is applied. This option does not app1y to the front yard tree-planting requirement. c. Planting Requirements. The minimum size of the proposed trees shall be twenty-four inch box and eight foot minimum planting height. The minimum size of the shrubs shaU be fifteen-gaUon and six-foot p1anting height. The planting must be able to achieve a partial screening within three years fTom planting. The species and planting distance between trees shall be governed by Appendix A. The trees or shrubs shaU be planted prior to issuance of a fina1 occupancy pennit. An affidavit of planting is required in order to obtain the fina1 occupancy pennit (Appendix C). d. Options. Where p1anting is required, the applicant may plant on the affected property owners 10t 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 bui1ding pennit (Appendix B). This option does not app1y to the required tree planting in front yards. e. Applicability. This requirement shaU app1y to second story windows and decks with views into neighboring residential yards. SkyJights, windows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor, windows with pennanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 8 finished second floor, and obscured, non-openable windows are not required to provide privacy protection planting. f. Maintenance. The required plants shan be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. Where required planting dies it must be replaced within thirty days with the size and species as described in Appendix A of this chapter and an updated planting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department. The affected property owner with privacy protection planting on his or her own lot is not required to maintain the landscaping. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § I, 1998; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 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, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended àlong its existing building lines if the addition receives a Minor Residentia1 Pennit and confonns to the following: to no less than three feet fTom 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 pennitted for the life of such bui1ding. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to anow 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 a10ng 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, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permits. Proiects that require a Minor Residential Pennit shan be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as a whole. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application. a notice shan be sent by first class mail to all owners ofrecord of rea1 property (as shown in the 1ast tax assessment toll) that are adiacent to the subiect property. including properties across a City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 9 public or private street. The notice shall invite pub1ic comment by a determined action date and shall include a copy of the development p1ans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. B. Decision. After the advertised dead1ine for pub1ic comments. the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionany approve. or deny the app1ication. The permit can be approved only upon making an of the following findings: 1. The proiect is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit win not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and win not be detrimental to the pub1ic health, safetv or welfare. 3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning Commission, app1icant and anv member of the public that commented on the proiect shall be notified of the action by first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136. except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. Unless a building pennit is filed and accepted by the Citv (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Residential Pennit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specificany prescribed by the conditions of approva1. In the event that the building pennit expires for any reason, the Minor Residential Pennit shan become nun and void. The Director of Community Deve10pment may grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residentia1 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 Pennit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. 19.28.100 Two-Story Residential Permit. Two-storv additions or two-storv new homes require a Two-Story Residential Pennit in accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level I Two-Story Residential Pennie while a two-story project with a floor area ratio over 35% shan require a Level II Two-Story Residential Pennit. A. Notice of Application (Leve1 I). Upon receipt of a complete app1ication, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to an owners ofrecord of rea1 property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subiect property, including properties across a pub1ic or private street. The notice shan invite pub1ic comment by a determined action date and shall include a COpy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a pub1ic notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clear1y visible from the pub1ic street. The notice shan be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot tan post. The notice shall remain in p1ace until an action has been taken City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 10 on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if know, or the location of the propertv, 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 infonnation for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of public comments, which shall be at least fourteen 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 approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B. Notice of Application (Level II). Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real propertv (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite public comment bv a detennined 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 consistent with subsection An) of this section. except that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead of a black and white orthographic rendering. C. StOry Poles. Story poles mav be required for any Two-Story Residential Permit. subiect to the policies of the Director of Community Development. D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community Deve10pment shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The pennit can be approved onlv upon making all of the following findings: I. The project is consistent with the Cupertino Genera1 Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the pumoses of this title. 2. The granting of the pennit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or we1fare. 3. The proposed proj ect is harmonious in scale and desi gn with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. E. Notice of Action. The City Council. Planning Commission. applicant and any member of the public that commented on the proiect shall be notified of the action bv first class mail or e1ectronic mail. Any interested partv may appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. F. Expiration of a Two-Story Pennit. Unless a building pennit is filed and accepted bv the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two-Story Pennit approval. said approval shall become null and yoid unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the bui1ding pennit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Pennit shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Pennit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 11 G. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Two-Story Pennit can be processed concurrently with other discretionary applications. 19.28.11019.28.080 Exceptions f-er Preseri ltj'ie DesigH Regulatious. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict app1ication of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Sections 19.28.060 and 19.28.12019.28.100 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application. the Community Development Department shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail to a]] owners of record ofrea] propertv (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the subject property. Properties that are adjacent to the subject site, including those across a public or private street. shall receive a reduced scale COpy of the plan set with the pub1ic notice. B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditiona]]y approve. or deny the application based on the findings in this section. Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 19.136. C. Expiration of an Exception. Un]ess a buiJding permit is filed and accepted by the Citv (fees paid and contro] number issued) within one vear of the Exception approvaL said approval shall become null and void un]ess a longer time period was specifica]]y prescribed by the conditions of approva1. In the event that the buiJding permit expires for anv reason. the Exception sha]] become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant a one-year extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. D. Findings for Approval I. Issued by the Director of Community Deve]opment. The Director of Community Deve]opment may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation described in Section 19.28.060 E(5)(a) upon making a]] of the fo]]owing findings: a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible second-story wall height regulation in that the number of two-story wall p]anes and the amount of visible second story wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. b. The exception to be granted is one that wi]] require the least modification ofthe prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will 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 E(5)(a) and Section 19.28.120 upon making all of the following findings: a. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. City CounciJ Recommendation (December 7,2004) 12 b. The proposed deyelopment win not be iniurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety. health and welfare. c. The exception to be granted is one that win require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. :\.Issued by the Direetor of Community Development. With reopeet to a request fur two story development whieh does not meet the development reqlIirements eontained in Seetion 19.28.0éOH (Privaey Proteetion Requirements) and Seetion 19.28.1 OOC, the Comnnmity Development Direetor may grant an exeeption to a1low two story developmeat if the subjeet de'/elopment, based upon sUbstantial eyidenee, meets a1l of the fo1lowing eriteria: l.The literal enfereement of this ehapter will result in restrictions ineonsistent with the spirit and intent of this ehapter. 2. The proposed development ·....illaot be injurious to property or impro',ements in the area nor be àetrimental to the pub lie safety, health and welfttre. 3.The proposed development is otherwise eoasistent with the City's General Plan, any applieable speeific plan, and .....ith the purposes of this ehapter. 1.The aàjoining properties are otberwise proteeted from ulli"easonable priyaey impacts. B.Issued by the Design Reyiey, Committee (Other Preseripti',e Design Regulations). The Design Review Committee may grant exeeptions from the preseriptiye àesign regu]ations deseribed in Section 19.28.060 and Seetion 19.28.100 exclusive of Seetion 19.28.0éOG1 (Hillside BHilding Heigflts) !!pon making an of the following findings: l.The litera] enforeement of the provisions of this ehapter '.vill result in restrietions ineonsistent with the spirit and iateat ofthis ehapter. 2.Tbe granting of the exeeption will not result in a eondition tbat is materially detrimental to the publie health, safuty and we]fare. 3.The exeaption to be granted is one tbat will require the ]east modifieation oftbe preseribed àesign regulation and the minimum '/ananee that ·....ill aeeomplioh the purpose. 1.The proposed exeeption will not result in signifieant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. C.IssHed by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building Heights). Notwithstanding any pro'/ision of Section 19.28.080 C I to the eontrary, the Planning Commission may grant an exception for heights to exeeed twenty eight feet upon making a1l of the following findings: l.The subjeet prÐperty is in a hillside area and has slopes often pereent or greater. 2.Topographieal features of the subjeet property make an exeeption to the standard heigflt restrictions neeessary or deoirable. 3.In no ease shall the maximum height eJ(eeed thirty feet for a prineipal dwe1ling or twenty feet for an aeeessory bHilding. City Co unci] Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 13 4.In no case shal1 the maximum height of a structure ]ocated on a prominent ridgeline, on or above the four hundred fifty foot contour o)[ceed twenty eight feet. COrd. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1814, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.0911 Resideutial Desigu ¡\fJfJroval. In the event that a proposed development of two stories exeeeds a thirty five pereent floor area ratio as prescribed in Section 19.28.060B, or in the event that the Director of Community Deyelopment finds that the proposed two story development does not conform to Seetion 19.28.060C, the appJicant shall apply to the Design Reyiew Committee for desi¡;n approya] to allo'N for the deve]opment; provided, however, in no event shall such applieation exeeed a fOrty five percent floor area ratio. In addition to the public hearing and notiee requirements deseribed in Section 19.28.110, at least ten days prior to the date of the publie hearing, the appJieant shal1 install story po]es to outline the proposed bui]ding e¡¡terior wal1s and roof as further deseribed by procodures developed by the Director of Community Development. The Desi¡;n Roviow Committee may grant a special pennit only apon making all of the fol1owing findings: f.. The projeet will be consistent with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, any applicable speeifie plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. B.The granting of the special permit wil1 not resHlt in a eondition that is detrimental or injHrious to property or improyemonts in the vicinity, and wil1 not be detrimental to the pHblie health, safety or welfare. C.The proposed additioalJJ.ome is harmonious in sca]e and desi¡;n with the general neighborhood. D.The proposed addition/home is generally consistent v..ith design guidelines developed by the Direetor of CommHnity Development. E. The proposed additioa'home will not result in significant adverse visHa] impacts as viewed from adjoining properties. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1811, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.12019.28.1110 Development Regulations-Eichler (R-le). R-le single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural fonn through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shal1 apply to properties zoned R-le. In the event ofa conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shal1 prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a hannonious two-story home or second story addition. A. Setback-First Story. I. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B. Bui]ding Design Requirements. 1. Entry features facing the street shal1 be integrated with the roof Jine of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shal1 be 3:12 (rise over run). 3. Wood or other siding materia] located on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 4. The bui]ding design shall incorporate straight architectural Jines, rather than curved lines. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 14 5. Second story building wall offsets described in Section 19.28.060 E5b are not required for homes in the R l-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, § 1 (part), 2000) 19.28.13019.28.10S Development Regulations-(R-la) Rl-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regu]ations 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 is ten thousand square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the fTont-yard setback line. C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: 1. 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 fTont yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback - Second Story. I. Front Yard. The minimum 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 Regu]ations I. Second story decks shall confonn 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 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 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 City Counci] Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 15 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: 1. A twelve-foot high vertica1 line measured from natural grade and 10cated ten feet from property lines; 2. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)(a) ofthis section. 1. Variation from the Rl and Rl-a regu1ations 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 Re'¡iew COffimitteebased on Section 19.28.100, except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or denv the project at a public hearing based on the findings in subsection NO) of this section.. Diseretionary review proeesses shall be based on SectioR 19.28.090 efthe CHpcrtino Manieipal Code, except as amended by this erdinaflce. 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. Nonconfonnance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed proj ect. 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 shou1d comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 E(5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in the Rl-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 ofthe property. L. Permitted Yard Encroachments. I. Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing bui1ding 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. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 16 c. This section does not app1y to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property became part of the City. 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed 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 structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required rront setback. Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. b. Columns. The use of 1arge 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 platfonn and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M. Landscaping I. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building fonns fTom 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 19.28.060 H of the Cupertino Mùnicipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of 12 feet at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 17 d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. Proeedures aRd Process I.Posted Notiee. For all new construction, the applicant shall install a pHb1ie notiee in the front yard ofthe subject site that is clearly '/isib1e from the public street. The notiee shall be a weatherproof sign, at least tv/o feet tall and three feet wide firm1y attached to a five f-oot post. The notiee shall remain in plaee Hnti1 an aetion has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall eORtain the following: a.The eJwct address of the property, iflmow, or the 10cation of the property, if the address is ROt læov.'B. b..''. brief deseription of the proposed project, the content ofwhieh shall be at the sole diserotion of the City; a.City contaet information for pHBlie inE]Hiries; d.An ll")¡] 7" illHstratioH of the proposed house vihen viewed from the street. In cases where design revie'.v is reqHired, the illustration shall be a perspeetive rendering and shall include the projeeted aetion date. The City shall approve the illastratioH or rendering prior to posting. 2..^.djaecnt sing1e family residential properties shall reeeive a redueed scale copy of the proposed plan set with the mailod notice. ;hLFindings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review appJication 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 pennit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public hea1th, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatib1e with the established pattern of building forms, bui1ding materia1s and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project is consistent with the City's single-family residential design guideJines 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 Proeedure f-ar Exeeptious and Resideutial Desigu Approvals, .^..Puèlie HeariHg ]>!otiee. Upon reeeipt of an applieation f-or approval, the Direetor of Community De'lelopment shall set a time and plaee for a public heariHg before the relevant deeision maker and order the public notice thereof. /1. notiee of the hearing shall be sent by first e1ass mail to all owners ofreeord ofreal property (as shown in the last tax assessment roll) within three haHdred feet of the subject property. B.Expiration of an Exeeption or Residential Design ,\pprova1. A deeision f-or approval which has not been used ,.','ithin ORe year followiHg the effective date thereof, shall become nHll City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 18 aRd ',-oid and of no effcct unless a shorter time period shall specifical1y be prcscribed by the conditions of tHe m¡ception. /Ji appro'lal shall be deemed to ha',-e been "aGed" WHen a comp1ete bail sing permit app1ication is submitted to tHe Chief Bailding Official, and contim.!es to progress in a diligent manner. In tHe event that the lmi1sing permit application expires, the Resisential Design f.pproval shall become null ans void. The Director of Comml±Hity De'lelopment may grant one additional one year extension if an application is filed before the expiration date withoat further notice amI hearing. C.Decision. After dosing the public hearing, the decision maker shal1 approve, consitionally apprO'le, or deny the app1ication. D.;\l1 secisions regarding approvals contained in this section may be appealed by any interested party pursaant to Chapter 19.136. .\n appeal of the Design Re'iiew Committee decision shall be processed in tHe same manner as an appeal from the decision of the Director of Community De'lelopment. E.E)[piration of an E)[Coption or Resisentia1 Design /.ppro..-al. /I. decision f-or approval '.vhich has not been used within one year fol1owing the effective date thereof, shal1 become nul1 and 'loid and of no eff-cct unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of the exception. ;\n approval shal1 be deemed to ha',-e been "ased" in the event of tHe erection of a structl±fe when sufficient bailsing activity has occurres ans, continues to occur in a diligent manner. The Director ofComml±Hity Deyelopment may grant one additional one year eJ¡(ension if an application is filed before the expiration date withoHt fæ1her notice ans Hearing. F.COfleHrreHt :\pp1icatioHs. Notwithstanding anyproyision of this chapter to the contrary, an application f-or e)[Ception or residefltial design re,,-ie\y may, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, be processed cOHcHrreHtly with other land use approvals. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1814, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.14019.28.1211 Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions 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 shal1 be al10wed only upon issuance of a conditional use pennit by the Director of Community Deve10pment. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.150 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 chapter consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the P1anning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Retain sections and exhibits after Section 19.28.130, but renumber accordinl!:ly. City Council Recommendation (December 7, 2004) 19