Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC 01-04-05
DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Thursday, Dec 2, 2004 CUPEIQ1NO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 7:30 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none. INVOCATION Monsignor Joseph Milani, St. Joseph of Cupertino Church, gave the invocation Mayor James and Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok introduced their special guests and acknowledged the dignitaries in attendance. ELECTION OF MAYOR Council member Wang moved to elect Patrick Kwok as mayor. Council member Sandoval seconded, and the motion carried unanimously The Honorable Erica Yew, Judge, Santa Clara Superior Court, gave the Oath of Office to Patrick Kwok. CEREMONIAL PRESENT A TIONS Former Mayor Sandra James presented Mayor Kwok the official gavel. Mayor Kwok presented Sandra James with a gavel plaque on behalf of the City Council and the community. He thanked her for a year ofleadership and listed her many accomplishments, particularly in these areas: meeting the needs of youth; economic development; affordable housing; and cultural understanding. Mayor Kwok also presented a crystal vase and a plaque in recognition of James' two terms as mayor. City Manager David Knapp presented Sandra James with the gift of a clock and thanked her for her service to the community. q-{ December 2, 2004 City Council Minutes Page 2 Council members expressed their thanks for Sandra James' year of leadership and talked about her accomplishments, in particular her work on the Library and Civic Center complex, her vision for the city, the completion of the Teen Center, and her support for special needs families. PUBLIC COMMENTS TO OUTGOING MAYOR The following individuals offered their thanks and best wishes to former mayor James. · Mavis Smith · "Mandy James, Mayoral Double" (performed by Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith) · Carmendale Fernandes, James' high school speech and debate instructor · Mark McKenna, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce · Eleanor Watanabe, Cupertino Educational Endowment Foundation · Chihua Wei and family · Jerry Brager · Mahesh Nihalani · Michael Gottwald · Zack Kolev, Teen Commissioner · Frances Seward, Chair of the DeAnza Commission at DeAnza College, and foundation board of DeAnza and Foothill Colleges. · Chester Wang · Sheriff Laurie Smith, as sheriff's office appreciate support and appreciation for work we do. Relived to see you have a double. Personally become a great fiiend. Extraordinary ability to reach out to people who have needs · Lucia Wu, President of the Moon Festival Silicon Valley · Barbara Fielding, formerly of the CUSD board · Lynn Faust Sandra James thanked her family, the community, the Council, and the stafffor their support. COMMENTS BY NEW MAYOR Mayor Kwok thanked introduced his family and thanked them for their love and support, and he also thanked his fiiends and colleagues. He said that he was looking forward to the State of the City presentation, and highlighted some of the topics that he would be discussing in more detail. Some ofthose included: · Building confidence in the city by building trust. · Improving communication through better community notification, and holding any study sessions in the Council Chamber at 5:00 p.m. · Holding an annual community congress and/or town hall meetings · Maximizing residents' input to the general plan revision process q-J- December 2, 2004 City Council Minutes Page 3 · A void granting setback, height or density exceptions, except for the Vallco area, until after the initiative election · Work cooperatively with Chamber of Commerce to increase retail, especially at Vallco and HP, and streamline procedures to bring in new business and retain existing businesses · Maintain cultural events, encourage open space, and encourage a "smart growth" approach to enhance retail and provide more affordable housing COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PUBLIC Council comments to Patrick: COMMENTS BY PUBLIC TO INCOMING MAYOR The following individuals offered their thanks and congratulations to Mayor Kwok. Gilbert Wong, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Mark McKenna, Cupertino Historical Society Frank Yap, Senior Commissioner Chris Kennedy Pierce, Senior Commissioner Anna Wang, President, Friends of Children with Special Needs Arthur Lo, Chinese Historical and Cultural Organization Mahesh Nihilani Diana Wu Evan Lo Larry Dean, Chairman of the Northwest YMCA Board of Directors Mark Liao, Deputy Director of Economic Development, Taiwan and Sister City Hsinchu Carl Mosher, San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution District Candice Kwok Ken Kwok Amy Chan, City Manager, City of Sunnyvale, Deborah Hill Jose Esteves, Mayor, City of Milpitas Chihua Wei ELECTION OF VICE-MAYOR KwoklJames moved and seconded to nominate Richard Lowenthal as vice-mayor. Council member Richard Lowenthal said he was proud to have been mayor in the past, and although he felt flattered to have been nominated again tonight and appreciated the confidence shown in him, he did not think it was his turn, and he could give someone else a chance. He said that he would vote against the motion. He said that he prided himself in supporting the democratic process, and that he would stand by Council's vote, and serve with enthusiasm and dedication if that was the will of the Council. L(-3 December 2, 2004 City Council Minutes Page 4 Council member Sandoval said that there had been a lengthy discussion at the last meeting about the progression of the vice mayor, and many in the community, especially representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, felt that seniority should count. She said that she would vote "no" for Council member Lowenthal, not because she thought he would be an ineffective vice-mayor, but out of respect for Lowenthal's stated desire, and in light of his comments that he didn't feel it was his turn to be vice-mayor. The motion to elect Richard Lowenthal as Vice-Mayor passed with Council members Lowenthal and Sandoval voting no. OATH OF OFFICE City Clerk Kimberly Smith gave the oath of office to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Kwok invited the public to a reception immediately following the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Kimberly Smith, City Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org.Click on Agendas & Minutes/ City Councill Packets. Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your convenience fÌ'om our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased fÌ'om the Cupertino City Channel, 777- 2364. L{ -Lf · CUPERJINO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 7, 2004 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Kwok 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 Patrick Kwok, Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal, and Council members. Sandra James, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENT A TIONS Mayor Kwok asked for a moment of silence in memory of the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor and in honor of those not here tonight. He also acknowledged the birthday of Council member Sandra James. I. Annual report fÌ'om the Cupertino Senior Commission. (No documentation in packet). A written comment was submitted fÌ'om Samuel Bradlyn suggesting a single fee of $25 for both a husband and wife membership. Senior Commissioner Christine Kennedy Pearce was not present, so it was decided to reschedule this report to another day. POSTPONEMENTS Item No.9, the revised final map for Menlo Equities, was removed fÌ'om the calendar. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None 4-\ December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Levy, Wilkinson Avenue, said the General Plan refers to only two sources of water in Cupertino, but neglects to reference the Cupertino Water Utility, which has been leased out for 25 years. He suggested that it be added. He said that the 2000 utility customers "donated" $6.8 million fÌ'om the utility and $2.5 million fÌ'om the contingency fund, which they were told would be used for things such as a library, but there has been no acknowledgement of that donation, and he felt his personal share of the donation was about $2,000. E.J. Conens, talked about the attach on Pearl Harbor and expressed his appreciation to the Council for their financial support of a memorial to the World War II veterans that is located in Washington D.C. He said that he is a member of the Cupertino Concerned Citizens (CCC), and an example of the fÌ'eedom won by the veterans was the ability for the CCC to circulate and file an initiative petition. CONSENT CALENDAR Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of item No.2 which was pulled for discussion, and item No.9 which was removed fÌ'om the calendar. Vote: Ayes: Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, Wang, James. Noes: None. Absent: None. 3. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for November 12 and November 19, Resolution Nos. 04-445 and 04-446. 4. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for November 19, Resolution No. 04-447. 5. Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for October 2004. 6. Receive a resignation letter fÌ'om Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Julia Fu, and post an amended vacancy notice setting the application deadline for December 28. 7. Stevens Creek Corridor Park: a) Adopt a resolution authorizing an application for grant funding under the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant Program, Resolution No. 04-448 b) Adopt a resolution authorizing an application for grant funding under the Urban Streams Restoration Program fÌ'om the State of California Department of Water Resources, Resolution No. 04-449 , 8. Cancel City Council meeting of December 21,2004. (No documentation in packet). L(_~ December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 3 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 2. Approve the minutes of the November 16 and 22 City Council meetings. Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to approve the minutes of November 22 as presented, and to approve the minutes of the November 16 meeting as follows: Page 2-5, second-to-last paragraph, vote should say AYES: Kwok, Wang, Sandoval NOES: James, Lowenthal ABSENT: None; and Page 2-8, fourth paragraph, Council member Lowenthal seconded the motion offered by Councilmember Kwok. 9. Adopt a resolution accepting the Revised Final Map for Menlo Equities, APN No. 316- 20-084, Resolution No. 04-450. This item was removed fÌ'om the calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Consider amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance), Application No.(s) MCA-2003-02, EA-2002-19, City of Cupertino, Citywide. (This item was continued fÌ'om 11/16/04): a) Grant a negative declaration b) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1954: "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." Email was distributed fÌ'om Frank Jones of Cupertino which said that current variance procedures put an undue financial burden and documentation requirement on individual homeowners, and asking that the codes be revised to align with the National Building Codes. Jennifer Griffin, resident, thanked Council for retaining the requirements for second story setbacks and story poles. She suggested a second story maximum of 600 square feet for lots under 5,000 square feet, such as those in Rancho Rinconada, Monta Vista, and Garden Gate neighborhoods. Mark Platt, resident of Rancho Rinconada, said he believed the Rl ordinance must be reviewed in order to allow more square footage on the second story, to make rebuilding economically viable, to continue neighborhood renewal, and because rebuilding is a necessity. He said it will allow for better floor plans and will provide better use of the property in those lots. Mark Bums, representing the Chamber and the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, said that 600 square feet could be used for a master bedroom and perhaps a walk-in closet or nursery, but it was not large enough to address the needs of a larger family. He said c(-7 December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Planning Commissioner Orrin Mahoney's original intent would have worked out to 54% instead of 45% FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for the second story. He said a smaller second story FAR forces owners to build larger houses in order to have a decent-sized upstairs. He also said it was important to encourage renovation and bring urban renewal. Leslie Burnell, Holly Oak Drive, showed a diagram of his own lot and discussed the impacts that this ordinance change would have on it. He said that 45% was a reasonable compromise but suggested they follow the same privacy requirements as for the Eichler homes, such as such as louvers, fÌ'osted glass, and window sills at 5 feet. The public hearing was closed, and staff responded to Council questions. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to adopt the recommendations shown in the staff report Model Ordinance listed in green (items that had already been approved by Council); blue (changes that include rewording, corrections or reorganization that resulting no change to the regulations); and magenta (minor technical changes recommended by staff), with the exception of section 19.28.060 (b)(2), related to the second-story setbacks. The motion carried with Wang voting no. Council members clarified that they wished to require story poles in all cases. Wang/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve a 45% second-story floor area ratio. The motion carried with James and Lowenthal voting no. James said she voted no because community members have indicated to her that they are happy with the current RI standards, and a lot of work had gone into developing those. Lowenthal said he voted no because a community survey regarding the RI ordinance indicated that the majority of respondents were in favor of making no changes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS II. Receive a report regarding the process to consider altering the approved site plan for the Murano development, and adopt a resolution accepting the offer of dedication for the Poppy Way street improvements, Resolution No. 04-451. Jeff Jacobs, representing the applicant, discussed the progress they had made in the last 18 months. He said that there had been over 7 neighborhood meetings and tried to incorporate neighbors concerns into the plans. He said that they understand that safe streets are important, as is maintaining the curb and gutter alignment and protecting the trees, and they feel they will be able to do that and maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. He expressed his support for the RI changes discussed in the previous item, and said it would change only the fÌ'ont setbacks on this project, which would make them farther away from existing houses across the street. L{-f December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 5 James/Wang moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-451 accepting the offer of dedication of street improvements. The motion carried unanimously. James/Sandoval moved and seconded to direct staff to advertise a public hearing in early January 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. NEW BUSINESS 12. Review and approve year-end budget adjustments for fiscal year 2003/04 and midyear budget adjustments for fiscal year 2004/05. JameslWang moved and seconded to approve the budget adjustments recommended by staff. The motion carried unanimously. The adjustments included: (1) Using departmental savings fÌ'om the end of 2003/04 to establish a Retire Medical Costs Reserve of $1,151,000 and a PERS Averaging Reserve of $1,000,000; and (2) Mid-year adjustments for 2004/05 totaling $549,000 for changes in program needs, new grants received, and other items not known at the time of budget adoption in June. 13. Adopt a resolution approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks and streetlights, but not for curb and gutter, on Camino Vista Drive, Dubon Avenue, and Prado Vista Drive, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925, Resolution No. 04-452. (This item was continued fÌ'om 11/16/04). Public Works Director Ralph Qualls reviewed a slide show illustrating various views of the street with and without curbs and gutters. He said that staff recommended that curbs and gutters be required in order to achieve adequate drainage and avoid further road deterioration. Roger Pickler thanked the Public Works staff for working with the neighborhood on this request. He said that over 2/3 of the residents signed a petition supporting the semi-rural designation, and they did not want curbs and gutters either. He said that sometimes there is a pooling effect when it rains, but family members have lived there 45 years and there have been no flooding problems. The public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. James/Wang moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-452. The motion carried with Lowenthal and Kwok voting no. Lowenthal and Kwok said they voted no because the neighbors had consensus that they did not want curbs and gutters and there had been no problems with flooding. 4-1 December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 6 14. Adopt a resolution approving the first amendment to the agreement providing for implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Resolution No. 04-453. LowenthallSandoval moved and seconded to adopt the resolution as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 15. Adopt the revised Facility Use Policy and Procedures recommended by City Council subcommittee for the Community Hall. Therese Smith, Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed the staff report and explained that the subcommittee composed of Council members Wang and Sandoval had worked with staff to develop the recommendations, which included: · The rent shall be a flat rate of $801hour Monday through Thursday and $2501hour Friday through Sunday · Reservations may be made up to one year in advance . The Recreation Supervisor in charge of the facility will have authority to determine which uses are inappropriate for the Community Hall and may direct customers to other City venues · Decorations are limited to table and fÌ'eestanding decorations only · The Library is allowed approximately 14 rent-fÌ'ee uses, which will be reviewed each fiscal year Sandoval Lowenthal moved and seconded to adopt the revised Facility Use Policy and Procedures recommended by the subcommittee, with the following changes: (1) Cancellations must be made 30 days in advance to get a full refund, and the staff will determine pro-rata refunds based upon other agencies practices; (2) Other elected officials who represent Cupertino residents may use the Community Hall fÌ'ee of charge for things such as town hall meetings; and (3) A report on usage will be presented to Council in June 2005. Mayor K wok reordered the agenda to discuss item 17 and 18 next. City Attorney Charles Kilian explained that three of the Council members had a conflict of interest on items 17 and 18 because these items could affect them financially if they chose to run for City Council again. He said that the law did allow an abstaining member to vote if it was necessary for a quorum, and a random drawing earlier in the evening had selected Mayor Kwok as the voting member for both items. At 9:00 p.m. Council members Sandoval and Wang left the Chamber and the City Clerk reviewed the staff reports. L{-(O December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 7 17. Adopt a resolution charging City Council candidates for the cost of candidate's statements, Resolution No. 04-455. The City Clerk explained that the City of Cupertino has traditionally subsidized the cost of printing and translating the optional Candidate's Statements in the voter pamphlets, but the cost has increased fÌ'om approximately $370 to $1,138 per person. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 04-455 to require candidates to pay the costs associated with Candidate's Statements, with the added provision that this expenditure will not be counted against any voluntary expenditure limits that may be adopted. The motion carried unanimously with Council members Sandoval and Wang absent. 18. Amend Ordinance 1885 related to City Council elections and campaign finance disclosure: a) Conduct the first reading of 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" City Attorney Charles Kilian explained that when the City's campaign finance ordinance was first adopted, it mirrored the provisions of Proposition 208 then in effect. Many of the provisions of Proposition 208 have since been thrown out by the State court, and the City's ordinance is subject to the same type of litigation. He said that if the Council were to repeal the current ordinance and rely on the State's laws, candidates would not have to comply with two different systems. Dolly Sandoval entered the Chamber to speak fÌ'om the podium as a private citizen. She said she was in favor of repealing the City's ordinance because it would save staff time and require candidates to follow the laws of the State of California. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to direct staff to prepare an ordinance repealing the section of the municipal code related to campaign finance disclosure. Motion carried with Sandoval and Wang absent. Council members Sandoval and Wang were again present in the Chambers. 16. Adopt a resolution renewing the voluntary cap of $20,000 for campaign expenditures for the 2005 City Council election, Resolution No. 04-454. The City Attorney explained that it is illegal for any agency to put a limit on campaign expenditures, so this is a purely voluntary cap, and it not binding on any of the candidates. L(~f{ December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Council members discussed the increases in postage and printing costs, as well as the increasing number of voters, and agreed that a dollar a voter would be an appropriate spending amount. James/Wang moved and seconded to adopt the resolution with an amendment to increase the voluntary cap to $26,000 for the 2005 City Council election, and add language to exclude the ballot statement costs when calculating expenditures. The motion carried unanimously. 19. Consider a request for a study session to review a development proposal by Toll Brothers in the Vallco Park planning area for 451 residential units and 100,000 sq. ft. of retail space on 27 acres. Applicant Jim Meeks said that as a result of a previous study session, they have prepared a new proposal that reduces the number of residential units and increased the commercial component. He said they would agree to pay the fees for additional notice to the public, and it is important to move quickly because there are some retail users that have expressed interest in the project. Dennis Whittaker said that developers are required to pay park fees, but there are no new parks being construction. He said that it is important that a park be provided on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, and also that this project continues connectivity to the high school district. Whittaker also said that the Council cites concerns about the negative impacts fÌ'om large businesses being driven away, yet HP is going to put a large amount of space into housing, and there is a rumor that Measure X may change fÌ'om a commercial to a housing use. Tom Hugunin, La Rosa Court, thanked the City Council for holding the meeting and televising it at a time when it's convenient for people to watch. E.J. Conens said he felt that no additional planning should continue until some of these things have been approved by the community, and he was opposed to the project at this time. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki said that a study session was held in August to explore a previous plan for this site that was more dense, with less commercial. He said that since study sessions are often misperceived by the public, staff recommends this second request be considered at a regular meeting, and that it be noticed to the entire community. He said at that time the City Council will decide whether to allow them to make an application. If the Council agrees to that, the application would then have to file a formal application and go through a series of public hearings to consider traffic impacts, parking, etc. Norm Hackford, Tonida Way, said that the process was still unclear, and that no developer should ask for a General Plan amendment until it is known what the citizens l( -( -t December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 9 want. He said that the initiatives won't be decided for a year, and said that the developer needs to hear fÌ'om the citizens first. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to put this item on the regular Council agenda for January 18, 2005, and directed the applicant to fund the costs of Citywide notice to the community. Council also directed staff to place an item on a future agenda to consider changing the procedures for requesting a General Plan amendment. ORDINANCES 20. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1950: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino rezoning of a 1.31 acre parcel fÌ'om RHS (residential hillside) to rhs-21 (residential hillside minimum lot size 21,000 square feet)." James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Kwok, Lowenthal, James, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1950. Ayes: Kwok, Lowenthal, James, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 21. Conduct the second 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." James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Kwok, Lowenthal, James, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1951. Ayes: Kwok, Lowenthal, James, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 22. Conduct the second 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." James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Kwok, Lowenthal, James, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1952. Ayes: Kwok, Lowenthal, James, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 4-(3 December 7, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 10 STAFF REPORTS 23. The next General Plan hearing is scheduled for the regular Planning Commission meeting of January II, 2005. (No documentation in packet). COUNCIL REPORTS City Manager Dave Knapp asked if the Council would like to schedule an additional meeting to discuss a variety of planning processes, including the General Plan amendment and how to handle projects that are already in the pipeline, density calculation methods, etc. The Council concurred to add a meeting on Monday, January 31, fÌ'om 5:00 -8:00 p.m. to discuss planning issues. Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events, including the following items: The inauguration of the new president of DeAnza college, Dr. Brian Murphy; evaluation of the City Manager; first annual tree lighting at Cali Mill Plaza sponsored by Park Place and the Cypress Hotel; the annual "Light Up the Night" event at the Quinlan Community Center; ongoing meetings with the owners about improving parking at Le Boulanger; meetings with 55 library commissioners and other interested parties regarding a campaign to reopen the libraries on Mondays. CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT At 10:28 p.m. the meeting was adjoumed. The next regular meeting of the City Council will be on Tuesday, January 4,2005. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org.Click on Agendas & Minutes/ City Council! Packets. Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your convenience fÌ'om our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased fÌ'om the Cupertino City Channel,777-2364. L( -( L( DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 05-00 I 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 24, 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: (~~~ Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~ day of.T aTIllary , 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino City Clerk )-( 11/24/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/22/2004" and "11/26/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 611889 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 611890 611890 611891 611892 611893 611893 611894 611895 611895 611895 611895 611896 611897 611898 611899 611900 611900 611901 611902 611903 611904 611905 611905 611905 611906 611907 11/24/04 44 ISSUE DT --------------VENDQR------------- FUND/DEPT 1104400 11/24/04 1l/24/04 968 968 11/24/04 91 11/24/04 2895 11/24/04 2682 11/24/04 2682 11/24/04 142 11/24/04 11/24/04 1l/24/04 11/24/04 147 147 147 147 11/24/04 M2005 11/24/04 M2005 11/24/04 194 11/24/04 M2005 11/24/04 2321 11/24/04 2321 11/24/04 M2005 11/24/04 1434 11/24/04 2578 11/24/04 3147 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 234 234 234 11/24/04 1949 11/24/04 2558 RUN DATE 11/24/04 TIME 09:52:29 AMERICAN RED CROSS BAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 6308840 DR JOEL BERGER 5806449 BROW lNG-FERRIS INDUSTRIE 5208003 CALIFORNIA CAD SOLUTIONS 6109853 CALIFORNIA CAD SOLUTIONS 6109853 CARTER INDUSTRIES INC 6308840 CASH CASH CASH CASH 5506549 5506549 5506549 1106500 CHANCELLOR HOTEL 5506549 CITIES ASSOCIATION 1101000 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5606660 CYPRESS HOTEL 4239222 DAVCO WATERPROFFING SERV 5708510 DAVCO WATERPROFFING SERV 1108501 DYNASTY SEAFOOD RESTAURA 1103300 EDWARD S. WALSH CO. 1108503 ELEMENT K JOURNALS 1103500 MARTHA ENGBER 5706450 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE 110 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE 1104300 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE 1104300 EVENT SERVICES 1108503 FEET FIRST ENTERTAINMENT 5806349 -----DESCRIPTION------ SUPPLIES FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES 11/22 WELLNESS INSTRU OCT 04 VOLUME SVC CONVERSION ADDL TECH APPL CUSTMZ TOOL BOX SHOCKS PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 7/30-11/16 7/30-11/16 7/30-11/16 7/30-11/16 ~2/15-16 WHITE XMAS ~2/9 D SANDOVAL SUPPLIES 10/29 RECPT DINNER LABOR MATRL ROOF RPR LABOR MATRL ROOF LEAK ~0/22 AND 10/3~/04 SUPPLIES INSIDE ILLUSTRATOR 11/22 SVC AGMT DESIGN REVW 9/1-11/9 9/7 9/20 PUBLIC HEARG 11/16 COUNCIL MTG 9/1-9/30 RENTAL HDACS 11/19 DANCE DJ 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 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ~ PAGE 1 AMOUNT 104.00 287.48 17.30 304.78 180.00 110049.48 250.00 2000.00 2250.00 87.51 26.49 56.16 81.16 101.96 265.77 112.50 55.00 54.36 22290.84 1276.34 625.24 1901.58 569.40 497.53 97.00 350.00 1746.36 2235.32 166.73 4148.41 162.38 380.00 ") ~ oL 11/24/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/22/2004" and "11/26/2004" FUND - 110 ~ GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 611908 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 611909 611910 611911 611911 611911 611912 611913 611914 611914 611915 611916 611917 611918 611919 611919 611919 611919 611920 611921 611922 611923 611924 611925 611925 611926 611926 11/24/04 262 ISSUE DT ------~-------VENDOR----------~~- FUND/DEPT 1104300 11/24/04 3132 11/24/04 1276 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 3026 3026 3026 11/24/04 2612 11/24/04 ME2005 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 2882 11/24/04 3067 11/24/04 1927 995 995 11724/04 M2005 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 2728 3155 3155 3155 3155 11/24/04 M200S 11/24/04 3228 11/24/04 1396 11/24/04 400 11/24/04 11/24/04 11/24/04 1137 11/24/04 1137 1599 1599 FIRST PLACE INC SOPHIE GIARETTA GOURMET EXPRESS HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST HOFFMAN, MABEL RONALD HOGUE INSERV COMPANY INSERV COMPANY ROBERT A. KIM KMVT 15 GARY KORNAHRENS LEA, NICOL LEE WAYNE CORPORATION LEE WAYNE CORPORATION LEE WAYNE CORPORATION LEE WAYNE CORPORATION JOHN LEE 5706450 1106248 110 110 110 5506549 5506549 1108504 1108501 4239222 1101031 1104530 4239222 5706450 5706450 5706450 1108501 5806449 LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH INC 1101500 5706450 LYJA LEVAS LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1104510 5706450 LIFETIME TENNIS INC MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EILEEN MURRAY EILEEN MURRAY RUN DATE 11/24/04 TIME 09:52:29 1104510 1104510 1101500 1101500 -----DESCRIPTION------ NAMW SIGN 11/22/04 SVC HOLIDAY ASST CEA 1539-0006 OE3 1539-0005 UNREP 1539-0004 GRATUITY 11/30-12/5 NOV 04 SERVICE NOV WATER TREATMENT NOV WATER TREATMENT 10/1-10/31 CC VIDEO OCT 04 MGMT FEES UNIFORM BOOTS REIMB REIMB COFFEE MUGS NAVY COTTON SHIRT TEE SHIRT PULLOVER NAVY FLAGS 11/22/04 INSTRUCTION CA ELECTION CODE 11/22/04 SVC AGMT 10/7 TRAINING 10/22-11/21/04 SVC DEC 04 146 EMPLEES NOV & DEC LESS 3 EES BAR ASSN 6/14-11/17 PKG TKT 11/18 SALES TAX 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE :2 AMOUNT 22.24 342.00 276.00 6004.08 4197.58 3979.29 14180.95 1044.00 200.00 211.63 211.63 423.26 3380.00 3239.16 44.97 345.34 195.83 1262.20 .228.93 869.36 2556.32 334.60 524.60 280.00 2000.00 40668.18 944.62 -38.82 905.80 180.00 7.00 187.00 ~-3 n/24/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD, 5/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA, transact. trans_date between "11/22/2004" and "11/26/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT -------------~VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 611927 11/24/04 2639 NOVA PARTNERS INC 4239222 11/4/03 -9/3 0/ 04 REIMB 0.00 39000. 00 1020 6n927 n/24/04 2639 NOVA PARTNERS INC 4239222 BASE SVC OCT 04 O. 00 31064. 91 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 70064 .91 1020 6n928 11/24/04 1190 RONALD OLDS 1103500 10/29-11/22 VTR MAINT O. 00 1351. 25 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 OCT MONITOR FEE O. 00 9. 00 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 NOV F IRE FEES O. 00 30. 00 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108512 DEC FIRE FEES O. 00 95 .00 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108512 NOV MONITORING FIRE O. 00 95. 00 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108512 INSTALL FIRE SYSTEM O. 00 300 .00 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108512 OCT MONITORING FEES O. 00 28 .44 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 INSTALL ELEV PHONES O. 00 100. 00 1020 611929 11/24/04 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 MONITOR FIRE FEE DEC O. 00 30. 00 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 687. 44 1020 611930 11/24/04 526 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 110 R#27446 IMPRV PLAN O. 00 192 .47 1020 611931 11/24/04 690 PENINSULA FORD 6308840 SUPPLIES .00 199. 50 1020 611932 11/24/04 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 11/10-11/23/04 SVC 0 .00 1995 .00 1020 611933 11/24/04 3149 MELISSA PITTILLO 5706450 11/22/04 SVC O. 00 520 .00 1020 611934 11/24/04 2802 QUANTUM DESIGN 1103600 NOV HOSTING O. 00 1500 .00 1020 611935 11/24/04 2649 QUILL 1101500 INKJ CTG COPIER PAPER 0.00 63 .75 1020 611936 11/24/04 3064 RACHEL QUILTER 5806449 11/22 FELDENKRAIS INS O. 00 22 .20 1020 611937 11/24/04 M RAMAKABIR, RITA 580 Refund: Check - FALL: O. 00 584.00 1020 611938 11/24/04 M2005 RIMANICH, GREGORY 1104400 REIMB MRC EXPENSES O. 00 1250 .00 1020 611939 11/24/04 3162 ROSS MCDONALD COMPANY IN 4239222 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT O. 00 118596 . 96 1020 611940 11/24/04 2833 THEA RUNYAN 5706450 11/22/04 SVC AGMT O. 00 320 .00 1020 611941 11/24/04 617 SAN JOSE BLUE 5208003 LAMINATE POSTERS O. 00 98 .84 1020 611942 11/24/04 M SANO, ITSUKO 580 Refund: Check - FALL: O. 00 116. 00 1020 611943 11/24/04 2875 RICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE C 1104310 12/1~12/31/04 CONTRAC 0 .00 114 .66 1020 611944 11/24/04 M2005 sec CITIES MANAGERS' ASS 1101200 12/8 KNAPP & LAGERGRE O. 00 90. 00 1020 611944 11/24/04 M2005 sec CITIES MANAGERS' ASS 1104000 12/8 ATWOOD O. 00 45. 00 TOTAL CHECK .00 135 .00 1020 611945 11/24/04 2415 SIMON MARTIN~VEGUE WINKE 4239222 9/25-10/29/04 PROFSVC O. 00 51392. 68 1020 611945 11/24/04 2415 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 9/25~10/29 CONTR ADM O. 00 5325. 00 1020 611945 11/24/04 2415 SIMON MARTIN~VEGUE WINKE 4239222 9/25-10/29 ASD#IB O. 00 1845 .00 RUN DATE 11/24/04 TIME 09,52,29 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 5>L( 11/24/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: t.ransact.trans date between "11/22/2004" and "11/26/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 611945 611945 611945 1020 611946 1020 611946 1020 611946 1020 611946 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 611947 611948 611949 611949 611950 611950 611951 611952 611953 611953 611954 611955 611956 611957 611958 611959 611960 611961 611962 611963 ISSUE DT --~-----------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 11/24(04 11/24/04 11/24/04 2415 2415 2415 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SMART & FINAL SMART I< FINAL SMART I< FINAL SMART & FINAL 1106344 5806349 1106344 5506549 11/24/04 2810 11/24/04 2810 11/24/04 2810 11/24/04 2810 11/24/04 2320 11/24/04 200 11/24/04 2265 11/24/04 2265 11/24/04 2045 11/24/04 2045 11/24/04 3013 11/24/04 M 11/24/04 11/24/04 696 696 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 6308840 11/24/04 701 11/24/04 3044 11/24/04 2809 11/24/04 3204 11/24/04 M 11/24/04 2584 11/24/04 768 11/24/04 792 11/24/04 M 11/24/04 M2005 LESLIE SOKOL DBA DANCEKI 5806449 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA 1101500 1101500 SVCN SVCN 1107301 1104300 SWINERTON BUILDERS 4239222 Shanley, Anne 550 TADCO SUPPLY TADCO SUPPLY 5708510 5708510 TARGET STORES 5806349 TENJI INCORPORATED, A CA 4239222 TESTING ENGINEERS INC 4209544 TOLL ARCHITECTURAL GRAPH 4239222 TRIVEDI, KUNJAN 580 UNIVERSAL DIALOG, INC. 1103300 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTE 1101500 LILY WU 5706450 XU, CATHY 580 Y I< D CABINET SHOP 4239222 RUN DATE 11/24/04 TIME 09:52:29 -----DESCRIPTION------ 9/25-10/29 9/25-10/29 9/25-10/29 CONTR ADM 6 PROJECTS AMEND#4 T SUPPLIES 11/19 SUPPLIES 11/19 SUPPLIES 11/12 THANKSGIVING LUNCHEON VCI CARTRIDGE ABS ADAP 11/22/04 DANCE INSTRU C KILIAN MEMB E MURRAY MEMBRSHIP 11/10 DISPLAY ADV 11/10 CW LEGAL PROG PMT#16 10/30/04 Refund: Check - Trip w DUST MOP ASSMBY DUST MOP TRAPPER A26445 MISC SUPPLIES GRAPHIC PRODUCTION CHS SVC 10/5-10/8/04 PMT APPL#2 COMPLETE Refund: Check - FALL: TRANSLTN 9/29-10/14 LEGAL DIR FALL 04 11/22/04 SVC Refund: Check - FALL: REDESIGN RM 146 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 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 4 AMOUNT 8795.00 12253.60 7650.21 87261.49 33.55 301.15 61. 93 51. 29 447.92 49.19 4124.60 390.00 390.00 780.00 363.00 154.00 517.00 1084221.00 59.00 63.47 30.59 94.06 95.61 5000.00 1072.00 33390.00 60.00 942.57 96.89 304.00 130.00 375.00 [)-j 11/24/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans~date between "11/22/2004" and "11/26/2004" CASH ACCT CHECK NO FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 611964 1020 611965 1020 611965 1020 611965 TOTAL CHECK TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 11/24/04 3225 ANITA YEE 5706450 11/24/04 799 ZANKER ROAD LANDFILL 5208003 11/24/04 799 ZANKER ROAD LANDFILL 5208003 11/24/04 799 ZANKER ROAD LANDFILL 5208003 RUN DATE 11/24/04 TIME 09:52:29 -----DESCRIPTION------ 11/22/04 SVC 10/1-10/29 YARDWASTE 10/1-10/22 CLEAN FILL 10/14-10/22 COMPOST SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 105.00 14977.77 736.00 200.00 15913.77 0.00 1647666.04 0.00 1647666.04 0.00 1647666.04 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING )-~ DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 05-002 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 DECEMBER 03,2004 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: &~ 0 ,a-lU/O?~ Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~day of January, 200.5; by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 5'-( 12/02/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA, t.ransact..t.rans_dat.e bet.ween "1-1-/29/2004" and "l2/03/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 615000 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 l020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 615001 615001 615001 615001 615002 615003 615004 615004 615004 615004 615005 615005 615006 615006 615006 615007 615007 615008 615009 615010 615011 615012 615013 615013 615014 615015 615016 615016 12/03/04 1695 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 2708405 12/03/04 7 12/03/04 7 12/03/04 7 12/03/04 7 12/03/04 M2005 12/03/04 3253 12/03/04 12/03/04 12/03/04 12/03/04 968 968 968 968 3M ABAG PLAN CORPORATION ABAG PLAN CORPORATION ABAG PLAN CORPORATION ABAG PLAN CORPORATION AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS BABEL PLUMB ING SAP AUTO PARTS SAP AUTO PARTS 8AP AUTO PARTS SAP AUTO PARTS BATTERY SYSTEMS BATTERY SYSTEMS BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, 8MI IMAGING SYSTEMS 8MI IMAGING SYSTEMS SOLLINGER 1104540 1104540 1104540 1104540 1101042 1108502 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 LP 1108503 LP 1108504 LP 1108505 1104300 1100000 5806449 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108321 5506549 CASA DE FRUTA CEITRONICS, INC. COMCAST COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 CTC FUNDING, LLC ANN GJNY CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC RUN DATE 12/02/04 TIME 08,40:56 12/03/04 12/03/04 720 720 12/03/04 12/03/04 12/03/04 818 818 818 12/03/04 12/03/04 100 100 12/03/04 1704 12/03/04 132 12/03/04 M2005 12/03/04 3089 12/03/04 3100 12/03/04 183 12/03/04 183 12/03/04 197 12/03/04 3184 12/03/04 194 12/03/04 194 4239222 1108512 1101500 5506549 5606640 5606640 -----DESCRIPTION------ E C FILM GL55259 KEYARTS,R. GL055076 FINAL N.KAO GL055259 KEYARTS,R. GL55259 KEYARTS, R. #41356 MBRSHIP FEE SERVICE CALL FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC EXTINGUISHER SERVICE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC C-SIZE DOCUMENT PAPER MEM. SOFTBALL INSUR. 10/26-11/22 FOUNTAIN LUNCH ON DEC 09 TRIP PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 11/26-12/25 COMM HALL GEOLOGIC RVW R24867 GEOLOGIC RVW R27849 RENT DEC2Q04 ATTORNEY SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 1 ClJ AMOUNT 1380.19 535.76 5000.00 590.54 326.14 6452.44 50.00 462.14 154.00 29.20 -67.66 22.30 137.84 42.22 120.05 162.27 1344.78 327.56 141. 50 1813.84 160.91 12.99 173.90 200.00 20.14 425.00 3951.35 .00 59.95 702.32 1087.33 1789.65 3225.00 540.00 12.95 122.16 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING c:;-t 12/02/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 6/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "11/29/2004"_ and "12/03/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT TOTAL CHECK O. 00 135 .11 1020 615017 12/03/04 2866 DIANA R. ELROD 1107405 COMM DEVELOP CONTRACT .00 552. 50 1020 615018 12/03/04 201 DAPPER TIRE CO 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 318. 34 1020 615019 12/03/04 3177 NINA DARUWALLA 1104400 11/02 THRU 12/01 o. 00 425. 00 1020 615020 12/03/04 2321 DAVCO WATERPROFFING SERV 1108503 REPAIR ROOF LEAKS 0 .00 1690 .70 1020 615021 12/03/04 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1101065 B.CARDS/A.GROSSMAN TC 0.00 55. 05 1020 615022 12/03/04 3093 Q.C.DOUGHTY 5706450 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 760. 00 1020 615023 12/03/04 2578 ELEMENT K JOURNALS 1103500 INSIDE ILLUSTRATOR O. 00 97. 00 1020 615024 12/03/04 M2005 EMERGENCY MANAGER'S ASSO 1104400 LUNCHEON o. 00 200. 00 1020 615024 12/03/04 M2005 EMERGENCY MANAGER'S ASSO 1104400 VOLUNTEER CERTIFICATE o. 00 10. 00 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 210. 00 1020 615025 12/03/04 M2005 FEES, SCOTT 4239222 LIBRARY TABLE 0 .00 257 .12 1020 615025 12/03/04 M2005 FEES, SCOTT 4239222 NETWORKING SWITCH o. 00 32. 46 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 289 .58 1020 615026 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108502 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 96 .34 1020 615026 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108512 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 458 .43 1020 615026 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 NOV2004 STATEMEN;r' o. 00 300.07 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 854. 84 1020 615027 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103300 NOV2004 STATEMENT O. 00 20 .46 1020 615027 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101000 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 310. 70 1020 615027 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101075 NQV2004 STATEMENT 0.00 43. 50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 374. 66 1020 615028 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5708510 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 30. 57 1020 615028 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108508 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 33 .16 1020 615028 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 21. 64 1020 615028 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108503 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 24. 35 1020 615028 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108303 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 94 . 55 1020 615028 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108512 NOV2004 STATEMENT .00 11. 81 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 216. 08 1020 615029 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1104000 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 47.80 1020 615029 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5606640 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 56 .95 1020 615029 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 6104800 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 918. 81 1020 615029 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103600 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0.00 59 .95 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 1083. 51 1020 615030 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108503 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 23 .38 1020 615030 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108511 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 32. 36 1020 615030 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108502 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0.00 241. 30 RUN DATE 12/02/04 TIME 08:40:56 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING C)-7 12/02/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "11/29/2004" and "12/03/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ----------- ---VENDOR---------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 615030 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108508 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0.00 211. 94 1020 615030 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0.00 110 .11 1020 615030 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108507 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 84.47 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 703 .56 1020 615031 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101300 NOV2 0 04 STATEMENT O. 00 625 .00 1020 615031 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103600 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 69. 95 1020 615031 12/03/04 ~361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101000 NOV2004 STATEMENT .00 171.88 TOTAL CHECK .00 866.83 1020 615032 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 NOV2004 STATEMENT .00 no. 10 1020 615032 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108503 NOV2004 STATEMENT o. 00 16 .11 1020 615032 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 6308840 NOV2004 STATEMENT 0 .00 64 .69 1020 615032 12/03/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108507 NQV2004 STATEMENT O. 00 36 .35 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 287 .25 1020 615033 12/03/04 281 GARDENLAND 1108407 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26661 O. 00 534 .67 1020 615033 12/03/04 281 GARDENLAND 1108408 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26664 o. 00 522 .94 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 1057. 61 1020 615034 12/03/04 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 288 .90 1020 615034 12/03/04 298 GRAINGER INe 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe O. 00 75 .67 1020 615034 12/03/04 298 GRAINGER INe 1108504 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC o. 00 135. 10 1020 615034 12/03/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108508 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 127. 63 1020 615034 12/03/04 298 GRAINGER INe 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 57 .52 1020 615034 12/03/04 298 GRAINGER INe 6308840 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURe o. 00 127 .37 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 812. 19 1020 615035 12/03/04 301 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC eo INe 6104800 DISCOUNT 15548 o. 00 -0 .44 1020 615035 12/03/04 301 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC eo INe 6104800 SUPPLIES 15548 0 .00 127. 81 1020 615035 12/03/04 301 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC eo INe 6104800 SUPPLIES 15548 O. 00 53 .94 1020 615035 12/03/04 301 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC eo INe 6104800 DISCOUNT O. 00 -1 .12 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 180 .19 1020 615036 12/03/04 M2005 IP. MICKEY 1100000 REFUND PERMIT FEES 0 .00 169 .56 1020 615036 12/03/04 M2005 IP. MICKEY 1100000 REFUND PERMIT FEES .00 226 .28 1020 615036 12/03/04 M2005 IP. MICKEY 1100000 REFUND PERMIT FEES O. 00 38.37 1020 615036 12/03/04 M2005 IP. MICKEY 1100000 REFUND PERMIT FEES 0 .00 81.39 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 515. 60 1020 615037 12/03/04 3254 THE KELLY GROUP 1108602 SUPPLIES A25050 O. 00 265. 00 1020 615038 12/03/04 2335 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES 4209544 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o. 00 4506 .72 1020 615039 12/03/04 3041 MADHUWANTI MIRASHI 5506549 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR O. 00 120 .00 1020 615040 12/03/04 465 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108303 FY 2004~2005 OPEN PURe O. 00 71 .34 1020 615041 12/03/04 3195 ORIENTAL CUISINE EXPRESS 5506549 WEDNESDAY LUNCH o. 00 64. 95 1020 615042 12/03/04 2444 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108830 10/21-11/19 0.00 17988.62 RUN DATE 12/02/04 TIME 08:40:56 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 5"-(0 12/02/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: t.ransact. trans~date between "11/29/2004" and "12/03/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 615043 615044 615045 615046 615047 615048 615049 615049 615050 615051 615052 615053 615054 615Q54 CHECK 615055 615056 615057 615058 615059 615060 615061 615062 615063 615064 615065 615065 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND!OEPT 12/03/04 513 12/03/04 515 12/03/04 M200S 12/03/04 546 12/03/04 2022 12/03/04 3247 12/03/04 2661 12/03/04 2661 12/03/04 2649 12/03/04 599 12/03/04 959 12/03/04 979 12/03/04 2222 12/03/04 2222 12/03/04 1636 12/03/04 1919 12/03/04 3222 12/03/04 2875 12/03/04 644 12/03/04 2907 12/03/04 2810 12/03/04 2320 12/03/04 2820 12/03/04 ME2005 12/03/04 3171 12/03/04 3171 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 PENINSULA BALLET THEATER 1106248 PITNEY BOWES INC 1104310 PLANTAG 4239222 POLLARD WATER 2109612 PROFESSIONAL TURF MGMNT, 5606640 PROFESSIONAL TURF MGMNT, 5606640 QUILL 1101500 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMEN 1108315 THE MERCURY NEWS 1106265 CITY OF SAN JOSE 1104530 SANTA CLARA COUNTY BAR A 1101500 SANTA CLARA COUNTY BAR A 1101500 SANTA CLARA CTY SHERIFF 1104510 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS 5506549 SAVIANO COMPANY INC 5709230 RICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE C 1108201 SCREEN DESIGNS 5B06449 SIGNAWEST SYSTEMS 4239222 SMART & FINAL 5706450 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 6308840 SPEEDEE TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 SPITSEN, PAUL 5505549 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1104310 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1101075 RUN DATE 12/02/04 TIME 08:40:56 -----DESCRIPTION------ 10/27-11/24 4H INSTALLATION CHRGS CHARACTERS "LITE NITE FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC PLANTAG LABELS A250S3 PARTS NOT TO EXCEED $9 MAINTENANCE NOV2004 SOIL TESTING OFFICE SUPPLIES PLASTIC COATED CHAIN A 12/19-3/19/05 ANIMAL SERV DEC2004 2005 RENWL C.KILIAN MBRSHP RNWL MURRAY FINGERPRINTS SEPT2004 TRANSPORTATION 12/09 TENNIS COURT RESURFACI J8332201915 12/1-31 SOFTBALL T~SHIRTS REPLACE CELL PHONE SUPPLIES A26304 VCI CARTRIDGE ASS ADAP EMISSIONS INSPECTIONS GRATUITIES/DEC 09 TRP FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC OFFICE SUPPLIES SALES TAX 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 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 4 AMOUNT 30.47 250.00 100.00 591.00 35.45 827.90 15022.67 600.00 15622.67 22.87 960.34 49.26 13833.33 250.00 235.00 485.00 200.00 157.50 18200.00 130.94 1457.04 176.24 149.59 724.80 1174.77 75.00 9.62 54.07 5"- (( 12/02/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "ll/29/2004" and "l2/03/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO TOTAL CHECK 1020 615066 1020 615067 1020 615067 1020 615067 TOTAL CHECK 1020 615068 1020 615068 TOTAL CHECK 1020 615069 1020 615069 TOTAL CHECK 1020 615070 1020 615071 1020 615071 TOTAL CHECK 1020 615072 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 12/03/04 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 12/03/04 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 12/03/04 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 12/03/04 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 12/03/04 724 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUI PM 6308840 12/03/04 724 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUI PM 6308840 12/03/04 738 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 6308840 12/03/04 738 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 6308840 12/03/04 768 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTE 1101500 12/03/04 775 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL L 1108602 12/03/04 775 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL L 1108602 12/03/04 M2005 WONG, JULIE 1106248 RUN DATE 12/02/04 TIME 08:40:56 -----DESCRIPTION------ FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES 25889 SUPPLIES 25804 SUPPLIES 25803 FY 2004 2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004 2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC LAW OFF. PROC. UPDATE RACK MNT CONTROLLER FLASH TRANSFER RELAY PERFORMANCE DEC 05 SALES TAX 0.00 o. 00 o. 00 o. 00 0.00 0.00 o. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o. 00 o. 00 o. 00 o. 00 0 .00 o. 00 .00 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 63.69 1653.88 48.93 47.91 8.97 105.81 87.16 74.97 162.13 5671.44 71.57 5743.01 37.89 1484.00 441.66 1925.66 0.00 120492.18 200.00 0.00 120492.18 0.00 120492.18 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING )-f ".l DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 05-003 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 DESCRffiED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 10, 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 rrom the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: -'Î ~~ âl-wv-o~~W/ Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~day of January, 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 5-(3 12/10/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6105 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 615073 615073 615074 615074 615074 615074 615074 615074 615074 615074 615074 615074 CHECK 615075 615076 615077 615077 615077 615078 615079 615079 615079 615080 615081 615082 615082 615082 615082 615082 615083 615084 615085 615085 ISSUE DT -----~--------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 12/10/04 1695 12/10/04 1695 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 9 12/10/04 13 12/10/04 3210 12/10/04 26 12/10/04 26 12/10/04 26 12/10/04 28 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 2276 2276 2276 3M 3M ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING ABAG POWER PURCHASING 2708405 2708405 PO 5708510 PO 1108507 PO 1108508 PO 5606620 PO 1108504 PO 1108503 PO 1108506 PO 1108509 PO 1108501 PO 1108505 AETNA ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 6414570 AIR FILTER CONTROL AIR FILTER CONTROL AIR FILTER CONTROL AIRGAS NCN ALHAMBRA ALHAMBRA ALHAMBRA INC INC mc 1108501 1108507 1108502 12/10/04 2319 12/10/04 M2005 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 2298 2298 2298 2298 2298 1108314 1104510 1104510 1106265 AMERICAN TRAINCO, INC. ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERV 1108201 1108201 ARCH WIRELESS ARCH WIRELESS ARCH WIRELESS ARCH WIRELESS ARCH WIRELESS 1104400 1106265 1108501 1108602 1104400 CAROL ATWOOD ARROWHEAD MTN SPRING WAT 5606620 1104000 AW DIRECT INC AW DIRECT INC RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 12/10/04 96 12/10/04 864 12/10/04 1032 12/10/04 1032 6308840 6308840 -~---DESCRIPTION------ E C FILM E C FILM 10/20-11/20 10/20-11/20 10/20-11/20 10/20-11/20 10/20-11/20 10/20-11/20 10/20~11/20 10/20-11/20 10/20-11/20 10/20-11/20 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC LONG TERM DECEMBER 04 QUOTE#4386 QUOTE#4386 QUOTE#4386 FILTERS FILTERS FILTERS FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC BOTTLED DRINKING WTR BOTTLED DRINKING WTR WATER DELIVERY AND DIS CROSSING GUARDS DEC04 TRAIN 1/20-21 LOMAS 12/01-1/01/05 12/01-1/01/05 12/01-1/01/05 12/01-1/01/05 12/01-1/01/05 BOTTLED DRINKING WTR 30% EARTHQUAKE INSUR. PARTS/SUPPLIES A26646 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26646 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 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING Cj( PAGE 1 AMOUNT 214.34 608.91 823.25 253.09 149.82 22.62 300.60 831.69 294.79 49.97 24.18 512.32 95.83 2534.91 182.83 3338.16 1000.00 166.56 800.00 1966.56 44.68 90.15 220.50 60.10 370.75 7786.89 790.00 18.63 61.00 40.13 44.69 66.44 230.89 67.12 914.40 118.35 365.74 484.09 ) - f'-f 12(10(04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6(05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA, transact. trans_date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 615086 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 615087 615087 615087 615088 615089 615090 615090 615090 615090 615091 615092 615093 615093 615094 615095 615096 615096 615096 615096 615097 615097 615098 615098 615098 615098 615099 615099 615099 615099 615099 615099 12/10/04 M ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 550 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12(10/04 3010 12/10/04 720 12(10(04 12(10/04 12(10(04 12(10(04 12/10(04 M 12(10(04 2680 12(10(04 2179 12(10(04 2179 12(10(04 M 12(10(04 127 12(10(04 12(10/04 12/10(04 12(10(04 12/10/04 2232 12/10/04 2232 12/10/04 12/10/04 12(10/04 12/10/04 12(10(04 12/10(04 12/10/04 12(10(04 12(10/04 12/10/04 968 968 968 818 818 818 818 132 132 132 132 146 146 146 146 149 149 149 149 149 149 Apel, Marjorie SAP AUTO PARTS SAP AUTO PARTS BAP AUTO PARTS SARRAS, DORIE BATTERY SYSTEMS BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, BEACON FIRE & SAFETY, 6308840 6308840 6308840 1101500 6308840 LP 5708510 LP 1108513 LP 1108501 LP 1108507 BELINICK, CAROL 580 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC. 1107502 BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES 2709449 BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES 2709449 Baron, E. Joyce THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL 550 1103500 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108407 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108509 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108508 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108314 CAR-IAGA, LOURDES CARIAGA, LOURDES CASH CASH CASH CASH CASH CASH CASH CASH CASH CASH RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13,54 110 110 1106248 1106343 5706450 5806349 1104510 1103500 1108201 1107301 1101000 2708405 -----DESCRIPTION------ Refund, Check - Roarin FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC NOTARY BOND/FEES FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FIRE EXTINGUISHER SRV FIRE EXTINGUISHER SRV FIRE EXTINGUISHER SRV FIRE EXTINGUISHER SRV Refund: Check - Return 10/16-11/15 SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT Refund: Check - China, PROGRAMMING DEC 2004 10/21-11/17 10(21-11(17 10(21-11/17 10/21-11/17 CSGARNSMNT SSGARNSMNT P.CASH P.CASH P.CASH P. CASH P.CASH P.CASH P.CASH P.CASH P.CASH P. CASH 11/18-12/01 11/18-12/01 11/18-12/01 11/18-12/01 11(15-12/07 11/15-12/07 11/15-12/07 11/15-12/07 n/15-12/07 11(15-12/07 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 2 AMOUNT 73.00 21.56 109.51 37.61 168.68 84.60 36.48 150.00 47.27 427.19 213.51 837.97 300.00 4665.60 26000.00 65000.00 91000.00 275.00 253.34 1975.19 16.03 48.71 240.73 2280.66 306.50 103.84 410.34 26.90 31.00 29.82 180.26 267.98 15.00 16.55 13 .32 75.85 10.00 34.44 5-fS 12/10/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans~date between "~2/06/2004n and n~2/~O/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 615099 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 615100 615100 615101 615101 615102 615103 615104 615105 615105 615106 615106 615106 615106 615106 615107 61510B 615109 615110 615111 615112 615112 615113 615114 615115 615116 615116 12/10/04 149 ISSUE DT ··------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 1108503 12/10/04 152 12/10/04 152 12/10/04 1057 12/10/04 1057 12/10/04 1820 12/10/04 1156 12/10/04 2626 12/10/04 1453 12/10/04 1453 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 CASH CE8:CONTINUING EDUCATION 1101500 CEB:CONTINUING EDUCATION 1101500 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CHA no 12/10/04 983 12/10/04 1612 12/10/04 173 12/10/04 3256 12/10/04 3256 12/10/04 178 12/10/04 178 12/10/04 3100 12/10/04 2857 12/10/04 183 12/10/04 1312 12/10/04 1312 CHANG, CHEN-YA 1103300 CHRISTOPHERS CHRISTOPHERS 1108505 1108504 CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS 1108201 1108201 1108201 1108201 1108201 CLARK'S HARDWOOD FLOORS 1108504 BARRIE D COATE 110 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COFFEE SOCIETY 1107301 COFFEE SOCIETY 1101000 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 COMCAST 5708510 CONCUR INC 2159620 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 COUNTRY CLUB CAR WASH COUNTRY CLUB CAR WASH 6308840 6308840 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 -----DESCRIPTION------ P.CASH 11/15-12/07 CA GOV'T TORT LIAB 4 DEFEND CLIENT MISDEM. *FLEX HLTH/240125 *FLEX DEP/240125 NOV04 ADMIN FEES CHA CLIP SERVICE NOV04 CARPET REPAIRS CARPET REPAIRS FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN PURC PURC PURC PURC PURC SCREEN AND APPLY ONE C ABORIST REVW R26399 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC COFFEE/GEN PLAN MTG MAYORS' CEREMONY *COLONIAL/E7013899 COLONIAL/E7013899 12/07-1/06/05 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR GEOLOGIC RVW R25964 CAR DETAILING A26628 DETAILING A26628 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .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 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 3 AMOUNT 34.20 199.36 108.79 102.29 211.08 771.03 151.92 922.95 63.00 117.00 200.00 165.00 120.00 285.00 61. 96 61.96 61.96 61.96 70.46 318.30 3217.50 162.50 263.83 48.00 80.00 282.89 363.17 646.06 91.90 51289.50 600.00 135.00 135.00 270.00 <)-((" 12/10/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 615117 615117 615118 615118 615119 615119 615120 615121 615121 615122 615123 615124 615124 615125 615125 615125 615126 615126 615126 615126 615126 615126 615126 615126 615127 615128 615129 615130 615130 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 194 12/10/04 194 12/10/04 M 12/10/04 209 12/10/04 209 1407 1407 1579 1579 12/10/04 214 12/10/04 M2005 12/10/04 850 12/10/04 850 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 996 12/10/04 242 12/10/04 243 12/10/04 1949 12/10/04 1949 1242 1242 1242 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 CUMMING HENDERSON TIRE CUMMING HENDERSON TIRE 6308840 6308840 CUPERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108503 CUPERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108501 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5606660 5606660 Campen, Tressie 550 DE ANZA SERVICES INC DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 1108502 DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAM 5506549 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA 1108602 DIDDAMS AMAZING PARTY ST 5806349 DIDDAMS AMAZING PARTY ST 1101000 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104510 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104200 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104310 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 2308004 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 5208003 DU-ALL SAFETY 1108201 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT no EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT no EVENT SERVICES EVENT SERVICES 1108503 4209227 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13;54 -----DESCRIPTION------ FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC G-33 RENT OEC2004 G-34 RENT DEC2004 SUPPLIES PARTS/SUPPLIES REFDS 64885 & 64886 CONSTRUCTION CLEANUP SEAL TILE FLOOR ADMIN. FEE 1/19 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SAFETY TABLECLOTHS A26464 MAYOR CEREMONY A25802 PERSONNEL TRANS. FRMS B.L. CERTIFICATES CITY LOGO WINDOW ENVEL SWEEPING NOV2004 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT SAFETY CONSULT NOV04 SIT/932-0014-5 SDI/776-5260-0 10/1-11/30 10/2-10/8 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 292.11 248.28 540.39 217.00 217.00 434.00 62.49 14.47 76.96 1365.00 16810.00 2398.50 19208.50 100.00 196 .55 48.55 151. 28 199.83 313.15 754.38 505.98 1573.51 8456.40 520.00 1190.00 850.00 510.00 425.00 700.00 1120.00 13771.40 300.00 16937.84 1150.37 330.16 65.68 395.84 Ç'-f1 12/10/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 6/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA; transact . trans_date between ":1.2/06/2004" and ":1.2/:1.0/2004" FUND ~ 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 615131 12/10/04 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 191.37 1020 615132 12/10/04 3068 ARTHUR J. BROTHERTON 1108315 TEMP FENCE FOR CREEKSI 0.00 2409. 00 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806349 STATEMENT NOV2004 o. 00 594 .76 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5706450 STATEMENT NOV2004 O. 00 192.70 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106265 STATEMENT NOV2004 o. 00 100. 00 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103301 STATEMENT NOV2004 o. 00 42. 10 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106265 STATEMENT NOV2004 o. 00 844. 22 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 4239222 STATEMENT NOV2004 o. 00 161 .42 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806349 STATEMENT NOV2004 0.00 179. 00 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106100 STATEMENT NOV2004 0.00 476. 00 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 4239222 STATEMENT NOV2004 o. 00 376. 82 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106647 STATEMENT NOV2004 0 .00 16. 60 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806449 STATEMENT NOV2004 O. 00 122.78 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 4239222 STATEMENT NOV2004 0 .00 -129.74 1020 615133 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106200 STATEMENT NOV2004 0 .00 179 .00 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 3155.66 1020 615134 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806649 STATEMENT NOV2004 0 .00 34. 00 1020 615134 12/10/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5606680 STATEMENT NOV2004 0 .00 134 .00 TOTAL CHECK 0 .00 168. 00 1020 615135 12/10/04 262 FIRST PLACE INC 1104300 NAMEPLATE 0.00 23 .32 1020 615136 12/10/04 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108502 KEY/LOCK SUPPLIES 0.00 190.31 1020 615137 12/10/04 M Farran, Frank 550 Refund; Check Full r O. 00 73. 00 1020 615138 12/10/04 M Farran, Laurie 550 Refund; Check Full r o. 00 73. 00 1020 615139 12/10/04 281 GARDENLAND 1108314 LANDSCAPE SPLY A26240 0 .00 340. 70 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 FLAMMABLE LIQUID CABIN 0 .00 629. 46 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108315 FLAMMABLE LIQUID CABIN 0 .00 629 .44 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108314 FLAMMABLE LIQUID CABIN 0 .00 629 .46 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108303 FLAMMABLE LIQUID CAB IN 0 .00 629 .47 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108005 PARTS/SUPPLIES O. 00 19 .10 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108005 PARTS/SUPPLIES O. 00 383. B 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108005 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 9. 21 1020 615140 12/10/04 298 GRAINGER INC 1108501 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 66 . 27 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2995. 54 1020 615141 12/10/04 2531 GURSHARN SIDHU 1108303 CIRCUIT BOX REPLACE 0.00 11475. 00 1020 615142 12/10/04 M Grossman, Trudy 550 REFDS 64882 & 64883 O. 00 1365. 00 1020 615143 12/10/04 3211 HARTFORD-PRIORITY ACCTS 110 LIFE INSURANCE DEC04 0.00 5357. 25 1020 615143 12/10/04 3211 HARTFORD-PRIORITY ACCTS 110 AD&D DEC04 0.00 892. 88 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 6250. B RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING )'-Ió 12/10/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 6/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT ---M~DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 615144 12/10/04 M HASHEMI, NASIM 580 Refund: Check - FALL: 0.00 30.00 1020 615145 12/10/04 3257 JEAN HO 1103300 HALLOWEEN SUPPLIES O. 00 761. 86 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108409 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26639 O. 00 306.23 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 2708403 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20105 O. 00 38.26 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108303 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26645 O. 00 313 .64 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108303 PARTS/SUPPLIES 13082 O. 00 29.49 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 5806649 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26023 O. 00 565.31 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108408 PARTS/SUPPLIES A26662 0.00 211.06 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 1108312 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20104 0.00 25.85 1020 615146 12/10/04 334 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 2708403 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20121 O. 00 24.80 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 1514.64 1020 615147 12/10/04 1898 HORIZON 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 51.44 1020 615147 12/10/04 1898 HORIZON 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0 .00 999 .86 1020 615147 12/10/04 1898 HORIZON 1108407 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 438. 96 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 1490. 26 1020 615148 12/10/04 M Hoyt, Jane 550 Refund: Check Full r 0 .00 113. 00 1020 615149 12/10/04 341 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 5806449 10/25-11/29 O. 00 2832.00 1020 615150 12/10/04 343 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 'ICMA O. 00 7044 .64 1020 615151 12/10/04 M2005 IIMC 1104300 MBRSHP RNWL G.JOHNSON O. 00 91. 00 1020 615152 12/10/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108314 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 78. 08 1020 615152 12/10/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108303 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 78. 08 1020 615152 12/10/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108302 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 78. 08 1020 615152 12/10/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108312 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC O. 00 78. 08 1020 615152 12/10/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108315 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 0.00 78 .07 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 390 .39 1020 615153 12/10/04 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108501 WATER TRMNT DEC2004 0.00 211. 63 1020 615153 12/10/04 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108504 WATER TRMNT DEC2 0 04 0.00 211. 63 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 423 .26 1020 615154 12/10/04 M2005 INTERNET CORPORATION 5606640 ANNUAL WEBSITE LISTNG O. 00 23.50 1020 615155 12/10/04 1981 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 2708405 SIGNS A26644 O. 00 124 .49 1020 615156 12/10/04 M JANDHAYALA, MAHALAKSHMI 580 Refund: Check - FALL: O. 00 180. 00 1020 615157 12/10/04 3258 JENSEN TRANSFORMERS INC. 1103500 SUPPLIES O. 00 68.47 1020 615158 12/10/04 1630 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INC 5806449 FALL SOCCER CLASSES O. 00 3180.00 1020 615159 12/10/04 M KOH, KYUNG 580 Refund: Check Return O. 00 750.00 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13;54 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING Ç-(9 12/10/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 CASH ACCT CHECK NO 615160 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 615161 615161 615161 615162 615163 615164 615165 615166 615167 615168 615169 615170 615170 615170 615171 615172 615173 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 615175 12/10/04 M2005 ISSUE Dr --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 390 390 390 LANDSCAPE SUPERVISORS'FO 1108408 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC LAWSON PRODUCTS INC LAWSON PRODUCTS INC THE LEARNING GAME LIFETIME TENNIS INC 2708405 2708405 2708405 5806349 5706450 LUCKY I & I PORTABLE SER 5208003 550 Lederer, Lee MACKE WATER SYSTEMS, INC 1108501 MISDU METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATI 1108501 no MONTEREY BAY WHALE WATCH 5506549 MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN GARDEN GARDEN l2/10/04 l217 l2/10/04 400 12/10/04 2912 12/10/04 M 12/10/04 2942 12/10/04 1868 12/10/04 2567 12/10/04 M2005 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 465 465 465 CEN CEN CEN 1108315 1108315 1108315 12/10/04 302 12/10/04 3109 12/10/04 485 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 12/10/04 493 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPEN 110 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS NATIONAL ELEVATOR CO. IN 5708510 2708405 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 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 1104300 1102100 1103300 1103300 1104300 1104100 1102100 1103500 1108101 1106300 1108201 1107503 1107301 1107301 1107503 110730.1 1107503 -----DESCRIPTION-~---- FORUM MAIL LIST 2005 HARDWARE A27243 RETURNED SUPPLIES HARDWARE A27243 PRE-SCHOOL SPLY 25807 11/22-12/05/04 RENTAL DEC2004 Refund: Check - Hawaii 12/01-1/31/05 BATTERIES J TRYBUS 385960533 ADM. FEE 1/19 TRIP FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 FY 2004-2005 OPEN OPEN OPEN PURC PURC PURC *NAT'L DEF 24 HR MONITORING DEC4 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC OFFICE SUPPLIES REF: 264966603001 REF: 265546387001 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES REF: 265422281001 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 7 AMOUNT 5.00 88.55 -31.61 549.71 606.65 49.87 8321.92 92.01 225.00 60.00 533.10 221.50 960.00 35.18 35.18 35.18 105.54 15925.04 15.00 341.00 61.73 -32.67 -24.29 250.81 60.73 -28.22 39.11 36.32 100.06 4.25 284.19 11. 56 28.15 12.54 12.54 9.32 9.32 S-~2() 12/10/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE B ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact . trans_date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOtmT 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 REF: 264452374001 0.00 -14.29 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 REF: 264452374001 0.00 -14 .29 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104400 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 24. 81 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 414 .00 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 27. 13 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 152.54 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 150.78 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 35. 81 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 88. 89 1020 615175 12/10/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 330. 87 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2031.70 1020 615176 12/10/04 501 OPERATING ENGINEERS '3 no UNION DUES 0.00 685 .35 1020 615177 12/10/04 504 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 5806349 PRESCHOOL SPLY A25632 0.00 191 .95 1020 615178 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS EMPLOYEE 0.00 18677 .24 1020 615178 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS BUYBACK 0.00 123. 70 1020 615178 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS 1959 0.00 110. 67 1020 615178 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS DE3 o. 00 3199. 25 1020 615178 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS BUYBACK 0 .00 471.53 1020 615178 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS EM/OE 0.00 3199.25 1020 615178 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS SPEC o. 00 172 .54 TOTAL CHECK O. 00 25954 .18 1020 615179 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS EMPLOYEE 0 .00 216 .60 1020 615179 12/10/04 833 P E R S no PERS 1959 o. 00 2. 00 TOTAL CHECK o. 00 218.60 1020 615180 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1104400 10/29-11/30 DES o. 00 96 .86 1020 615180 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108602 10/29-11/29 0.00 33.67 1020 615180 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 4259313 10/30-11/30 0.00 500.75 1020 615180 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108407 10/30-11/30 0.00 7. 67 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 638 .95 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 1108505 9/29-11/27 0.00 1263 .n 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108501 9/29-11/27 0.00 6245. 00 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 1108503 9/29-11/27 0.00 1553.67 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 1108504 9/29-11/27 0.00 4652.19 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108506 9/29-11/27 0.00 168 .59 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108511 9/29-11/27 0 .00 492 .28 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 1108602 9/29-11/27 o. 00 2188.71 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 5606620 9/29-11/27 0.00 1115.65 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 5606640 9/29-11/27 0.00 173 .29 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 5708510 9/29-11/27 0.00 3985 .11 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108830 9/29-11/27 0.00 49 .82 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108407 9/29-11/27 o. 00 3218 .24 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 1108315 9/29-11/27 o. 00 202. 15 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS I< ELECTRIC 1108312 9/29-11/27 o. 00 90. 21 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108314 9/29-11/27 0 .00 314. 12 1020 615181 12/10/04 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108303 9/29-11/27 O. 00 1632. 92 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ')-11 12/10/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 615181 1020 615181 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 615182 615182 615182 615183 615184 615185 615186 615187 615188 615189 615190 615191 615192 615193 615194 615195 615196 61-5197 615198 615199 615200 615203 615203 615203 615203 615203 615203 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---------~--- FUND/DEPT 12/10/04 513 12/10/04 513 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 515 515 515 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 5208003 1108507 12/10/04 M2005 12/10/04 526 12/10/04 533 12/10/04 545 12/10/04 546 12/10/04 M 12/10/04 M 12/10/04 576 12/10/04 3251 12/10/04 3173 12/10/04 959 12/10/04 1026 12/10/04 258 12/10/04 2224 12/10/04 633 12/10/04 1919 12/10/04 1648 12/10/04 2875 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 511 511 511 511 511 511 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 PARK, S. 110 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG 110 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 PITNEY BOWES INC 1104310 Petersen, Elizabeth (Bet 550 Quon, Doris 550 REED & GRAHAM INC 2708404 CARTER J. ROBINSON 1104400 S & S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIO 6308840 THE MERCURY NEWS 5506549 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1102100 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 110 SANTA CLARA CNTY CLERK/R 110 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 1108602 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS 5506549 SAVIN CORPORATION (SUPPL 1104310 RICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE C 1104310 SSC/MCI SSC/MCI SEC/MCI SEC/MC! SBC/MC! SBC/MC! 1108511 1101000 1102100 1101500 1104300 1103300 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 -----DESCR!PTION------ 9/29-11/27 9/29-11/27 INSTALL ALARM MONITORING FEE NOV04 MONITORING FEE DEC04 UNUSED NOTICE DEPOSIT CC&L DOCUMENTS PERS LTC/2405 SERVICE 11/24-12/07 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC Refund: Check - Full r REFDS 64867 & 64869 HYDRO PATCH A27237 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SOCKET SET 20289 340677 SUBSCRIPT RNWL BOOK FEES FY04/05 V ORTEGA 563312780 NEGATIVE DELARATION 12/01/04 TRAFFIC CNTL BUS FEE 1/13 TRIP 3720300010 11/22-2/21 H3720300010 12/1-31 731-7142 731-7142 731-7142 731-7142 731-7142 731-7142 NOV 2004 NOV 2004 NOV 2004 NOV 2004 NOV 2004 NOV 2004 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 .00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ') - 2.z PAGE 9 AMOUNT 8.31 988.55 28341.92 300.00 69.52 95.0Ò 464.52 185.42 1044.50 104.42 1995.00 147.96 54.00 550.00 499.30 543.29 58.36 161.85 118002.00 588.00 50.00 126.27 157.50 1554.00 1395.57 59.92 179.76 149.80 329.56 267.96 59.92 12/10/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 ~ GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR~~----------- FUND/DEPT --~--DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1103500 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1104000 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1104100 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 179.76 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1104200 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1104510 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 179.76 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1106647 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 29. 96 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBc/Mcr 1104530 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 209.72 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBc/Mcr 1104400 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1106265 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 209.72 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1106100 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1106265 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 479.35 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1106265 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 59.92 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1106529 731-7142 NOV 2004 o. 00 29.96 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1106500 731-7142 NOV 2004 0 .00 359.52 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1107200 731-7142 NOV 2004 0 .00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1107301 #731-7142 NOV 2004 0 .00 269.64 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1101200 731-7142 NOV 2004 0 .00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1107302 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 59.92 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1108504 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 119.84 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 saC/Mcr 1107501 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 389.48 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 saC/Mcr 1107502 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 29.96 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1107503 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 119.84 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108001 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 149.80 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1108101 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 283.78 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108102 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 29.96 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1106265 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108501 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 673 .00 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108503 731~7142 NOV 2004 0.00 860. 65 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108507 731-7142 NaV 2004 0.00 59 .92 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 5606620 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 299 .60 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEc/Mcr 5706450 731-7142 NOV 2004 .00 359.52 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108601 731~7142 Nav 2004 .00 89.88 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108602 731-7142 Nav 2004 0 .00 119.84 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 5208003 731-7142 Nav 2004 o. 00 29.96 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 2308004 731-7142 Nav 2004 0 .00 29.96 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/MCr 5708510 731-7142 NOV 2004 o. 00 239.68 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 saC/Mcr 1108201 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 208.4 7 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 6104800 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 569.23 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 5606620 731-7142 NOV 2004 0.00 149.80 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 5606640 731~7142 NOV 2004 0.00 29.96 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 saC/Mcr 1107301 731~7142 NOV 2004 0.00 59.92 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 saC/Mcr 1106647 731-7142 NOV 2004 .00 269.64 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SBC/Mcr 1108407 731-7142 NOV 2004 0 .00 14.44 1020 615203 12/10/04 511 SEC/Mcr 1108504 731-7142 NOV 2004 .00 30.88 TOTAL CHECK .00 9050.20 1020 615204 12/10/04 511 SSC/Mcr 1108501 5171195 9/01-10/19 .00 32 .17 1020 615205 12/10/04 1890 SCHWAAB rNC 1101000 SIGNATURE STAMP .00 50 .50 1020 615206 12/10/04 M200S SFMOMA 5506549 ADM FEE TRrp 1/07 0.00 575 .00 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 ~ FINANCrAL ACCOUNTrNG ç-.lJ 12/10/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: t.ransact..t.rans_dat.e bet.ween ":12/06/2004" and ":12/:10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 615207 615208 615209 615210 615210 615210 615210 615210 615210 615210 615211 615211 615211 615212 6152:12 615213 615214 615215 615216 615217 615217 615217 615217 615217 615217 615217 615217 615217 615218 615218 615218 615219 ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 12/10/04 2051 12/10/04 2810 12/10/04 2320 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 3171 12/10/04 3171 12/10/04 1011 12/10/04 677 12/10/04 1406 12/10/04 2863 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 M 2820 2820 2820 2820 2820 2820 2820 ME2005 ME2005 ME2005 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 695 695 695 SMART & FINAL SIADAT ENTERPRISES, INC. 6308840 5806349 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL SPEEDEE SPEEDEE SPEEDEE S PEEDEE SPEEDEE SPEEDEE SPEEDEE SPITSEN, SPITSEN, SPITSEN, 6308840 TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 PAUL PAUL PAUL 5506549 5506549 5506549 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1107301 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTA 1107503 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 SUNNYVALE CHEVROLET 6308840 SUNNYVALE-CUPERTINO SVCN SVCN SVCN SVCN SVCN SVCN SVCN SVCN SVCN SYSCO SYSCO SYSCO 1101500 1104300 1104300 1104300 1104300 1104300 1104300 1104300 1104300 1104300 FOOD SERVICES OF S 5806349 FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 Sperling, Jacqueline(Jac 550 RUN DATE 12/:10/04 TIME 11:13:54 -----DESCRIPTION------ CAR WASHES NOV2004 PRESCHOOL SPLY A26467 SPECIAL TOOLS A27211 EMISSIONS INSPECTION EMISSIONS INSPECTION EMISSIONS INSPECTION EMISSIONS INSPECTION EMISSIONS INSPECTION EMISSIONS INSPECTION EMISSIONS INSPECTION GRATUITY GRATUITY GRATUITY 1/26 1/07 1/19 TRIP TRIP TRIP OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES PREPAYMENT NOV04 *PERS DEF FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC 2005 MBRSHIP DUES FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC BREAKFAST W / SANTA COFFEE CUPS LUNCH SUPPLIES Refund: Check - Full r 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 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 11 AMOUNT 26.00 114.01 12.26 49.99 49.99 49.99 49.99 49.99 49.99 49.99 349.93 50.00 50.00 50.00 150.00 205.66 173.19 378.85 510.00 3257.56 57.84 85.00 41.25 41.25 68.75 27.50 85.25 44.00 55.00 44.00 145.75 552.75 436.11 69.59 348.42 854.12 113.00 ')-2 L( 12/10/04 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/05 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact. trans_date between "12/06/2004" and "12/10/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 615220 1020 615220 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 615221 615221 615221 615222 615222 615222 615222 615223 615224 615225 615226 615227 615228 615229 615230 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 615231 TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------- FUND/DEPT 12/10/04 700 12/10/04 700 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 701 701 701 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108315 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108315 TARGET STORES TARGET STORES TARGET STORES TEREX UTILITIES TEREX UTILITIES TEREX UTILITIES TEREX UTILITIES WEST WEST WEST WEST 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 12/10/04 3167 3167 3167 3167 TREASURER OF ALAMEDA COU 11 0 U S POSTMASTER UNITED WAY OF SANTA CLAR 110 UNIVERSAL DIALOG, INC. VALLEY OIL COMPANY VARGAS AUTO UPHOLSTERY VISION SERVICE PLAN (CA) 110 VMI INC 5806349 1106248 1106344 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 1104310 1103300 6308840 6308840 WEST BAY STUMP REMOVAL I 1108408 1103500 RUN DATE 12/10/04 TIME 11:13:54 12/10/04 1993 12/10/04 1647 12/10/04 1154 12/10/04 2584 12/10/04 738 12/10/04 1707 12/10/04 750 12/10/04 745 12/10/04 766 -----DESCRIPTION------ FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES A25766 SUPPLIES A25766 SUPPLIES/PICTURES LABOR/MATERIALS TIME/MATERIALS TIME/MATERIALS TIME/MATERIALS A LOPEZ JR 566398126 ANNL RNWL FEE PRMT 74 UNITED WAY TRANSLATE 10/29-11/14 FY 2004-2005 OPEN PURC UPHOLSTERY REPAIRS VISION INSUR DEC2004 B.PACK/HDSET 16493 GRINDING 11/8-11/17 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 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING PAGE 12 AMOUNT 2805.06 1184.00 3989.06 89.00 10.00 13.83 112.83 1097.97 1245.44 825.02 2975.64 6144.07 253.84 150.00 99.00 211.41 204.29 871.69 2074.74 388.62 2900.00 529926.87 529926.87 529926.87 5'- JS- DRAfT RESOLUTION NUMBER 05-004 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 December 3, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $ 416,230.87 Less Employee Deductions $(118,539.50) NET PAYROLL $ 297.691.37 Payroll check numbers issued 79500 through 79717 Void check number(s) CERTIFIED: (£tu¡d ä. âl-Uft'-z;¡;) Director of Admii'tistrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of January ,200Ç,by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino & -I [' ,';T RESOLUTION NUMBER 0 'i-OO 'i 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 December 17, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and fÌ'om the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $ 386,996.57 Less Employee Deductions $(109,679.52) $ 277.317.05 NET PAYROLL Payroll check numbers issued 79718 through 79926 Void check number(s) t ~ CERTIFIED: 'þfl--t Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of January ,2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ~~Ä City Hall 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. Î Meeting Date: January 3, 2005 SUBJECT Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report - November 2004. BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget reports for the period ended November 30, 2004. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $34.9 million at November 30, 2004, with a maturity value of $35.1 million. The slightly lower market value of the individual securities (compared with cost or maturity values), indicates that rates have risen 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 2.003% in November compared to October's 1.890%, and 1.572% a year ago. LAIF yields have risen consistently since June, when the yield was 1.469%. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.46% in November. Short-term agency yields increased slightly during the month. The U.S. economy as a whole continues to improve at a moderate pace despite the rise in energy prices, which appear to have peaked for now. Overall, the City's current investment portfolio decreased approximately $600,000 in November, as planned expenditures exceeded incoming revenues. The last of the non- callable agency investments, which had been laddered to provide cash flow for the library and other capital projects, matured on November 1 'I. But a large ($1.1 million) payment was processed on the library construction project during the month. Printed on Recycled Paper /-( RevenuelExpenditure Trends Most General Fund revenues are still well below budget projections, due to the timing of major tax payments fÌ'om the County and other tax revenues submitted in the month subsequent to collection. Revenues in general show an increase over the prior year, but this picture should reverse as the "triple flip" provisions impact Sales tax and MVLF fee revenue reductions become more apparent. The imposition ofthese receipts on cash flow will be eased somewhat in January and May, when receipts fÌ'om the county will reimburse cities for the reductions. Hotel tax revenues are healthier than in the prior year, and should come in over budget for 2004-05, whereas utility user tax revenues are falling behind. Licenses and charges for services are doing better this year as a result of increases in development fee rates and additional activity in Building and Planning. Departmental expenditures are slightly lower than prior year spending, and generally below budget. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for November 2004. Submitted by: Approved for submission: a~~~ Carol T. Augusti Finance Director ---DsL David W. Knapp City Manager 7-~ City of Cupertino November 2004 . I AI . VAle DESCRIPIIUN --.. I REF YIEW J" YALUe . VALUe 06/28/02 S MAl UREU/CALLE[ 16k I 6k ,6k 6< 6K 6k 6k 6k , 6K "6K '6k 6k 6k 6K 6k 6k 6K 6k __I 6k ~6"~~r .. -- ---- _..II/OI/~=__ SECURItIES PURCHASED --- - _..- -- -- CURRENTPORfFULIU -.-- LAo" I 1l/30/04CüPertmo NatIOnal Bank- 11 TCCash . 11/30/04 Wells Fargo-Checking -- CA -----.- LAIF LA LeKTI:ICATE>UFI~~~l=!ãfu Pool -~, . 03/17 /04 ; Õ:3T17/08 I American TrusfFed Savmgs Bank I --, 03/17/04 03/[7709 !Peoples State BanTé--- , tl31I9104 03119/08 i Plantèîifirst Cordell GA 03/24704 03/24/08 Badger State Bank -- - 'ÙJf24!04 u3/z47()9 Washlta State Bank 03724/08 Wilmot State HiiriK-- UW24/UI I ~lgnatiJre Hank Nat I Assn - D3/26/08 'Pnvatebank & Trust" 09n~8'-;--Southcoast CommuntlyBimk 04/07/08 ILoiiTaÿlor Bank©,step -"---, - 03/24/U4 03/26/04 I 03/26/04 -- 04/01/04 ¡-- --- -- ILD I- ___n_ I - f-- MONEY MARKET FUNDS·· 1--1' - - -- 11/3U/04' Cupertmo Natl-Sweep acèoUnt , ~ll 0/04 GHIC Money Market ¡m,.'- -- "'-1 _ - . AüENCYWO S - - --- 07 /09/93 04/l5lõ1 FHLMC(P) -. -- 03/08/04 I 12/26/06IFHLI'iIC© 071¿1/Uj ·07/21/06 FHLB© H0fl12104 0.,06/u. ,FHŒ©,step 08/07/03 0",07/U6 IFHLBiQ.step OSll1703 081111U6 'HLBiQ 02/25/04 U2/251011 FHlB© T2705703- 12105107 FNMA<O,sfup - - --017[610"" 03116/09 FNMA U3W/U4'· - 01/30/09 'FNMA© __u --,- 04/23/04 -01713/08,FHLBiO 04114ro4 12/U3107 FNMA© 127!3703 12/1510. FNMA©, step 03/3U/04 . 03l3U/U9 'HL1J©, step H-12/22/03 06722/07 FNMA 121>U/03 . 12/3010. FHLMU;J, step - - 04729/Ö4T- 10/29/08 FHLB©, step - --1Jm37IJ4u- 12/m/08 FNMA ------04/30/04 -- 04/30 09 FHLB!Çi, step- - : -------- ------ -i ---- -- ---- ------ ---- 1-· I I I " , - 1==~ -J i '6J 6J , 3.34% 650,000 650.000 , 650,000 o =r--~~r- r~-- -_.-- - --.- - -- ~. -'-~,n6'5J- ~~;6;'09 -.--- 0 _ '() 1 1,0uu.wv 1,000,OOU 2,126,509 ¿,7¿6;>o9. - .--- ,;1¿6;STI9 0-' 1,000,000 ¿,1¿6,5ö<J U ° ·--1J o -. r 2.00%f I , lU,876,54U ·----lu,i J{r,!n~,:)4U . o ~-- ---_..~ - ,000- 99,000 -- - . 00 . . . 99,OuO -- 9 ,0 .. - 98,OUU -- 99,000--'" '}'},OOO 99,000 !- - 'J9,UUU : '~99~000 I 99.000- ~-- U 99:~00. -- _.. .~~.~EJ=~--,=i 97,00 -- __ 97,000 U - 986,000 ' --- 986;000 I -- .--- - --____ ·--1 ------ ------- ---1.10% 237,[16'-- 237,126 ~ 237,126 °6··-:.~4-·'V.,,·.· ::::;;:'::¡ ',~ ,,~ '~~:::', -~'"~ ""2.30%· 798,758 800,000 785',D6: (13,622) 2.20% 500,000' 500;000 492,815 ~._- -{7-;rgoj - 3.00%; 997,762-:- 1,000,Ouu 997,810 , "48- 2~l3%' 500,000 ------ 300,000 ---495,315 (4,685 -250% 2.400,000 T400,000 2,375,256 ¡ . - -- -(24,1'14) 3.13% 1,OUU,UOO 1,000,000 -- - 987--;g-50 (12,15U) 2.63% -- 1,000,000 I,TITIO,öW 994,690- -(>.3T1)' 4.01%, - 1,600,000 I l,ovv,OOOJ--- 1,597,504 H (2;490) 2.50%' 500,000 5(10;000 498.440 - {I:oW 3.15% 1,4"8"7,131 1,500,000, 1,448,910 i (:JK:TI1) 130%: 989,177 ! 1,000,000 """9-rr,250'-- (I 7,927 3.00%~ 1,001);0001 1,000,000 1,000,120 f20 2:50% 6UU;OUU+- 600,Ouu 5"",250: (75U) DO% 1.000.Ow- -1,000.000 -988,440-'- (11,560) 2.75% u"1,ooO.OOO 1,000,OÚO 1,005,5201 5.320 300% )OO;öW 300.UOO 297,843 '\2.157) 400% - ~--:;00,000 500,155 ),735- -313%1_~~'~_??_1__ I,Dö()~:----~~?~~I_~~ j__ (T,~ 3.00%î ~_m___ J:05% 3.00% 3.35% ~i- 2"'-lU%1 ~ 3.20% -¿~2)% o -~ U o 99.000 I 99.0UO 98,UUO 99,UOU 99,000,- -- 99,000 '>I'J,uuuï 99,000 98,00U 97,uuu 9ltb,OOu ¡ 7-] City of Cupertino November 2004 I I U^"h -~.- "'ì)ESCRlP IIUN H_ .. _.______ .. __ , .... --- ------- -- O'ilOIU4 o'il 0107 FHLBro,step u..:¡,¿..,vo FHLB \Y OIDõ¡u¡ 1>t1LML<Q .--f----.... f'lO .- ...----.-- -- U> ' us ' ,,>ELUKJ IE> I I J Ot81 A'lanageo ronIO. 10 --~ ¡,Average Yield I ~---~v~erager:ëÌlgt1ïlO Matunty (10 years) , -... ,- I I -~ I ---- -----1 -- n__ ---~_..._- __~ I I .. __-¡-__n_____=:j I TRUST & AGENCY P_?IlTFO~J ..- , , I ------ÎCER I It ICA I ES OF DEPOSIT: --.- 07/27/UI in 12/3lf04 ¡CupertinO NatlU(ester"Trust) I L. _ I ITot81 Trust'" Agency Portfolio ---- n ¡_ L I I ____------1- ---- I , I BOND RE'SEIWI1 POKIFuLIu 1V/15/UL ! .. -101137aT, ---- ----------+ Lease Payment FÚrur- Wells Fargo ~~_neÿ-~kC -----Total DOna K~rve J"ortloho ----..-, --...-- ---..----- I -+-- - 1- I ----- - ¡ , I ---- 11lli> YlbW 61<- OK ,6K , I -: - - ~ I , , - ----- ---~--------- , , 00 , : I , '" LU>T ---vAHJE .- I V~LUC ·~s -~-~._- .---- 2.00% 1,2oo,00Õ - I,: 1,197,000 , (3,000) L.75% I."UU,UÔÕ .. 1,200,wu I,IYO,O". \>,>72) »U% 4"",Y.O - 4"",U", (""5 . 20,.>.,7.7 20,0.',2" \I..,U7>1 --- - .... ~-.._..-- 2.49Vo 1.57 --- -_._~. 'U'_____ - --- 1.5":70 --- 0.93%1 U..4% T-- .--. f-------- ------1- I I - -- _ _____ 'un ._- --..--------- - --·".-_._"0._____- -.....--- Õ- ----- .,)~,U"):I,~Ð~ "'3,'. -'--"-" . _n_ -"'~ .'. ~..,----_.. 41,ð16 41,816 ------- '1."0 'I..W - 541 10,.44 I ---- 54 10,944' lV.Y," , lU,'''O ---- I ... ~... - --l ...--- -...---- U ",'''.''2 u .tt~UI>J -- ----- . - ---- ~m=- I 4\.'10 I U -, ",,"0 U u__ 54 10,944 ~..- 1)' ------ -- ----------¡------ IU,~. U ------ ---,.-. ----- - --- ~_.- - ----- 7~L( 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00%-- 0.50% 0.00% Investments by Type Managed Portfolio us Tre~suryNotes 0% AgençyNotes 57% Ð~~l; ~IIJli~à#... IJJBBJJJJ~#.. i'~JJJJJJJJJJ~~. LAIF IJJJBJJJJBJJJ~.. 31% ~~«~~~~~~~~'-..;!:~~. IJi$.JjJJJJBJ{$.JJ~ ~~~..~~'-'-~~'-'-~~~~~). IIBBBJJS~~IJJJIJI' ~~~~~~4! W~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~JJJJJI~Jt IJj~IJJ~ i!!~~~~~~~~~4! ~~~ ~~~~: i'~JJJJJJJJJ~~Jt IJJS' ~"~JJJJJJJJJJJJJ: ~~"~JJJJJJJJ: ~~"~JJ~ ~( ]% I Rate of Return Comparison I 10/03 11 (03 12/03 1104 2/04 3104 4/04 5/04 6/04 7104 8/04 9/04 10/04 11/04 7-) COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino November 30, 2004 Category Treasury Issues US Agencies (eg FHLMC) Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes LAIF Money Market Funds Maximum Maturities " Per Issuer Max Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper Negotiable Certificates of Deposit Repurchase Agreements Reverse Repurchase agreements Standard No limit 'No limit , ! 30% with A rating $40 million 20% ,25% up to 15 years Remainder up to 5 years 10% (except LAIF) 180 days & 40% 270 days & 25% 30% 365 days Prohibited Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies , Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Comment ¡--fc --I -1 ----1 -j Secured payments rec'd Nov - Jan & Apr-Jun.e F'"rJuJy~()ctober __ _. ---1 PG&E down $150k; prior year +$46k Enron adi made I O/~ ._ F"r}uly.:-_()ctober Housing mil. fees up $42k; construction tax up $~ Building Penn its up $240k, plan checks up $160k__ Portfolio yield down 20/0; lnvestn¡"nt balances down 30% MVLF reduced prior year (current year's reduction pennanent) Engineering fees up $120k; wning & planning fe_es up $1] ~ ~ ~ added to Community Services in lY~ -- grants ($40k) pd -..---- ---I Contract plan reviews up J6lIs.Human svc CityWeb Site progrll111 Analvsis of Trends ~ ! i + I I -8,92% -0.16%- - - - -I -7.74%' -15.03% -21.79% -22.20% -15.77% Actual YTD 11-30-04 OverlUnder 3,157,181 -9.79"1 ---------- 678,233 ' 5}6~ ~ 721,072 , 390,064 ------ 528,002 ~~~-'-¡ -11.69% 52,75% - ---------- -22.86% -28.97% 107,66% -38,39% -94.54% o 56.57% -7,26% -27.71% 0.00% 0,00% % of Budget 4 2,600,886 298,841 -----f ------ ,611.123 834,792 423,965.___ 154,021 3,683 ------ - - o - - 1,140,565 -2.026.665 , , , 8.827.448 130 800,582 920,179 3.036.569 9.679,310 ,018,352 381,502 737.962 -. II 1 -I -- - 610,299 ___ ...4£3,040 802,293 ! 593,750 -------- -2.064.585 ---------- -2.767,887, 242,314 180,277, -..---------. 10,309¡ 0: 3,079,590 -------------- 658,134 8.453,345 245,737 ,713,191 -- 831,750 ----------- 811,787 3.233.558 9.750,398 516,841 ------._----- 950,479 398,212 --- ---- 541,557 Actual - YTD 11-30-03 413,128 _n______ 2,501,247 , ~ 8,400,000 3,748,000 600,000 162,000 -- ,500,000 I 28.554.587 718,355 4,191,024 2,261,219 2,823,865 9.367.424 27.580.637 2004/05 Budget 1,560,000 --- ----....--- 2,740,000 2,312,000 I ,435,000 1,600,000 1,186,900 2,820,687 --- 490,000 ,365,026 ----- 6,853,724 2,737,365 -4,864.000 152.685 -I 8,780,000 3,800,000+__ 1,500,000 I 110,000 2,605,034 [ 410,000; 640,000 : 40,000 - , , 26.585.034 City of <::upertino [ General Fund Budget Report , 2003/04 Budget Operating Expendi(¡¡res: Administrative 1,308,305 Law Enforcement 6,697,396 -------- - Community Service 680,388 _A. dministrativ e servi~~.. 4,18.0,215 Recreation Service 2,220,031 -- ...-- ---- Community Development! . 2,888,800 Public Works _ Total Expenditur.es ---- - I Operating _Transfers In _L Oyerating Transfers Out 2,750,000 2,300,000 1,365,000 1,285,000 -3.639.286 Licenses and Pennits Use..."! ~.<Jney &_ Propeli)' _ Intergovernmental -'- Charges for Servi"",- _ Fines & Forfeitures -- - -- - -- --- Other Revenue 11/30/2004 Taxes: Sales Tax J'roperty Tax_ l'ransient Occupancy _~Jtility Tax . _ Franchise Fees Other Taxes Net IncomelLoss Sale of Property Total Revenue --J 1 ...j Revenue Comparison 3,500.000 3,000,000 2,500,000 - 2,000,000 1,500,000 ~ 1,000,000 <: :x )< , x " 500,000 - --- ~;.¡ o 4 5 6 8 10 11 Expenditure Comparison 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000- 1,000,000 500,000 0 2 3 5 6 7 . YTO 11/30103 o YTO 11/30104 1 Sales Tax 2 Property Tax 3 TOT 4 Utility Tax. 5 Franchise Fees 60tber 7 Licenses &Perrnits 8 Money & Property 9 Intergovemmental 10 Charges for Services 11 Fines & Forfeitures 12 Other Revenue 12 1 Administrative 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Administrative Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Development 7 Public Works 7-t City of Cupertino i i I S-ummary OfBUcíget TIansrers-- --,-- f-- -- , a-enerarFUncr - ---.-- --- 11/30/2004- ,..--.. -- ----- , --~._-_._. Budget Revenue , Expenditure -....-...--- i --- Descrivtion Acct# Adjustment Budget Budget ; i 2004/05 ADOPTED BUDGET 31,285,000 31,89~,(J()(} , u....._. , -- "--' ------ _._- 2003/04 CARRYOVER: , ----. , -... ~Encumbrances various 181,938 , 181,938 Department carryovers . various 258,445 , 258,445 .". -- i I -- .-..--.-. , -.----- ---. "._- I , --.....-.-- ¡ -- , -- ..... - REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: , _.---..~.._- ! ".-. --- , , -. I --- _"W : EXPENDITURE ADmSTMEN!~~._~ , --..-.. - ._---- ---. Reduce Eco Pass & Conl: ~gIIIl1t 110-8005-7107 +---- -17,920 -17,920 Remove beIl.etits wi PT position I , 110-4400-5713 -1,550 .-:~,~ -..---.....-- __Carry over law enforcement gran~s __ 110-2401-7014 97,332 " 97,332 ,- - ~arry over law enforcement grants 110-2402-7014 t-~ 23,240 ' 23,240 - ---. I Carry over la"'''Ilforcement grants J!10-2401-7014 I 9,999, 9,999 i -- -- - ~l -- I----~- --- 32,44lA84 2004105 ADJUSTED BUDGET 31,285,000 1-; 0.00 ,535.92 ,000.72 0.00 50,000.0('- ~891Q_ 75,00000 ~ 1 O,OOO.OO~ __~.OO ¡ ~ 16!,554c20_ , 39,936.90 ---==. 26.1 ,25{6L , 35,291.36 ___________¡__ _.H.___·.·_··_ 47ß8655 218-,220.~60_ 114,7880:1. ~. ~ 67,47~·¡¡6_ 2,500.00 ~ ~5,OOO.00 200,000.00 ~ 345,053.14 6,630.37 ~ 1,152.00 531,644.96 ~ _.15,423.29 1UlJOOOO 11,005,823.81 Total Budc~t Encumbrance ~¿84~1JO__ ~ ~ 4,2!000 ~0-,167:5614, 12502 _~2~293415~,29i).~1 ~-,ºOOOQ .~ O~OO 5,000~00 ' ~-f9~OÕ'-- ~ - -.- .._-j --- -- -'- -- 202,729,SQ __. 46,371,2.1 106,791,08 17,476~07 6,1 03,594~7¡¡ _()10,OOOOO 1,440,71891 __10,732.23 300,034.!j~ __?29,816~70 49,378.49 .. . _ 30,000.00 '_ ~._ ~ 51,789.00 211,652.00 211,227.00 6,260.70 : 53,896.06 _ _ }4,623.64 ~.35,8~~f- _.500,000.00. --- 4,145~92 _ _ _ 1,000.72 _ ~ 35,641.11 0-" 11 50,000.00 j 125,000.00 75,000.00 _ 10,000.00 128,686.70 _~ 39,936.90 261,251.07 .~~-- __ 35,291.36 , 47,686.55, - - ,--- , 474,294.34 .. .......~.. ·.1' _.-1-.2.0,00.0,00 _ ~ ~ _ 260,000.00 __ __ 5'000.00 _ . _~7.s,OOO.00 200,QOO,OO I 8,286,120.31' , 81,861.60 i 1,152.00 531,644.96 _ _ _.n 47,709.29 _ ..150,000.00 :~ 0.00 21,742,220.84 Proi# De_~criotion 96121 Minor S19~m_ º_~in Improv 9620 Storm DrainProjects 9430 Stev Canyon Rd widening 9432 Hmstd bellevTIle TIS mod if. 9435 Neighborhood traf calming 270 9436 Stev cik T..ai¡~Bike facilities 270 9443, Bollinger Rl5ike facility improv. 270 9447iMary Avenue gateway -270 9449 Mary Avenue Footbridge 270 9450 Pavement Ma~agement 2~70 9531 Ramp meter signal 280185 ~270 9532 SR85/Stev Cn< TIS modification 270 9701 Sidewaik gaps unimprv areas 27..0 9702 i Citywide bike p¡,ikiri!J facilities 280 9213 McClellan Ranch bidg improv. -420, 9113 Stev Crk trail masterplan- ~f _9116 San Thomas trail impro~_~r1!~~ts_ 420 9117 Stev Crk Trail master plan study 420 9216 L~~!,vi~ center expanison ---. - 420 9219iAnimal control facilities 420 9223 Civic cente~_if!l~rovements 420 9224 Civic center plaza_J~provements 420 9225 CH space study ~O' 9226 Sports ctr AlC unit rep!. -- _ 'I 420 9227 Blue pheasant re·roof ~ ~ ..~~_ 420 9228,CH councii chamber remodel -------..--- 420 9229 CH emergency generator 420 9528 280IWolfe traffic safety imp;:Oi.~. ~ 420; 9530 Phase III Hmstd arterial mgmL_ 420 95~:¡ Green LED TIS lights 420 9534 ,Advanced ITS De Anza bivd 420 9541 . School traffic calming measure _ _ 420 9544 Safe routes CHS 420 9545 TIS upgrades various locations 420, 9547 Yellow ped LED TIS upgrades ~ 420' 9548 Traf st walkability mods facility 420 9549!SàTe route Garden Gate school 420 9550'''/§j>attery power backup 423 9222 Library construction 425 9313 Four Season Corner =4~6: 9212 Sports Ctr.fitness e'5{>é~n~ion- 560 9105 Blackberry Farm ~ .-~~' ~ ~~'9112'BBF master plan study 570 _9230 I Tennis court resurfacin~ Current Sa! 62,903.41 926,042.56 7,003.00 410.49 5,000.00 ~ 30,219.00 156,358.29 ~ 89,315.01 5,298,594.78 1,406,820.18 70,217.83 49,378.49 30,000.00 51, 789.00~ 425.00 ~60~70 53,43237_ 34,623.64 ~ 0.00 Excenditure 7,611.39 0.00 0.00 55,589.51 ì 0.00 0.00 195,000.00 23,166.50 0.00 ------- ------ 0.00 463~69 -.- 35,864.55 500,000.00 2,610.00 chanae ------- ---- _____ ___u_ -T800,OÕOI ~~ _ J50,660L u l - - --- - - Capital Projects 10/31/04 CIO budaet AdoQted 44,511.80 ~ u___26,Q5.:i 84Q. 167.55 .~ .~_l5,QO() 7,Qœ.00 ____ _ 0.00 56,000 ------- - 5,OOO~00 --- , ---I 30,219.00 : 156,358.29 ' 89,315.01 498,594.78 682,205.18 70,217.83 49,378.49 i 30,000.00 , 51,789.00 i 211,652.00 6,260.70 .____0,00' 53,896.06 . O~OO I 34,623.64 _1_9,88i1:QO 15,Q7.6c~~ 0.00 500,000.00 . 0.00 .\,14!j,g2 ' 0.00 1,000.72, 35,641.11 i 0.00 , ! , CIO enc 3,320.00 25,000.01 55,290.41 46,371.21 17,476.07 805,000.00 8,513.73 229,816.70 ; ~ Funa: 210 215 270 270 270 .....~641. 50,000.00 125,000.06.' 7!j,000.00 0,000.00 33,854~90 ~7,848~ 5,211.98 170,771.40 2,500.00 5,581,046.66 14,007.29 0.00 , 56.00 2,360,022Ji1 61.22:3~94 0.00 132.50 6 ,756.74 1 208,225. -- 21 21 -- 100,000.00 60,000.00 270,000.00 , ---± --- -- -- - - ----- 21,132~50 107,554.20 = = =t = 39,936.90 I ~ _ O,OO~ _ 261,251.07 O~OO . 35,291.36 _ = =O~OÕ~¡:: 47,686.55 70,.5~6,8Q _ 403.737.54 20.000.00 _188,100...00 _ _11,900.00 __ _ 0~i)0 . ~ ~ Jj,OOO.OO _().001_.205,000.00 0.00 ' 200,OOO.0i) 7,460,382.04 825,738:?7 5,000.00 76,861.60 1,152.00 531,644.96 47,709.29 0.00 ..19-,9QOC'-o. 6,695,446.45 - 4-;-040:95058 f 32,286.00 18,200.00 150,000.00 6,552,953.00 I 0.00 0.00 , --o~oOT 8,99;~~;~~5; ~, 197.i7926 ---- Total --j I ~ /<~I , ,\ ~j' ___J City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Califomia 95014 Phone (408) 777-3312 Fov (40R) 777_~~('(' I F CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER F AGENDA DATEJðlY\~ 4, ;¿tJ-os SUBJECT AND ISSUE Application for Alcoholic Beverage License, BACKGROUND I. Name of Business: Location: Type of Business: Type of License: Reason for Application: Todai Restaurant 10123 N, Wolfe Rd., #2001 Restaurant On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place Person to Person Transfer RECOMMENDATION There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use, and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. Prepared by: Submitted by: /3. G_/(Þ¡ Zdtñd~ Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ~ David W, Knapp, City Manager G:planningimisc/todai2 f-I Printed on Recycled Paper State of Califomia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control APPLlCA nON FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LlCENSE(S) ABC 211 (6/99) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage 100 Paseo de San Antonio Room 119 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 277-1200 DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: First Owner: Name of Business: Location of Business: County: Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different from premises address) Type of license(s): 41 Transferor's license/name: Control File Number: 421243 Receipt Number: 1496836 Geographical Code: 4303 Copies Mailed Date: December Issued Date: 8, 2004 SAN JOSE CUPERTINO susm & SEAFOOD BUFFET INC TODAI RESTAURANT 10123 N WOLFE RD 2001 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 SANTA CLARA Yes Census Tract 5081.02 374679 / TODA1 FRANCH11 Dropping Partner: Yes_ No License Type Transaction Type Fee Type Master IlY..¡¡ I2ili Fee 41 ON-SALE BEER AND PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF NA Y 0 12/08/04 $150.00 41 ON·SALE BEER AND ANNUAL FEE NA Y 0 12/08/04 $304.00 Total $454.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: December 8, 2004 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (1) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive officer of tbe applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application. duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made: (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Signature(s) Applicant Name(s) CUPERTINO SUSHI & SEAFOOD BUFFET INC ~pp. 211 ~ignAtllrp PAfP. ?-;¿ :>-1 ''''Th' !I'\~ J City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3210 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Website: www,cupertino.org I F CUPEIQ1NO PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number î Agenda Date: January 4,2005 SUBJECT Designate A YSO 64 as an organization providing a unique recreational opportunity and approve a permit for Sunday play at Jollyman Park from noon to 2 p.m., March through the first week in June, and waive fees for the VIP program (special needs youth soccer), estimated at approximately $2,000. BACKGROUND We have received a request fÌ'om Art Zimmerman, coordinator of the South Bay VIP program, for Sunday play at Jollyman Park beginning in mid March through the first week of June, fÌ'om noon to 2 p.m. Mr. Zimmerman would also like a waiver of field use fees, as there are no charges for the program; all materials and equipment are donated and coaches and referees are volunteers. The estimated field use fees are $2,000. Pursuant to the City Council adopted policy for field use: "An organization providing a unique recreational opportunity, such as one serving special needs youth, may be assigned a special priority status following review of their offering by the Parks and Recreation Commission and approval by the City Council, including use of fields on Sunday". The Parks and Recreation Commission considered this request on December 7, 2004, and recommended its approval to the City Council. Printed on Recycled Paper 1-1 A YSO 64 January 4, 2004 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council designate A YSO 64 as an organization providing a unique recreational opportunity and approve a permit for Sunday play at JoUyman Park fÌ'om noon to 2 p.m., March through the first week in June, and waive fees for the VIP program. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: ~~ rese Ambrosl Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department ~ David Knapp, City Manager (l-~ I ."i 0!!~- , . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPEIQ1NO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM 10 AGENDA DATE January 4.2005 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption by the City Council of Resolution No. 05- OO~ execute a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the Center-to-Center Program. , authorizing the City Manager to San Francisco Bay Area Interim BACKGROUND This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), City of Campbell, City of Cupertino, City of Fremont, City of Milpitas, City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Town of Los Gatos, City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, and the City and County of San Francisco relating to the 3 San Francisco Bay Area Smart Corridors, which are the Silicon Valley Intelligent Transportation Systems (SV-ITS), the 1-580, and the SFgo programs. The City of Cupertino is part of the SV-ITS Smart Corridor. The Smart Corridor enables the exchange of real-time traffic data and real-time video images between its participants, but provides limited ability for real-time exchange with other Smart Corridors, Caltrans, and other Bay Area entities. The purpose of the Interim Center-to-Center Program is to implement and operate an Interim Center-to-Center System that will enable the exchange of real-time traffic data and video between the Bay Area's Smart Corridors and the Regional Transportation Management Center, where Caltrans, California Highway Patrol and TravInfo® (provider of round-the-clock current road information via phone number 511) staff are co-located. The Interim Program and Interim System are anticipated to continue for several years, but eventually will be replaced by a more comprehensive system with multimodal and/or statewide capabilities, The purpose of this MOU is to acknowledge the agreement of all parties to work cooperatively in the development of an Interim Center-to-Center Program and implementation of an Interim Center-to-Center System. The following are the key provisions of the MOD. · The MOU does not authorize funding or project effort, nor is it a legally binding contract. Commitments providing for the payment of funds or authorizing specific work phases will be covered by separate agreements. · The MOU establishes an Executive Committee, composed of one member from the lead agency for each of the three Smart Corridors, Caltrans and MTC. The Executive Committee responsibilities include resolving institutional issues, policy differences, or 1 Printed on Recycled Paper (o-{ other disagreements that cannot be resolved by the TAC, and approving expansion of the Program and System to include other Parties, · The MOU establishes a Technical Advisory Committee, composed of staff members from each of the Parties, and responsible for the Systems' implementation, operation, and maintenance, . All Parties agrees to provide the following; ensure compliance with the objectives, requirements, and standards oftheir agencies; exchange real-time transportation data and video; participate in the pursuit of funding for future phases as well as on-going operations and maintenance; and for those portions of the system within their boundaries, provide system operations, management, and maintenance. . The Policy for the Exchange of Real- Time Traffic Data and Real-Time Video enables, but do not require, the exchange of information with another Party, and explicitly prohibits storing (recording) video, unless provided for in a separate agreement. · The Parties are committed to respecting and protecting the privacy of all members of the public. No information about, or that is traceable to, any individual person will be collected, exchanged, stored, or manipulated. All activities will be implemented in a manner consistent with Federal and California laws governing an individual's right to privacy. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05- 00 I., ,authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the San Francisco Bay Area Interim Center-to-Center Program. Submitted by: Approved for submission: AIS'(.f1I~' tM(" David W. Knapp City Manager 'f1'It- Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works 2 / D-).. RESOLUTION NO. 05-006 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATING TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA INTERIM CENTER- TO-CENTER PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is part of the Silicon Valley Intelligent Transportation Systems (SV-ITS) Smart Corridor. The Smart Corridor enables the exchange of real-time traffic data and real-time video images between its participants; and WHEREAS, SV-ITS Smart Corridor provides limited ability for real-time exchange with other Smart Corridors, Caltrans, and other Bay Area entities; and WHEREAS, the Interim Center-to-Center Program will implement and operate an Interim Center-to-Center System to enable the exchange of real-time traffic data and video between the Bay Area's Smart Corridors and the Regional Transportation Management Center; and WHEREAS, this Memorandum of Understanding will acknowledge the agreement of all parties to work cooperatively in the development of an Interim Center-to-Center Program and implementation of an Interim Center-to-Center System to continue for several years and eventually be replaced by a more comprehensive system with multimodal and/or statewide capabilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the San Francisco Bay Area Interim Center-to-Center Program. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 10- j :'11 ~\!~, . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPEIQ1NO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM~ AGENDA DATE Januarv 4,2005 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption by the City Council of Resolution No. 05- 001 , authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that will enable the City to receive a Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in the amount of $100,000.00 for the Mary Avenue Gateway project. BACKGROUND In fiscal year 2000-2001 Council added the Mary Avenue Gateway project, which consists of a pedestrian gateway on Mary Avenue north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, to the City's five-year Capital Improvement Program list and allocated funds for its design and construction. The City proceeded to engage traffic and urban design consultants who reviewed a number of design alternatives and produced a preliminary project design. Subsequently, Council approved placing the project on hold so that Staff could seek grant funding that, if approved, would enable the project to continue at a later date without increasing its impact on an already constrained City General Fund budget. On June 21, 2004, Council approved a resolution authorizing submittal of an application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant funds for the Mary Avenue Gateway project. Fortunately, the BAAQMD approved the City's subsequent application for TFCA grant funds in the amount of $100,000.00 with no local match requirement. These grant funds will allow the Mary Avenue Gateway project to complete design and go to bid in Spring 2005. FISCAL IMPACT This action will allow the City to receive TFCA grant funds in the amount of $100,000.00 for the Mary Avenue Gateway project. Printed on Recycled Paper Il-( STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Cupertino City Council adopt Resolution No. 05- 007 , authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that will enable the City to receive a Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in the amount of$100,000.00 for the Mary Avenue Gateway. ~ed bYe] J ~,_.,.ÞI'" tw- Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: DÀ( David W. Knapp City Manager /1-02 DRAfT RESOLUTION NO. 05-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO RECEIVE A TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR GRANT FOR THE MARY AVENUE GATEWAY PROJECT WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has approved a Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in the amount of $100,000.00 for the Mary Avenue Gateway project in the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, in order to receive the grant, Bay Area Air Quality Management District requires that a funding agreement between Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the City of Cupertino be executed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to a execute a funding agreement with Bay Area Air Quality Management District in order to receive the Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in the allocated amount of$l 00,000.00 dedicated to the Mary A venue Gateway project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino II~ 3 ;'\\ 11 ' ,.\ ~--.. . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPEIQ1NO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM IJ.. AGENDA DATE January 4.2005 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Resolution No. 05- ðDK ,authorizing submittal of an application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) for funds to reduce emissions ftom solid waste collection vehicles and authorizing the City Manager to execute a funding agreement ifthe application is approved by the BAAQMD. BACKGROUND The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is soliciting applications for the Transportation Fund for Clean Air. Funds have been set aside specifically for retrofit of refuse trucks to reduce NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions, NOx contributes to the formation of ozone. The funds can only be applied for by public agencies; waste hauling companies are not permitted to apply. In July 2004, Council approved an application for seven qualifying trucks. That application was approved by BAAQMD in October. This application has been submitted to BAAQMD on behalf of Los Altos Garbage Company (LAGCO) to retrofit an additional nine qualifying trucks servicing Cupertino and to request an additional $1,500 per vehicle for the previous seven that were approved, which would cover the entire cost of the retrofits ($10,500 for each vehicle). Because the funds are first come first serve, the application was submitted on December 15, 2004, the first available date to submit, and the application contained a letter fÌ'om the City Manager stating the resolution would follow if approved by Council at the next available meeting. The application was not available in time for the resolution to be sent at the same time. The amount offunding being applied for is $110,000, This application is not competing for the same funds as the application for the Mary Avenue Gateway Project. While it is under the same grant program, TFCA, a certain amount of money is set aside specifically for refuse truck retrofits. FISCAL IMPACT There is no cost implication to the City. Printed on Recycled Paper /2-/ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 05-00t , authorizing submittal of an application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) for funds to reduce emissions fÌ'om solid waste collection vehicles and authorizing the City Manager to execute a funding agreement if the application is approved by the BAAQMD. ,~I?Itz. Approved for submission: ~ fÐ'L- Ralph A, Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works David W. Knapp City Manager /~-1- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 05-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICA nON TO THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR FUNDS TO REDUCE EMISSSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLES FOR RETROFIT OF LOS ALTOS GARBAGE COMPANY REFUSE TRUCKS IN CUPERTINO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED BY THE BAAQMD WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has allocated funding fÌ'om the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) to assist refuse fleets in reducing emissions; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino desires to apply for funding fÌ'om the TFCA funds solid waste collection vehicles to retrofit refuse trucks to cover 100% of the cost of the NOx (nitrogen oxide) reduction components (NOx contributes to ozone formation); and· WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino desires to participate in the solid waste collection vehicle program; and WHEREAS, local government agencies within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air District are eligible to receive these funds on behalf of the solid waste collection vehicle fleets that they own or that they hold under contract to perform solid waste collection; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino authorizes submittal of project applications in the amount of $11 0,000 for Transportation Fund for Clean Air. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino if the application is approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjoumed meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day ofJanuary 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /2-J RESOLUTION NO. 05-009 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REVISED FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9655, LOCATED AT 19501, 19503, 19505, 19507 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, APN 316-20-084; DEVELOPER, CUPERTINO HOUSING PARTNERS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF REVISED FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 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 19501, 19503, 19505, 19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 316-20-084, showing certain avenues, drives, places, and roads by Cupertino Housing Partners LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed agreement for the construction of streets, curbs, and gutters and for other improvements, and good and sufficient bonds, fees, and deposits as set forth in Exhibit "A" having been presented for the faithful performance of said work and the carrying out of said agreement; and said map, agreement, and bonds having been approved by the City Attorney; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT a. Said final map and improvement plans of Tract No. 9655, be and the same are hereby approved. b. The City Engineer and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign said final map. c. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to sign the improvement plans, d. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the agreement herein referred to. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members ofthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino r 3-( Resolution No. 05-009 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Cupertino Housing Partners LLC, a California Limited Liability Company LOCATION: APN 316-20-084 19501,19503,19505,19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard, A, Faithful Performance Bond: $ 257,961.50 TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SDCTY-ONE AND 00/100 DOLLARS 8. Labor and Material Bond: $ 257,961.50 TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY -ONE AND 00/1 00 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 12,898.08 TWELVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT AND 81100 DOLLARS D. Development Maintenance Deposit N/A E. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 11,286.00 ELEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX AND 001100 DOLLARS F. One Year Power Cost: N/A G. Street Trees: By Developer H. Map Checking Fee: FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS $ 520.00 I. Park Fee: $ 737,100,00 SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND 001100 DOLLARS J. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A K. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item #21 of agreement /3- J- City of Cupertino . 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 F CUPElQ1NO Community Development Deparbnent Summary Agenda Item No..ri Agenda Date: Tanuary 4, 2005 SUMMARY: APPEAL of Planning Commission Actions on file nos. TM-2004-10, and TR-2004-09 as they pertain to the denial of the removal of a 29-inch deodar cedar on proposed lot No, 2 at 22291 Cupertino Road. RECOMMENDA nON: The City Council can take any of the following actions: 1) Uphold the appeal and approve the deodar cedar tree removal: . Modify the Tentative Map, file no. TM-2004-10, Approval (Condition #5), by deleting covenant protections for the deodar cedar. . Modify the Tree Removal, file no, TR-2004-09, Denial, by authorizing the removal of the deodar cedar. 2) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to retain the deodar cedar. BACKGROUND: On November 9, 2004, the Planning Commission: 1) approved a tentative map to subdivide a 23,158 square foot lot into two lots (about 11,000 and 12,000 square feet in size) in a R1-10 zone (5-0 vote), and 2) denied a tree removal request to remove five specimen size trees (1 oak, 4 cedars) on a 4-1 vote. (Exhibits A, B & C). Two commissioners would consider the removal of the deodar cedar if the residential plans could not avoid adversely affecting the tree, Staff originally recommended approval of the subdivision and denial of the tree removal request. /Lf-{ Appeal ofTM-2004-1O, TR-2004-09 Page 2 January 4,2004 The applicant concurs with the Planning Corrunission decision to preserve the three Atlas Cedars and relocate the Coast Live Oak. However, he is appealing the tentative map condition (#5 on the resolution) to preserve the deodar cedar (Exhibit E). The deodar cedar is located on the Hillcrest Road frontage of the proposed lot #2, The applicant has submitted two floor plan studies (Exhibit F): one for a one-story house (Sheet A-l) and the other for a two-story house (Sheet A-2), to justify his request for the removal of the deodar cedar. DISCUSSION: The zoning ordinance interprets the Cupertino Road frontage as the front yard and the Hillcrest Road frontage as the side yard, These floor plan studies assume Hillcrest Road would be the frontage, Reversal of the front yard requires a "yard reinterpretation" approval by the Planning Commission, which has not been done yet. Staff would be supportive of the reinterpretation as it would afford more protection from development for all of the cedars. Each floor plan study proposes a 3-car garage and a floor area ratio (FAR) of about 35.9% for the one-story plan, and a FAR of 37.4% for the two-story plan, both well under the maximum FAR of 45 %. The one-story floor plan study (Sheet A-l) clearly shows that the house would take up most of the building envelope outside of the canopies of the cedars and still encroach significantly into the canopy areas where the tree root zone is located, A one-story house plan is not a viable option that will protect the cedars, The two-story floor plan (sheet A-2) shows a significantly smaller building footprint in the potential building envelope. There is building space to the rear and left side, A portion of the first floor plan can be shifted to the rear and left sides of the building envelope to pull the circular den out of the canopy of the deodar cedar, and the kitchen and dining room away from the canopy of the Atlas Cedars, The other potential incursion into the tree driplines is the associated street improvements with the street dedication (curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements). We understand that neighbors are soliciting signatures for a petition to give Hillcrest Road and a portion of Cupertino Road a rural or semi-rural street designation, If they are successful in their endeavor, there will be less grading and street improvements required that will affect the cedars. Staff concludes that a two-story house plan can be reasonably designed for this site without significantly encroaching on the root zones of the cedar and thus concurs with the Planning Commission decision to preserve the deodar cedar. 2 !i.{-;¿ Appeal ofTM - 2004-10, TR - 2004-09 Page 3 January 4,2004 Enclosures: Exhibit A: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. Exhibit B: Planning Commission staff report dated November 9, 2004. Exhibit C: Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing dated 11/9/04. Exhibit D: "Review of a Tree Survey and Arborist Report by Deborah Ellis For 22291 Cupertino Road, Cupertino, prepared by Barrie Coate And Associates dated 10/19/04. Exhibit E: Applicant's Appeal Form Exhibit F: Floor Plan Studies for a one-story & two-story house (Sheets A-I, A-2) Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner SUBMITTED BY: ~ David W, Knapp City Manager Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g:plaruring/ pdreport/ cc/TR-2OO4-09appeal.doc 3 1'{-3 EX \+I 611-:' ft TR-2004-09 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6283 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYINGA REQUEST TO REMOVE FIVE SPECIMEN SIZE TREES: ONE COAST LIVE OAK, THREE BLUE ATLAS CEDARS AND ONE DEODAR CEDAR SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No,: Applicant: Location: TR-2004-09 Cupertino Estates, LLC 22291 Cupertino Road SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to removal five specimen size trees, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds: A. That the tree is not irreversibly diseased, is not in danger of falling, does not cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or does not interferes with private on-site utility services; B. That there are alternative site development plans that can avoid the cedar trees and retain them on the property. C. That the Coast Live Oak is young enough to be transplanted elsewhere on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby not approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning I L(-L( Resolution No, 6283 Page 2 TR-2004-09 11(09(04 Application TR-2004-09, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 9, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of November 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/ TaghiSaadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ TR-2004-09 res. doc (l{-) TM-2004-10 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO, 6282 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 23,158 NET SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS OF APPROXIMATELY 11,000 AND 12,000 SQU ARE FEET AT 22291 CUPERTINO ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2004-10 Cupertino Estates, LLC 22291 Cupertino Road SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan, c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems, f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, {'-{ -~ Resolution No. 6282 Page 2 TM-2004-1O November 9, 2004 ~------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------==== NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2004-10 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are . based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2004-10, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of November 9, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION Ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on exhibits titled: "Cupertino Estates Housing Development Lot Division & Tree Removal, 22291 Cupertino Road, Cupertino, CA" consisting of 3 sheets, dated September 29, 2004 and labeled A-O, TM-1 and A-1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2, DEMOLITION The applicant is required to demolish existing structures in accordance with City demolition procedures. 3, NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions, You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 4. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING Applicant shall comply with the policies in the City's Below Market Rate Housing Manual. 5. COVENANT FOR TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall prepare and record a covenant that runs with the land, acknowledging the protective status of the specimen size Coast Live Oak, three Blue Atlas Cedars and one Deodar Cedar under the city's heritage and specimen (l( - l Resolution No, 6282 Page 3 TM-2004-1O November 9, 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------~---- ------------------------------------------------------------ tree ordinance. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed In accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 8, STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 9, FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 10. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City, 11. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 12, GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required, Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate, 13. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post- development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 14, FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. Il{-'t Resolution No. 6282 Page 4 TM-2004-10 November 9, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No, 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices, Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 16. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Grading/Improvement Permit: $ 5% of On and Off-Site Improvement Costs $ 1,000.00 $ 769.13 b. Development Maintenance Deposit: c. Storm Drainage Fee: d, Power Cost: e. Map Checking Fees: f. Park Fees: ** $ 3,250.00 $ 15,750 Bonds: a, On site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. b. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule, ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 17, TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, (1.{-1 Resolution No, 6282 Page 5 TM-2004-l0 November 9, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 18. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. Identify all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be installed on and off-site. 19, WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements, CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474,18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices, I al Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of November 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: I s I Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl TaghiSaadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \Planning\ PDREPORT\ RES\ TM-2004-10.doc { I..{-(å £X\-hBII: IS CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: TM-2004-10, TR-2004-09 Simon Lin & J OM Wong Cupertino Estates, LLC 22291 Cupertino Road Agenda Date: November 9, 2004 Application Summary: TENT ATIVE MAP to subdivide a 23,158 square foot lot into two parcels (approximately 11,000 and 12,000 square feet ín size) in a R1-10 zoning district. TREE REMOVAL REQUEST to allow the potential removal of 5 specimen trees (1 oak and 4 cedars) on a residential parcel. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file number TM-2004-10 and deny the tree removal request, file no. TR-2004-09, to allow the removal of five specimen trees: one Deodar Cedar, one Coast Live Oak and three Blue Atlas Cedars, in accordance with the model resolutions. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU I gr. acre RHO 26,173 square feet Lot 1-11,055 sq. ft., Lot 2,12,141 sq. ft. 3,33 dul gr. acre. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Yes Yes Categorically exempt. Environmental Assessrnent: BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the northeast corner of Cupertino Road and Hillcrest Road at 22291 Cupertino Road. The lot lacks curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements and is near a topographic low spot for the area. Storm flows from the street currently drain onto the property or sheet flow easterly on Cupertino Road or northerly onto Hillcrest. Road. The lot slopes gradually toward the street but the front and side of the lot are predominantly below the grade of the street. (l(-(( TM-2004-10, TR-2004-09 Page 2 November 9, 2004 An existing house and storage building are located toward the rear of the lot with driveway access taken from the southeast corner of the lot. Surrounding land uses are all single-family residential uses. The lot is heavily forested, but most of the trees are ornamental or fruit trees. There are five ordinance-protected, specimen size trees on the property: Tree # " 'c 'c' 'it TreeS }c, IJia.:fu.etètafJ3te¡!.stiiHeight 1 Blue Atlas Cedar 28,S inches 2 Blue Atlas Cedar 24 inches 3 Blue Atlas Cedar 44.3 inches 4 Deodar Cedar 2S.S inches 5 Coast Live Oak 11 inches DISCUSSION: Zoning and General Plan Conformance: At 11,000 and 12,000 net square feet, both proposed lots are consistent with the zoning designation of RI-I0. The residential density at 3,33 duj gross acre is also consistent with the general plan land use designation. Subdivision Irnprovements: The area has a rural character with a lack of street improvements, but these streets have not been petitioned by neighbors for a rural street standard, which would preclude sidewalk improvements. The applicant is proposing to fill the onsite drainage channels at the property line in order to build up the grade and allow sidewalk and gutter improvements to be at street level. Tree Removal: The protected trees are described in the attached arborist report (Exhibit A). All of them exhibit good health and vigor, although as noted in the report the cedars have fair to poor structures. The four cedars are very tall and large trees and are prominent features in the neighborhood. The applicant has proposed removal of the four Cedars and the oak. Although building footprints are shown in the plan set, they are conceptual in nature since the building designs have not been finalized, There are different development options that could allow the specimen trees to be protected, It is premature to approve removal of the trees when alternative residential designs are available. Staff believes that the grove of three Blue Atlas Cedars on proposed Lot 2 can be preserved in the development and should be treated as one unit. As noted in the report, the roots of the tree have grown together and removing one tree will harm the other Atlas Cedars. The Deodar Cedar may be preserved, but it is closer to the midpoint of the lot and is likely to experience construction impacts that might harm the { l{ -( Z ----- ----~~ TM-2004-10, TR-2004-09 Page :', November 9, 2004 tree. An attempt should be made to protect this tree. The specimen size Coast Live Oak is in the center of the development footprint. The arborist indicates it is young enough to be transplanted and staff is supportive of the recommendation, In addition, the applicants indicate that they may wait for the outcome of the R1 zoning ordinance amendments before they decide on their final building design. This further reinforces staff recommendation not to approve tree removal at this time, ~'I Prepared by: Colin J ung, Senior Planner -- Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of C munity Development Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2004-10, TR-2004-09 Exhibit A: Tree Survey & Arborist Report for 22291 Cupertino Road Plan Set H:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\ pcTMreports\ TM-2004-10b.doc (C( -(] TM-2004-10 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 23,158 NET SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS OF APPROXIMATELY 11,000 AND 12,000 SQUARE FEET AT 22291 CUPERTINO ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2004-10 Cupertino Estates, LLC 22291 Cupertino Road SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan, b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor injure fish and wildlife or their habitat, e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems, f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. (L{-(<{ Resolution No, Page 2 TM-2004-1O November 9, 2004 =================================================================== NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2004-10 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2004-10, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of November 9, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1, APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on exhibits titled: "Cupertino Estates Housing Development Lot Division & Tree Removal, 22291 Cupertino Road, Cupertino, CA" consisting of 3 sheets, dated September 29,2004 and labeled A-O, TM-l and A-I, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. DEMOLITION The applicant is required to demolish existing structures in accordance with City demolition procedures. 3, NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 4. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING Applicant shall comply with the policies in the City's Below Market Rate Housing Manual. 5. COVENANT FOR TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall prepare and record a covenant that runs with the land, acknowledging the protective status of the specimen size Coast Live Oak, three Blue Atlas Cedars and one Deodar Cedar under the city's heritage and specimen Il{-( ,) Resolution No, Page 3 TM-2004-1O November 9,2004 =================================================================== tree ordinance. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed In accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 8. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 9, FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 10. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 11. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 12. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 13. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post- development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 14. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. I~-(~ Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2004-10 November 9, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----~------------------------------------------------------------- 15, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions, Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 16. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities, Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Grading/Improvement Permit: $ 5% of On and Off-Site Improvement Costs $1,000.00 $ 769.13 b. Development Maintenance Deposit: c, Storm Drainage Fee: d. Power Cost: e. Map Checking Fees: f. Park Fees: ** $ 3,250.00 $ 15,750 Bonds: a. On site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. b. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 17. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. (L(~(7 Resolution No, Page 5 TM-2004-10 November 9, 2004 ---------------------------------~--------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 18. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMF's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. Identify all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be installed on and off-site. 19, WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices, / s/ Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission c:\ Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ TM-2004-10.doc (L(-{J TR-2004-09 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A REQUEST TO REMOVE FIVE SPECIMEN SIZE TREES: ONE COAST LIVE OAK, THREE BLUE ATLAS CEDARS AND ONE DEODAR CEDAR SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2004-09 Cupertino Estates, LLC 22291 Cupertino Road SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to removal five specimen size trees, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds: A. That the tree is not irreversibly diseased, is not in danger of falling, does not cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or does not interferes with private on-site utility services; B. That there are alternative site development plans that can avoid the cedar trees and retain them on the property. C. That the Coast Live Oak is young enough to be transplanted elsewhere on the property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby not approved; and That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning I L{-/1 Resolution No. Page 2 TR-2004-09 11/09/04 Application TR-2004-09, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 9, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of November 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission G:\PlalIDÌng\PDREPORT\RES\ TR-2004-09 res.doc fl{-2D Deborah Ellis, MS E.'£~il'J: 11 Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist 5Cl11icc since 1984 TREE SURVEY & ARBORIST REPORT 22291 Cupertino Road, Cupertino, California Prepared for: Simon Un Innovaflve Design Associates 510 Lawrence Expressway #105 Sunnyvale. CA 94085 Prepared by: Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist American Society of Consulting Arborists. Registered Consulting Arborist #305 International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Certified Arborist #457 Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 SEPTEMBER 24. 2004 ©Copyright Deborah Ellis. 2004. This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Ellis. 1((-;2.1 Deborah Ellis, MS Consutting Arborist & Horticulturist Sen!ice since 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS TREE MA P .............. ..........,.. ............................ ............. ........... ..............,..,.....,.......................,....., ................ ........... 1 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................................2 Introd uclion .................",... ......... ...... ................ ..... ........ ....... .............. .....,.......... ...........................,..... .......... ......,.6 Purpose of survey & report ...,.....,...............,........................................................................................,......,.." 6 Background ........, .........................., ............, ............. ............ ...... .......... ...............,.......... ......., .......... ................. 7 SURVEY M ETHO DS "...................,.....,......",..... ............. ........,...... ...... .................................,...... ........ ..... ............ 7 Observations.. ....................... ................ ...... ................................... .............................. ...... ..... ...................... ........ 8 Field Conditions .............................................................,.........................,.....,...................................................8 DESCRIPTION OF the Specimen Trees.......................................................................................,..,.................8 A tlas cedars # 1, 2 & 3..................................................................................................................................,8 deodar cedar #4 ......,......................,..,............,......,................."..................,..,......,.........."...."...........,....... 9 Coast live oak #5 ..........,..,........................................,.........................,.....,.................................,..,............ 1 0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............,.....,...,.........................,..,................................................,.....,..............,..............10 APPENDIX ....,.."..................,..................,..................,..................,.........................,.............................................. 12 Glossary ...., .............. ..........,..,......, ......... .... ............, .....,.., ................... ...... ........., ................ ...... ........... ............. 1 2 Limits of Scope............................................................................................,..........................,......................... 12 (l{-;¿~ Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serr,;ce since 1984 TREE MAP ... NnRIU -"'... k&.' u . .--. I.··.. Co 3 Atlas cedars &. .. . L c.!~ . I ,~ 1 _ /II t~7".. .... -..L. ! --. --':':::'l _ I~-·~~ '-. ~ ~_., ",co'-· ~:. ~~~ > ... C. If, .... .' :;r.~ ; ~ d"1::, ';;C.'-'l ~) ~ L¡2 &. II. ....1., It. -..I ~-~ ,~:¡: ¡..;', I.J , 'W LJ ~_. . Co I\. .. è-. p 7- :J) '" I , . ~ .. -- 5 coast Co .. .. o;j II:; !:I ..::'i ¡..; ~ ~ ~ - Co l¡ c. --II c.- If, ;; ~O:7.ce· ~.~).- ~ .~. IN'''' I'. - I\. .". . c: ':CO .. &. __r.__H1U'REST ~t. ('¡~R/") s. ='1 '" c.. L . It. -c.____~___.___~---~--.&. This document was emaifed from Deborah Ellis at decahCàJDacbell.net. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050, Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357, Web site: http://www,decah,com/ Page 1 of 13 {l(-lJ Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sendee since 1984 SUMMARY There are five specimen frees' on the project site, each of which will require a tree removal permit if removed, These trees are listed in the Table below and are also located in the Tree Map on the previous page, according to their tree tag number (1 through 5), Tree # :i;:.,:.Scl~ntjf C&Côr'Ì'lr'Ì'lôÌ1riar'Ì'lê:,!1i;XC j~tt\ DBHYi '·n 1 Cedrus atlantica . Glauca', blue atlas cedar 28.8 I 2 blue atlas cedar 24. I 3 blue atlas cedar 44.3 I 4 Cedrus deodara, deodar cedar 28.8 @ 3,5 ft. I mQuercus agrifolia, coast live oak 1-110 After review of the Arborist Report Application Plan (sheet C-l , September t 5,2004 from Innovative Design Associates) I hove determined that: · Trees #3. 4 and 5 will have to be removed because they are too close to or within the proposed home footprints. · Tree 1/2 will probably have to be removed because it is closer than advisable to the proposed home footprint, and if it remains and adjacent trees 1/1 or 3 are removed it (#2) will become a full or partial edae tree'. · The enllre arove' of Alias cedar trees 1/1,2 and 3 should be preserved, if you would like to keep any individual tree in Ihis grove. The reason for Ihis is that these trees constilute a tight grove, and removal of some or all of the grove members would threaten the stability and health of the remaining trees. When viewed individually, each of Ihese three trees has a one-sided. asymmetric canopy due to the close proximity to the other two trees. This is acceptable as long as the trees remain as an intact grove. If any of these trees are isolated however (by removal of adjacenllrees) Ihey will become "edge trees" as explained in footnote #2 below. 1 A "soecimen tree" in CUDertino is any oak species (Quercus genus) or California buckeye tree (Aescu/us californica) with a trunk DBH (diameter at breast height, 4.5 feet above the ground) of 10 inches or greater, or Atlas or deodar cedar trees (Cedrus ot/antica or C. deodara) or bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with a DBH of 12 inches or greater. This information is from the Cupertino City Ordinance. Chapter 14.18. 2 Edae tree: a tree at the edge of the grove or tree row which may have been exposed to wind and other forces to a greater extent than neighboring trees inside the grove or row. Edge trees develop support mechanisms over time. Removal of edge trees, creating new edge trees that have not been as exposed to the elements, may cause the new edge trees to fail. 3 Grove: a group of trees that located dose together that shelter each other from wind and the elements: having liknit" canopies. If of the same species. there is usually root grafting between trees. which lends support from the ground. as well as water and nutrient sharing. Removal of one or some grove members could cause remaining members {particularly "edge trees"} to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 40B-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah,com/ Page 2 of 13 (l{-2\..{ Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ServU::c situ;c 1984 The grove of cedar frees #1 through #3 is in Fair/Good condition and has Moderate/Good preservation suitability. In order to preserve these trees, I recommend that the proposed house on the soulhem lot be moved farther from the grove of trees #llhrough #3 (10 at leasl a minimum distance of 12 feet from tree # I (the distance exceeds this now - try not to decrease this). 10 feet from tree #2, and 16 feet from tree #3. This minimum distance must include any over-excavation and work margin required beyond the edge of the actual improvement itself. For example, if a 3- foot -over-excavation is required for the house foundation, then the minimum distance for tree # I must be 12 + 3 = 15 feet. Note that this is for root protection only, and it would be much better to build beyond the dripline (canopy) of eoch tree if possible. I also recommend that the tree trunks and driplines be accurate", plotted on the plan, so that we can more accurately see exactly where proposed improvements will be located to each. If a large portion of the canopy has to be removed in order to fit in an improvement, this may necessitate removing the tree. Deodar cedar #4: This tree is located 6 to 8 feet from the proposed house, which is simply too close. In addilion, the trunk of this tree is not plotted on the plan, so I cannot be sure about this distance. As with the Atlas cedar trees above, the absolute minimum distance that root disturbance can come to this tree is 12 feet plus any necessary over-excavation). As with the Atlas cedars, I also recommend that the tree trunk and dripline be accurate", plotted on the plan, so that we can more accurate", see exactly where proposed improvements will be located to each, Coast live oak #5 is located within a proposed house so it is obvious that this tree must be removed. Could the tree be dug and Iransplanted? Yes, but it is a liltle large for a tree spade - il may be better to trench around. box and then transplant the tree. You may contact me about this, and a referral 10 a tree mover, if you are interested. Other frees: there are approximately 17 additional "non-specimen" trees on Ihe property, which have not been reviewed for this report. Many of these trees are deciduous fruit trees, I briefly looked at each of these non-specimen trees to make sure that they did not fall into the "specimen tree" or other protected tree category. PO Box 3714, Sorotogo. CA 95050. Phone & Fox: 408-725-1357. Eme;l: decoh@pocbell.net. Web site: http://www.decoh.com/ Page 3 of 13 { l( - l~ Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 To follow is the Complele Tree Table listing all tree data on each tree. On the next page there is an explanation of each column in the Table. '-~<'" >, "I " ."'g' c -c o -0 ~ ò~¥ ';~¡~~~0~: Cónšìr !,~~~ ·_:.:;-~1F:':-iit\;·~;X 1"-o~;~1i: ècíge ~f itnPI~V~ ,'l!iènt ., -¡);!~'i;~~;~~X~;;:, f~f~:rº,~~);~! -cJòsé'tc{ iTP-rc)~~' i~~~~1:';-:~ Moderate Debatable edge tree if 36 (12, #2 7) removed Debatable edge tree if 3 (1, 6) #2 removed Remove construction 48 (16, proximity 1) Remove construction 29 (12, proximity 7) Remove, construction 6 (5, 3) transplant proximity ú;·~' "r,,_:j Cedrus 28.8 4x25 80 70 75 Moderate at/antica 'Glauca', blue atlas cedar 2 blue atlas cedar 24. 55x3 80 70 75 Moderate ¡Severe X ModerateJ Good X Moderatef Good X Moderate! Good Good 3 blue atlas cedar 44.3 55x3 80 60 70 Severe 4 Cedrus 28.8 55x3 85 50 68 Severe deodara, @3.5 deodar cedar ft 5 Quercus -11. 22x12 85 75 80 Severe X agrifofia, coast live oak Exolanation of Table: Tree #: this is the tree tag number placed on the tree in the field, and it also corresponds to the tree number on the Tree MaD, DBH: trunk diameter "at breast height" measured at 4,5 feet above ground level. This is the arboricultural industry standard measurement height. This measurement is used in many tree-related calculations, Size: Tree size in height X canopy spread in feet (estimated), Condo (Condition - V (Vigor) S (Structure) and A (Average»: 100 = excellent, 80 = good, 60 = fair, 40 = poor, and 20 = unacceptable. There are two components of tree condition - Vigor and Structure, Each of these components is rated separately and then averaged to obtain the Average Condition Rating, The ratings and the methodology for obtaining them are taken from two industry standard texts - The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Coundl of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture, and the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 1992, edited by Chandler and published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Ema;l: decah@pocbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 4 of 13 (l{-2~ Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist 5et1.Jicc ~iru:e 1984 Preservation Suitability: Good, Moderate or Poor, as explained in the table below: Poor Trees in QOod condition: (both health and structural) that have good potential for longevity at the site. These should be our to priori trees for savin ,if ossible. Trees in fair condition: These trees have health and/or structural defects that may be improved with treatment, or are a species that is not well tolerant of construction disturbance. Trees in this category will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. In general I have recommended to save most trees with "moderate" preservation suitability, unless they are in the ath of or too dose to ro osed construction. Trees In poor condition: Trees with significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitabilit for reservation in areas where eo Ie or ro ert will be resent. Good Moderate Expel. Constr. Impact = Expected Construction Impact. This is based upon the plans that I reviewed. This DOES not take into account any other improvements such as grading, driveways or utilities, There are no plans for these improvements yet, but this additional work will cause additional impacts to trees and should be reviewed for these impacts. In or on edge of improvement. = This means that the trunk of the tree is either inside or right at the edge of the improvement shown on the plans that I reviewed, Too close to improvement: means that the tree is too not in or on, but is otherwise too dose to the edge of the improvement shown on the plans that I reviewed, Action: Save, Remove, Debatable and Transplant. Again, based upon the plans that I reviewed, OTPZ = Optimum Tree Protection Zone. This is the distance in feet from the bunk that no construction disturbance should encroach, all around the tree. This is the first number in the column. The next two numbers in parentheses are lesser distances of 5 and 3 x DBH that can serve as alternate distances in case the om cannot be achieved. For example, 14 (8, 5) means that the om is 14 feet, 5xDBh is 8 feet and 3xDBH is 5 feet. Note that I have only listed such distances in instances where I feel that the tree is worth saving. Although there are no scientifically based methods to accurately determine the minimum distance for construction (for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some gUidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry, The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & Develooment. Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998, The tree protection lone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the OTPZ's given above. Because it will not be possible to maintain the om distance recommended for many of the trees, I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see explanation in the paragraph below), It is important to understand that these distances must include any over-excavation or extra working margin that is required beyond the actual improvement itself, For example, if there must be a 3-foot excavation beyond a foundation, this 3-foot distance must be PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 5 of 13 {Lf..-21 Oeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serf'icc since 19M included in the protection zone, In this case, if the recommended protection zone is 10 feet from the tree, the building will need to be located 13 feet from the trunk of the tree, 3 to 5 X DBH', A reasonable "rule of thumb" absolute minimum distance any excavation should be from the trunk of an existing tree on one side of the tree is 3 times DBH, DBH is "diameter at breast height", or 4,5 feet above the ground, I have found that for the urban trees I have worked with, it tends to correlate reasonably well with the Zone of Rapid Taper, which is the zone in which the large buttress (main support roots) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk, This zone is usually one to three meters from the trunk, but it varies depending upon tree species, age and soil and other environmental conditions. Using the 3X DBH guideline, an excavation should be no closer than 4,5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree, This distance is a guideline only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, decay, structural problems, etc. The 3X DBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health, as the roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter, These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Few large lateral roots are found beyond 10 feet of the trunk, in most situations. 5X DBH is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be strived for whenever possible, and is recommended for the specimen trees on this site, particularly the large cedars, Even a few feet may make a big difference in tree stability and survival! It is important to understand that because the 3 and 5xDBH distances are much less than the OPTZ, they take into account the root system of the tree but may not take into account the spread of the canopy of the tree. If a tree is very wide spreading, then these distances may be too close, or a significant amount of pruning may be required, INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF SURVEY & REPORT This survey and report was required by the City of Cupertino as a part of the building permit process. The purpose of Ihis survey & report is to identify and describe the tree species on sile: their size and condition, and their suitability for preservation. Only those existing trees that are ciassified as "protected" trees in Cupertino (which for the purpose of this project inciudes "specimen" trees) are inciuded in this survey and report. The audience for this report is Ihe project architecls (Innovative Design Associates, and City of Cupertino authorities concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The 0001 of this report is to preserve existing specimen trees on sile Ihat are in good condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site, 4 Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fox: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net, Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 6 of 13 (l( -21' Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sim:e 1984 BACKGROUND The parcel at 22291 Cupertino Road is proposed to be subdivided inlo two separate lots, each with a new single-family residence. The architect is currently working on the preliminary design and site layout phase of this project. SURVEY METHODS The field tree survey was conducted on September 22, 1004. Each specimen tree was tagged with a metal number tag that corresponds with its tree tag number in this report. Aluminum nails were used to attach the number tags to the trees, because aluminum is the metal thai is least damaging to bark and wood tissue, Trunk diameter was measured at 4.5 feet above the ground (DBH), according to the requirements of the City of Cupertino. DBH is an arboriculture slandard trunk diameter measurement height thai is also used in many tree-related calculations, such as the Optimum Tree Protection Zone distance, and 3 and 5 x DBH. A diameter tape was used to measure trunk diameters, and the diameters were rounded to the nearest 1 Ofh on an inch. Photoaraphs were taken of all specimen trees on site. Some of Ihese photos are included in this report, bul all photos are available from Deborah Ellis by email if requested The specimen trees were briefly observed for their structural condition (stability) and general health (vigor) by visual assessment from the ground. No roof collar excavations' or other probing or boring was done upon any trees, Characteristics such as form. weight distribulion, foliage color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were recorded. Tree size (approximate height and spread in feet) were estimated and recorded. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were adapted from: · Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000. authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). · Species Classificafjon and Group Assiqnment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISAJ, 2004. · Tree Hazard Eva/uafjon Form taken from Eva/uafion of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, 2nd Ed" Matheny & Clark, International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. The above three references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations. 5 A root coUar excavation is the removal of soil below grade (or excess soil above the natural grade} at the root collar to expose and/or determine the health of tissue În this area. This is done to assess anchorage and stability of the tree. Any problems in this area can trans!ate to whole tree health. as well as stability. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 7 of 13 {L(-.2~ OBSERV ATIONS FIELD CONDITIONS Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & HortÎculturist Scr¡,'ice .sittCC 1984 There is currently one occupied single-family residence and a few accessory structures on the site. Landscaping consists of ornamental trees and shrubs, and also many fruit-bearing trees. Mosl of Ihe existing trees are not irrigated by any automatic system. The topography of the sile is relatively flat. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partial, depending upon proJdmity to adjacent trees. The trees have been maintained to some extenl. and have not been overpruned. DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIMEN TREES ATLAS CEDARS #1. 2 & 3 The three Atlas cedars are shown in the photos above. Tree' A' (upper left photo) is a non-specimen olive tree, Tree' Q' (upper right photo) is the south neighbor's cypress tree. All of the cedars have some structural quirks. such as vigorous vertical branches (see Glossary for explanation) . especially #3. All three trees have good vigor, but fair to fair/poor structure. Still, I believe that these would be worthwhile retaining on the site, and their structure can be improved somewhat through thoughtful pruni ng. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Ema;l: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 8 af 13 (l{-3D DEODAR CEDAR #4 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist SCf'f)ICc sit/ce 1984 This tree has many vigorous verticals, some with included bark (see Glossary for explanation). On the east side of the tree (lower left photo) there is a basal branch that turns vertical and almost assumes a second-trunk status. Again, another tree with very good vigor. but not-so-good structure. As with the previous Atlas cedars however, I think it is a tree worth preserving if it receives Some thoughtful corrective pruning and as long as improvements are kept far enough away. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Ema;l: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 9 of 13 Il( - 3/ COAST LIVE OAK #5 RECOMMENDATIONS Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service siTl(:e 1984 This is a relatively young and small tree that could be transplanted (it must be removed because it is within a proposed house). Note the dense foliage that extends to the ground. This is the way young coast live oaks should look, Pruning to change this appearance is not required for the health of the tree - it will be healthier if more foliage is retained. Some lower branches may have to be removed however, for digging and transplanting access, 1) Redesign the site layout so that improvements (including any over-excavation or working margins) are at least 5 x DBH from the trunks of specimen Irees !t.l through #5 (but preferably oulside the canopy), 2) Make sure that tree trunk locations and tree dripllnes are accurately plotted on the plans. relative to the location of proposed improvements. 3) Continue to work with me as you refine your plans. 4) Consider digging and transplanting coast live oak #5. 5) I have not reviewed grading. uflllty. landscape or detailed construcflon plans. These additional improvements can have impacts on trees to be saved. I should review these plans when available, These addilional improvemenls should be kept at least 5 x DBH from tree trunks if possible, 6) Pier and grade beam foundations (with no excavation for grade beam) should be used for houses adjacent to trees, porticularly if the improvement (or excavation for the improvement will be less 5 x DBH or less from ony tree to be saved. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 10 of 13 1l{-32. Oeborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist SCl1Jicc since 1984 7) If you are Interested In saving any of the non-specimen trees, have me review these trees and your plans for feasibility and to make recammendations. 8) Regarding landscaping, all of the specimen (and most other trees on this property) have existed in a non-irrigated state for many yeors. This status should not be changed. There should be no landscaping (except perhaps for a 3 to 4 inch deplh of coarse wood chip mulch) within the 5 x DBH and also preferably the dripline of the tree, whichever is grealer. Mosl of the specimen trees are species that originate from "summer dry" areas or have been maintained in/adapted to summer dry soil condilions. As a result, they are or will be very susceptible to root rot pathogens in the soil if frequent irrigalion during the dry months occurs, 91 Tree Protection Specifications should eventually be prepared for this project. I have not prepared such specifications at this time because it is too ear~ in the design process. Afterwe have a final determination as to which trees can and will be saved, I can prepare these specifications. Tree Protection specifications generally include directions on fencing trees off from construction, pruning, inigating trees during construction, dealing with roots, etc. ******************************* I hope that this information will be helpful 10 you. Thank you for the opportunity 10 provide service, Please call me if you hove questions or if I con be of further assislance. Sincerely, CDe60rali Œ,{{is Deborah Ellis, MS, Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ASCA Registered Consulting Arborisl#3J5, W.C.I.S.A. Certified Arborisl #457, Certified Professional Horticulturist #3C022 PO Box 3714, Soratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357, Email: decoh@pacbelinet. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 11 of 13 (l{-]] Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sel1"ice sime 1984 APPENDIX GLOSSARY I. Included bark is bark sandwiched between adjacent branches, a branch and the Irunk, or two or more trunks, often appearing as a seam. In contrast. a normal altachment will have a ridge of bark protruding upwards and a continuous wood connection between adjacent members, As limbs with included bark grow, they expand in diameter, squeezing the bark along the seam. This may kill same portion of the included bark. When this occurs, a wound response is initiated. As a consequence, crocks can be generated, leading to breakage. Such defects can often be completely removed when a tree is young (e.g. the offending members equal or less Ihan 2 inches in diameter). Older, larger cuts (such as 6 inches in diameter or more) could cause decay to spread into the remaining member, which is undesirable. In these cases it may be best to Ihin one member (usually the smaller member) by 25% to slow its growth and size. 2, Vigorous vertical branches can obtain large diameter and be prone to failure, or they can compete with the main leader of the tree. This type of branch is common in atlas and deodar cedars. Vigorous verticals seem to be more common in trees thai are overpruned. The verticals tend to grow faster Ihan more horizonlal branches because vertical branches are by nature more vigorous than horizonlal branches. They are often closely spaced together (crowded) and have included bark belween them, It is often helpful to correct this habil when a tree is young: either by removing the vertical branches, When the tree is older and the removal of a large vertical branch is undesirable, il may best to thin it by 25%. primarily at the terminal end, in order to slow its growth and dominance. LIMITS OF SCOPE 1) I certify that I have no financial Interest In the properly or prolect that is the subject of this report. 2) Tree locations were provided by Innovalive Design Associates and are shown on the Tree Map. Some of the tree trunk locations may not be accurate and should be verified in the field. In some cases, tree lrunk locations were nol included for the tree. Therefore distance to improvements may vary from what I have estimated for this report. 3) The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned in this report, should some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity, This is not however, a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline', even trees that are well 6 Dricline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline. a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357, Email: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 12 of 13 1L{-7Lf Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sir/a 1984 protected during construction often decline, fail or die, Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees, There will always be some level of risk associated with trees, particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95050. Phone & Fax: 408-725-1357. Ema;l: decah@pacbell.net. Web site: http://www.decah.com/ Page 13 of 13 (l{-]:F Cupertino Planning Commission II Exltl E; IT: C. November 9,2004 Mtttffi..,-,- ~Iul~~;~ Cum. Clm., ,""lid by Viee Chai.....\¥oftg,t.H,''H>tiJHHHljJj>Ueaäofl--- o. I} - to the December 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) ...Cha;¡ SMdat' 3. TM-2004-1O, TR-2004-09 Cupertino Estates, LLC 22291 Cupertino Road Tentative Map to subdivide a 23,158 square foot parcel into two parcels (approximately 11,000 and 12,000 square feet, respectively). Potential tree removal of 5 specimen trees (1 oak, 4 cedar) on a residential parcel. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed, Mr. Jung presented the staff report: · Application is for a tentative map to subdivide a 23,158 square foot lot into two parcels in a R 1-10 zoning district; and a tree removal request allowing potential removal of 5 specimen trees. · Reviewed the staff report including zoning and General Plan conformance, street improvements, and tree removal. · Staff recommendation is to approve the tentative map, but deny removal of the trees. Staff feels the tree removal is premature since there are other design options for the house. Com. Giefer: · Noted that there were two large Bay Laurel trees that were not included on map and felt they should be saved. · Questioned why they were not shown on the map; staff did not know the reason. Ms. Wordell: · Said that if it is still unclear and there was concern prior to approval as to whether the Bay Laurel was there and was going to be removed, there could be a condition that any other specimen trees would be required to be retained. John Ha, architect: · Said they decided to preserve the three trees growing together, with pruning as suggested in the report and relocate the Oak tree to a different location on the property. · Are asking for support in removing only one cedar tree located near the center and a hillcrest roll; originally they designed the driveway access trom Cupertino Road, where the three trees are and the original driveway to the garage. · After the discussion with staff and understanding they can request the re-orientation of the front and rear yards, they will redesign the garage entry from Hillcrest, leaving the tront toward Hillcrest, to preserve the three Cedar trees; because if the tree is on both streets, it would be difficult to design the garage access if it blocks on both sides. · Willing to replace two or three trees for the removed trees. Steven Lang, Southshore Court: · Needed a larger home and found the property on Cupertino Road; ideal location because it is closer to in-laws home; children will have space to play and visit grandparents often; good environment and close to parks and foothills. · Ask permission to remove Cedar tree located in the center of the comer lot; so they don't have to locate the house in the rear of the lot. (I.{ -J ~ Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 9, 2004 o Cares about the trees and would like to plant more trees in the landscaping; build two houses on the property. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Harlan Jackson, Cupertino Road: o Not aware of any concerns regarding the removal of the Oak tree. o Concurred with the decision to retain the Blue Atlas Cedar trees. o The removal of the Deodora Cedar may be driven to some extent by how the Public Works department requires fill dirt. o Welcomed applicant to the neighborhood. Jan Stoekenius, Cupertino Road: o Clarified the Bay Laurel trees may be indicated on the plan as fig trees. o Said the major concern was with the protection of the Cedar trees; not concerned with the Oak tree. o Concerned about transplanting the Oak tree of that size and condition. o Other concerns included drainage, because of the number of trees on the southerly lot, Lot 2; filling it to bring it to street level might cause difficulty with retention of the trees, therefore suggesting that an attachment be made to lot I to allow drainage across that lot; that will avoid the need to fill as much of Lot 2 as otherwise would have to be done. David Doyle, Cupertino Road: o Welcomed applicant to the neighborhood. o Keep the Cedars, Oak can go. o Came to attention the rural street standards; would like to try and get that designation and as part of the approval, have the flexibility of including this one in that designation and be considered as part of the tentative map. Tom Dursow, former resident of the site; resident of San Jose: o Spoke about the drainage issue when there is heavy rainfall. At the comer of Cupertino Road and Hillcrest in the area of the olive tree, extra water will sit in a small area about 20 x 20. · The other two trees, rather small and relatively new as well as the Oak tree are not large in size and when his family lived on the site, the trees grew on their own. · Said he supported keeping the Cedar trees. · Said he did not know if the trees Com, Giefer was referring to were Bay Laurels, John Wilfolk, Hillcrest Road: · Said the plans for the removal of trees and preservation of the three Cedar trees is an excellent idea. · Agrees with the plans for the property. · Concurred with Mr. Doyle's idea about rural street designation or standard applying to the area. Chair Saadati closed the public input portion of the meeting. (1.1- )r Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 9, 2004 Mr. Jung: · Regarding Com. Giefer's comments about Bay Laurel trees, it does appear that it doesn't show up on at least one of maps on sheet AI: checked the ordinance and Bay Laurels are not one of the protected trees; they are considered a native tree but not one of the protected species. Vice Chair Wong: · Agrees with the community and neighbors that the Coast Live Oak can he relocated or removed, · Also concur that the 3 Atlas Cedars should remain; open minded about the Deodora Cedar; and based on fellow colleagues stating that if there is tree removal, there has to be a replacement of a specimen tree on the property. · Supports the subdivision of the property. Com. Giefer: · Supports the subdivision of the property; it will create two good size lots; allow the applicant to build their dream home. · Supports retaining the trees, and does not feel that the trees should be removed. · Supports moving the Oak tree to its current location to another area in the lot. Com. Chen: · Supports subdivision of the lot. · Does not support removal of the trees; supports staff recommendation to deny tree removal request. Com. Miller: · Supports the subdivision. · Pleased that everyone supports the three Atlas Cedars, · Supports moving the Coast Live Oak tree. · Would reserve judgment on the Deodora Cedar until after there is a final revised plan for the lot. · If the neighborhood is going to go rural, which is an excellent idea; as well as if the applicant is going to revise his plans and build a two story house instead of a one story, there may be the potential for saving that tree; on the other hand if it significantly interferes with building the house, consider removing it. Chair Saadati: · Supports subdivision of the lot. · Supports staff recommendation to retain the trees. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve Application TM-2004-1O. (Vote: 5-0-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application TM-2004-09. (Vote: 4-1-0; Vice Chair Wong voted No.) OLD BUSINESS:-None- NE','l BUSlNE-5&--None-- {l.(-] ð BARRIE O. C ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, '=A 95033 4081353-1052 \:'<\iIB¡-L D REVIEW OF A TREE SURVEY AND ARBORIST REPORT BY DEBORAH ELLIS FOR 22291 CUPERTINO ROAD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 Prepared at the request of: Colin Jung, City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate, ASCA Consulting Arborist October 19, 2004 Job # 10-04-183 PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 10/19/04 .J¿¡ (l{- I REVIEW OF TREE SUR VEY & ARBORIST REPORT FOR CUPERTINu ESTATES, 22291 CUPERTINO ROAD, CA 95014 1 Assignment I was asked by Colin Jung, City of Cupertino, to review the Tree Survey and Arborist Report for 22291 Cupertino Road as prepared by Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist, azid to comment on the recommendations to transplant a Coast Live Oak tree (quercus agrifol ia) # 5 and to preserve the three Blue Atlas Cedars (cedrus atlantica glauca), # I, 2 and 3 and a Deodar cedar (cedrus deodara) # 4. Summary Ms, Ellis's report certainly provides comprehensive information about each of the trees. My only criticism is that her review appears to accept the fact that the building will be built within the building footprint shown on her tree map, page 1, rather than assuming that the buildings may have to be changed or redesigned to allow appropriate preservation of those trees without damage. The earlier in the process the architect and contractors are made aware ofthese preservation requirements the less inconvenience is caused for them and the owner. I certainly agree that the Coast Live oak #5 could be transplanted if that is done by an experienced transplanting company in the winter, and properly cared for after it is moved, and I certainly agree that the three Blue Atlas cedars and the Deodar cedar could be preserved if sufficient space is given them to prevent excessive proportions of their root system fÌ'om being destroyed by proposed construction. Rather than assuming that the construction will occur as shown on this map, I suggest that the minimum requirements and ideal conditions for tree preservation should have been defined, and the building detail be adjusted to fit those dimensions. The three Blue Atlas cedars and the Deodar cedar could certainly be preserved and are certainly worthy of being preserved, but since cedar trees of any species are easily damaged by soil compaction and root damage, and since they decline slowly over a period of years after that damage has occurred, it will be critical that careful avoidance of that damage be part of the development plan, In my opin.ion, the arborist's report should have stated the following: 1. Tree # 5, the coast live oak may be transplanted any time between October 30th and January 30th by use of a 90" tree spade. Tills will be relatively inexpensive and should be quite successful if, after insta1lation, fifty (50) gallons of water is supplied directly on top of the root ball twice per month. 2. Tree # 4, the large Deodar cedar, is a fine specimen which certainly deserves preservation. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 10/19/04 Il{-L¡O REVIEW OF TREE SUR VEY & ARBORIST REPORT FOR CUPERTINU ESTATES, 22291 CUPERTINO ROAD, CA 95014 2 Recommendations - #4 - Deodar Cedar I. A five foot tall chain link fence mounted on 2" galvanized iron poles, driven at least two feet into the ground, must be installed 15' from the trunk to comprise a '!. círcle on the north, east and south sides. 2. The soil beneath the tree canopy inside the fence must be covered with a 4" layer of tree chips or other organic material (other than shredded redwood bark.) 3. A soaker hose must be laid in two circles - one four (4) feet and one ten (10) feet fÌ'om the trunk to apply 150 gallons of water every two weeks, from April through November. 4. End weight reduction from al1 the longest limbs to prevent the limb drop which is so characteristic of deodar cedars. This pruning should not involve interior thinning, but merely reduction of the length of the longest limbs by drop-crotch pruning procedures. Up to 20% of the length of the longest limbs should be removed but not to exceed more than 25% of the total foliage on the tree. Recommendations - Blue Atlas cedars #1, 2 and 3 These blue atlas cedars are comprised of very long poorly tapered limbs which are characteristic of most mature cedars, and unfortunately these long poorly tapered limbs often break. If they break from the upper third of the canopy, they often destroy numerous other branches as they fall, often destroying the structure of the tree. For this reason, pruning of these trees wil1 be absolutely necessary. 1. I recommend that a fence be installed as previously described for tree #4 - 15' (fifteen) fÌ'om tree #1, 10' (ten) or more from tree #2, and 20 (twenty) feet from tree #3 as a minimum area to be protected by fencing. 2. The area inside the fence must be covered with a 4" layer of chips or other organic material immediately after the fence is installed, and 3. I recommend that a soaker hose be installed four (4) feet and ten (10) feet from the trunk in a large circle around the three trees to apply 400 hundred gal10ns every two weeks between April and November. Under no circumstances may these fences be removed or damaged. They must be installed before any construction equipment arrives on scene and must be maintained intact until al1 contractors and equipment have left the project including painters. 4. Have an ISA certified arborist with ISA certified climbers do end-weight reduction of al1 sides of the canopy of these three cedars. The three trees should be considered one large canopy and pruned with that in mind. 5. All limbs more than 25' feet in length must have end-weight reduction by drop-crotch pruning procedures. This should be done during the winter. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 10/19/04 I L¡ -l{ I REVIEW OF TREE SUR v EY & ARBORIST REPORT FOR CUPERTINO ESTATES, 22291 CUPERTINO ROAD, CA 95014 3 Inspection A certified arborist must inspect the site during the following stages to assure that tree preservation has been effectively followed, The times which those inspections should occur are: I. When the fences are installed before any equipment arrives on scene. 2. At the same time, or at a different time, when the chips are installed and the irrigation soaker hoses are installed. The chain link fence and chips must be installed before any construction equipment arrives but the soaker hoses could be installed in April. 3. On a monthly basis, an arborist should visit the site to be certain fences have not been damaged and are being maintained and during the summer that irrigation is occumng, In my opinion, it is never too early to define the minimum tree preservation detail such as this, so that landscape architects working on the job are aware of the criteria that will be used to judge their proposed building design. They should not, in my opinion, be allowed to presume that they can buiJd close enough to the trees to cause damage to the root system, and should be disabused of that presumption at the earlier stage. In my opinion, this is one of the cases where the tree value shouId be calculated using the trunk value formula and some sort of bond be requested for preservation of the fences during the entire construction cycle, Since it would be so easy for the builder or sub- contractor to remove fences, and cause soil compaction or other tree damage, with little compensation for tree damage, especially since the results of that damage may not be visible for several years. Respectfully submitted, ~,f)~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 10/19/04 1l{-l.{2. - BARRIE D. COAl ~ and ASSOCIATES Horti çutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408/353- 1 052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title, 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4, Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation, 5, Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6, This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported, 7, Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc" in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys, 8, This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions, lQ,No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice, Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time, Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed, Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled, To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees, cØ~.6J. ~ Barrie D, Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant r~-l{3 APPEAL Tn ¿9QL¡-~(O íP.-~ zo"4-~ð/ / . 5~eJeV1 l-ClVV\ ! Jr:-""'V¡ LÎ'1 StrlveVl LG\Vl1 ((b"(! >~.'·dHI19re City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 I. Application No, 2. Applicant(s): 3, Appellant(s): name, address, phone number (~9 8) -1-2. Î.- - q \ 0°1 BB\81T: E. ~~ N~V ~91 ~~~ KB0 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK (ourt ,. (oApev-r;v¡o C¡J~D ({/ I T, 4. Decision of Director of Community Development 1, Decision of Planning Commission . . 4 (please check one) I PeVt;"I~ ov'\ re1'1'\0 v'v, \ (,* s [reo Mv0'¡"\ 0.... r¿ 1'11'0,10, I o-f r t'iH} 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: \ 1(.;;9 (Qt, 6. Basis of appeal: , S tve e s v-J e.~ are cD IV\~t<lQ,J of ?Y-J PQ>I~j 1'9 YVlD ~ e- I M" V¿, ,",VI If -r~ €- chC\"'f~ j QVly pi" p..5tÏ. \ 1" p€.oJ",r C e .4",r' -tr'¿ e ~e" r (eJd( Yj {~f¿~'1 tl~.t)vt The 3 B{ J e À'flv.~ \f\J;rl,., -tV¡ e- to ~ , ~ It'S te¡;1\(k Í1'\vJ -to p(l'\h eveV\ (}I, 1.. - s-t()~! t., (jot> e (1\) ->Jvtnj. '"t~e. +1' e. e ,{ - ( we. ¡pr~ . .H ¿. t.. h~p -the rT þe"JGI, C e J.c,.( 'tyee· Signature(s) ~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of$ \L{:6' and return to the attention of the City Clerk <lppealsJappek fom11.doc (L( - lfif. City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 C OF CUPERJINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. 12 Agenda Date: January 4, 2005 Application: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02 Applicant: Greg Pinn Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Inc, Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-03-001 Application Surnmary: · USE PERMIT for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units) development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building, · ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units) development · EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side yard setback. Background: On November 16, 2004, the City Council reviewed this proposal. Several council members commented on the previous use of this site for commercial purposes, including the abandoned Adobe Lounge Restaurant (2,600 square feet) and the expired approval for a 77-unit hotel. They expressed their concerns with the current, mixed-use redevelopment proposal that emphasizes residential (29 apartment units) and less commercial space (2,000 square feet) and stated a preference for a larger retail component. The council members requested that a retail consultant be retained to advise the City Council on the commercial viability of small and narrow commercial lots in the mid-block area along Stevens Creek Boulevard (Exhibits A, B & q, Discussion: Questions were raised about the Heart of the City Specific Plan regarding residential use at this site. The Heart of the City Specific Plan policy framework JS'-{ 2 directs new commercial growth to occur in the three activity centers: Oaks/De Anza College, Crossroads/City-Civic Center and Valko Fashion Park & Vicinity. In addition, Policy #5 (page 6) states: " Land uses between the activity centers should help focus and support activity in the centers. Primary land uses should be office and residential uses," Therefore, the Heart of the City specific plan policies support office and residential uses for the mid-block, with the intention of directing commercial uses to the activity centers. (The activity centers are shown on page 9 of the Heart of the City Specific Plan,) Staff has contacted retail consultant, Randol Mackley, to advise the City Council on the market viability of commercial uses on the subject site, Mr. Mackley is familiar with the site and is receptive to advising the Council on this site, as well as the Santa Barbara Grill site on De Anza Boulevard, which is also owned by the applicant and will be the subject of a future development proposal. The applicant will be funding the consultant's time. Staff has scheduled Mr, Mackley's testimony for the January 4th meeting, If his report is not available at that time, the hearing may need to be continued to the following meeting, Part of the rationale for directing retail uses to the three commercial activity centers was in recognition that there wasn't enough commercial market to support commercial uses all along Stevens Creek Boulevard. In conjunction with Randol Mackley's report, staff recommends that the City Council discuss the intent and conclusions of the Heart of the City policy and the possibility of amending the Plan if emphasis on commercial land use is desired. Enclosures: Exhibit A-I: Exhibit B-1: Plan Set City Council Staff Report dated 11/16/04 City Council Meeting Minutes dated 11/16/04 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piase ki Director, Community Development G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2004-01cc3.doc David W, Knapp City Manager I)-~ I:x\1-\en: A-i City of Cupertino' 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 c CUPERJINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: November 16, 2004 Application: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02 Applicant: Greg Pinn Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Inc. Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-03-001 Application Summary: · USE PERMIT for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units) development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building. · ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units) development · EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of each application on a 5-0 vote: 1, The negative declaration, file number EA-2004-02, 2. The use permit application, file number U-2004-01, in accordance with the model resolution. 3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2004-02, in accordance with the model resolution. 4. The side setback exception request to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, file no. EXC-2004-15, in accordance with the model resolution Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial! Office/ Residential Zoning Designation! P( Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Zoning)/ Specific Plan Heart of the City Specific Plan Net Acreage: 0.84 acre Gross Acreage: 0.92 acre Actual Residential Density: 31.6 DU/Gr. Ac. Allowed Density: 35 DU/Gr. Ac, .. 1:;-3 Applications: U-2004-Ul, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-20U'!-02 Adobe Tenace Page 2 Height: Stories: Parking Required: Commercial - Residential - Parking Supplied: 35' 2 stories 66 spaces (1 stall/250 sq. ft.) 2,000 sq.ft./250 = 8 stalls (2 stalls/ apt.) x 29 apts.= 58 stalls 66 spaces Project Consistency with: General Plan: Specific PlarýZoning: Yes No (exception requested) Environrnental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND At its meeting of October 26, 2004, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the project. Commission comments resulted in additional conditions of approval for design changes to the east-facing building elevation, improvements to the parking garage and the selection of entry arbor design" A", The Commission also directed the applicant to evaluate the possibility of moving a handicapped parking stall from the surface parking to the underground parking and providing a stairwell from the garage to the ground level near the front of the building. The applicant has made the revisions to the plan set. One member of the public spoke about his concern with the adequacy of parking for a mixed use development project. DISCUSSION Project issues are discussed in the staff report to Planning Commission (Exhibit A-I). Parking for this project is more than adequate. The applicant is providing the full code required parking for the project and is not proposing a "shared parking" reduction in spaces, Data used to justify the sideyard setback exception was in error. The corrected data pertaining to the building setback is provided below, Building Wall Side Seback Retail & Common Area building wall (east side)- 10 feet Apartment building wall (east side)- 20 feet Apartment building wall (east side)- 27 feet Apartment building wall (west side)- 16 feet Building Wall Length (72' building length) (178' building length) (42' building length) (56' building length) / f ---L( Applications: U-2004-Ul, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-20u<¡,-02 Adobe Terrace Page 3 Apartment building wall (west side)- -52 feet Apartment building wall (west side)- 10 feet Apartment building wall (west sid e)- 60 feet Common area building wall (west side)- 33 feet Average Side Setback 23.1 feet (23' building length) (44' building length) (30' building length) (57' building length) ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Nos, 6278, 6279, 6280 Exhibit A-I: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated October 26, 2004 Plan Set Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development G:\ Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2004-Olcc,doc iW David W. Knapp City Manager 1')-') U-2004-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6279 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING, VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): Applicant: Location: U-2004-01 (EA-2004-02) Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and /f-¿ Resolution No, 6279 Page 2 U-2004-01 October 26, 2004 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s), U-2004-01 (EA-2004-02), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1, APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd" Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5,O, A5,l, A6.0, C1 through C6, L-P1 through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. On sheet L-P4, entry arbor "A" is approved, 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions, You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you wiIl be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape improvements that include: a) a sidewalk width of six feet, b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements. c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees. 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall install bicycle-parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking ordinance. fr;-I Resolution No, 6279 Page 3 U-2004-0l October 26, 2004 5. DEMOLITION REOUlREMENT All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances. 6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan. 7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the abutting residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard. 8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if necessary, 9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual. 10. DESIGN REVISIONS The applicant shall revise the plans to: 1) provide additional building detailing on the east elevation of the building, 2) modify the underground garage to provide adequate backup space for the end parking stalls, 3) evaluate the possibility of moving one or more of the grade-level handicapped parking stalls to the underground parking garage, and 4) evaluate the possibility of providing an interior stairway from the garage to the ground level near the front of the project. SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 I. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 12. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. ()- tJ Resolution No. 6279 Page 4 U-2004-0l October 26, 2004 13. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 14. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125, 15. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16,08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate, 16. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 17. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices, Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 18. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee: 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 1]'-7 Resolution No. 6279 Page 5 U-2004-01 October 26, 2004 c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e, Map Checking Fees: f. Park Fees: 6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for Commercial Units 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units $ 1,000.00 $ 3,462.00 N/A $ 243,000.00 b. Grading Permit Fee: Bonds: a, Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b, Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule, 19. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 20. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans, * Identifv all Pre-and Post developrnent BMPs that will be installed on-site. "Include erosion control plans with next submittal, which shall include a 50' rocked construction entrance and straw rolls. 21. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements. 22. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Department, Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. I ') -( () Resolution No. 6279 Page 6 U-2004-0l October 26, 2004 23. TRAFFIC The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a building permit, CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEITANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices / s/ Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong & Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Is! Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\Planning\ PDREPORT\RES\ U-2004-0l res.doc 1<1-1/ ASA-2004-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6280 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING, VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): Applicant: Location: ASA-2004-02 (EA-2004-02) Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1, The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring structures; 4, The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of the City Specific Plan; (f -( Á- Resolution No. 6280 Page 2 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-02 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1, APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O,O through A5,O, A5.1, A6,O, C1 through C6, L-P1 through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. On sheet L-P4, entry arbor "A" is approved, 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICA nONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions, You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun, If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape improvements that include: a) a sidewalk width of six feet, b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements. c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees, 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall install bicycle-parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking ordinance, I )~(3 Resolution No. 6280 Page 3 5. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances. ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan. 7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the abutting residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress and egress from the benefiting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard, 8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities, The applicant shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if necessary. 9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual. SECTION IV, CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. fl)_(L( Resolution No, 6280 Page 4 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 13. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No, 125. 14. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and! or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 15. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities, Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee: 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units b, Grading Permit Fee: 6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for Commercial Units 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units /5 -if Resolution No. 6280 Page 5 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Map Checking Fees: f, Park Fees: $ 1,000.00 $ 3,462.00 N/A $ 243,000.00 Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b, Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 18. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. * Identify all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be installed on-site. 'Include erosion control plans with next subrnittal, which shall include a 50' rocked construction entrance and straw rolls. 20. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements, 21. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. { cs- -( 0 Resolution No. 6280 Page 6 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 22. TRAFFIC The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a building permit. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV, Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices / s/ Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/ Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\Planning\ PDREPORT\ RES\ ASA-2004-02 res.doc ( J-f7 EXC-2004-15 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO, 6278 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE SETBACK AS REQUIRED BY THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No,: Applicant: Location: EXC-2004-15 Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Specific Plan Exception, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. There are extraordinary conditions not generally applicable to similar uses, which justify the exception. The project has a narrow lot width of only 108 feet. The required sideyard setbacks of 17.5 feet on each side would have reduced the usable lot width to only 73 feet, which is unusually narrow for a mixed use project. 2. The exception departs from the requirements of this chapter to the minimum degree necessary to allow the project to proceed, in that the smaller side setback of 5 feet is to the 4-foot tall podium wall, which is needed to accommodate the underground parking structure. Wider side setbacks of 10 and 20 feet are proposed for the building; 3. The exception will not adversely affect neighboring properties NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. EXC-2004-15 is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified In this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning I)-I t Resolution No, 6278 Page 2 EXC-2004-15 October 26, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Application EXC-2004-15, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1, APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5,O, A5.1, A6.0, Cl through C6, L-P1 through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION A side setback exception of 5-10 foot as shown on the approved exhibits is granted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: AYES: ATTEST: APPROVED: /5/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /5/ TaghiSaadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:fplallllillg/pdreport/res/EXC-2004-15 res 1)-/1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02 Agenda Date: October 26, 2004 Applicant: Greg Pinn Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Inc. Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-03-001 Application Summary: · USE PERMIT for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units) development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building, · ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units) development · EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2004-02. 2. The use permit application, file number U-2004-01, in accordance with the model resolution. 3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2004-02, in accordance with the model resolution, 4. The side setback exception request to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, file no. EXC-2004-15, in accordance with the model resolution Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial/ Office/ Residential Zoning Designation! P( Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Zoning)/ Specific Plan Heart of the City Specific Plan Net Acreage: 0,84 acre Gross Acreage: 0,92 acre Actual Residential Density: 31.6 DU/Gr. Ac. Allowed Density: 35 DU/Gr, Ac, Height: 35' Stories: 2 stories Parking Required: 66 spaces Commercial- (1 stall/250 sq. ft.) 2,000 sq.ft./250 = 8 stalls Residential- (2 stalls/ apt.) x 29 apts.= 58 stalls Parking Supplied: 66 spaces 1'r-2D Project Consistency with: General Plan: Specific Plan/Zoning: Yes No (exception requested) Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The applicant, Greg Pinn, has requested a use permit, ASA approval and an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow the demolition of an abandoned restaurant, formerly known as the Adobe Lounge, and the construction of a mixed use project consisting of 2,000 of commercial space and 29 apartment units over a parking podium. The surrounding land uses are multi-story apartments to the west and south, a one- story commercial building to the east and commercial and office uses to the north across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The property was formerly approved by the City for a 77-room hotel that was never built. DISCUSSION: Parking A conservative estimate of the parking need for this mixed use project is 66 parking spaces based on the following parking ordinance requirements: Commercial-{2000 sq.ft.j250 sq.ft./parking space)= 8 spaces Apartments- (29 apartments)(2 parking spaces/ apt.)= 58 spaces Total Parking Required 66 spaces The applicant is providing the full requirement with 6 stalls at grade and another 60 in the underground parking garage, The uses will share the parking and reduce overall parking demand. Traffic A traffic analysis was originally prepared for a slightly denser project on this site (33 apartments and 2,634 sq, ft. of retail use) (Exhibit A), The denser project was estimated to generate 15 A.M. peak hour trips and 26 P,M. peak hour trips. Traffic level of service analysis for three nearby signalized intersections indicates that all of these intersections will operate at Level of Service of "0" or better with the project, which is consistent with General Plan traffic level of service goals. Site Design The plan set depicts a 2-story wood frame structure built on a parking podium that runs nearly the length of the lot. There is one two-way parking ramp on the west side. The 2 fJ-21 podium deck will be tour teet above gtade, but an internal ramp in the garage will lower the podium to grade level for the first 37 feet of the building depth. The plan proposes a pedestrian circulation system that connects the Heart of the City streetscape improvements with a decorative walkway on the podium on the east side that steps down to grade at the rear and along the west side, A pedestrian easement is being required on the westerly sideyard to provide a future pedestrian connection between the Biltmore Apartments and Stevens Creek Boulevard, It remains to be seen if the Biltmore Apartment owners will consent to this access that would benefit Biltmore residents. Architectural Design Because of the narrowness and depth of the lot, it has been difficult to develop an aesthetic design that does not look like "corridor" architecture. The building has gone through several design iterations with the City Architect, Larry Cannon (Exhibit B). The proposed design largely meets the concerns of the City Architect. The building has a strong front facade: the retail storefronts face the street, a second-floor apartment is located above the recessed garage entry and a trellis entry gate is located at the driveway entry to bring the appearance of the building forward, while maintaining the Heart of the City front setback. To avoid the "corridor appearance" that often occurs with development on narrow, deep lots, the building wall is articulated with balconies and courtyards to break up wall mass and create private open space. The long roof is broken up in several planes without creating visual clutter. The building walls are made more interesting with awnings, window sills, light fixtures, wall tile insets, vent covers, trellises done in short rhythmic patterns without excessive repetition, Heart of the City Sidevard Setback Exception This is an unusually narrow but deep lot on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The lot is only 108 feet wide, but 338 feet deep. Historical redevelopment interest in this lot has been minimal because of the narrowness of the frontage, The previous City approval of a 77- room hotel on this site required a sideyard setback exception as well. The applicant is requesting an exception to the required side setback of 17.5 feet (half the height of the building). The side setback of 5 feet is needed to accommodate the 4- foot tall podium wall for a usable underground parking garage, The building itself, which is setback from the edge of the parking podium, has a highly articulated facade with varying larger side setbacks from the property line as follows: 3 I fj-).2- Building Wall Side Seback Retail building wall- 10 feet Apartment building wall (west side)- 10 feet Apartment building wall (west side)- 16 feet Apartment building wall (east side)- 20 feet Apartment building wall (east side)- 27 feet Apartment building wall (east side)- -52 feet Apartment building wall (east side)- 60 feet Common area building wall (east side)- 33 feet Average Side Setback 22.6 feet Building Wall Length (72' building length) (66' building length) (56' building length) (180' building length) (42' building length) (23' building length) (30' building length) (57' building length) On an average basis the side setback is five feet more than the requirement, Enclosures: Model Resolutions for ASA-2004-02, U-2004-01, EXC-2004-15 Initial Study and ERC recommendation Exhibit A: Traffic Study Exhibit B: Design Comments from Larry Cannon dated 4/22/04 Plan Set Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner . Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development S-{V'1'-¿' G:planning/pdreport/pc U sereportslU-2004-0 I.doc lJ.~c0( ~ 4 I j-23 ASA-200£1-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING, VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): Applicant: Location: ASA-2004-02 (EA-2004-02) Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1, The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2, The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3, The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring structures; 4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of the City Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: f)- 1 L( Resolution No, Page 2 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-02 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEFT, 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5,O, A5.1, A6.0, Cl through C6, L-Pl through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions, You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape improvements that include: a) a sidewalk width of six feet, b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements. c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees. 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall install bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking ordinance. I )~ J-:) Resolution No. Page 3 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 5. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project construction, The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances. 6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan, 7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the abutting residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard. 8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if necessary. 9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual. SECTION IV, CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. f )- 2¿ Resolution No. Page 4 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 13. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 14. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16,08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 15. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions, Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities, Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a, PW Checking and Inspection Fee: 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units b. Grading Permit Fee: 6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for Commercial Units 1)-.2 Î Resolution No, Page 5 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 c, Development Maintenance Deposit: d, Storm Drainage Fee: e. Map Checking Fees: f. Park Fees: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units $ 1,000,00 $ 3,462,00 N/A $ 243,000.00 Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements, -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 18. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. * Identify all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be installed on-site. 'Include erosion control plans with next submittal, which shall include a 50' rocked construction entrance and straw rolls. 20. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements. 21. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. /)-21 Resolution No. Page 6 ASA-2004-02 October 26, 2004 22. TRAFFIC The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a building permit. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission J: \ Planning\PDREPORT\ RES\ ASA-2004-02 res. doc )j-J1 U-2004-0l CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING, VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): Applicant: Location: U-2004-01 (EA-2004-02) Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or InJUrIOUS to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and I)' - 3{) Resolution No, Page 2 U-2004-0l October 26, 2004 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s), U-2004-0I (EA-2004-02), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1, APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 9S072" dated 9/17/04 and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O,O through AS,O, AS.I, A6.0, CI through C6, L-PI through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERV A nONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions, You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun, If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape improvements that include: a) a sidewalk width of six feet, b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements. c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees, 4. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall install bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking ordinance. I s-- 2>/ Resolution No, Page 3 U-2004-0l October 26, 2004 5. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project construction, The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances, 6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City and/ or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan. 7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESSIEGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the abutting residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard, 8, CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if necessary. 9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual. SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located, 13. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No, 125, I) - 32- Resolution No. Page 4 U-2004-01 October 26, 2004 14. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16,08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate, 15. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No, 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee: 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units b. Grading Permit Fee: 6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for Commercial Units 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units $ 1,000.00 $ 3,462,00 N/A $ 243,000.00 c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d, Storm Drainage Fee: e. Map Checking Fees: f, Park Fees: (J-33 Resolution No. Page 5 U-2004-0l October 26, 2004 Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements, -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule, 18. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. * Identifv all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be installed on-site. *Include erosion control plans with next submittal, which shall include a 50' rocked construction entrance and straw rolls. 20. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off site improvements. 21. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 22. TRAFFIC The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a. building permit. ( j- ]L( Resolution No, Page 6 U-2004-0l October 26, 2004 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2004-01 res.doc fr-]) EXC-200il-15 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE SETBACK AS REQUIRED BY THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2004-15 Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Specific Plan Exception, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. There are extraordinary conditions not generally applicable to similar uses, which justify the exception. The project has a narrow lot width of only 108 feet. The required sideyard setbacks of 17.5 feet on each side would have reduced the usable lot width to only 73 feet, which is unusually narrow for a mixed use project. 2. The exception departs from the requirements of this chapter to the minimum degree necessary to allow the project to proceed, in that the smaller side setback of 5 feet is to the 4-foot tall podium wall, which is needed to accommodate the underground parking structure, Wider side setbacks of 10 and 20 feet are proposed for the building; 3, The exception will not adversely affect neighboring properties NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. EXC-2004-15 is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified In this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning I )-Jb Model Resolution Page 2 EXC-2004-15 October 26, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Application EXC-2004-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O,O through A5.0, A5.1, A6.0, C1 through C6, L-P1 through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2, NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions, You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun, If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions, 3. SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION A side setback exception of 5-10 foot as shown on the approved exhibits is granted, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairman Cupertino Plarming Commission g.jplan1lÎllg/pdreportjresjEX C-2004-15 res I )-37 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 CUPEIQ1NO FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department .=.·."I·.~ ·"IiI·. ~'-.~."'~ '".~ ·æ=.·'P.EER 'k.'''...._... T!!.·~·........·..···" "H~~ '!~~ "N···_·'!ttSi'+';'"U···r:-'V¡~t ·i>N"· '. . ' ... ....,.!.,,,."',....... ~'·xµ T~'k\ ' en' ,L.o;" a,'..: ~:.',I;:";i;;:;, ~';if,}'''",:'_ ,em" ,',f,," ~:'I;, <....""........ ,. .. .~..;B,j,¡;_!?=~~""ª" . ,·Jt¡;"..Æ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: Adobe Mixed Use Project Project Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd. Project Description: Use Permit and ASA Approval to demolish an abandoned restaurant buildinQ and construct a mixed use project consistjnQ of 2.634 SQ. ft," J.. of retail and 33 apartment units. Environmental Setting:; Project site is an urban infilllocation presentlv developed with an abandoned restaurant buildinq and surface parkinq, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (net ac.) - 0.88 Building Coverage - 39% Exist. Building - 1,793 s.f. Proposed Bldg, - 39,986 s.f. Zone '---E.. G.P. Designation -Commercial/Office/Residentiai Assessor's Parcel No. ,369,03-001 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 34.48 Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) o Monta Vista Design Guidelines o S. De Anza Conceptual o N. De Anza Conceptual o S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual o Pi\:. Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual Heart of the City Specific Plan o Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - 2,634 Employees/Shift ,? Parking Required s.f, FAR- 1.04 Max.n/a 77 Parking Provided 77 Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES }& NO o I )~3r A.. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 1. Land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 4. Transportation Element 29, Fremont Union High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8, Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CAL TRANS 10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Excesses Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report (site specific) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 15, Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map Plan 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 18, City Noise Ordinance ·42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Development Dept. List Substances Site 20, Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44, Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/charact~ristics 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through 0, C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their titie(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) I ) - 31 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: c- ;.,- '" _ 0 ",- - '" s:: c; cuæ_ -"'- ct! co 0 co - .!!:! u 0 .c (.)..c:'- ~ .s::uu u ISSUES: -.- 9 .....;;t::1ao 1-,- '" o '" C~ ( )._:¡:C)c. U):: c.. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) '" E en C .-.... ( ) '" E E õ.~- ( ) C) :!:: 0 Q) .21- - ...J'- :2E 0 Q.(/ (/ '" ...J(/ I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 )It scenic vista? [5,9,24.41.44] ! b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 ~ I including, but not limited to, trees, rock ! outcroppings, and historic buildings within a I I state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34.41.44] I·' , c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 A 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 ftl glare, which would adversely affect day or ! nighttime views in the area? [1,16.44] , ! II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In I determining whether impacts to agricultural ! resources are significant environmental I effects, lead agencies may refer to the : I 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 ." , I ! on agriculture and farmland. Would the .. ~ i project: ~--,---,._-~ - I i a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 1\i i Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ! Importance (Farmland), as shown on the I i maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland I I Mapping and Monitoring Program of the I i California Resources Agency, to non- I i agricultural use? [5,7,39] I , f---= I i b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 ~l i agricultural use. or a Williamson Act L contract? [5,7,23] 1 I ! , -. . - ¡ c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 ~ ! ! environment which, due to their location or , i nature, could result in conversion of , i Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] ! i , , ! , , ~,-"'".,"'"-,..,....".,._,--~-~~._----'"-_._----"~...-.----..-- --- ---j I j-L/ð i----'-'----'-'""---- --- -- -----.---, "'_ 0 ! I »- ",- ! - '" t: t: ;; '" -ns- ns ns 0 ns nsns- - I ISSUES: .~ 0 (,) .1:0.1:'-" .1:0(,) (,) -.- ~ I-¡¡::_~O 1-,- co o CO I [and Supporting Information Sources] c:!:: ",'- .~ '" C. en := c.. zc. '" '" E I/) s::: .-.... "' '" E E õ.~- Q)C) :!::o CI> "'- I ..J'- :EC) ~III. AIR QUALITY - -Where available, the Q.(J (J c: ..J(J -- i significance criteria established by the I applicable air quality management or air i pollution control district may be relied upon I to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 A I , ! the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ~ I contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] I I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 )It , increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality I standard (including releasing emissions I which exceed quantitalive thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] " I d) Expose sensitive receptors to subslanlial D D D :~ I pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] I I e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 D :;,œ( I ! substantial number of people? [4,37,44] I i IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would ---¡ I I the project: ' " , , i a) Have a substantial adverse effect. either D D D ~ I directly or through habitat modifications, on I any species identified as a candidate, I sensitive, or special status species in local or i regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by I the California Department of Fish and Game I or U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I i [5,10,27,44] I I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ~ I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural i community identified in local or regional I plans, policies, regulations or by the I California Department of Fish and Game or i US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] , , i c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ~ I federally protected wetlands as defined by I Section 404 of the Clean Water Act lJincilJ(jing,but notlirnit~d to,rTla.rs~verflal -----.-...-.--.-....----.- ------..--...- ----- ------ I )~L( I r- "".- -- - I >,- 0 c- i C"E c;; ! -c c I -III'" I'll III 0 I'll 1'111'11'" ... ! .~ 0 0 .r: 0 .-... .r:OO 0 ¡ISSUES: -<;:~ }- .- ;; 1û 0 1-<;:'" o '" c._ ~.- C- w'- Co zc. '" c: E 1/)'- 5: C) I [and Supporting Information Sources] en c:: ._ l- I/) c: E .s õ.~- Q)C) :!::o Q).~- I D..I/) ....lii; :!E g ....II/) - '-- I pool, coastal, etc,} through dirëët removar, r filling, hydrological interruption, or other I means? [20.36,44] I d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 ßl of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. or I impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] I e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 ~ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] I ! f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ! Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 ~ I Community Conservation Plan, or other I approved local, regional, or state habitat I conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] i I V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the I I project: I ----- ! I a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ~ I ! the significance of a historical resource as I I i defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] I I , I I b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 .:Q I i the significance of an archaeological I I ! resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] I I i c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 R ! paleontological resource or site or unique I geologic feature? [5,13,41] I d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 )it ! those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1[1,5] ! i VI. GEOLOGY AND SOilS - Would the ! project: . I I a) Expose people or structures to potential I substantial adverse effects, including the risk j of loss, Injury, or death involving: , i i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ß4: I delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo ! Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the ~ . -- ]'»y,¿ .------ - --,~- .-- ;..- I: _ 0 1:- -I: C ¡: ~ I: -lU- lU IU 0 IU lUlU_ +' .~ 0 0 J:O '-\." J:OO 0 ISSUES: -.- ~ 1-.-=1U 0 f-.- IU o IU c:~ (/) ~ '3: 0) c.. (/)~ c.. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] <1> <: E (/) s::: ._ ~ en <: E E õ.~- Q)O) .=0 <1> .2'- Co I/) ...Iiñ :;:g ...II/) - State Geologist for the area or based on --..- other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ! ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D D ;g¡ , ! [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including D D D $4 liquefaclion? [2,5,10,39,44] í iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] D D D i¡!( 1 ~ ! I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D D D J& i loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] I I ! I c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D D D JJq unstable, or that would become unstable as , a result of the project, and potentially result I in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, ! subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1[2,5,10,39] ! , I d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined D D D yt in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or , ! property? [2,5,10] I e) Have soils incapable of adequately D D D ~ 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] . , I VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS I MATERIALS - Would the project: , ! ! I a) Creale a significant hazard to the public or D D D ti( I the environment through the routine I transport. use, or disposal of hazardous i materials? [32,40,42,43,44] i b) Create a significant hazard to the public or D D D PJl i the environment Ihrough reasonably i foreseeable upset and accident conditions I involving the release of hazardous materials I into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] I c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle D D D J( I j hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, I ! ~~~stanc;~s2 or l'I..élste within one-quartermile .. ! ------ L-. , ----- -----_._~ I) -L( J 1-- ---------- --- »- I: _ 0 1:- - I: I: I: :¡:; I: I -n¡- n¡ n¡ 0 n¡ nln¡_ - \ .!!! 0 0 ,C 0 .- I.. 'cOO 0 ¡ISSUES: -.- ~ 1--;,¡:-E1ôo I- .- m o .. I:~ I/)'-'¡: CIC- CI) ~ c. ZC- i [and Supporting Information Sources] '" '" E en s::: .-.... I/) '" E E õ.~- Q)C) :!::o ( ) el_ I c..en ...J'- ::E 0 ...Jen ~ an existing or proposed school? en <: --- +-.. I [2,29,30,40,44] i 0 ~ I d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 I list of hazardous materials sites compiled I 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 JI{ use plan or, where such a plan has not been i adopted, within two miles of a public airport i or public use airport, would the project result I in a safety hazard for people residing or i working in the project area? [ ] . I --:- I I f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ]i!f i airstrip, would the project result in a safety I hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 JS- 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 ~ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where I wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or . , where residences are intermixed wilh i wildlands?[1 ,2,44] r----- - ----"- I VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY i -- Would the project: , ! a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ~ i waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] I b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ~ i supplies or interfere substantially with I groundwater recharge such that there would I be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a ¡lowering of the local groundwater table level I i (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing I I I nearby wells would drop to a level I i which would not support existing land uses I or planned uses for which permits have been ¡ granted)? [20,36,42] I l..':'___ ..._....___.___... .... .______ . ._ ________1_.. I )- VI.( ---------.-- -- ~_._,- i i " I ISSUES: I [and Supporting Information Sources] i----- . - I c) Substantially alter the existing drainage II pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or I river, in a manner which would result in I substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? [14,20,36] I ¡ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage I pattern of the site or area, including through i the alteralion of the course of a slream or , i river, or substantially increase the rate or II' amount of surface runoff in a manner which , would result in flooding on- or off-site I [20,36,38] II' e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or ¡ planned stormwater drainage systems or I provide substantial additional sources of I polluted runoff? [20,36,42] I i f) Otherwise substantially degrade water I quality? [20,36,37] , I . i g) Place housing within a 1 GO-year flood I hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood , Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate I Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ! [2,38] h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] I i) Expose people or structures to a significant I risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. i including flooding as a result of the failure of I a levee or dam? [2,36,38] . i j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or I mudflow? [2,36,38] ~- ----- IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would , i the project: i a) Physically divide an established ¡community? [7,12,22,41] I b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ¡ policy, orregLJliJtiol1,Qf¡¡r1<lg~ncLwitl1.. _.__ >.- -r: -1U'" .~ 0 0 -¡;::!!! c: ._ ~ G) " E õ.~- a.cn o o o o o o o o o o ---- _ _ 0 -r;: 1:; rtI IU 0 IU .I: 0 J::'- ... 1-¡¡:::::1âo en·-,. CIa. en c: ;> .- '- Q)tn :::0 ...Jii) :;;g o o o o o o o o o o - -- - - ---.....----- r:- r: rtllU'" .1:00 I- .- '" U)~c. en " E G) CI_ ...Jcn - o o o o o o I , : , Õ i¡ o '" i z ~ I Jil i I , i I I I J:5it ~ ø.. ø. JX' o ß( I I I I i ¡ --- --------' o ~ I I o I:iit ¢. o ) )'>ÿj r--- -~ -.-.-.---."-.-.. ,--- ~. , I >.- r:: _ 0 r::- I I -I: I: I: :¡:¡ I: I ! -\\I"" IV \\I 0 \\I \\1\\1"" "" I , .~ U I,) .f: 0 .- Ir.., .r::ul,) I,) I : ISSUES: -.- ª 1-¡¡::£1tio I- .- fa o '" c:-!:: CI)'-'¡¡: ClC. en :-!:: Co zc. I I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) r:: E ( ) t: ._ Ir.., CI) r:: E E õ.~- Q)C) ;t::O Q) .~- I I D..I/) ....I(ñ :;:g ....II/) -~~ I júrisdiction over the project (including, but f--- I ! not limited to the general plan, specific plan, , I local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) I adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I , mitigating an environmental effect? ¡ 1[1,7,8,16,17.18,44] , I I I c) Conflict with any appiicabie habitat 0 0 0 ~ I conservation pian or natural community I conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] IX (b) The g,roject is being redesi~ned. It may require a Heart of the City Specific Plan side I yard excep ion to allow balconies 0 encroach into the side setback area, I i , I X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the I project: i ! a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ~ I mineral resource that would be of value to , ¡ the region and the residents of the state? I 1[5,10] I b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 J&l I locally-important mineral resource recovery I site delineated on a local general plan, ! specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] I I I XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: r I a) Exposure of persons to. or generation of, 0 0 0 ~ I noise levels in excess of standards I established in the locai general plan or noise I ordinance, or applicable standards of other ! agencies? [8,18,44] I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 t\iI I excessive groundborne vibration or I ground borne noise levels? [8,18,44] -- I c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 ~ I ambient noise levels in the project vicinity I above levels existing without the project? 1[8,18] - I d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 ,RQ ¡ increase in ambient noise levels in the I project vicinity above levels existing without i the project? [8,18,44] ---- ¡ e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 JKJ ----- - --_._--_._---~----_..._--..-........_._------_.........'-...- --- ._--~....__._- --.--...,,-.."'...- .......-....,,---...-...- ---- /)-v~ 1------ I I -- >,- - t: -CU'" .~ ., u - .- !!! I: := ~ '" <: E õ.~- c..rn i I ISSUES: I [and Supporting Information Sources] I r use-plan or, where such a plan has not been --- I ! adopted, within two miles of a public airport i or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8.18,44] i f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the projecl expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] i XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would I the project: f---- i a) Induce substantial population growth in an ! 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] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of i replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16,44] I c) Displace substantial numbers of people, I necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associaled 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] Police protection? [33,44] Schools? [29,30,44] Parks? [5.17,19,21,26,27,44] Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D D D D D D D D - o c'" s::: ._- nI t: .t:: ~.s:'~ ~ 1-~:!:::1Oo "'·-".Cla. f/) C ;;>-_.... Q)C) ~o ..J(ñ :;;g D D D D s::- s:: nlCU'" .I:.,u I-t;:CU In .- Co '" <: E CI>.!2'- ..Jrn D D D D r---..---------., i ¡ ...1 ~ ~ I E i i i i i I , I I , I I :RI I I ~ ~I I ! ! i - '§7J ~ : i D D 8! ¡ , -~ i D D '¡;¡: D D á ! -,.,--.---.-- D D ~ i -------- -----------~ D D ,þi;¡ I "-~_.__... -- ".'. -'- -_....._.- .'. .-'"""'-...-.-......""- -----..--.------" D --- I )'-l/7 Grv~tr'+- JS\f \M.b~ I 0 lß" I , r::- 0 I >o- r::- i - r:: c: c: :;; r:: , -n¡.... ru ru 0 ru run¡.... .... \ .~ l) 0 ..c: l) .-... ..c:l)O 0 -¡;:: ~ t-t;::=1Go J-.- '" o '" r:: ._ II)'-'¡: CIa. U)~a. za. I '" r:: E UJC ._i- II) c: E E ! õ.~- G>C) ~o '" CI_ c..rJ ...I .- :2 u ...IrJ rJ r:: I - i -----I D .tJ D ¡g( I C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, I including either an increase in traffic levels or I a change in location that results in i substantial safety risks? [4,?] r- I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a i design feature (e.g.. sharp curves or I dangerous intersections) or incompatible I uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] I i e) Result in inadequate emergency access? I I I i [2,19,32,33,44] i f) Result in inadeqUa~e parking capacity? I i [17,44] I--------------------~I-D- ----0---- j g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or I l_fr.~o;:;~sa~~~i~rt~:gb~~~~~~~~!~,þi(;~CI~_J_ __ ,--------------- I I I ! I ISSUES: I [and Supporting Information Sources] 1___,,__---,--_.",---- _ XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the j facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which 1 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC-- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (I.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, Ihe volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] o o o D ~ o o o o o o o o o o o D D o o D D ~ o I I Ji:J ){ I , I i , i --.J I Þ{! , I i I i , ø. .Ri ""-, ¡¡¡¡ i _~._.__._._"_,"""",.", __.."".""'._____.__ __..._._..__.___ J {<;>L{g , IS i [a , b I I - -~..- -..- - , r::.... 0 I ».... r::.... I - r:: c: t: ;:; r:: I -tU.... IGtU OtU IGtU.... .... .~ \) 0 .1:\).1:.-,- .l:uO 0 SUES: .... ¡¡: ~ 1-t¡:::!:::1âo I-¡¡:co 0 co r:: ._ If)'-;:"'O- en'- Q, Z 0- nd Supporting Information Sources] Q) r:: E U) c:: .- "- If) <:: E E õ.~- (1) C) ~ 0 G) .!2'J- c..cn ...J¡¡j :æ:g ...Jcn - cks)? [4,34] I I , rx \J (n.) I The traffic analysis identified a total of 15 new A.M, peak hour trips and 26 P.M. peak hour ! ! trips, A CMA traffic analysis is not required as new trips fall below 100. Nearby signalized I , intersections continue to operate at acceptable traffic LOS levels with the development. that I is, LOS D or better. I -j Parking supply meets City requirements without sharing parking between uses, ----.-.- I XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- i Would the project: i a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ß i requirements of the applicable Regional I Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] , i 0 0 I& I b) Require or result in the conslruction of 0 i new water or wastewater treatment facilities I or expansion of existing facilities, the , i construction of which could cause significant I environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 & new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] ! e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 j({ D·' ! wastewater treatment provider which serves I i or may serve the project that it has adeq uate I I I capacity to serve the project's projected I I i demand in addition to the provider's existing I , I I commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] i , I ! i f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 ~ , j permitted capacity to accommodate the ! i project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] ; ¡-- - - i g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 ~ ¡ ! statutes and regulations related to solid I ¡waste? [?] i ,.__.._-----_._--_.~------"'-,-"----,~_._----~..- --_.'-"-_._-,""-"'"."".,,.- -- " "H.'_ -------1 i XVI (e) The Cupertino Sanitary District cannot determine the downstream availability of I sewer service. It has experienced events when peak sewer flows have exceeded capacity, i A flow study may be necessary to determine if off-site improvements are required. This i requirement was placed on all significant size projects on or near Stevens Creek Blvd that i flow toward sewer mains in Wolfe Road. ---.....--.-'-'.""" " ,,--~._--_._..__........_._-_._.__.__.....__.._.- -"...-.".,--.-.--.-------.--......-.----.-,.... , I s--lf1 a) Does the project have the potential to D D D :ß1. 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 Ihe major periods of California history or i prehistory? 0 I b) Does the project have impacts that are D D D ~. individually limited, but cumulatively : considerable? ("Cumulatively I considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when I viewed in connection with the effects of past , I projects, the effects of other current projects, I and the effects of probable future projects)? 0 I c) Does the project have environmental D D D '1i?J- i , , I effects which will cause substantial adverse , I I effects on human beings, either directly or -~j I indirectly? [] L--,____._,___~~.___.___.~._.,'_"____" _._--_._~~- -----..---- I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Pre parer's Signature Print Pre parer's Name f j- jO ¡;NVIRONM¡;NT AL ¡;VALUA TION (T obe .completed by CilyStàff) :. .........;".);:c,.".........::: .:;.... ....:..:.:.:: :....:. ',·,····::·.:·;·:;-;·.·:.:·i;:::>':·.:· :" '. " .::. ...~:;;.:...... .. "', ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils 0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water ISiiI. Land Use / Planning Materials Quality 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation ~ TransportationfTraffic .Þ\ Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, 0 The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significanl unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed, 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required, C-Q..;... \ "" 4 I ì¿¡G-~ Slaff Evaluat~ Ý\ Date u CCJ j. ERC Chairperson ~ I '-f I ·)..OÙ '-f Date . I )-sl CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE May 12, 2004 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on May 12, 2004. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: ASA-2004-02, U-2004-0l (EA-2004-02) Greg Pinn (Pinn Brother's Construction) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Architectural and Site Approval for a mixed-use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential (33 units) development. Use Permit for a mixed-use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential (33 units) development and the demolition of an abandoned building, FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Envir Declaratio significa ental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative 'ndin that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no ental impacts. g/ erc/ REC EA-2004-02 IFScl EXHIBIT A DATE: March 12, 2004 TO: Greg A. Pinn FROM: Sandi Domingue and Traci Ono SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis for Adobe Terrace Mixed-Use Development, 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of the traffic analysis for the proposed mixed-use development located at 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The mixed-use development as proposed entails the construction of 33 low-rise apartments and approximately 2,634 s.f. of retail use, Access to the proposed development is provided via one right in right out driveway off of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The traffic analysis will include a trip generation analysis, intersection level of service analysis, access/site circulation analysis, parking analysis and pedestrianlbicyclist impact analysis. The traffic analysis will follow the guidelines set forth by the City of Cupertino. 1.0 TRIP GENERA nON ANALYSIS The purpose of the trip generation analysis was to determine if the proposed development would generate 100 or more new peak hour trips to or from the site. If the proposed development were to generate 100 or more new peak hour trips, a full transportation impact analysis (TIA) would be required; however, if the peak hour trips are less, a memorandum addressing issues requested by the City of Cupertino staff will be adequate for the traffic analysis. Project trips were estimated by applying the appropriate vehicular trip generation rates to the proposed mixed-use development (33 low-rise apartments and 2,634 s.f. of retail). The trip generation rates used are those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 6'h Edition. Applying these rates, the proposed 33 low-rise apartments are estimated to generate 217 daily trips, 15 AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12 outbound) and 19 PM peak-hour trips (13 inbound and 6 outbound). The proposed 2,634 sJ. of retail is estimated to generate 107 daily trips, 0 AM peak hour trips (normal business hours begin after 9 AM) and 7 PM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 4 outbound). The estimated total net daily trips for the proposed mixed-use development is 324 daily trips, 15 AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12 outbound) and 26 PM peak-hour trips (16 inbound and 10 outbound). Based on the trip generation results, a traffic analysis memorandum wil1 be required and not a ful1 TIA. The trip generation estimates are presented in Table I. I)-53 Table 1 Trip Generation for Adobe Terrace Mixed-Use Development Daily Trip AM Peak PM Peak Generation Size/Area Peak Percentaae Tries Total Peak Percentaae Tries Total land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out In Out Trips Rate In Out In Out Trips Phase 1 Apartments (units)" 33 6.59 217 0.47 20% 80% 3 12 15 0.58 66% 34% 13 6 19 Retail (per 1000 s.fY 2.634 40.67 107 0" 0% 0% 0 0 0 2.59 43% 57% 3 4 7 Net~Trips 324 3 12 15 * Source ITE Trip Generation Rate for Low Rise Apartments (221) and Specialty Retail Center (814) **Normal business hours for retails shops beqín after 9 AM 16 10 26 2.0 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The purpose of intersection level of service analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. Level of service is both a quantitative and qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or highly congested conditions. The level of service method specified by the City of Cupertino evaluates an intersection's operation based on stopped delay with a threshold of LOS D or better. However, LOS E+ (45 seconds weighted delay) is acceptable only for De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road in order to facilitate the "Heart of the City" concept described in the City of Cupertino's General Plan. The study intersections are analyzed using TRAFFIX, a software package which is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for analyzing intersections. TRAFFIX evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay which includes stopped delay at an intersection, delays due to oversaturation queues, movements at slower speeds and stops and slow downs on intersection approaches as vehicles move in queues or slow down upstream of an intersection. The correlation between average stopped vehicular delay and level of service is shown in Table 2. As directed by the City of Cupertino, the following three key signalized intersections were analyzed for this project: 1. De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard 2. Torre A venue / Stevens Creek Boulevard 3, Blaney Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard Operating conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The peak hour is defined as a one hour time period between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and a one hour time period between 4:00 and 6:00 PM during which the highest volumes of traffic are experienced. These intersections were analyzed under two scenarios: Existing Conditions and Existing + Project Conditions. 2 1)- ')L{ Table 2 Level of Service Definitions Level of Description Service A Free flow; minimal to no delay B+ B B- c+ C c- D+ o 0- E+ E E- F Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) ~ 10.0 Stable flow, but speeds are beginning to be restricted by traffic condition: slight delays. 10.0 < delay ~ 12.0 12.0 < delay ~ 18.0 18.0 < delay ~ 20.0 Stable flow, but most drivers cannot select their own speeds and feel somewhat restricted: acceptable delays. 20,0 < delay ~ 23.0 23.0 < delay ~ 32,0 32,0 < delay ~ 35.0 Approaching unstable flow, and drivers have difficulty maneuvering; tolerable delays. 35,0 < delay ~ 39.0 39.0 < delay ~ 51.0 51,0 < delay ~ 55,0 Unstable flow wilh stop and go: delays. 55.0 < delay ~ 60.0 60.0 < delay ~ 75.0 75.0 < delay ~ 80.0 Total breakdown: congested conditions with excessive delay. delay> 80.0 Existing peak hour turning movement volumes and signal timing were provided by the City of Cupertino (see Appendix A), Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service based on the City of Cupertino's threshold (LOS D or better). Based on field observations, all the intersections appear to operate at the calculated levels of service. The results of the intersection levels of service are presented in Table 3. See Appendix B for TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets. Existing + Project Conditions are existing peak-hour volumes plus project-generated traffic estimated for the proposed development. The project generated traffic is estimated by using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amount of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates based on land use on both a daily and a peak-hour basis (refer to Section 1.0 above). In the second step, the directions by which trips approach and depart the site are estimated based on the relative location of complementary land uses and existing travel patterns in the area. In the final step, the traffic is assigned to the individual roadway segments of the roadway network. The results indicate that under Project Conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service based on the City of Cupertino's threshold (LOS D or better). The results of the intersection levels of service are presented in Table 3. See Appendix B for TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets. 3 [ )-~):) Table 3 Intersection Level of Service Results Existing + Project Existing Conditions Conditions Chanae Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Crit. Avg. Crit. Crit. Crit. Del. Crit. Del. Del. Crit. Del. VIC Del. Intersections Peak LOS (see,) VIC (sec.) LOS Isec, \ vie Isec.1 Chanae Chanae 1 De Anza Boulevard I AM D 43.1 0.887 44.6 D 43.2 0.890 44.9 0.003 0.3 Stevens Creek Boulevard PM D 47.4 0.801 50.2 D 47.5 0.802 50.3 0.001 0.1 2 Torre Avenue I AM A 6.7 0.248 4.0 A 6.7 0.250 4.0 0.002 0.0 Stevens Creek Boulevard PM A 7.4 0.311 8.9 A 7.5 0.315 9.0 0.004 0.1 3 Blaney Avenue / AM B 13.4 0.446 13.7 B 13.5 0.452 14.0 0.006 0.3 Stevens Creek Boulevard PM C 24.1 0.676 24.4 C 24.3 0.677 24.5 0.001 0.1 3.0 ACCESS/SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS One driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard is provided for the proposed mixed-use development. The driveway is approximately 24' wide. Access to the proposed development for vehicles traveling eastbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard is restricted to a "right in right out" driveway which feeds to an underground parking facility proposed by the project. A raised median on Stevens Creek Boulevard does not allow vehicles traveling westbound to tum left into the proposed driveway, Therefore, a V-turn is available at De Anza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard signalized intersection for vehicles traveling westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard, A signalized intersection on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Torre A venue and Blaney A venue is provided as access to and from the Fire Station. From field observations, this signalized intersection is approximately 100' east of Torre A venue and operates as a coordinated intersection with Torre A venue. This signalized intersection is closest to the proposed project site, however, according to existing roadway signs, no V-turns are allowed at this intersection, 4.0 PARKING ANALYSIS The City of Cupertino's Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces for each apartment unit and one parking space per 250 square feet of retail. Applying the city code requirements to the proposed mixed-use development. a total of 77 parking spaces are required. The proposed mixed-use development is designed to provide underground parking beneath the apartment and retail structure. The parking layout provides a total of 78 parking spaces (76 full size parking spaces and 2 handicapped spaces). Seven of those parking spaces are at-grade, surface parking spaces and the remaining 71 parking spaces are underground parking. According to city requirements, adequate parking is provided for the proposed project. Table 4 summarizes the City of Cupertino parking requirements for each land-use component of the project. See Figures 1& 2 for the garage level parking plan and site plan respectively, 4 I )- st ~..;;i·i~..~L^,", ·;~~~~r·nL~~-?f· '_"_._~____.____.__.m___._--;_________._...,.,.,_.__ ,._____ I --*,,-, L"'_o!....._.~"""',~;.......,."''''''''''~... ...·;.."',....·...."",~,....,........._,"'""r...." ~,~:;¡:::::-:..~~..:::=~~~'~-::"..::~." _i/J......'''....._L~_...........'''~^''''J!1JH,.''''~J...·... ,..;.11",. V-~""''''''''';'''''''''''''''~'''''''"'"''''~ "","_~__,.....,¡.............¡ibo-roO"'_ ~ J>innBrothersCompaní, ¡,,:IS... s.¡..z~ - Adobe Terrace A.'fi,"¡U"!).,o;<I",,,,",,, h. ..""'......."..~ t~~ '!f\:8r _""'_41\.""'" ~ ;¡ :.:n~ J_c,o....-_,,,,,,,," ~ (JlJ~! ')'!fl-5) MoJM' MØ¢·œlØ..tI1l1 fNtle'';'3'tJ'WI:R-]I!'l-!J} SÐf)"ø.tJ'œ"E ~ " ~. I~ . ~~ ~ ,~ -..:.........-I/Wrr_~ ._~ _.....""I'M#""""""" . (§Y GARAGE LEVEL PLAN ~OI!I!""""'''''''''''''''''''''11!..........r,,","-, ~ ».~ ,,,..,~,,,! ...,. .~ ,:T"'~ .""...- ...~ I><='..,.... ~'lI>'''rI... ...........'" U","'J<;" " , , 2: ,- , ,- . .. ,......... """'.,., ,......fi>~ "' , , , , ~Ø0 AM 10 '!\,øø PH - ÆVEN DAY~ YAÇAN, NIXE!:> ¡;¡ETAIL _AFART1'1ENT!'> 'I-IEART CI' clm (I") ~IAL I OfFICE I fl<ESIPENTIAL S,Œ'I!U50-FT. 1I.ioS. 'MI~ðQ.FT. &<I" ~UNfT!'> !3a.1ITS I'-IJ'IITS "LNITS 3,'!:61ML"". '!tJ'I.. ~,~6Q.FT. !olN!I. >4OI,.'Rß OF RETAIL OPERATfON EXlarlNG use '"""""""'.... ~1N(io D£ðIGNATJON 6&æ It4J.. I"I.AN DE&IGNAT"-"'I PAVING AFEA CANOCAf'E""'" I'!:!:¡;IDE~IA/.. ,..,,"""" 2 e£DROOM ]eEO~ /i£~TI~A/i£A c:ct't"ION.OI"£NN<!:A 1'"RIYATE OFEN AÆA ]3,«~A f>Q. FT. t!JU ACFæ& <l3~11.~ &Q. FT. Ð.9'!60 ACIæ& 2,h3<1 &GI.FT. 31~!;.L2I &CI.f'T. 3~~.!ð!.Q.FT. Garage Plan .3!>.eLJ-IIT5 " .~ACfi!E&)( 3SoJDI.NITð D!SN6ITT All.OUÆ!:O DENSlrr ~D ","," '~f'l.LL&lm 2 I-lAtCICAFFED 1"1 TOT.c.L A-l.O "',,',''''-...........,.'''-,,-''''~ !oIl'!:! AREA Nn ""'" """"'''''''' ~Ulr:.rt.k;,Mi'F-.ð. !'IETAIL AFAR1l"1ENT '=AI. 0.&1,. .3'·Ø' I!EECJVlL . " - '-') 1 'î --J , ~ , ! , , j i ~ , , t ; ¡ , ~ ¡ ¡ ~ , , , ~ , , i ¡ ¡ ~ , , , ~ rl , ~ ''''' ~1iõ!~!,;TnIiõ!IF'" "''''"' ·1"'OD11.I'1 etJlLOINC!. FAP ELEYATlON NO. '" EMPLOY'E£& 1"'NC>JEc;TED F~ fæQJ11'õ:ED p^,""",,",,,," .",î;;;" ~,~ ,,,,. PiIm Brolhen; Cùmparue:> ¡.7~ s.c.""", A'" SL>i", l~O SonJ""..C"-95¡)9 -' Adobe Terrace ,~ M¡n-d''''))''W:~ ~Ø12!~..,·<..0te C\.7"J'-ll>-'. l'A. ~~I ", .,.... 1'<.....,...," "..""'",,, 0.:;;;;;;:- ~ED""" - ,- . .- '" ;;;: 2: ~ ", ""¡. ,""'.."" 101>...,,*, Site Plan & First Floor Plan A-2.0 ~~ ~~ o ~ ~ , , I I ~ -- .-- J....._....1a!t .- ~ <i1 """"NIœ'IIJ 3J , ~~:~~~;~ ~~.-." ,.,~ = I - ~:;'XR·5J r. Jð~M' - St/X)W\CØ'E ~ ~ SITE PLAN @ ~ ~il . ~!tI ~i s ~ ~ ~ .~ SCALE ,.- --" ~ ~ v) \ ~ GRAPJUC - I- F I RST FLOOR PLAN @ , t j , ~ , \ j i ¡ ~ , , t ; ¡ , ~ ~ 1 ~ , , \ í ¡ , ~ , 5 ~ rl 5' ~ ~ Table 4 Summary of Parking No. Spaces No. Spaces Land Use Size City Code Requirement Required Provided Apartments 33 units 2 spaces per unit 66 66 Retail Use 2,634 o.t. 1 space per 250 s.t. 11 12 Total: 77 78 5.0 PEDESTRIANIBICYCLIST IMPACT ANALYSIS The project area consists of many high tech businesses. The City of Cupertino has set up a transportation network that integrates transit services with a variety of fonns of transportation. Public bus transit service is provided by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Bus service in the project vicinity is provided by Route 23. Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of bicycle lanes and sidewalks along most of the streets within the study area with the exception of Torre A venue. No on-street parking is permitted in the study area. According to the project architect, the proposed mixed-use development will provide sidewalks across the top of the site by the trash dumpster and around the back of the buildings in the south and across the podium connecting to the existing sidewalks along Stevens Creek Boulevard. This proposed project will have no impact of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. CONCLUSION The proposed mixed-use development (33 low-rise apartments and approximately 2,634 s.f. of retail use) will have minimal impact on existing traffic on the surrounding roadways and intersections. The total net daily trips for the proposed mixed-use development is estimated to generate 324daily trips, 15 AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12 outbound) and 26 PM peak- hour trips (16 inbound and 10 outbound) resulting in insignificant volume changes. Under Existing + Project conditions, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. The proposed project will not impact existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Adequate parking and circulation is provided by the proposed project. 7 ( f'-f1 APPENDICES I J~~Ð APPENDIX A Existing Peak Hour Counts I s~-(., r (925) 706-9914 Fax: Phone: (925) 706-9911 Il TEC w PUBUC WORKS ~ 2f10 11 ,," ., l! fi~O NTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY 5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM CITY OF CUPERTINO 2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC COUNT OCTOBER 10, 2002 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM AND DE ANZA BOULEVARD STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIODS: INTERSECTION: NIS EIW t 230 553 205 L ... r- , 121 EBlT TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR 745-845 249 l 571 ~ 355 j 1051 1297 1369 1552 1660 1824 65 100 100 03 15 37 11 EBTH 253 276 273 260 262 305 299 253 10 EBRT 12 18 " 27 34 28 27 30 9 NBlT 54 56 71 115 106 134 142 29 8 N8TH 285 403 450 515 551 572 564 463 7;00 AM TO 9:00 AM ~ WBlT . NBRT 5 weTH 4 WSRT 35 34 31 45 42 46 65 51 35 38 38 43 54 55 53 '9 93 102 105 114 13' 178 140 151 33 40 52 53 59 49 69 19 3 SBLT 30 31 42 49 58 70 72 53 2 SBTH 81 115 121 133 140 147 151 125 1 SBRT 4' 71 54 72 103 104 67 52 15 MIN COUNTS PERIOD 700-715 715-730 730·745 745-800 BOQ..B15 615-830 83O-ß45 845-900 HOUR TOTALS r 199 t 2223 1 498 ~ -..- -,. 487 45 15 I STEVENS CREEK 1818 1512 TOTAL 5269 5878 6405 6854 ~814 129 105 12 EBLT 389 421 458 467 490 11 EBTH 1092 1091 10 EBRT 79 101 111 15 19 9 NBLT 309 361 427 498 511 8 NBTH 1654 1920 2089 2223 2170 7 NBRT 145 153 165 199 204 5 weLT 155 173 191 5 WBTH 414 454 528 553 600 4 WBRT 179 204 213 230 195 3 SBLT 152 180 219 249 253 2 S8TH 451 510 541 571 564 1 SBRT 250 310 343 365 356 TIME 700-800 715-815 730-830 745-845 BOD-9oo DE ANZA BOULEVARD 20 146 149 205 202 15 MrN COUNTS !5;OO PM TO 7:00 PM 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ PERIOD SBRT seTH SBLT WBRT WBTH weLT NBRT: N8TH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR .. 500-515 106 470 105 72 186 83 64 256 126 103 159 81 1820 530-630 '----- 356 515-530 104 482 110 83 202 83 60 267 135 108 164 53 1881 530-545 89 484 102 89 199 74 59 259 121 96 153 64 1809 421 1903 450 ... 785 545-600 91 469 108 81 196 69 55 280 105 124 214 94 1907 j ~ l.. 60CH;15 119 471 103 98 202 95 55 275 125 115 181 85 1925 , 338 615-630 122 479 137 92 188 79 55 251 124 118 151 71 1887 630-645 105 499 117 90 159 71 49 226 96 98 136 48 1694 ~ ....1 t 645-700 111 465 113 91 156 66 54 229 105 92 155 71 1710 314 r HOUR TOTALS . . 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 -' 10 11 12 STEVENS CREEK I 719 -..- 476 1085 225 TIME SBRT SBTH salT I· waRT W8TH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBlT TOTAL 500-600 390 1905 425 325 783 329 259 1071 497 431 710 302 7417 454 ---, 515--615 403 1906 423 349 799 342 250 1091 487 444 722 305 7522 DE ANZA BOULEVARD 530-630 421 1903 450 358 785 338 225 1085 476 454 719 314 7528 545-645 437 1918 465 359 745 335 215 1042 451 458 692 298 7413 600-700 457 1915 470 359 705 312 213 991 452 424 633 275 7216 ---- '\J ~ 1'-' ~o ''Þb'Ö'tt "3A'r/ 3è1è:101 11101 u 1110 ~rgo, I~ 0 T" 10 I" I P'd J." HJ. J.1 J 1 4 0 - ~ ;¡' ~~ [ -~ ~ ~ ~p ;;;- 0 ... ... ~ >-~ .µJ<lW¡M°rì"I:;)!!.1a^ L" ~ M ~ Sv:go aOOZ1YOHO -I r ¡¡ ~ ~ ~ 0 E ~ 00:90 aOOZMJM " r ~ ~ ., - ~ ~ ---t +--=i ~ 'W'N ~ r 8[] ~ 1 ~-I¡ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~I 1-1 s£ §I ~ - .... .... w ~ T ~ POd J.1 HJ. "" 10 0 10 I., ~ I., I [¡QL::J le;Ol "' ¡no ""::J.AIf3lJèlOI Hs-a gaLO _0 989"0 """'0 lL5 99' 0 OL "". "' '" 0 " 0 O' 99£ 0 51: ,,£ " >Z 0 0 0 VZ 00:90 lfIl'lfOf:.eo !I\IVSIT:SD P\I\¡f'OO:9O WrI 00:80- 0:0 Z'L "sa n 0'0 'LV 0'0 S'Z9 0'0 "S OLe v" 0'0 0'0 0'0 O'OO~ Z,,, <VL 0 £s ££9 sa 901 0 'S 0 IS "'" 0 "", \7LO~ >S sv 0 0 0 sv f'lDJ. e °l J." 1"' odd\( punoq~sE!3 punoql..{lJ°N punoq¡saM punoq4U1os 'GAlS >1330'8 SN3^31S '3NrJ 3H~Ol "OA18>!33ò'8 SN3^31S '3Ni 3H1::JOl I £'V£ 0'0 = "S¡: a IVS 0'0 9'< 0'0 6<: 109S 0'0 L'> ,'OS S', I: 0'0 0"0 0'0 z;?; 'Ycr¡2: O.l 0'0 S'9 "59 L'L 0'0 O"LY 0'0 01:5 ero "S 6'00 ... 0'0 0'0 0'0 o·oo~ %ttOJcùf.t """ 5'''' 0 9L 668 06 5,n 0 La 0 a5 696' 0 191 ZILI 96 0 0 0 9L f2 °.LPUEUÐ SUZ <VL 0 £S ££9 55 9m 0 '5 a IS ~EZ~ 0 £01 vLO~ >S SV 0 0 0 SV IR101 L9V £91 0 " 9S1 '" « 0 ZI 0 DO ZÞZ 0 DZ SOZ L, m 0 0 0 m WV'SP':9O '\oS SiZ 0 6' 96' DO g¡: 0 S' 0 " 6LZ 0 DZ SVZ '" . 0 0 0 , V>JVO\,::9O ts LS' 0 "' 9"' 9 6Z 0 £I 0 9' ZV£ 0 VZ 90£ Z' 01 0 0 0 0' I^J\fS~:9O 1£ 99' 0 0' £V, ., IZ 0 " 0 m 99£ 0 51: 91. " ÞZ 0 0' a vz I^J"IQo:QO oa, ÞZ' "" sa, '" œl ¡¡¡: '6 .\Z as 1E 01. ¡2¡Cl "' 'dÒ\i II 6Z ¡z LI 6 9£1. £SZ 6LI S90 u,.-~ sæ LOZ S'" ...., s,,' 0" I. 6 " S £ o:~ ¡e 0.L WV sv:m VIi'" OC:1D VV'V S~:LO WVOO:l.O _e; HI eWllJ-lEl$ punoQl. :µON punoqjSaM "YIV3:tH:IOl '~18 >133M:! SN3^3.LS µ;w~ a ':J 4~^pa¡Uµd $ Ð PUnoqLW105 '3/\V~MOl ON aBed 8+BO ¡Je¡S 00000000: apo:) a+IS ii-S:): aW81'l a/!::J ~ : Oë:/\70nO : ~I^J;::;C p.lp.n :ì11 PII C:\I!DI^' OUJ\.J8dnJ JO ~I:J [,) ~ & .T*I" "3^'" 3~},!Ol 1EJOl U/ VlO Œ9.L:J ~ GiLl T 0 1.6 0 OS ""d "" "" ", , ~ 1 4 - "0 - -¡¡ ~ ~ . _ m 0- 0- , . ~ ~o " - N 0 ~ ~ n ..... ..... ~ ;;. ~ m ~---1 ;lJ9WiI^OV' Q¡:>!46^ L~ ~ ~ O£:L~ OODZfVOM -< - ~ ~ ~ ¡: 5' ð n 91>':91- 000;;:/1>'011-0 £ - N m ~ ¡::~ f------ :i ;:j ~ m 4+JoN ~ ~ ~ ;;- ~ -~ n J\J~~ ð - 1;;'1 I~o ~ . ~ - ..... ...... ..... ~ ~ ..... ~ I r P'd "' "" "" 10 I 10 ~ Is< I rw:::::J s< ~ tl!~Ol "I ¡no '::¡^\I'3èH:!OI j5iro _a 58£0 698'0 8.~g:o 1Z9 1>0> 0 '" 9S£ VI .. a 61 0 as SS£ 0 " iŒ i " a a 0 " ,,::so Wd œ:so Wd oc:so Wd 00:50 ~dçy:Þ1J 0'0 v'l. 9,,,, 0" 0'0 H£ 0'0 £'gg 0'0 l'l S'06 n 0'0 0'0 0'0 O'OO~ '196G _I a ill I sal es OSl a GO a 9S H£~ a .. œ" z¡: ,£ 0 a 0 6£ , ,'¡;¡D1 [2101 "" '¡u¡ 'ddV' s·", 0'0 ¡"£ 5'£1- S'I Z'5 0'0 n: 0'0 "< 5'''' 0'0 9'< S'6£ A" 1-'1 0'0 0'0 0'0 ¡"I %12101 0'0 o'¿ 0'61/ "< 0'0 e'", 0'0 Z'09- 0'0 ... [52 '" 0'0 0'0 0'0 (roo~ % tpJdd'V' ... ¡:gge 0 LB'):. <LIZ SQ-1. "'e 0 w 0 III 1Z>" 0 LBI We GO LL 0 0 0 LL !!:Pl PUlUÐ '" e« 0 9" """ S ¡z 0 " 0 ZI >6Z 0 1£ 65Z ¡. 9 0 0 0 9 ~d S~:90 .J!9 ¿"" 0 ¡z 51< 01 e£ 0 51 0 81: 99Z 0 5~ £l-e ¡. S 0 0 0 6 Ii'Jd 00:90 os'" v~v~ 0 .5 ZSlJ. 05 L5I 0 95 0 101 ¡Z<l 0 901 """ C< i< 0 0 0 L< 12¡01 z¡¡ i6' 0 . 9ie <I 9< 0 <I 0 ¡z 5e' 0 <£ OS< " 01 0 0 0 01 VIId ;V:;o e9 """ 0 I<: 9S< VI 6¡' 0 51 0 0< SSE: 0 " iœ i '" 0 0 0 " Wd O£:SO OL 19< 0 8Z <1< OZ .. 0 ZI 0 ¡z <0< 0 6£ "" 91 9 0 0 0 9 VIId 5 ~:so BLl '5< 0 >Z LIS ," '8< 0 " 0 9<: SL6 0 ¡z """ L 6 0 0 0 6 I/IId 00:90 ~t~~ "'. "' lZ£ 9Ç & ''''1 1t!.1°J. 'u¡ 'ddli 99 s¡: i< 01-5 5l 5l ,"",l oe, II ZI VIId SV:ÞO 09" <I £1 V'kIO£:va a'' '"">Ed U eWl.l:¡.l"!QS ~ : C O(;¡vO/~O: u0000000 : d-£:::J : ON aBed 8+ea :µ8+S apo:) a+!8 aweN al!.::I 881Nac;, 121E'" ~lllP..J I !:: ~ ) ""^I oU!JJadn:::J fa 4!8 (')-feV OZ6L6 ZÇÇL6 Çzço£ G088! £61£ = :)\:JtI)Nn!tIlNtI awOl0A £61 £ = :DN;:¡lNtI lVJ_Ol = Sl:JI1dNO:J Nì!Ill.L:E!1 GNflOHlStIN> + ------ + ~ Sl::J!1i!NO::J Nì!Ill H31 CINflOSlSV3 OÇL = Sl::JI1dNO::J N1!D.lld3:1 CINflO8H.LIlOS + + = Sl::JI1i!NO::J mIJ1lld3:1 GNflO8BDION + _m__ + Ç8P :>.... +----+ 8Çl +--~-+ ------ zç ça +----+ ------ +----+ L#: 8W 6#: +----- + £81 ] < ..... +----- + + ------ + 60PZ + ------ + +----- +9# 96 ...... +----- +----- H# 9ZZ1 no] ...... +---- +----- +t# 8Ç ...... +----- + ...... :r + + :>.... pZP + + WÇ8ttL :oEd + ------ + ....<: çn + ------ + ,.. o 1 #+ ----+ .....: oç 1]#+ -----+ -----+ .....: aGO] 191] G! #+ -----+ -----+ .....: 16 ....-- + -----+ + -----+ ¡: <::8PZ + -----+ ...... + -----+ ....>: IZ£1 I + -----+ £W Z#: ]W + -----+ -----+ -----+ ¡11 6] ] 16 + -----+ -----+ -----+ :S: ....<: ]Z£ + -----+ 3 ......N> + --_.-- + ÇPL Hl.<lON + + 1"1''0' çp: 8-Çp:L :awIl 00 ldv IZ :3lve S::JS '!' ,(oUBIS :NOIlY:JOl l33:HS A<lVWWJ1S ::JIHd\l1!Ð * tIWJ110A tIl::JlHtIA ONIl <l3dJ1::J dO AlD I S>{,) ZL170017 9176Z61 00Z91 nosl = SlJI'HNOJ N<I.f1l H31 CINflOtIlS3fI\ + ------ + = Sl::iI'1dNOJ N1H1lld3l CINflOHlSV3 ,9S = Sl::iI'1dNOJ N1lfll H3l CINflOHHlnOS + + = SlJI'1dNOJ N1lfllld3l CINflOtIHlì!ON Z6]17 = :)!J3HffiEUN3 3Wfll0A Z6]17 = :ONUN31VlOl + _m__ + + ------ + ....<: 10, + + 179£ :>---. +____+ ______ +__h+ 0,] ,£1 6L +----+ ------ +----+ L#: 8W 6#: ... 0]#+ -----+ .....: Lv II #+ -----+ -----+ .....: ZLL ¡ OOOZ n #+ -----+ -----+ .....: ]8] +----- + I Z170Z < +----- + + ------ + OZ17£ + ------ + +~---- +9# nz +----- +----- H# 8L£J 9901 +__m +----- +17# 98 +----- + ...... r + -----+ + -----+ ¿17H ¡: + -----+ ...... ...... + -----+ "'Y L17n + m_'+ .. £W ZW ]W + ----+ -----+ -----+ on 8U ZO¡ :S: Z017 + > + -----+ -----+ -----+ ....<: 0,17 + -----+ 3 ·..·..M + + + .. + + Z,8 HDION W',Sz'17L :0J!d + + 'W'd 00: I. 8-00:L ! :3WIl OOldy]Z :3lya tIJS W,(OTmIt! :NOIlV::iOl l33HS Aì!VWWflS JIHdV1:!D * ffi^lfll0A 3l::i1H3A ".,../" ONIlì!3dflJ ,10 AlD { f -&& APPENDIX B TRAFFIX Level Of Service Calculation Sheets ( »(ç 1 COMPARE ThuMar 1113:51:122004 Page 3· 1 Cityoi Cupertilio Adobe Terrace 2000 Qperalions Lellel 01 Service Computation ReOOr1 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altematille) AM Existing Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard I Stevens Creek Boulevard Sign al:oProteeVRighls:olnclude Final Vol 366 571 249'" Lanes: 1 0 4 0 2 .,.J4t~'+ Signal",Prolect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rightso:üverlap Vol Cnt Dale: 10/10/2002 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (see): 120 ~ 4B7~" 0 230 -t Loss Time (see): 12 .... 0 ~ 1146 ---.- CrilicalVlC: 0,B87 +- 2 563·" T AvgCri1Da¡ (seclveh): 44.6 T 0 116 1- AvgDeiay (secJveh): 43.1 ç 2 206 LOS: D ~ ~ t ~ ~ DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 _mm_____1 mmmmm II mmmmm 1 I--mm--m--I I m__m__mn 1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Oct 2002 « 7:45 - 8:45 AM Base Vol, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 Growth Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserBy Vol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 4982223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 _n_mm__I____m_mnn II mnnmm__llmmm_m__II_m_mmnn I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.13 0.87 Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3524 1440 _n__n___n I nnnnnnn_1l__n__nnnn_1I n___________h II n_____________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.16 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.89 Delay/Veh: 44.9 32.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh, 44,9 32.3 HCM2kAvg, 10 28 Lanes 2 0 3 0 Final Vol' 498 2223·'· 199 Signal=PrOlectlRights=Overlap Street Name: Approach: Movement: **** **** 0.55 0.22 13.7 1. 00 13.7 4 0.08 0.89 81. 6 1. 00 81. 6 7 0.35 0.24 28.0 1. 00 28.0 4 0.35 0.65 36.0 1. 00 36.0 12 0.16 0.89 65.6 1. 00 65.6 12 0.27 0.83 45.9 1. 00 45.9 16 0.48 0.15 17.4 1. 00 17 .4 2 0.07 0.83 75.5 1. 00 75.5 6 **** 0.18 0.89 58.7 1. 00 58.7 13 0.18 0.89 58.7 1. 00 58,7 13 ( )- &! COMPARE ThuMar1113:51:122004 Page3-2 CityO! Cuper1¡no Adobe Terrace 2000 Operations level OJ Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume AJlemative) PM ExiS1Îng Intersection #1; DeAnza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal,",ProtecVRights",lnclude Final Vol: 421 1903'" 450 lanes' 1 0 4 0 2 ..-J4t+~~ Signal'"'Protect Signai=Protecl Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Dvertap Vol Cnt Date: 10/10/2002 Righls=lnclude lanes' Final Vol: J. Cycle Time (sec): 14D ~ 314"· 2 D 358 -t loss Time (see): 12 J- 0 719 3 -----)00- CriIÎcaIV/C: 0,801 +- 2 785·" 0 r AvgCril Dal (sec/vaM): 50,2 r D 454 AVQ Delay (seclveh): 47.4 2 338 LOS: D ~ ~ t ~ ~ DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______________ I Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11____________---I Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Oct 2002 « 5:30 - 6:30 PM Base Vol, 476 1085 225 450 1~03 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 476 1085 225 4501903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0,91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1,00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.06 0.94 Final Sat.' 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3395 1548 ____nnnn I n_______nnn II n___nn__n__ II-----n--nnn II nn___________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.28 0.10 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: .*** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.80 0.66 Delay/Veh: 63.5 42.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 63.5 42.1 HCM2kAvg, 12 14 lanes: 2 0 3 0 Final Voi: 476'" 1065 225 Signal=P rolecVR ights",Overi ap Street Name: Approach: Movemen t : **** **** 0.48 0.29 22 .4 1. 00 22 .4 6 0.20 0.66 54.3 1. 00 54.3 10 0.34 0.80 43.6 1. 00 43.6 20 0.34 0.76 46.8 1. 00 46.8 17 0.11 0.80 71.8 1. 00 71.8 9 0.24 0.58 47.5 1. 00 47.5 9 0.41 0.68 36.8 1.00 36.8 16 0.16 0.60 56.5 1. 00 56.5 8 **** 0.29 0.80 49.4 1. 00 49.4 17 0.29 0.80 49.4 1.00 49.4 17 ( )"-10 9 COMPARE Thu Mar1113:51:12 2004 Page 3.'3 City of Cupertino Adobe Terrace 2000 Operations Level 01 Service Computa.1ion Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Existing + Project Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal",ProtectlRights=lnclude Final Vol· 366 571 250'" lanes: 1 0 4 0 2 ~ -4 t i· ~ Signal=Protecl Signal::Protecl Final Vol: lanes: Aights::Ovenap Vol CntDate 0;' Aights::lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J- Cycle Time (sac)· 120 -t. 4ar·· 0 236 4 Loss Time (see): 12 .t- O 1147 3 -----.. Critical VIC: 0.890 1- 2 565'" -t Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 44.9 r 0 116 .. Avg Delay (seclveh): 43.2 2 207 LOS: D ~ +,t t ~ ~ DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________ 11_______________11_______________11_______________1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-------------n 1 Volume Module: Base Vol, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 Growth,Adj, 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ese: 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tri, 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 6 Initial Fut, 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236 Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. , 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236 ---_________I__nnn_nn__11 n__n_________II____________n_II__________n___1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2,00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.12 0.88 Final Sat.' 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3498 1461 ------------I--n-nn------II n_n__nnn__ [ [n_nn_n__n_II__n___n__nn 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.16 Crìt Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.89 Delay/Veh: 45.0 32.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh, 45,0 32.6 HCM2kAvg, 10 28 Lanes: Final Vol: 2 0 3 0 49B 2223'" 199 Signal "p roteçtlAights=Overlap Street Name: Approach: Movemen t : **** **** 0.55 0.22 13.8 1. 00 13.8 4 0.08 0.89 82.0 1. 00 82.0 8 0.35 0.24 28.1 1. 00 28.1 4 0.35 0.66 36.1 1. 00 36.1 12 0.16 0.89 66.0 1. 00 66.0 12 0.27 0.83 45.8 1. 00 45.8 16 0.48 0.15 17.3 1. 00 17,3 2 0.07 0.83 75.2 1. 00 75.2 6 **** 0.18 0.89 58.8 1. 00 58.8 13 0.18 0.89 58.8 1. 00 58.8 13 r :f-:- 70 COMPARE ThU Mar 1113:51:122004 Page 3· 4 City of Cupertino Adobe Terrace 20000peralions Level Of Service Corrputalion Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative} PM Existing + Project Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard I Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal",ProtecVRights:lnclude Final Vol: 421 1903"· 457 Lanes: 1 0 4 0 2 .,.J ...{ t ~ ',+ Signal",Protect Signal:Prolect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights",Over1ap Vol Cnt Date: oJ, Rights:lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J- Cycle Time (sec)· 140 ~ 314'" 2 0 363 ... Loss Tirne (sec) 12 .t- O ---4-- 722 3 ---+- Critical VIC 0.802 -<II- 2 787"*' 0 T AvgCrit Del (seclveh) 50.3 r 0 454 -. Avg Delay (seclveh) 47.5 2 339 LOS: D ~ ~ t ~ ~ DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T RL T RL T RL T R ----n----nl----------un-11 nn______n_n 1 I-n-n---------I 1 n_un_nnn_1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 _mmmn I nmmmnn II-mmmm--] I_mmmmn II nnmmmnl Volume Module: Base Vol, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tri: 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 5 Initial Fut, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Final Vol" 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363 n_n_______I_______________11 nn__n_____n II n__n_nn_n_II_______________1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0,85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87 Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2,05 0.95 Final Sat.' 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3383 1560 _n___u_n_1 nnnn_nnn II n____nnnn_11 n_n__________II___________n__1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.28 0.10 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.80 0.66 Delay/Veh: 63.6 42.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh, 63.6 42.5 HCM2kAvg, 12 14 Lanes: 2 0 3 0 Final Vol: 476'" 1065 227 Signal",ProtecVR i ¡¡hls",Overiap Street Name: Approach: Movement: **** **** 0.48 0.30 22.6 1. 00 22.6 6 0.34 0.80 43.7 1. 00 43.7 20 0.24 0.58 47.5 1. 00 47.5 10 0.34 0.76 46.9 1. 00 46.9 17 0.11 0.80 72.0 1. 00 72.0 9 0.20 0.66 54,4 1. 00 54.4 10 0.41 0.68 36.8 1. 00 36.8 16 0.16 0.60 56.4 1. 00 56.4 8 **** 0.29 0.80 49.3 1. 00 49.3 17 0.29 0.80 49.3 1. 00 49.3 17 ( )- 1 r COMPARE ThuMar1113:51:122004 Page 3· 5 Cityo! Cupertino Adobe Terrace 2000 Operations Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations {Future Volume Ajlema1ive} AM EKisting Intersection #2: Torre Avenue J Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal =Permit/Righl$=Overlap Final Vol: 45 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0 ~4t'}"~ Signal",Prot+Perm Signal=Prot+Perm Final Vol: lanes Rights= nclude Vol Cnt Date: 1/4/2000 Rights=lnclude Lanes: Final Vol: J. Cycle Time (see): 70 ~ 53·" 0 54 ~ Loss Time (see): J- 0 633 2 --II>- CrilicalVIC: 0.248 +-- 2 1074'" T AvgCrit Del (seclveh): 4.0 T 0 55 0 .. Avg Delay (secJveh): 6.7 .- 103 LOS: A ~ +t t ~ ~ Lanes: 0 0 0 1 Final Vol: 51 Q 57'" Signal=PermitlRights=lnclude Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T R L T R L T R L T R m-----m-1 ________nnmll ___n___mnn 1 Imnm-______1Im-_mmnn I Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 mn_______ I ___n_____nmllmmnmn__II___mmn____11 nm_____m__1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 4 Jan 2000 « 8:00 - 9:00 AM Base Vol, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 Growth Adj, 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Final Vol.: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 _nu___nn I U___nunuu II n_______hnn II n_bb__nnn II----n-n------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.71 1.00 0.85 1,00 1,00 0.87 0.33 0.90 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.90 Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1.00 0,00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 2.86 0.14 Final Sat.' 2717 0 1615 0 0 1644 627 4715 410 1092 4904 247 u_____nn_I___nnnnn__II_____nnunu II----nnu----- II-nn-u-n-n-1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.00 0.25 Oelay/Veh: 26.4 0.0 27.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 26.4 0.0 27.2 HCM2kAvg: 1 0 1 Street Name: Approach: Movernen t : **** **** 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 o 0.24 0.11 20.7 1. 00 20., 1 0.61 0.14 6.0 1. 00 6.0 1 0.50 0.27 10.0 1. 00 10.0 3 0.50 0.27 10.0 1. 00 10.0 3 0.86 0.11 1.1 1. 00 1.1 o 0,76 0.29 2.7 1,00 2.7 3 0.76 0,29 2.7 1. 00 2,7 3 r S--7:~. COMPARE ThuMar111J:51:122004 Page 3-6 Cily of Cupertino Adobe Terrace 20000peralions Level Of Service Compulation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Aljernative) PM Exlsfing Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1 _______________11_______________ II ___u__________II_______________1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 _m________1 __________um 1 I-----m-------I 1 ___un________II_______________1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 4 Jan 200 « 4:45-5:45 PM Base Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 Reduc t Vo 1 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final vol.: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 _u_________lun___________II_______________1 I----------mul 1_______________1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.69 1.00 0,85 1.00 1,00 0.87 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.91 0.9l Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.13 1,00 2.92 0.08 Final Sat.' 2635 0 1615 0 0 1644 4884932 224 555 5031 135 ____________1 u_____________II_______________II_______________II_______________ 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0,00 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 0.16 Volume/Cap: 0.12 0,00 0.37 Delay/Veh: 39.4 0.0 41.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh, 39.4 0.0 41.9 HCM2kAvg, 1 0 3 Signal",PermiVRights",-Overtap Final Vol· 39 0 0 lanes: 1 0 0 0 0 ~4t,þ.~ Signal=Prol+Perm Signal",Prol+Perm Final Vol: lanes: Righls",lnclude Vol Cnl Date: 01104/0200 Rights",lnclude lanes· Final Vol: J Cycle Time (see): 110 ...,-- 107 32 ~ lO$S Time (see): 0 .J- 1279··· ---JIoo- Crijical VIC: 0.311 ....-- 2 1192 ~ Avg CritDel (seclveh): 8.' T 0 -) 58 0 Avg Delay (seclveh): 7.4 t 93·" LOS: A ~ ~ t ~ r+ Lanes' 2 0 0 0 Final Vol: 52 0 98·" Signal=PernVRights=lncluda Street Name: Approach: Movement: **** 0,00 0.00 0,0 1. 00 0.0 o 0,00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 o 0.23 0.10 33.8 1. 00 33.8 1 0.76 0.29 4.2 1,00 4,2 1 0.70 0.37 6.8 1. 00 6,8 6 0.70 0.37 6.8 1. 00 6.8 6 **** 0.84 0.20 2.7 1. 00 2,7 1 0.77 0.31 3.8 1. 00 3.8 4 0,77 o .3~ 3.8 1. 00 3.8 4 f.C;--7J COMPARE ThuMar 1113:51:122004 Page 3· 7 City 01 Cupertino Adobe Terrace 2000 Operations leval Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume ÞJtema1ive) AM Existing + Project Intersection #2: Torre Avenue J Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal",Permt/Riçhts",Overlap Final Vol' 45 0 0 Lanes' 1 0 0 0 0 ~4tt'+-~ Signal=Prot+Perm Signal=Prot+Perm Final Vol: lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol Cnt Date: 01, Rights=lnclude lanes: Final Vol: j CyclaTime(sec): 70 ~ 53·" 0 54 ~ loss Tims(sec): 0 J.- 0 635 2 -+ CriticalVIC: 0.250 1- 2 1083··· =f AvgCrit Del (seclveh): 4.0 r 0 55 0 Avg Delay (seclveh): 6.7 '04 lOS' A ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: 2 0 0 0 Final Vol: 51 0 57"·' SignakPermit/Righ1s=lnciuda Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T RL T R L T RL T R ------------1--------------- 11-______________11 ___u______un II mmuunn_1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 ___nunm I mmn_____n II m________m_11 h____mmm II nu___num_1 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol, Project Tri= Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj, PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: Final Vol.: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54 000000000000 000000020190 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54 o 0 000 0 000 000 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54 _nnun_u I----u-------u II nn______u_u II uuu_________II______u__n___1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.71 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.33 0.90 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.90 Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1,00 0.00 0_00 1.00 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 2.86 0.14 Final Sat.' 2717 0 1615 0 0 1644 622 4716 408 10914906 245 _h_____n__ I ____n_n_u___ 11 nn__n_______ 11---------n----II-nn-n-n-n-1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.00 0_04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 Volume/Cap, 0.13 0.00 0.25 De1ay/Veh, 26,4 0.0 27_2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh, 26.4 0.0 27,2 HCM2kAvg' 1 0 1 Street Name: Approach: Movemen t : **** **** 0_00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 o 0.24 0,11 20.7 1. 00 20.7 1 0.76 0.29 2.7 1. 00 2.7 3 0.60 0_14 6.0 1. 00 6.0 1 0.50 0.27 10.0 1. 00 10,0 3 0,50 0.27 10.0 1. 00 10.0 3 0.86 0,11 1.1 1. 00 1.1 o 0.76 0.29 2.7 1. 00 2.7 3 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 o I )' ~ 7'{ COMPARE Thu Mar 1113:51:122004 Page 3- B Cily of Cupertino Adobe TerracB 2000 Operations Level Of Service Compu1ation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) PM Existing + Project Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard Sign al "PermiVRights=Overlap Final Vol: 39 0 0 Lanes' 1 0 0 0 0 ~4tt'+~ Signal=Pro\.,.Perm Signal=Prot+Perm FinaJ Vol: Lanes: Rights=lncluda Vol ent Date c/o Rights=lnclude lanes: Final Vol: J Cycle Time (see) 110 ~ 107 0 32 Á LO$sTime(sec): 0 J- 0 1291'·' 2 ------... Critical V/C 0.315 +- 2 1200 r AvgCrit Del (seclveh) 90 T 0 58 Avg Delay (seclveh): 7.5 97'" LOS A ~ ~ t ~ ~ Lanes: 2 0 0 1 Final Vol: 52 0 98"'" Signal:=:PermitlRights",lnclude Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T R L T R L T R L T R mmmm [mm____m__llmm___mm II m___mmm ¡ Im------------I Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 ------------1---------------11---------------1 ¡ ---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 Growth Adj: 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ese: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 8 0 Initial Fut: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Final Vol.: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32 ------------1--------------- ¡ 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.69 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.13 1,00 2.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 2635 0 1615 0 0 1644 4854934 222 558 5032 134 ------------[---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 0.16 Volume/Cap: 0.12 0.00 0.38 Delay/Veh: 39.6 0.0 42.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.6 0.0 42.1 HCM2kAvg: 1 0 3 Street Name: Approach: Movement: **** 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0,0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 o 0.22 0.11 34.0 1. 00 34.0 1 0.76 0.29 4.2 1. 00 4.2 1 0.70 0.38 7.0 1. 00 7.0 6 0.70 0.38 7.0 1. 00 7.0 6 **** 0.84 0.21 2.7 1. 00 2,7 1 0,78 0.31 3.7 1. 00 3.7 4 0.78 0.31 3.7 1. 00 3.7 4 { <)-]j COMPARE Thu Mar 1113:51:122004 Page 3-9 Ci\yoi Cupertino Adobe Tarrace 20000parations Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) AM Existing Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal=PerlTit/Rights=Overiap Finai Vol: 91 119 111 Lanes' 0 1 0 0 1 ..-J4t~~ Signal=Protect Signal=Prolect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnelude Vol Cnl Dale: 4121/2000 Righls,=,lnclude . Lanes: Final Vol: J- Cycle Time {sec}: 70 ~ 91'" 56 ~ Loss Time (see): 0 .... 0 ~ 1020 2 ----.. CnticalVIC: 0.446 1- 2 1072'·· T AvgCril Del (seclveh): 13.7 ~ 0 50 ------ AVIj Delay (seclveh): 13_4 96 T .... LOS: B «ì ~ t t-- r+ Street Name: Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________11_______________11 n_________nn II nnn__nn___1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 mm____n I nnn___mm II--nmmmn II m____mnm II-----nmmn I Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 Apr 2000 « 7:45-8:45 AM Base Vol, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 Initial Ese: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserBy Vol : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 PHF Volume' 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58 Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58 PCE Adj, 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1_00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.' 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58 __nnnn__I_n___n_______II__nnn_nnn II n_____nnnn II un_nn______1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.49 0.98 0.98 0,37 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes, 1,00 0.84 0,16 1.00 0.57 0.43 1.00 2_86 0.14 1.00 2.85 0,15 Final Sat" 939 1560 295 7011007 770 1805 4910 241 18054881 264 ___nnn___1 nnnnn_____II________n__n_11 n_______nnn II--nn-n------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.16 0_12 0.12 0.05 0,21 0.21 0,05 0.22 0,22 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.45 Delay/Veh: 16.2 16.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh, 16.2 16.0 HCM2kAvg' 5 5 Lanes: 0 0 0 Final Vol: 158 275"· 52 Signal=Permit/Rights=Over1ap **** 0,50 0.36 11.1 1. 00 11.1 4 0.40 0,40 16.2 1. 00 16.2 5 0.40 0.30 14.8 1. 00 14.8 3 0.51 0.23 9.7 1. 00 9_7 3 0.11 0,45 30.6 1. 00 30.6 3 0.50 0.41 10.9 1. 00 10.9 5 0.50 0.41 10.9 1. 00 10.9 5 0.10 0.53 33,0 1. 00 33.0 3 **** 0.49 0.45 11. 7 1. 00 11.7 6 0.49 0,45 11.7 1. 00 11.7 6 1')- 7& COMPARE ThuMar1113:51:122004 Page 3-10 CityorCuper1ino AdobaTerrace 2000 Operations Level Oi Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altemative) PM Existing Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal ",PermitlRights=Overlap Final Vol: 102 228 120'" Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 .,.J ..4- + +'+ ~ Signal=Protec1 Signal",Protec1 Final Vol· Lanes: Righ1s",lnclude Vol CntDate: 4121/2000 Rights",lnclude Lanes: FinaJVoL j Cycle Time (sec): 110 .'-.... 161 85 ~ Loss Time (sec): 0 .t- 1772'" ----.. CriticaIV/C: 0.676 +- 2 1066 ~ Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 24.4 r 0 47 -{ Avg Delay (seclveh): 24.1 226'" LOS: C ~ --t t ~ r+ Street Name: Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R uu________I__________n___II__n_____n_n_II_______________II_______________1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 __n________I_______________II_______________ 11---------------II-n------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 Apr 2000 « Base Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse; 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume; 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. , 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 _n_________I__________nn_II__n_nnnn__II_______________11______nn_____1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.26 0,92 0.92 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0,91 0,95 0,90 0.90 Lanes, 1.00 0.47 0,53 1.00 0.69 0.31 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.78 0,22 Final Sat.: 488 829 921 604 1252 560 1805 5033 133 1805 4747 383 ____nnnn 1 nnnnnnn_ll_n______nnn II nnnnn_nn II------nnn---I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.22 0.22 Cri t Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.55 Delay/Veh: 37.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 37_2 HCM2kAvg: 9 Lanes: 0 0 0 Final Vol: 79 135 150 Signal",PermiVAights",Overlap **** **** 0.29 0.55 34.1 1. 00 34.1 9 0.29 0.62 35.8 1. 00 35.8 10 0.52 0.68 20.2 1. 00 20.2 16 0.51 0.36 16.3 1. 00 16.3 7 0.22 0.46 38.2 1. 00 38.2 6 0.48 0.34 18.1 1. 00 18.1 6 0.29 0.68 44.2 1. 00 44.2 12 0.52 0.68 20.2 1. 00 20.2 15 **** 0.19 0.68 47.2 1. 00 47,2 9 0.49 0.46 18.7 1. 00 18.7 9 0.49 0.46 18.7 1. 00 18.7 9 1<)- /7 COMPARE Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004 Paga3-11 City of Cupertino Adobe Terrace 20000pera1ions Level Of Service Compulation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altarnatlve) AM Existing + Projec1 Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard Sign al"PermitIRightso=Over1 ap Final Vol: 91 119 111 lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 ~4t+'+~ Signai",Protect Signal",Protecl Final Vol: lanes: Aightse::lnclude Vol CntDate: 01, Rights",lnclude lanes: Final Vol J. Cycle Time (see): 70 ~ 100·" 0 " ~ Loss Time (see): 0 .... 0 ..,..... 1023 2 -... Critical VlC: 0.452 ..- 2 1073·" ~ Avg Crit Del (secJveh): 14.0 1= 0 50 0 Avg Delay (sectveh): 13.5 96 .... LOS: B """ ~ t ~ r+ I Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T R L T R L T R L T R ________h__I_______nnnn II--nn---------II-n------------I1 nnnnnn___1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 ____________1 n__n_________ 11_______________11_______________11 ___n___n___n I Volume Module: Base Vol: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 ?8 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 1 0 Initial Fut, 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 158 275 52 III 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58 _________m I--m--------n II ___n_______m II _____________n II un_________u I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.49 0.98 0.98 0,37 0.94 0.94 0.95 0,90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 1.00 0.84 0_16 1.00 0.57 0.43 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.85 0.15 Final Sat.' 935 1560 295 694 1007 770 1805 4911 240 1805 4882 264 _U_U__nn I u_u_u_______11 u__unn_uu II uun_nn_n_ll_unnn_nn_1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.45 Delay/Veh: 16.5 16.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 16.5 16.2 HCM2kAvg, 5 6 lanes 0 0 0 Final Vol· 158 275··· 52 Signal",PermitlRights,=,Overl ap Street Name; Approach: Movemen t : **** 0.49 0.36 11.3 1. 00 11.3 4 0.39 0,30 15.0 1. 00 15.0 3 0.51 0.41 10.7 1. 00 10.7 5 0.51 0.23 9.5 1. 00 9.5 3 0.12 0.45 30.0 1. 00 30.0 3 0.39 0.41 16.5 1. 00 16,5 5 0.51 0.41 10.7 1. 00 10.7 5 **** 0.10 0.53 33.0 1. 00 33.0 3 0.49 0.45 11.9 1. 00 11.9 6 0.49 0.45 11. 9 1. 00 11.9 6 J)~7! COMPARE Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004 Page 3,12 City of Cupertino AdobaTerraca 2000 Operations Level at Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Fulure Volume Alternative) PM Existing + Project Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard Signal",PermitlRights=Overlap Final Va)' 102 228 120'" lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 ~4t~·~ Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: lanes: Aights=lnclude VoJ Cnt Date: 01, Aights=lnclude lanes: Final Vol: j Cycle Time (sec)" 110 ~ 189 0 86 ... Loss Time (sec) 0 J- 0 -40-- 1 1774"· 2 --+ Critical V/C: 0.677 -<f- 2 1070 T AvgCrit De) (seclveh): 24.5 r 0 47 t Avg Delay (seclveh)' 24.3 226"· LOS: C ~ ~ t 1+ ¡+ Lanes' 0 0 0 Final Vol' 79 135 150 Signal=PermitlRights=Overlap Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T RL T RL T RL T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------1---------------1 Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 ____________1 _______________11_______________11_______________11_______________1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 4 0 Initial Fut: 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86 _~__nn____1 nnn___nnn 11___n__~__~n__11 nn_____nnn II--nn------n-1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.26 0.92 0.92 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0,90 Lanes: 1.00 0,47 0,53 1.00 0.69 0.31 1,00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.78 0.22 Final Sat" 488 829 921 602 1252 560 1805 5033 133 1805 4748 382 n-_n_n___I-----n-----n-II----nnn--n-II--nn-n------II-----n--n---- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj; AdjDellVeh: HCM2kAvg: Street Name: Approach: Movement: **** **** 0.29 0.55 37.2 1. 00 37.2 9 0.29 0.55 34.0 1. 00 34.0 9 0.48 0.34 18.1 1. 00 18.1 6 0.29 0,68 44.2 1. 00 44.2 12 0.29 0.62 35.7 1. 00 35.7 10 0.52 0.35 15.8 1. 00 15.8 6 0.22 0.47 37.9 1. 00 37.9 6 0.52 0.68 20,2 1.00 20.2 16 0.52 0.68 20.2 1. 00 20.2 15 **** 0.18 0.68 47.2 1. 00 47.2 9 0.48 0.47 19.2 1. 00 19,2 9 0.48 0.47 19.2 1,00 19.2 9 ( )"- 77 I reviewed the drawings, and am familiar with the site from previous visits and reviews. The site is a very difficult one t.o develop because of its narrow and deep proportions. The architect has struggled hard to solve the basic problem of getting a significant project on the site. The massing and architectural forms, however, seem less than what was envisioned for the "Heart of the City" area. The current design has little relationship to the adjacent residential project, shown in the photo to the right; has a very awkward transi· tion between the retail use at the front and the resi- dential units behind; and does not seem to have ad· equately addressed the retail and guest parking. With respect to the latter parking question, eleven parking spaces are required for the retail uses, but OlÙY eight are provided adjacent to the retail uses. How will the remainder of the spaces be provided, and how will the access from those spaces to the retail shops be handled? Also, where will guest parking be accommodated? While not very desirable, guest parking within the parking structure is not uncommon. However, in those cases where this has been the necessary solution, there is usually some internal means to physi· cally separate the guest and resident parking areas (e.g., electric gate.) I did not see that provision on the plans that I reviewed. One other caution before addressing the design specifics. The Landscape Plan appears to be from an earlier design, and does not reflect the current floor plans accurately. The Landscape Plan shows substan· tially more landscaped open space on the site than would be allowt'!'d. by the floor plans, as shown in the diagram to the right. ITL 41;.331.379'S f^X, '1S,33I,37~ April 22, 2004 Mr. Colin Jung Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Adobe Terrace Dear Colin: EXHIBIT B ARC:JHtt':CJ'l,:f:'I:f PL.-<\NNtNG U~fk\;\: lW;''ij{;~ 180 H.UBOR DRIVE , SUn'E 219. MUSAIII'O,Q\\>Im I j- rv Adobe Terrace Design Review Comments April 22, 2004 Page 2 In looking at changes that might be considered for the design, I looked at a few alternatives, but concentrated on the approach which would keep intact as much of the proposed plan and design as possible. My comments and suggestions follow: Site Plan 1. I personally have some grave reservations about the design and viability of the proposed retail 011 the site. It has limited presence on Stevens Creek Blvd., and does not present a very attractive face to the street. As noted above, it also does not have the required number of parking spaces adjacent to it.IVly suggestion would be to reorient the retail space toward the street and reduce its total area unless the spaces can be deep ones that reach back to the southerly limit of what is now proposed as retail. 2. The two parking spaces that are located within the front setback area seem to be visually undesirable. 3. The design of the project as a very thin and long composition on what is already a very narrow lot seems to me to result in an inadequate visual presence on the street. I would recommend extending a short wing of apartments at the second floor parallel to Stevens Creek Blvd. at the front of the project as shown in the diagram below. The entry corridor could be short enough to avoid the need for an addi- tional stair. 4. The current design of the project seems to also give the overall residential part ofthe project inadequate presence and image on the street. A prominent entry focal point element would help. Add units at second ftoør Eliminate these parking spaces If possible . Create strong focal palnl on front facade ProbabIY·'$O ,,_ to pmvidi> _10 lift strmit troor in thls sræ to a.llOw iHfU.llJ acœBS Q o . ..L,.L Elevations 5. The currently proposed design of the project uses hip roofs and big blocks of building, and seems, as noted above, to not relate well to the adjacent building to the west. My suggestion would be to break down the scale of the building elements -especially along the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage, and use gable forms to relate to the adjacent project. This is shown conceptually in the front elevation below, The addition of architectural details to add scale and character to the architectural elements would also help. Photos ofa mi."'{ed use example in the Town of Los Gatos is shown in the photos below. Also shown is an example of projecting balconies on a residential project in Downtown Mountain View. This latter example also shows how the front elevation might be treated with stairs and street·oriented entries should a decision be made to eliminate the retail space in the project and use the currently proposed surface parking for guests. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR IJRMi.SUI'I'E Z19,SAUSALITQ,Q\91965 I )-6 I Adobe Terrace Design Review Comments April 22, 2004 Page 3 Line of current roof prOpO$al J Retail spaces oriented to street Alternative rront elevation Los Gatos Mixed Use Project +i Extend units across front facade (See $fte plan çommen:ts) ~ Decorallve llì9hl$ I.Md""Opcd 't:I'6I1t$over patking Mountain View Residential Project CANNON DESIGN GROUP 181) HARBOR DRIVIL SIJrœ 219, SAUSALITO, CA?l965 r ')-8'.1- Adobe Terrace Design Review Comments April 22, 2004 Page 4 6. I spent less time on the side elevation shown below. It would need to be studied further and made consistent with the approach adopted for the front of the project suggested above. SignifIcant items shown are the addition of a rusticated base and projecting molding at the third floor level to break the building mass more into a base, middle and top. The use of gables instead of hip roofs is also suggested along with some increase in scale for the balcony columns. The most difficult design issue to be resolved is the transition between the front two story elements and the back three story portion. The best solution would be to eliminate the third story units that extend forward over the two story portion. Roof forms for this Il'Ilrd floor i ... a~lenslon nead to 1m studlad Moldin ---L-L Add .Inlare$tlng form artlculaUon and detail on this side elevation Alternative Right Side Elevation .......,.,. .. ... ........... --. ·....~"~"~-·...~.~~~~~tl?lI,~Jn9.~"""'.,,.~""..~.~.."'. ~.."'u....~n... Rusticated base (stucco or støne) Other Approaches 7. Within the context of this review, there was not enough time to look at other different approaches. However, it might be worth exploring one with exterior as well as interior access to the ground floor units as was proposed for the recent Villa Sena project in the city. This would provide for pedestrian access along the sides of the project as shown on the photos below of a project in Downtown Mountain View. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARnOR DRIVE, SUITE 219, SAl1SAL1TO. CA94965 I)-oJ Adobe Terrace Design Review Comments April 22, 2004 Page 5 Other Issues 8. The placement of the trash enclosure at the front door of the project is unfortunate, but given the site constraints, this may be the only solution pos~ sible. If that is the case, it should be treated with special design care. An example is shown below from the new Los Gatos Hotel. Note that the conceptual ú·ont. elevation above shows a t.rellis element over the surface parking. The design of the trash enclo- sure could relate to that and have landscaping grow- ing onto it to soften its appearance. Trash At&., Note s,pecial trellis cover and special design for doors 9. The roofform for the three story portion of the project needs to be worked out. The use of a steeper roof slope to match the gable roofs and retention of a hip roof form would place the overall height a bit. above the maximum permitted in the Heart of the City Plan, but the plan does allmv foréxceptions as I recall. That roof form is shown in the diagram below for your information. Line of current roof proposal Colin, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP C7f~~ Larry L. Cannon AlA AIC? President CANNON DESIGN GROUP LBO HARiIOR DRIVE ,SUl1E lI9,SAUSALITO,CA9496$ } <; -3 t{ November 16, 2004 , Cupertino City Council E)i\·hE>ìT: B-1 Page 6 22. rst reading of Ordinance No. 1953: "An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupe' Amending Section 2,08.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the Order ofBusm r Regular Council Meetings," Lowenthal/Kwok moved and unanimously. the item, and the motion carried RECESS 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. J ')-5)' 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. Road, APN No, 342-18-020: Grant a negative declaration b) ove the rezoning of a 1.31-acre parcel fÌ'om RHS (Residential Hillside to (Residential Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet) c) Conduct th st reading of Ordinance No. 1950: "An Ordinance of the City Council of t~ity of Cupertino rezoning of a 1.31 acre parcel fÌ'om RHS (residential hiiisi& rhs-21 (residential hillside minimum lot size 21,000 square feet)" Marcus Nelson, representing the 0 rs, said there is a 20-25% slope fÌ'om the building site to Stevens Canyon Road and that 1 too steep for access without significant grading and retaining walls. There is also truc ffic on that road, so that is why they need access to San Juan Road, Dean Sayer said he lived about 3 doors away fÌ'0 this property. He said he was not opposed to the project, but was concerned about its . story, because it was legally but forcibly taken away fÌ'om previous owner. He explain that the owner had tried to subdivide but was refused by the City, which then took of the land for Stevens Canyon Road. He was concerned about the possibility of 3 lar homes in this area, He also asked a question about the sewer capacity. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki said that the owner w be required to meet the Sanitary District's requirements to provide sanitary hookups an not impact other residents. He said that he would confirm that this unit meets the second u 't zoning requirements. . , Kris Wang asked if this type of subdivision of lots had been done in other adjacen properties, Piasecki said that the Dor property is the most recent, and it is located farther [')-!b, Adobe Terrace A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT VICINITY MAP ¡,....... tñ~-:= .' :;;;"_.<JA v:.~~ . :.::;~ _.~ ¡¡ë;....Ö!_p\oDo....,,~IiIoIl...__II>¡¡,¡;'· 1pccifIc,....for'I'bic:IJtbo '_~mcI dtIicoIion1honof1l!al1 ...~li1Di1od!ooud>.... R-........,.ion...~.., ...,..-hod,"wboIeor..~.is IfcÞIIbiWJïlh:tolbc~1Od I IOCf!àIioo:s nmam. WÌIII AHOeRSON AkCHIl1òCTS /NÇ. .......... ¡njuodiœ,V....I<OIQoI..nh_pllmsondopecif...iaDslha/1 _¢mob<iee~oflboa::ccpanoooflbo~ c.- Pinn Brothers Companies !4751S1D1rtogaAvc Suile250 SanJose,CA.95129 - Adobe Terrace A-Mixed Use Development 2O!28 Slevens Creek Blvd. Cupe1Ûno, CA. 95012 PROJECT LOCATION /.~t 7,~~" I.r..~.' ."", .\ "'" 1;= G.,.- ","~ " ~Lv '. V~ ~ X PRELIMINARY (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) o ¡;i PLANNING DEPARTMENT - o APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL o BUILDING DEPARTMENT o DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL o ~. UIIJ2m.J Client Revisions ~- PLANNIHG SUBMlTfAL ~ OJf.!~ ,,,.. 0911~, ""~ IU.5. " U City RevisIons No_Doo<ripri<n~ , ~~ 2 REDESIGN J PLANNING SUBMITTAL · , · , · - ~. , , , · , · , · · " " " BUILDING DATA :2$)ØØ 5Q.. FT. V·N " YE5 :2øØØI2~ RETAIL: eulLDINc:i SIZE, CONSTRUCTJct.I TYPE: OCCUPANCY, SFRINKLERE:D, FAFiKINCiI: Fi£QUIIõŒD: . APARTMENTS: BUILDING SIze, (Frlvoll~ ~ ep.ce I'.Iot 1nc1ucWd) Flrðt Floor Second Floor rata! 3&9·Ø3-ØØI 41,112.2 $Q. FT. (.'951 ACFæJ 38,44<aM 5G. FT. (.6&3 ACFæ) ·I-IEA~ ~ THE CITY" VACANT MIXED USE (RETAIL! APARTMENTS.) 3:;'-Ø" FRd1 FACE: OF CURB IØ'-Ø" OR EQJAL TO In T .; E I4EIC,;¡: .; T \U-l1C1-EVEFi!: !5 GÆATER 2Ø'-Ø"MJNlt1\Jf'"f PROJECT DATA AP.N. , 5!TE SoI,ZE, """,,",, NET, ZONIN::š , ~TU5E, PROP05ED USE : REQUIRED ðET6ACK5 1'RONT , SIDE, 2S2-~131 252-2632 1'51..., (4Ø&)4<4f,-t'!6'!1 FAX, (4Øê) 4<4f,-3482 TEL, (4Ø&) FAX, (4!Ø&) CONSULTANTS PI~ ~ COMPANIES ,o .'~ 6arncga Ava. 5IJITE2~ SAN JœE. CA ¥12~ ANDE~ ARC;¡. I1ECTS INC. +::lJRTe.~.AIA 122"! SARATœA-5IH-ITVAUE RD. 5U11E C &.ARATOGA. CA ~ œNE1< ARC¡.. ITECTUIItAl., TEL (4~) Tt1-46~ FAX. (4150) "'·Ø42ø 29,19U6 Sc . FL 14.ø26.øø Sq. Ft. 151b~IB SclFt 29,191.18 6c:¡. Ft.. 4.141.94 Sq. Ft.. 1.B26.øø ~ FL 232194 Sa. 4,1·n94 Sq. Ft. FR;IVATE oPEN SPACE, (FATlO~) Flrel Floor $ec.ond FloOr Tota' .SlS1~ UN.IT5~~~.49S ,.., ~1'·Ø" YARIE5 2Ø'-ø" REAR ALLOUJ"ó,BLE DENSITì , DENSITY ðI4OUIING. PROPOSED SETeACK5 ~T, 5IDE, ""''''''' TEL. (4Ø&) 848·Ø3ØIZI FAX (4Ø8) &4e-ø3Ø2 ROBERT I'1OW4T AND .o\S$OCIATE6 I..tInd_pe ArcHt8cLI.r. . Land ptjlm'"S 2Ø68 'fI.!1Ftt> STREET, SUITE " SAN FRANCleco, CA 941Ø1 1õ!1ICiCiE~ JENßCN AZAR aœs c:.AH1NO ~O GILROT, CA 'M>Ø2ø ENGINEE~ CML SHEET INDEX T!TLESI-IEET"\ L.EGeND .<!HD NOTES NOTES Pl'æLIMINAR1' DEt1OL.ITICIN PLAN f"IIii!!!:L.lMfNAIIn' GRADING. PLAN f"II;EL.lH~UTII..ITTF\...AN ~1HfNAR'rERlO6I~~ PLAN 511E PLAN l JIirDOF PLAN GARAGE !"'LAN 'FIRST FL.OOR PLAN 6ECCWD FL.00::IR PLAN \I.HIT f'LANS EXTERIOR ELEvATIONS E~ ELEvATIONS eIJlLDING eECTICte PllæLIMINARY I..ANDSCAÆ !"'LAN f'ÆL.1M1NAR'r F'LANT!t6 PLAN F'ÆL.IHINAR'T" I!Ii!RI6ATJON ZON~ PLAN TRELlIS El..EVATION e~ ARQ..II'TECT, A-Ø.l> C·, C·, C., C·, C·, C·. ..'" A.'ll/) A·3.1> A_4.1> A-S.ø A·SJ A-6/Þ LP-1 eN U"., L.F'-4 ~ sa.,.. ,. . " OS NO. OF UNIT5: ,."" ,."" "-=-"" TOTAL , "'¡"·ø" ABOVE GRADE ðEË CIYlL DRAI1IING5 ~JECT 1-IF1Gd-JT, NJ'1BER c:f' 5TORIS5 FODILI1I-!EIGd-IT 6LlILDINCi PAD ELEvATION - ......, ~" SIIooIn:Jo: V·N "., YE5 ,.., cot-I5TfiaJCTla.I TYPE, OCCUPANCY, 5PRINKLEFi!ED, PAfi!K1NG ~QUIRED, 1ð;ii94.øø Sc , Fl.. 5;21'9..5>2~.Ft.. 6J3125> Sc . Fl. S,I01.ø0 Sc . Fl. BUILDING DRlYEWA' FERIME~ POD'''"' Title Sheet 5. . A-O.O .kb:AdDbohm ......-- =#15: -~ ,~ 2S,4e6.øø &QFT. 5·. TYPE~I YE5 bb bb . PARKING GARAGE Size, OCCUPANCY, CoNðTRUCTION TYF'e, 5F'Rß'iKLEfED, TOTAL PA~INGI lõi!.':GlJIRED, FA~1N::i F'ROY1DED: HANDICAPF p~ F'ROY1DED: r '" .. E ð~ .. 5. - ~! ¡ '" 1< ~~ , Cod !, "C~:ø !~ ~L~ re:¿ ~ § " , ~ , ~ CREEKBLIQ o . i '" fm' ~ . ~ pGE:: ! SITE " u Ó z ¡: '" w ~ " u . . (/) Z « ..J Cl. W o « Z :;;:V1W "'!ó'Ü 00« OZO:: ZOO:: «ZW 0«1- ~DW ozt:D «WO ~f:L3o >---.J« '" « z :::;¡ ::J w '" Cl. EtwI!£ER ITSH.O.LlB£THECON1RAC1UR·SRESPO~TONOllFYTHEENGlo.ŒROF""Y DlFfœfNŒ IN lOCAlIœI Of ÐaSTJ.IG UTlUTES F~ TIi...' 9-fOWN. OR OF ANY COHFlICTS~TIiEOESIGNBEFORECO>ITf< UIN~'M"THTI£WORKINl>1ATIIREA IT SliAll BE: Tt£ CQojlRAClOR'S RE5PO/oISIIUTY 10 PROTECT IN PLACE (BY NH tÆAN5 NECESSARY) ........ EX/5'11NG U'IIUlIES I..INl.ESS Ol>1EI<WlSE SPEaRED ON THESE Pl/o.NSa;¡...SDlRECTED BY THE OIGN:EIl WORK 11( lW-Ô ARE 8;00 AIoI TO 5:00 PIlI. NOt¡D...y TIIRCUGl! S¡t,T'.fm"'Y. THE~SlRUt;TIONorAULGIIA\IIT1'UNPERGRCIIJWUtlES(S~ItITAAY5E'IIERSAND STt:lRMORU~S)S>Yu.BroIM"'TlHE"OSTDDMoS1RE.ulENO.UNL[SSOTII~ SPEmc...LU...PPlWVEDBYIWO'. lHECCI<1'RA.CTORSIi...ll 'OÐ!If'YrHELOC...'IION ...ND EUV"'lION Of ALL CONNEClION POO/TSPIiI(IR 10 IMSTAllAl10N Œ NfY PORTION ~..,,"'" 7'2. "'ll 'IIOft (....THIN TIlE CITY RIGHT Of WAr...r.t> PU8UC SERIoICE EA.SEUOIT SIiÞU BE COW\..E'JED "'S PER Cln Of CLlPERlINO STANJAAO PLANS .&.NO SPEOFlCA11( .¡s. 23. mE COMJ'RA.CTOR SliAll BE RESPONSIBt.! FOR ...NYflELD OiANŒ::S.."'OC 'MTHDLiT ooRI'T1£HAl111i0RlZ"'lIONF1IOW1!iEENGI<EER. I LOCA TION MlI~ NOSC"'L!: SHEET INDEX C1 LEGEtIOANONOTES C2 NOTES C3 PREUMlHARVOElolOU11CJ<Pl..... c.4 PREUIoIINARVGR.oowc:;~ cs ~ARVUTlUn'!'t.AN C6 I'IŒ~ARVEROSIOIt.CONTRDlPL"""" AARRFV1A l10NS C8 c.o.laiB"'SIN ELEV ELEVAl10N Ex/EXIST EXsa.IG rr I'NSHEDF'LOOR " ~u< fH f1REHYORANT rs FlRESER\lŒ ~ -~ GR TOf> Of GR...1E !NY IN'ÆJl:l If lJNE...R FEET plY PC5TINOICUæY...lYE PGM PACIflCGAS It ELEtmIC P¡1. PROPERTYUNE ps[ PLOUCSERV1C((A$£KNT PVt: POlYVIN11-CH-ORIDEPI'E ~CP ~EN'DRŒO aJNCRETE ·PlPE R/W RIGHT Œ W"'Y R"" ~AItI ......TER L.U,[ (R SECT SECl10N 55 SANlTARYSEYÆR 55CD SANlTMYSE¥IEII(;:L[ANOUT ~o STORM [fU,1N SSIoIIi SANlT....IIYSEVlERIINlKOLE SDIII1 ST~DRAlNw.NHOLE TC TOPDFOJRB TOP TOP OF PIPE TP TOPDFPAvEwENT TYP T'lPICAL VAR V"'RES YCf' YlTR!FIEOQ.A'fPPI: ... WAtER LEGEND EXI$T1NG PROPOSED DESCRIPTION ----- ----- PROPERTY LNE o-_E1::.!"...s:i._ . R"<;<; S....NlT...RY SE'oIiER N\Ð flUSHING INI£T ----0----- . SA/IITÞRY SEWER AND N...NHQL[ __~"..2P T2"SO SfQRMDR...IH.o.ND"'....NHOLE "'--- ......... STURM DROP INL£' AND llo.'!ERAL ~_p:8"w _X...!t....- WA1ERMAlN Œ-- FJREHYDRNH --¡Z¡- '!EE(WIo.TER) ------ ~'''' @ S'IIEET MONUlltNT =="'~=== QJR8 I: GUnER ---y":;;-- --....~~...- ELECTRÖLlERWITH c::cNJUIT __L_ TELIPHOIIE DUCT (CONDUIT) OREClIC»I or PI!"E FLOW DRECl10N OF SURF...œ FLOW ~ 12.3 x328.00 SPOT EtEV...T1ON . POSTWCAlPRVALVE " SMnAAY S£\llER CLEmI:>\H (SSCO) 0 0 W....1ERtÆ1ER ~ W"'TERYALVE - ST1IEET UGHT == P....\ItoIGCONFORt.4 - CONSTRUClIONENTRÞ.NCE --- SlLTFENI = BUIlDNG ... N....lI()M.l POW.IlION /IISCtL...RGE ElJIIIII......DH SmÐoI PERI.IITS {DI5t1iARG[ PERwlr. ~CTIOItPERIoIIT.lIoIf'LE).If;NTAT1ONOfSTORII"~PDL.lUlIDNPREvENtJONPUoN (s'IIWP)AÑD"~ITORHGPlRI).o.R£R£QlS!œPRlORTOCOUN(NC:DIENTI:F CCINS1RUC~AC"'VlTYRELATEDTO~SlTEÞ.HD'Oft..LIlEOBT.o.NEDB'I'T11E CCf<lTRACTDII. ÞMYOISCHARGE.OIJI1IMGCDNSTRUC"'~.DfGROUNDW"'lEJI!NTOTIŒ OI:J\ONSTREAIotSTORNSYSlDOIIUSTBEltfCONT.....IN...TEl>...TER TIlEcDNmACioRllUSl ,,"1<£ THIS QETERIllHAl\OII PRICR TO...¡.¡y OtSœARŒ. SIfOI.U) I1APÆAR TIIA.TTHE WOR!( TOEEOONEOR ¡y¡,yIU,TTERREl"'lI'IETIlER['TDJS NOT SLJrAOEkTLYOCTAUO CR E>eP\..OIN.EDON1HES£P<.AMS.1IiECQ j'JR"'CTOII SHAUCC»IT...CT ~~-:N~~~~'I~~i~~~":J =Ot~r:;~;:::~ FLlRTHE~ DCPIJIN"'TION:> PLANS USED FOIl CQIIIST1!UCTION PvIlPO&S WST 8{ SIGNED BY "THE Crn " " " .. ". " " ;[NERAL. N(]TF'S 'ß-ECONTRACTOR.o.GREESTltA'rINIICCDIIDANCEWlTHÇEM:IlALLl'...tcEPTEPCONSlRIJÇl1l1N PIIAC1ICES. TIt...T THE COM"IR"'CTORK.l BE REOLMiEoTO"'SSUME sa..E"'MD ællPL.EtE RESPONSHUTI' FOIl ..œ SItE COItDlllCPlS DURiNG 11£ CÖL.l'lSE Œ TltE CONS"JRLIC1IONŒTltISPRO.£CT.INCLUOt<ClIiESMETYfTAUPERSONSNIOPRQPERn'. THS REOUI!BIEMT SliALL BE NIIOE TO ...PPLYCONl1NUOUSLY N [) MDT BE UNl1ED TO NONAL '/IOIII\WGtÐ.JRS.. 1I£CONTRACTORF\JIITIlEII"'GREESTOOErE~.llioO.NF"Y"'ND.11OL00WN£1I, CrN NØ ENCJNEER NARM£SS FRQIj N-jY AN) AU U.o.8IUn'. REAL. OR ALLEGED. IN CIIIIMECOON..THTHEPEIIFOIINANCEOfWOf¥(tjlHlSPROJ£CT.EX£W>'IING UABIUTrilRlSNGr1'ION TIlESOLrNE:GL./GENCEor1t£ENGI\IE~ £Xc.A""'1lON N<J SI1ORIN~; TIlE CClNTII...cræ SHALL PRO"'DE ... SliORltlG DESIGN 10 mE GEOtECI*IICAL (Nœ£ER TO Nc.A'Œ TIlE 0C9GN .>.oEOJACY ¡t,t«) TIlE PROCEDI.JI;IES ........T VIILL BE lNi::oRPoR...tEO ~CClNSTRUCTlONFCRMÇ;AIlN:ÆB.ASDtiI.,s,u¡OESlCNSlW..LBEFIRST RE\IIEYIED...NO....PRO\EfI BY THE GEO'IECIINlCAl ENCINEER Of' IlECORD PR1D11 TO ANY rnEcnON .&.NO WSYALI,.I\lI<»I OESI(;N StiI\LL INCLUŒ 1IE"'Sl'RE5 TO BE TAAEN TO PROffer TltE ADJIlCENT BLJIDJ'IG FaJNDA."'CIN OORING 11£ WT¡cRADNG "'NO TIlE COO6fRUCl1DN or TIŒ GAfUo(;E FOUNDAlIGI WAIJ.... ITSHALLBETHrCON"lRI\CTOI!SSOU:~IIUTI'TODESlCNAN)PI!DW)(AO£OUA" [ SHOIIING.æ...ClNG,ANOFR.....EWlJIIK,...SREOLIIffiDFtII.Ti£PROTEC1I(}IIŒLJF'E#KI PROPERTY DLftING THE CONSTRUC"I"ION or lliIS BUUJJNG. EXCESS L01lO CW"'CHY Of TI€ SlA8S1j...llOOTUCEEO.tlADSEOUIVLAEN1 TOT>lE [)ESlGNSlPERINPOSEOlo.o.DSLr$ CONSTRUCTION UVE A.NO DEAl) lOADS. DESIGN. SUPERIMPOSED LOADSINC!.l.IDE: UI'E WAD. PNllIlI<»IlCW>,...HDÞMYOTHEJllOÞDNO.IltTHEPI.Al:(....T'JI.£TM:0F9HOIII<IG. EJCCAY......ONSHAU.!Ir:::.oJ:IEQU...lElY:5J.OOR£D.BR.ACED...NOSHEClEtlSDl1-I...TlHEEAATH WlLLN01"st..DEORSETltENfOSO"TH...TALLEJ<ISlINGNl'l'tDVEMEI«SOF¡y¡,YKN:I WUB(fULLYPROmlEOFROIIIOAWoCE. Nr!D""'...GERESlA.mtCfRQ,j Þ<LAO< OF AD£OLJ"'TESHCfiINÇ.BII"'ClNGNÐSt£ElIN.CSHALJ...BETHE~S1IIJL.rTYQlFTHE CONlR...t:TOR. '/IIiO ""'U tu.KE NEa:SSN!Y R£PNRS 00 RECONS1RLIC1ION AT lIiE CONlR1.CTCln;~NStIH[It[lt£[XC"'V"'l1Dt1f(!fIActMJUrr.TRENCH"'ND/OR STRlJClIJRElSflVEf'EET(JRUCI![IItDI:PTIt.TIlECtIN'JRÞ.C1tJRSHALLI'I{{)\IIŒ.u:>EQO"'TE SIEE'IIMG. SHDRlNGANDIIR...et«:æEOUIVAL£NtMElHDD.roRTHE Pf«1T[CT1CNŒLJfE. OR LIoIB. WHCM SH.o.Ll CONFOR/II TO IH£ "'PPUC"'BL! CQNSlI!UClIOII SAFETY CROCRS Œ 1HEOIYI~orINDLJSTRw.SAFE1'YOF1IiEST"'TEOFC\L.F{)RItIÞ<TIt[CQN'JRACiORsI1All "'LW...YSCONPLYOSIiA RECILJI!EYENTS. THECONTRACTORSH.ALLBESOL1l.YRESPDNSIBL[F~AUEX<:"'y'ATIONPROCf:DUR£HCLUOIMÇ lAGGING. 9HOR1NG. "'NO PROTECTION OF ADJ.I.CEHT PROPER1Y, STRUCTIlRß, STREETS ...ND UT\U11ES .. ACCDROI\Nct: \foIn< "THE LOCAL IllA.Dltlç DEP...~1VtNl. ITI.S1I1ERESPDNSIBlUn'ŒTI-£CONlR"'CTORrot8TAIN...u.PERIII1S1o£C[SSARYTO PERI'ClRllTIIE"MIRKSIIOWItINTIIESEP~rnOMTHEN'PROPRIA'ŒAGENCI£:>. '. , . .. .. , an-13.tOOr:1' FlLL-OCY- rJIX....QE CIJPFRTlNO ,RD DE"TAILS 0>&.& =< 1-16 SlNf{)....RDCUR8SEtTIoNs:...1--6 1-19 SIDEWALK OCTAL DET...CHED 1-20 DRI'Æ:WA.Y PET..... - OCTAOIEDSIDE'NtJ< .!I_% S1NÐ"'RDOROI' NJ[T-Q.RII CPE"""'" 3-4 STN«;INID 24" Fl.4TGflAT'E DROP IMl£T 3-12 EXC£N1RICW.....HDI..E :5-111 S~...,.poORO coHNEC1'>:)N mlAMHO..E W"'u. 4-111 STANOIdIOFlREI1\1)R...WTOET...ILSIINDSPECf"lCAlIQ<lS +-24 CENERÞL T1IENCIiBAC«FUREOLJIWoIENTS 5-12 ELECTROUER FOLJN)~mN 6-'" lRŒ PROtE!:TIDN CIVIL ENGINEER RI.IQGERI_.ENSEN-...ZARa: A.SSOCI...tES 80:\5 CWlND ...RROYCI Gl.ROY.[;AI.IFœNll\9SC12t) (408)6411-0300 FAA (4011) 1148-03Cn COHT"'CT: NlIÆNT~.DISEN!CI1R!SPAT~ CnNSTRUCTlON MANAGER SIliCON V"'U£Y BlJlUJERS 155 H. "A,RIC[f ST. SU1'Œ'UO SANJOSE,CA95T10 PHDNE(4QIL)9GG_156311 ~~&O:) ii'~6JkwoUR OIJANTITlES "SEEGllIIOINCNOn-SHEETC QY!tlIfB. PNIt BROS. CONSTRLIClIDN tiC, 1'175 W""OOA. "''d:... SlITE 250 5.<NJOS(.CA~1Z11 Pl1ot£(408)75Z-9131 FAX(40a)252-2G3Z CONTACT; AlAN PNN/GREG F-.NN ARCHITECT AHDEI!S(JjAACltITECTS,INC. 122D1S...RAlOO..._SUtffV.oL£RDSUllEC :>JoRII"IOOo\.C"'~ P1,IQN[{406)......EH289 FAX("'OII)#6--341!2 COMTACT,KURTB.ANOERSDN....I... TERR...SURCH,1tIC ISII4D\M.DEL OlIO SLJI1E1 SN<lJOst.CA9511S PI1tH: (.wa)J62-"'~20 FAX(...OS)3fi2-"'921i CQNTACT:G[œa:W...KD1SSY 1IiECOII'JR"'CTORSHAU.T¡I, (EDTE:CT1YE"'CTK)NTDPR£'ÆNT1HEFOIIU"'lIONor~' 'O _EOUSTMUISANCE.....[)$Ii.OLlBEIIESPDNSlBl£FOR.....T~N.lAGER[SLILl1NG FRDN"'FAlU.!RE:TOOOSO. ß.£CONTRACTOII SIIALL PfIDVID£AllLlCHTS,SiGNS, e...RRIC"'D£S.FL.ACM[N DR OTIIÐI PE:W;E;5 NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR SArETY. TIlE CaNTRACTaI SH",u.Sua...TÞ< lR"'mc cn<lRQ. PLANf'œ: OTYST...fT R£VEW FOR AlL'M:RK 'IIITHIN CITY RICH. DF WAY AND PUBlJC SERVICE EASO£NTS. AlLRET1JRNR.O;[)II...NDOJRBV...TAAAETDFIICECf' CURB AU()JNmT1ES"'>lOP"yrra.o:>NtE"'NDWlL.lBE8~()ItI1""110NTALUE"'SLJRE"ENT'S LENGlHSŒ~TAIIYSEflERS"'NDSTOII"DR"'fNSAREl1ætZ( TALOISTAMCES FRDN CENTER mCEN1ERŒS'JRUCTURES. ROON{)EDOff 'TD THE NENlESTFOOT. ÐCl5TlNGUNOERGROLlltOUTlUlIES ANDIIIPROYEIIENTSME SHO"""»! TltEflAPPROXIU"'TE L.OCA...ONS&...«DUPDNRECDRONF'ORM...T1DN...Y.t.ILA.BlETOlI£ENQNEERUTIlE T'OoIE OF I'ftEJ>AKATION OF TIIE5£ PL...NS. lOCATIONS "AY NOT II,WE BŒH YEU1ED It< 1IiE: F1EtDNÐNOGUJ\R1\HTEEIS.....ot:"'5 TO TlfEACCLJRACYORCONI'LETEHESS OF TIfE ¡NFORII"'lIONSH01N.THE~ACl'ORSHAl.LNCllIFYUTt.JTYCOWF'»IES""I.£AST2 MJRKtf(;[),I¡YSINADVÞNCEOFCONSlRUClIONINORD!:RF0II1'I1EMroFIELDLOCJ,TET1Ð'i' F...OUll£S, THE CONTIIAC1UI:5J.OAll ALSO NOTIF"Y IIP.mFl>r.l>nlN[) <;rlt"'lY .,.IOT (II""" A~ 1 RI'n.-~.'_''''''4lII1CI.RSPRlORTD''NYCONST1WCTlONACT1VITY.AND.œT_'''' 10ENTF1CATIONIoUII9ER. ITSHAllBrT~RESPœlSl9IJ1YOfTHECONTRAC'0R TO OffilMHE TIlE DlSTENC!: Nt[) LOC"'T1ON CI' U1UllES SHO\ItI 0'1 THBE PlANS, JOC...lED INTHEf'lEl.DøvlOC...lINGSERVK:ES.OI!E\'I[)[NCEDBYF...CLlTESIoIS/BU...TOR ADJACENTTDTI-£.xJI!:>1TE. ANY...DDI'IIDNAlCOSTIltClJRIIED"'S...IU:SLJL.TorTHE COOlRAC'JOR"S flllUlU: TO \oUWY LOCAlIONS OF EJ<ISTlNG U"'UlI£S p~IOIi TO !!EGItNNC CQo/STRUC1ICN SHAU BE BORIIE BY THE COHTRACTO/INtDISOEEIiIED INCLl'JEO AND MERGED IN 11£ CONTR"'CTUNITf'RICE. THECI»'ITI"AClORSH"'u. POSTEIIERGENC'fTll.EPI1DNE NUIIBERSFOR PWCE. FIRE, IoHBUlANC[, ANtI 1I-IO:>E: ,\G[IIOES RESPDNSIILr Fæ THE II...IItTEN..,..CE OF UlIUlI(S 1N'II£-..cNTYOfl'l£.JOBSlTEAHDPRCMDE"'c:oPYTOcrTYPUBUC'MJRKS/ I"SPEClIDN IlEP...¡rrwoolT. ,. . , .. ,. " , . ~ = ~ , . ¡ i ~ ¡;; t "LLEJ<ISl1>1GUT\UTlES...NDIoIPIWYEWENTSTIUlT...RENEWOR.....'fIlœOlÆOMlAGEDOURIMC COOIST!GJC'ßO\oISIIALLBECOIIPLETElYRESTDREDTOlHESA.lISF¡l,Cl1ONOf1t£C1TYENC:INEER IIAD N-j OPfIOR'IUIITY TO E\lA.lU"'lE THE SlCNlFICANŒ OR Tt£FND ANDSlJGGE5T.APPROPRI...TE AHYRfiDCA~DfPl.l!lJCUTlJlIESSHALLBECOM>IJCTIDJoIÞ.CCORDA/lCE"'TIlAHY NÐ AlL REClLMIOlEtHS Of TIlE UTLIlY (':a,IPAIoIY. INO..I.JDt C FU$. 1ItNDS. F'E_~ NI) -.:IItGCONIlnDNS. ETC. TltIS'tKIRIo: SI-IAllBE O(]N( UNOHF'VISETO THE UTlJ1Y COIII"NI'I.TIIEOIiHZRSHA.L.lP"'Y1'>lECOSTor"'U.SUCHI!EI.OC..._WORO<I..~IItC F'EES,IIDNDS.PE"""TS.,[~. , " ~ I i " . ~ ""'" C1 OF69~ 10BlfO; 002016 RFNCHtJ ARK COIICRETENIJlINT.C._THE"'STRE'IURtIONST<oENS CREEKBlVD;...TItfŒRSECfH)NWlTIIPDRTAL"'\fNLIE. ELEV"'11ON196.49 BASIS OF I Tò£BE.ARlNGJtBI9'S...·OO"[ŒTttEMOtMlEH1UNEOF SlE'ÆNS CREEK Bl\lO..o.s SHO.... Q<I TltAT CE/lT1IIN "RECORIJOF"SUil'VEY'RECCRV£DIltBODCB1ŒWÞPS or PAGE ~ SANT'" CU.!M COUN1"f.R(CCftDS. WAS TAKEN ~ THE BASS OF A11-1IENIINGS·SIfO'/IIt ON TttISPlNII. PR.ELIMINARY PLAN SUBJECT TO REVISION Ul1llTY NOTFS 1. FOR SEWER N€I W"'TER CCHlEC11CHS, 5fl PLtMliI/lG PlAIIS. 2. FORWA" [RSERYlCEOCSIGN.SEIc.o.lWÞ.IDIPl"'M$. 3. AU......TER PJ>E SHAlL BE PER c.o.i. W"'TER PUIHS. 4. I<U.s.o.NrrARYSEJllERPIPE.~Cln'RlG1T-OF-_YÞ<HDj'tJf(ROADW"'YEASEKt<TS SHIJ.LBE:YCI'.AlLOItSl1Es.wTARYSEII[RI>P£S!1AUBEPER~F'L.ANS. 5. ...LLS1ORWDRA.'lltPI'E12"æGIIE...TERstI"'LLIlECLASSIIRCP 6. I\llDRA.t<AGESTRUCTURESLOCAlEDlN.lRÞFI'IC...REASSliAULBER...lED'TD.RE5IS1' VEHctElCI.o.DS 1. FtR SlTELJCIo1l1NG AND DETI\t.S. SEEELEC'JRICALPL...MS. ~'.,,", F ARCHAEOlDCICAL .....T[RI.o(S ARE UNCOVEREDÐURING GR...DNC, TIIENCHINC DR OTHER EXC",V"'lIDN.EARTIt'M)ll(.lIiINI00f'E[TŒTHE5EN...1DIIALSSHALLBEST(J>f>E[IUMT1l ...I'ftU"ESSIOHAl.oRaiNi:a.""STø.101S~lIFlEDBYTIIESDCIETYorCALFORNIA AIn:H,oE(JL.OOY(!iC"') NV!ORTI-£SOCIETYŒPF«IFESSlDNALAEliAEOlOOY(SOPA.)1fAS11."D ...T1G......ONIIEo'StJ~!F1I£YAREDEEII£Dt.EŒSSARY.TltECOL.tITrCORONERI\ND1I£ NAT!\Æ AIIERIC...NtlERlTAGl:oot.IoIISSIONSI1ÞU ...l.SOBENOIDEI)ÞKJ PRDŒDLIRESF"OlLOWED Þ:SRECIUIIEDtI.APf'EN) J(K{)/,THEC"'UFORNI"'EIt'.1R~NTALQlJAlnYH;T. ~JOIst"_AZARaA.SSOCI"'lESOOESNOTsPECl'YOIIR£COWII[NDTI1EUSEOR ~"I.lAlIONor""~",,,1[RlALDI1ECU1POo<ENTWHlCHIS""'OEnlON.æIllttJCHCONT"'r.rs AS8tSTtIS Fœ USE... TIlE CON>T1!\JClIDN OflHESEU'ROVENENl'õ. ANYPART'1'INS.AlLJHC ORUSlN:GSlJailU.lERW..SalEQlJPllD(TSI\AllBESOlElYR£SP0NSIßl[F'URAlltlJUR£5. DÞiI.AGES"ORUAlIIlmES. or"'NYluœ. C.ALJS[D8YTHElIS£I:FSUCN.....TERlA.lSOfIUSEŒ SlJCIt EW!'\IIENT. TIlE PRO~DNS Œ MS NO1£: SHALL Al'A.Y UNLESS THEY ...RE EXPRESSLT NA.I'ÆD IN WRlTI.IC 6YRUGGERI--.EHSEN-MAR '" ASSOCl~1'ES. 11advb.d"~::" " " ~ · o · 5> ~ " ~ w · ~ " ~ g ~::: .~ '/ :=6 .:.¡~ .. F. ~ 8~ '< fJf v ~g .. . ~~ G:\JobsOO' M pERScH~SØl.£I"ORI"PL..EIoI£I S1UCOllV.o.u..EYIIUIU!ERS 2!>5N.MÞJlKE1STSUI'IEZ20 SAN JOS[,CA!I511D PHOIIE(4118 !iII9-¡¡&.35 rAX(408)9\l9'-r.638 COtlTM:T:SH-....,.¡I.I~1I THE EROSION 0l.Il0 SEDIÆNT CONlJtOL PLAN COYERS QMLY THE fIRST '!IIN'JEJi fOLL-OIIIINGaflKl!NC. ...1ERIIo01'LANS A/lEltIB£RESl.J8WITTEO rOR CITY API"ROV....I PRICfI 10 1ST. SEP'IÐeER OF EACH $1.I8S[WENT THR. UNT1l THE SITE ...PllOVEMorrS....R£....CC£PtuliJYfHEClTV ACl;l'fSTRUClION~TRANCESHAL.LBEI'IST'O'W:DPIUORTOCCIWIIIOICOÆNTŒ GR.w.I(;.. ALLCONSTROCTlCI'I lRloFFlC ENTCRINC THE PAllED ROAÐt.\uST CROSS 1IiESTAIiIUZEOCONSTJII,JCTJOt,IEII"lRA,NŒWAY, Cc.<1RAC1œSHAU.IIAINTAINSTÞBJUztDENUlANCEWA'I(DRAlN ROCI(ASA GRAVEL ROADwAY. 6" wt.iIMUII 50 fEEllONC) AT EACH EN"!RANCE TI) THE snE. ANY IIUC 1RÞ.C!ŒD 0100 Ptl8UC STlIEnS ~.w. BE REWO'IED lH"'1 S,o,ME DAY AND AS!I£OJIFIEDBYlI£CIT'I'. AlL EROSION I:Olf'ROL IIIEllSURES SHAll BE: IIAlllTMlED UNlit Dl$RJRBED AAEI<S Þo.I\ESTol9IUZED.oHIcii¡\NGE'5l1)THlSEROSlONANDSEDI"EMTCONTRot.P~ 5H~I£W\D£TOIÆ£TFIEUlCONDIlI )¡;S(H.YWllJ;TWEAPPIIOVALŒ',ORAT lI£DlllE(:l1ONCF<H£C!TYEJOGINEER. ,. ,. < DUltNGTKR_YS<:A5ON,Al.LPAVUlAAU,SSHAU.,HEKEPTClEARŒTHfEARTH "''''1ERIAL AND DEBRIS. THE Sit[ SH.o.I..I. BE WJN1AND SO AS TO MtWZ£ 5EDIIŒNT-LADENRUNOff"TO"'NY:>T0R\0I~5'1'ST£W. STR.......BAUSlLT '!RAPS SflIlU.IJ[ INSTAli.ED"'1 PlACES ANTlCPAl1NG SEDlWENT-L,>D(J4 RuNOIT 10 "INtH .w. !:ROSKW CON1Ra. fÞ.CIUTIES WST8E NSPEC1ED ANI) RfYAIRED ATlHE END t)FE...~WÖR1<INCO"'YDU_l;lIER"'_~, THIS EROSION AND SEDU,lENTC(JN"TI!à. P\.A~ MAY MDT COVER.o.u.1IfE SiTIJAlID!jS lH"'T IlAY AI!IS£ DlIRNG CCI'G1RUCTION DI.£ TO NlTIOPATED FIELD CONDIlIDMS. V.oJW.lICJ'fSMAYBtMADETOn<lSPlN<..1HEFlELD,&JBÆI:'rTOlIitAPPlWV.o.l ŒTHEClTY(NGII€ER ,. . , ì .. o Ô z " 0: "' a. => o w ü « OC (f)OC wW 51- zw CD o o « Ç A D£l.AYOCCURS IIrlWE:EM THE Rooc;H G\:t,\()NG oP£RAl1ON PaJ THE fGTALl..A1IQM OFlHEI.N)ERG~STORIIIDII"""SYSlEN8'YQCTOfIER1ST.lHECON'tRACmR SHAllOONSlR\!C'TARETÐfIIONBASINANI>GRAOElHE.-çHPOIN~Of'THE PARI<INGLOl SIJ_AOES TOORAIN TO THE BASIN. THE I .odN SHAll. B£ $IUD TO PROW)( RETElffiQNOfAIO YEAR STORN WITH AN OYERfLOW 10 fHE ()(ISnNGSTREET S1'Slf.N.SUlT/I8lfEItCSION~ClIONFæ1l£0~F1.O\IISHALLaECONST1IVCTUI /'ROllI GII....VELOfI SN«!!IAGS TOGETHER ' 111M S.....F£NoCII'IG. MOTHER IÆlHOO. mPREVENTlHEOISO<JtRGEr:FC0N1AlolN.' (DRUNOFTFROII£HT£RING.....E SlORllDRA..SVSlõM.....S...PPRCVEDIN>f¡llINCBYlHEENCIN££R. ~ £ROSIDlCOIITRtIlNEASURESSHAU. EFITCT FROM OCTOBER I!> \1H!O,lCH ...PRIL15 u.CHYEAR. SILl fU,œ: SI-W..L liE PLACED AADUOID lHE PE_n£R Of" HIE PROLCT UN'a- PAWIt;(pmAT1ONSI1...IÆIiEENCOMPI.£1ED. rQREROS/CItICOlfl!!OlDETAlL$.5EfSH(fTC6. !Iit ENGINEER "'SSUUES NO RESPOOISIIP..JlY FORnE 1NST...u"'noN QUÞUTY NlDRESULlI'ICSYSTOIf'ERfCfill"'NŒ COIIlRAGTORSIi",u.~PLYwntI""'ERUl.ES.HOREGUUlllClNSOflI£SJA, ( CO!ISTI\UClION SAFETY ORDERS. CONTRAClORSHALLCOUPLYIIIITHo\L1.ST....lE,. COUNlYA.NDCllYLAWS.....OORDlNANC£Su«JRECUL...TIONSOFTHEDEPARTMEtlT OI'lNDUSlRIAlRELAlIONSO.S.H.....NlONDVS1RlAlACCl)EIIT~ RELATlNGrolHESAFt:TYNÐCHARAClEROF_K.EOIIIPIoIENTAHDL.48OI\. w::JRK SHAll. NOT BE STARTED IMTHOOTFRST NDTrIIN(; 1HECITT EJoIGI/E£R.SOILSENGINEER.o.ND...PJ>RoPR....T£PlJllJCM;£IIClts. ,. , , .. , .. SOILS EJlCHŒR TO I!E'oIEW ALl. GRÞ.OI<IC ....11[) SUBWIT ... ~ RrPORT TO 1HE CITY PRIOR 100C0JPANCY. CDIIIPAC~RrP(FI15A"OP"'DElEV"'TIONCEJllIFlCAlION.o.1l!.REQUlREDoo""'L ~PAOW!Ø<.. CONT¡\(;l PUBlIC WORKS, (408) 777-33M, Fa!œ-....ct:NlODMAlCR¡\()[ 1NSP£C1ICfoI. 11£ CQoHR~CltIII SHAU. R:f:VEW STAKlARO DEl..... 64 ON l1!fE Pl!O"ŒClION f'RItIIi'TOACCOIiPU$HING AMY WORK ORROIOW'!C AMY TRUS. ELEV...TION CElmACATE 15 IIEWIŒD PRIOII TO RHM.CR.II..G INSPECTION AU. CRADN; SII~U. BE [)(H: IN AC:CORDAIIC[ WITH lH£ SOI.S RE:PORT PREPARED BY 'TE~R"'SEARCH. IHC DATED SEPlENBER 15. 2IlOO. P!lO.£CT NQ.1I82tI.G All STORM UNE ItISTALLAl1QN ~TIt SLOPES LESS TItAN n SH.o.I.I. lIE CERlTlED BY lHEClVLEHGINrn!. ALL ON-SI1E SANITIdIYSEYIEJ! LNS ANO LATERAlSSliAllBE: Sl/8£CT TO aUIL01NGO£PAAlWENT!; .o.PPROVAl PRIOR TO IHStÞUAlICh UlUlE BEST YNI,t.Œ1oIEII11"R.Cl1ŒS (_'s). .0.5 REQ\!IRED IiY THE S.......TE WAlER~OONl!!OLBOARO,rORCOHSlRUCTJQoIAClI"'lY'/H\ai OISTIJRBSSOIL A WORK SCHEIIJL.E Of"CII...DIIIGi'<HJ ER!7,;ICIOI 6;SEDlWEAllCON1I!QLI'\J\N SHN.L BEP!lO\JÐEDWTIIECfTYE"GlMŒII BYAUOVST \5. If ANY WORK IS TO oc PERI'ORIAEDBE:TWE£!iOCl1J9ER1 ro_L1~ AI.lROO"IØAt6AND/OR~5POU~SHALl-B£OOlL[c--rEDeYOR...........x H..E1~T1NGmpUIL'CST{R, I)IU N. THEfXlSTH:TOPOCRAPHYSNOWNONMSEPLAHSISSASEDONÞ-.GROUtID ~YO"'T£D1I_1_00.PI!EP.o.REVeYÞO!O-CEOO£T1GCCRPORATIOH.1I-£ COH~~OOlHlSPLN<REPRESENTGRCUNOEl£Y"'TlOI<SAS DrrERIoIINED ATlHE lIIIE OF SAoIJ SURVEY. 5UBSEQUEM"TGRADlNGOPERA·l1ONS 11...IÆBEEHDOI£OURlHGrHfI'REPAA...l1ON0f1l-ESEPl"'IIS-lf£CON1RÞ-.CTOR SHoW.BERESI'ONSIIL£TO(;T)N~1I-EGRQLH)f.LEVAlIONS¡\N[)OVEltAl.l- TOF'OGIW"IiYOFTHESI"Œ~DllTOl1iES1ARTCf'CQ6TRLIClION. tw:£D0II HlSFELDRECXlNN...IS5ANCE.1IiES£PLANS. A~THESOIl.SFlEPan,TltE CONTRACTOR SlioW. ESTWATE THE EAAlHWffiK QtlAH1I1IES 10 HS s....nSfA,CnON PRICRTOlHES1ARTŒCONSTItUCTlDNAMDSI-1ÞUOI:J"OSEOfrxcrSs .....'!ERIALORACOJIIlEILOPOI!TN...TE"'...l.0.5RECUR£DrocouPLE' (TH[ GRAOIH(;...SSHOWNCIOI1H'SPL»I. t«}A()I Irøw..Cc.M'ENS"'IIONWI.l.BE ...AOEroRÞHYExPOATORIMPORTREOIJIRED.UCEJ"TASPRD'lÐEDINl1iEBI[) "",....~ ALLREIIISIONSIDl1IISPLAIIIIIUSl8EREVlEWETJBY1HEPUBUCWDRl<S OEP"ARlMENT PRIOR TO CCI'ISTJIUClION "'ND SH~U. BE ...caJRAlELY SI-tO'MoI 00 REVISED PL.N/S 5IG!£D BY n€ CITY E..QNEER. THEEXCAV...l1ONCotITIlACTORFOR1HEGAAAGEa.o.SEU£..lSH-.LJ.1UI1o€...PERMIT fRCII,j CAl-ostIA 10 EXC"'VAlE I.IDRE THAN 5'-0" IN DEP1H B£LOW GItAOE. T1-Œ CONTIlAClOR Sl-u.L.LPI!OVIDE'" 5UJRINGŒSlCN TO TIlE ŒDTEa-INICALEIIII..EER 10 NC\TE TIlE OESI(;N AOEWAcr NÐ THE PftOCEDlIRES THAT wu. BE NCORPCftAlED OlRINGCONSl1!UCTIQNF0I<1I-IEGARAOEBASÐ.ÐIT. SAÐOESlCNSMAllBE.FRST RE'o\[W;D.....O_O'ÆD BY WIE GE01"ECl4lCAL ENl»lEEJ! or RECORO PRIOR It)NlV EIIECl1a<ANOtlSTALLAlIOM. OESlGHSHALLINCIJ.IDENEJ,SISIts TO BE TAKEN TO PROTEC1 l1-£ ADJACENTBUtiIINCFOI.INOAl1CIN [ll.JRlNClt£C\JT/(¡RI\OIHG ...NDttlECONSTRLIClIOMOf"lHECA!!AG(FOUNOAlION\IA!.L SITEI)RÞI..AŒSHAU.BEPER1!198CBCSEClIOII11K14.7AND33\!>.... A S10RN DRAINAGE AND ÇRADflC CERIf'JC~TE SIW.l BE PROVIDED TO 1HE CITT SHOWING -mAl PAO E\..EVAlION "'ND GARAGE SlRU(:TI.M: ARE PI!QTEClUJ fROllTHE 100 'rEAR STORIIEVEHT , , .. , . ,. . . " ". " " .. " " <I ~ " ¡ . ; ~ i ~ ~ IT SHALl. BE THE CONlR.o.GltI!·S RESPDNSIBUlY TO M...INTAlN CONTROL OF' 11"£ ~EctlNSTR\!'ClIONGf"[RAlIONAND.TOlttISEJoI).KaPTH[tN1IRESIlt:fREE rR(N[RDSION CDWTRAClORSH...LLBERÐiPON5IIIL£FDRREOlIREDINSPECT1CINSANDSHALLW...K 1K(.oIð HOURS PftIOR) NOl1F1C\l1ONlt) THE CITY ENCIt£ER. soa.EttCl£ERC* OTIIERREQUIR(IlI'oÐMDUALSOAP\!8LIC.o.G€NŒ:S. NOÞERSON g-jALL. wt£N H...LlHG ANV EARTH. SAtÐ. ORA't'EL STOHE.1>EBR1S. PAPER OR.....y 0lHEJ! SUBSTNoICE OVER ANY PUBUC S1RŒT. ALLEY OR OlllER P\,Ø.IÇ PLACE. Au.o'llIll"'TEIIIIIl TO EiLOW Of! SPIll. OVER AND UP<»I SAID PV8UC RlGHl~or_....V [}R .o,Q.JACENT PRI""T£ PROPERTY. AU.SAIIllAAYSEWERca<sTRUClIClNWllHIMT!£STRŒTRtOO-or-WAYCMWllHIHtlSlR!CT EASDÆNT5 SHÞ-.u. lIE COHSlRUC, (D I" ACCORDNoICE WI..... l1'£5E Pl.".HS AND 1+-£ STANDARD SPEOnc;....lI0N5 or THE CUPD!lINO SÞiNfTAIIYDlSnn::r. THE OISlR!CTENGN"ER ST1ALL BE No-mrolWO(2)'M)RKINGD~YSINADVA"ŒOFSTARTlNCCOKSTRUCl1ONOFPU9UC II.fI!!OVEllENT50N1>IISPRQ.ECT.Z01211S' (VEJoðCI!EEKBOUI.-[V.<RD.CUI'ERTtoIO. CA 9:101". ... st:PÞ.RA"Œ LA1ERIIL SEWER PERWIT ",u.BE ISSUED FOR EAOi SANllARY SEWER LAT£I!:.o.l It) BE CONSTRlJCTED OR EXlLNŒD ALL£XCAV...lIOHAMDBAClCFUJHCWIlHINSl!!ŒTRlCHT-Œ-WAYSIIAU.BEDONEIN .o.GCORUAMŒ WITH THE REOJIF![M[) TS Œ -mE ~ Œ 11-£ PUBUC AGENCY ......~NG.IURISDlCT1ON. EIICROACHMElIl PERUl15 SHAu.ø::œliU'UDANOA copy SHALLBEONTK:..œDUR..GCONSTRUCTION .. ,. . . ~ BACKFLOW PRO"IECl1VE OEVICE SHAlL BE PflO'«IED ON PI!IV~TE PROPERTY. "ItÐ'!E NECESSARY. IH ACCORDAMCEIMTHSEC:lION 4105 OF THE:!!ISTRICT OPERÞ-.l1ONS COOE ANYDClSlJoIG OR NE1IIlYPlANlED TR£ES SI-IA.U.BE A IIINIIoULO or l&I (10) FEE"TI'RON ANYSANITARYSEWERLATERAlORIoIAW. IT SHALL BE l1-£ IIESPONSl8IUTYŒ THE OEVEL.OPER TO COCIRDINATE D!E PUHl'ING or TREES 'III....... THIS OCVEl.CJPl,EHT, TOMA..TAlIITHEI!EQIJIFIEDTEN(10jFOOTClE-Œ THE OEVELOPER ANÐ GEMER.o.l CONTR"'CTOR SI!~LL8( RESPONSIBLE Fa! PRQlEClIOM or l1iEEXlSlIHG s.<HITARY SEWER FACILITIES N!¥J. F DMlAGED OO"'NG CONSTRUCTION OFlHEI'ROPDSECIIIIPRCI'oÐIENl.SK...u.EIÐ'IoJREDTOl1o£SAlISF.AClIONotlHE CUPERlIHO SANITARY DISTRIC'T. , ,. < I ~ . INTEI<IM~QSIONCT)NlR(1MEASURtsSHO""ONTHESEPLANS¡IR[I!S""""'TESOF MtAl'MlL.o.CTUALLY8ER[OUREDfOR1I-£CDNSlRIJC1IQoIOFIHEDYERALL PROJECT.fIN.o.lQU"'N"'l1ESIoI"'YVÞlIY.o.c:o;RDlNGT01HECH"'Hœ3.~"'ONS, DElLlIONSDROIoISSIt:f<IQHlHEORm-I.o.lPLAN FDSSIlFlllERSSliALLEEtlS1AU.EDIN ALL <»<SIn: OI!ÞlII.o.Œ ÞK> TRASHENa.osLIRE 1NI£lS. rnRDETAII..!I.5EESI-EE"ICII. ,. , CHAHtIELSOfALLo.SlRICTloIoOMJOLESWlIIIIN1I-£COIIS1I!UClIONARfASliAU.1IE PIIOlECTUlBYPl..1'WOOOCOIlERS.Pl.ACEDtll11EN.tHHOI.ESANDMAMHOlfSCASTW<ICS SHAU. BE AJ).1JSTm TO DN..... MADE'" ACCDRD.o.N:E.",..lHE sr¡V DARDSPECIf1CAl1OIIS OF TIlE CUPERTINO S,IoHTARY DISTRICT OR J.:s DlRECTUlIIY 11£ [)IglRIC'T ENÇH:ER. I'IIIORroSTMTI\IG~Sl1!VCOOM.1HECONlRACTTJRlHAT.u.m:PERFORYING_K ONMSNnARYSEWERSSHALLIlE:Rœ.IIREt!lt)REGlSTERM1HTIfEOISlRICT.PRlMDE INSURANCE: AS Sl'fCF'EDIN SECTIONS 1.39 NID 1.40 OF 1t£tlSlRICTSSTAtÐAfIC SPEClACA.1I0NSA~SlGMlHELATERAl-SE"fI£RPERIIT5REI'ERREDlUlN·1·ABOVf. RE:Y£wm 2003 ,., C:UPEJU...o s,tNIT,oRYDISTRICT DlSlRK:TENGlNEEI! , , / ~ z . ~ ~ " i ~ ~ ~ >. .- ~~ :::0 ,¡¡~ .. Cn ~ . ~ o ""'''' C2 OF 6 SHEETS lOa NO. 002DUI PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBJECT TO REVISION ."~. ~ o 8~ N' '" .f¿~ ög ~~ ~~ G:\JobsOO' ¡¡w¡Q _ _ UMITSDr RENOVAI ~ ~J . .. ð~ ! 5~ os '" -~ .~ ,. ~' .' ,< ~: I ed l~ -cii· .. ~"~;:¡ ~" ,,:!( ~ ! <: " ô z <= '" '" 0- => " Z 4: ..J a.. z OW ¡:::ü -4: ..Jo:: 00:: ::::!:w WI- D W ).oeD 0::0 4:0 Z4: ::::!: ..J W 0:: a.. UNES) PROPERTY (T06ECONTAtNED1IrfTH1N 01 o , e o o - -, ... 4 ... -,- .. - Q. ... TO REMAIN I I ¡ Î j f · ." Q , ... ~ØöCA1It1NCIJ!lßOLVIIfJf ... ... - ... ... PM!(IN[; "" ..,. )... / \ j:J... j -- ... ~-¡J= ~ ... - .... A .... ,. ... II ., !§ ~ I, , ... §I '"'''' C3 £!......L.!..IŒEI'S JOB NO. 11112011'1 . ~ t ~ ¡ I ~ m ~ · ¡ ~ ~ · · ~ o "" !;;!¡~ '" :II "_ 20' !O Ii SCALE IN FEET: Q PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBJECT TO REVISION THECO)flR¡O,CTOFt ISRE3'ONSIBl£ fORREUO'ANG "NO DISPOSlNC or ALL I,IATERIAL5 AND ITEMS A$ SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. o/SPOSAl ~AI.L BE IN A LEGAl WANNER. REMOVAl AND DlSf'OSAl. SHAlL BE IN CONFORMANCE 'MTH 11-£ REOUIREMENTS Of mE GEOTEDiNlCAl REPORT PREPARED BY lmRAsu.RCH INC., D...1ED SEPTEMBER 15, 2000 AN INVESTIGATION OF H/l.ZAR{)()IJ$ OR CONTAUlNATEO IoiATERlÞ.LS HAS BEEN P£RfORtolED. THf CONTR"CTOfI SHAll. CONTACT THE ARCHITECT FOR A CCPY or niE REPORT AND tHE STATUS OF l1iE SITE PRIOR TO CðMUENClNG WORK. RUOOERI-JENSEN-AlAR do A!I5OCIA1!S IS NOT RESPDNSÐlt Fell; tHE DESIGN, DlREC1ION tft CONSEQUENCES OF REWOVING N«> DISPOSING OF ANY HAZARDOVS OR CONTAMINA'fID NATERIAl rouND ON 11'£ SITE: OURmC ~E COURSE OF .CONSTRUClION. All. U1IUllES SERW::IN('; EA(:I.j PARCEt SHALl BE CAPPED, PLVGGrn, OR DISCONNECTED IN ACCORDANCE WI~ 11iE SP!::ClnCAl1ONS OF 11£ AO[N{;Y PRO\llÐlNG SAD S!R~CE, IT IS TI-E RESf'ON$l8IUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VISIT THE sm: PRIOR TO CONSTRUCT1CJ:01 TO VERIFY THE EXISTNC CONDmONS AND IWPRO'-D£NTS. TÆ CONTRACTOR SHAlL NOT DISTURB EXISTING PROPERTY CORNER MARKtRS. SHOULD PROPERTl' ct'FINER IIIARKERS BE DISTURBED OR DESTROYED DURING THE COARSE OF THE CQNTRACTUft's OPERATIONS. HE SHAu.. AT I"US 0-. EXPENSE. MA\IE THO,I RESET ArÐ RECDROED "" A LECAL Wù+lER AFTER DENOLITION AHD REMOVAl. OF ntE EXISTING IWPRO\'DENTS, THE SI'!E: SHALl. BE LEFT IN A NEAT CONDITION BY fI.E DENOLma-I CONTRACTOR. ANY ITEIt NOT NOTED TO BE SAIlED WlTHJII 11-£ LIIoIITS OF ROIOVAL. SHM.L BE ROIOVEO AIIID OISPOSED OF AT 11£ UWITS OF THE DfIolOUTlON. THE: COtITRACroR SHAU SA'llCUT 1}£ PA'Æ/lENT ~ll~~MW ~E~~ ~WAL El>CE AhO 5VP?QßT ~E EXlSTlMC SECTION THE CCI'('IRACTOR SHAll. VERIFY Tt£ LOCATIONS Of THE EXISTING uruTY CONIIIECTlONS WITt! ~( N'PROPRlA'IE UTUTY cot.IPANY PRIOR TO COIoIWENCEMfNT OF DEMOUllON. Ç~IoI~III~STU~~&OL'U~rirrIE~1T&)U~T~~m~L BE PLAŒD ~~~rTr ~~S~:~TI~i~~~~C~~R~A~~~:~~~~O:¡~~L~<:'D coœDlNATt WITH APPROPRlATt AGENCYj'lJTlLTlY FOR SAFE DDoIOCH1ON N>Ð REIoIOVAL EI<1STt«: R'UCATlON Uf4ES SH.t..U B£ Ra.IO\UI. SER~CE PONT TO BE CAPPED &t WARKED .... T THE UMIT OF ROIOVAL LN::. SEE IIIO'IES ON SHŒT C1 , C2, AHD C~ , " ". >2 ,. . ,. ,. ,. , ,. ç ~ z · ~ :> ~ ~ · o ~ , · 5 ~ 8 ~~ 0/ :;<:i w~ .< c" i! o .~ 80 ~~ ,- 'òg ... ~g G:Uob$OI ~ ~¡ . ftJ ;~ B .s~ .. 5. -g t ::I ~! 10( ~'" I .4 ~~ 'C C ~. ~., ~~ ~~ ii!( . Qi.- EXCAVAT1ONANDSHORNò; THtCOHTRACTOI\Stt¡t,llPlW'o'l[)[AS/lORING¡)fSIÇNTOlt£OEOTEtHfICAlENGN;;U TO ~ItA'[[ 1l-E DESIGN AD£QUACY ANII THEPftDC:£DURES 111...1 'IIU BE INCORJ>OR,o,rro DURlNG.CONSTR\)C1IOIIr(lRTHEGllRAGESASDlENT. S~DES1GN9IAI.lBtO'!ST !I[W:'ED-'NC"'fI!>RQ'lEPBY"ll£Œ01'ECtHCAl[NGNE:O:Œ'RE:~PRlOf!roANY ERœT1(1,1 "NCINSTAU.A11ON. OCSICNSHÞtiINC:U.D£tl£ASUI1£STOB£lAKEN TOPROnCTlt£"'DJo\CQIl8UILDIHGFOOIIDATION~NGTHEct1T/ORADlNG AND TI£ C(»I$TRUC1DlŒ THE GARAGE fCUtPATICJN WALL IT SHALL 9£ 11£ CctHRACTCIIISSOlLRESPONSIBVTT 100CSØIAND f'R\M1IE AOtOUA1E SHCRING. BI'I"'CHC. AND FJW.EWOR (. .-5REQUIR£D FOR It£ .PflóTECna. Of I..F£ N<lC f'fIOPERTY DURING '!IE: C!;IHSml.IC1ION 01" 1J.IS IIUIL.DING. £xŒSS LOAD C,.,.IoCITY Of '!HE stÞ8SH~IiOTExCt[DLOADSEQUM_ADfITOJHEŒSlGI<ISlJPé:I!IYPOSroLO"'DSl.ESS CONS'IRUClIa. UV( AND DEAD lOADS. ŒSlCN SLPEIlllilPOSED I.OADS HCWDE UvE I..OAD. PARTllIOH LOAD. AND "'In" OTHER LOAD NOT IN 1\£ PlA!:E AT mE 'fUr Œ SHORNG D:CAVAOONSl-lAU.B£,\ŒQI)A:TD-YSHOIi:ED.IIRAÇ£DANt>~$OT11"'TlHEE"'R1'H 'Mll. NOTSlJ)£ 011 SE11l.£ AND so "ßtUAlL EXISTINC IMPRO'ÆILNTSCF ANY kiND 'Mu. EI!: F'ULLY P!I!)T\'C1I:D FROU D.....AGE. ANT D.OH4G[ f!ESU..TNG FROU... LAC!< OF ADEOO...1E SHOIQNG., IIRAalG ANO SHŒTNGSI:IAU. BE 'lHERESPCNSlBUT'!' Of T11E CONl"RACTOR, WHO.........IoIAKE NEŒ5S.ARVREPARõ OR REOONS'JRIJCl1OOI HTHE CONTRAClOR'SEXPDIS£wiÐIE THE EXCAVAT10N fOR A CCNJuIT. lIŒH[;HANP/aI S~ISflVEFEETOIIIIORE.N[J[P1! .lI£CCl'lTRACTOIISHALLPFtOYУADEaU"'1E SHEETWG. SHOM<IG "liD BR"""'Ç OR ECUV~lIl 1oI[11iOO. F"OR TI-€ PROlECTION Of Uf"E, OR UIoIB. 'ftiIQ1 5HAI.l CONfORIoI TO '!liE IIPPUCAIILf CONST1UIClICJO SMtTY ORDœS Of Tl-lEDlYlSlONOfINDUSlRIAl..SAffTYOf'lI£ST"'1£Œ"CAlFOI!!IIÞ..1I1Ecc:HlRACTORSHAI.l ",,-w,t..TS COIolI'I.;'" OSH.t. REOUIRÐÆN'fS. '!HECOHlR"CTOR:5H"ll.!I£SDu:l..Y~F"ORAU.rxC"V"l1PNI"ROŒOUR{"~G Lt.GGING.SHORING.ANJPR01£C11011a'A()..IoO.C[NTI'ROPERTY.SlROClURE5.5lREETSÞHJ Ul1Ul1ES f ...CCOfI{)N.'CE....TH THE l.OCAL BUIl.DINC D£PAANENT ". .. . ~I « <J ci Z ~ '" W 0. " <J z < ...J Il.. 0W zü -< 00::: <0::: O:::w 01- >-W 0::: CD <0 za ::;:< ::; W 0::: Il.. " o e [ o o ~ .,I. ... -" "" I" I ~. -, .. o - Q ro" I I I I ....; ¡t~." -, o o o 11£ Q!JANlITIES H"''òE BŒN "'I'F'ROXIIoIATEDfI!CIII EXiSTffG CROUND ELEV"'lICfIS. BASEI)CJljTHe:TtFOIROI'H"'!iUERENcro..ao'Æ:.T01HE:GRAOCS5>iOlltl0Nn£SI: PLAIIS.'JtI':ACruAl..NoIOUMTQI'"u.mttfllO\Ð), LLVMY~O o cç:v>AClIQ\¡, COOSCUD"'lION.5TRPPHC.o\NDlHECOIIlR-'CTORSWE-'T!iCXJŒOPEJIAlICJI. EARTH~SUM""'RY IJD!. >~l1fllAlrl'! t).IAIITlTv SI1!:Cl.J1 .rr~ """ ·STREETUNDERCulFORUTlUTYlRENC15Pœ..OrsPOSAlI5MQllNctUDED IN THE A80'ÆEAftTHwom<. C;VÞ.Nl1TY, .CC*I'ACl1ON. CONSCUI)"'lION. SWiJ..I... NfD SHRN<:...œ: FACTORS FOR ON-STEIoI...TEJIO-"1.'S...REtIQI'HCOR!'DllATEDII<1HEAllOI.Ceu.....l11\ES. oÞ.ClUALQU»llIl1ES IoIOVED IN THE flElDFOR THIS PROJECT Wll. VAIrY OEPENDtNGON THE ACWALSOILSENCOUN1ERED. Tl-ECONTACTOR'S IoIElH\XI Of OPER"'11ON. EtC. ·NOSTRIPPJlCSAAEASSLIIoI(!}FCf<IN1t£A80IIEEAAlHWOI!K¡¡U...NlIlY. VN!lÁT!ON IROU J/tQUIRm PAC GRADf SHAlLNOl txCŒDO.t FOOl. THECONlRAClORISRESI'-ONSI9..£FORPROVltl o GAL.LS..oR:1Y~TR...rncCON1RlX. Q(OLI~ONE~STRE~OU_GCOIISlRtJGl1CI'I_COIoIF'ENSAT QjF'OR1HESE J10fS SH"'ll. BE OEEUED INr::tUDED IN TIE: PRICES Of VAAICJJS 1TEIoIS Of WOI!K. SŒN01E5ONSl££TC1N<>C2 I" I !I ., ;, " ~ D " " ALL ROOF DRAINS AND/Œ! DOWN SPOU1S SHAll. BE !!RANôD SliEEl FLOWZ!t "'W,t..Y TRC* THE BUIl.LW<IG AND COu..£ClEO 8Y OR.........GEltlLET CONNEC1ED TO PL8\.JCS1tmjDRAlNf...r;tU'IY TI1EPERWITlE!IIUST..AlNT....MTHESTREm.SIOEW,IIJ(S.AHOANTOTHERPU8UC RIGtH-(f'-WAYIN'" ctfAN. SAfL At[) IJSABLE OO'OlION. ANYSPIJ. Cf sot.. ROCK.œ~oœRlSllUSrBEREIoIoYEOF1mIII'U\IUCLYOMIEOPROI'£RlY D~CONSlRtJCI1CIt þ,HfJUI'ONCOIoIP'I£TION0f1>l(PRO.ECr. 1HEÐðSl1NG1DI'OCI!"PllYSI-tOIIN0N1I<CS£1'l.AIo'SISBASEOON"'0\EI!\.o,LjCRDI.INt> SU!~P!lEPAA([I8'rAEROGEOI)Enc:CCRPOIl"'TOI.O"'1E00Ii/D1¡oo.THECÐllTOURS SiHO\f tI<11'ßPLNIIlEPOIES£NT~ELE'VA'IIONS"l'1>£"";CI's.oJÐ!1UR'VEV. THECONlRACTOI!SI1AU.BERESPONSIBL£"1OCONI'IRWQ!OIJNOELfV"'T1ONNfD O~1a>OCRN'H"'DI'1HESllEPRIORTOlHEST""'-Ofca61lWCmJN. BASED ONHlSnELDREC~NŒ.1J.£SEP\.IlHS....m¡1>IEGEOlECHNICAl.REI'ORT. THE CCIN'TIIACTOR $HALl. E5aU<"ß: THE E"""- OJNHnJ¡s 10 HIS SA11Sf"ACTICIN PRIOR1DTHES1ARTOI'GONSlRUCTION....MOSHAI..I.I.15PDStOl'Ð;ŒSSM...1ERW. DIO-...xFOllHEAI'QUI5I1!OH or 1IoIPOI!'1101..1ERIALASA:EL1aRED To ~0I0IPI.£TE nee GfI~AS_C*lIIISP!.NI.NOAOIIIlI\.1 JOI.aIoIPENS..lION"llllUII[IoIAŒ:RI!...Þ/r "'NYEXPORTŒ!IIFORTRE()l.IIRE:O,EXCP'TASI'R0\IID£D1N1HE8100CK:!A0I£NTS. SHoI.\.OAOOI1IONAl..REYlSIOIIS TO T1£GR¡\ ) I Ç PlAWSBE REQUIRED TOF...aUTA1E THE C\.1'ITRACTOi1"S (:f'[R"'lION, RUGGERh£NSEN-"ZAR a ASSOCI...TES SHALl. BE COMPENSAlEOFCR SlJOiAOOJTlON"L RE\oISION5. £ARTH'IIORKOU...HlITES 5HOIIIIN ON lHSPlAN AAE REPI£SENT"'l1VE CUNHlTlES "'NOARt;FURIIISHEDFORINFORII...lIONctlLY. ". " ... ". " I:I!!m 1. sœ.SENGINEEIITtlREIllEWAll.GRADlNGANDSUBIIIT...rlNA\.REPORT10THE CTYPftOR TO OCCUP"'NCY. 2. COIoP"'CT\ONIIEPOR'ffir.H;)PAOEI.L\I..."CNVERF1C...l1ONAREREQl./REDONAll. IWLDlNGPAC wæI<. 3.. CONTACT PUBUC WORKS. (408) 177-3354. FOR [lfAINAG£ AND FIH-'l CR,&,D[ -,- ~~~~mNF¡>Rc&'~J ~:I1'!\;.~1N$URING THE ARU. Þ.!1JAŒNT 'THE CONTJ1"C1æ: SItAU. RE\ÆWS1..w;;....1ID 0El...a. G-4011lR£E PFlO1£CTICtI PRIOR10AC!X'U"USHNG~Y'M)RI(CRRЫ>\IIJ«:ÞNY1I\EES. ÞLL~SHAU.BEDOt<oEINACCORO~œ:wt1H1I'1ESQlLSIIV'OR1 PllEPAREDBY'lERAASE...RCH.INCÞATEOSEJ>1EIII1lER15.2000.PFIO..£CT NO.II8ð.G.ALLCR~ANOEXC"'V"'TION~WOIIKSH.AI.lBEDOI£ LlNOEI!"THE OIISEFf'I"'11CWOF THE GEOTECHIIICAL £NQNŒR, THEŒOTEONCAL ENOII£ERSHAU.BENOlIFIE04ðt1CU'tS8EFORETI£S1AJITOf...NYGllAOING. (4Ð8)J62-4920 ALLS1'ORIIILIo£INST...u..o.11OHIII1J.!Sl.OPU'I.ESS1J.!Þ.N2XSliALI.BE't'£RlAED B'TTIIE CMl ENQNŒR. U1IU2£ BEST IoIAH"'GE/llENTI'R...C1ICES (8IoIp·.¡....5 RE:OUIREDEI'T1>IE ST"'1E WI.'lERRESOURGESCONTROlBOARD.F"ORCONS11!l/C1!ONACl1\11TY_COi """"'~~ A'IIOIIKSCHEDlIL£OF'GR"'OINCAN()~!15 QjaSEDIIoI[NTCONlROI.P\.ANSH.ou. BE PRO'o'OEtI TO THE CITY ENGKER EI'T "'UGUST 15. If" ~ '/IOIIK IS m BE PERFtIRIIED IIEnfIE£N OCmBER 1 TO "'PRIl- t5 . , , , o. I , 'I" ¡--.. ~ = I ~ i g ~ è M ~STALlNEW5'SlD£'/ .ou(.CONrORM m ms~(]-II1ECTUR"'LJ>t.Al.lfQRCOLOR.TI =~.... . . 0 - ¡ f i "0 ~¡ , . . ! . i ¡ ¡ ¡ '''" .....""""I.i/111W ...i:'~ ~ 'IN Mšü'dSiGtJ.'ltJJTDE1.....SNIO'Æ. ., Q A i - "" ... ! ... ... "µ . ... " .! !! " P.o.oI:lIlli ... "" ... ~ ~ ~ ¡ . ¡¡ ~ : fi ;- L I«ITE: ~~~-S!1'MhÐIJ7~1N.t!J!oMlD ..WÐi:i"".A(i\ Ç~j.oê'£ilt·l'ilCPt:RT'TfS1RI/C1tJIiES. 5ŒNOTE 19.0---.1. IIoI>1.( (J! 2{''¡' HOlt: gg.o...=.....~~RE~~..lItHMTO ~~-Y€ ADJAŒ) TPR(l'E!m/SlRIJC~~ .. I ~ = ~ ~ m ~ 5 o PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBJECT TO REVISION 1,[ I1NWJELE'IElFf202.S"'TEI/l!!Y SEE-'RCffirn:TPl.ANS ,,- =- 1t.u-d_' """"""'" ~T_WllU..tH_...oc ~iji~llRAL~ I!-I/I jj¡ ~-, 0_< ~- SEEtt:lU 1; ~. ." "'........ PCCWollJCW..l.'T 1~.F\.9Cf! -- PÐlAIIOITtC1\JM<.Pl.ANS NOTE: ~~~~~~=INIfII~1tJ ~[ MlAGlNC1HEAl)JAC£N1PROPERTY/S1IIUClURES - ~º1t_!!, !I.-!!c .~ ~-- SEE N01E. It. / ~ · o · ~ " ~ ~ ~ · õ ~ ~ ~3 ~ö wi >< e. ""'" 04 ~ 1081«). """''' 50 ~~ " il FEET: ,."=20' 20 '!Ii SCALE IN . SECTION B-B ~- . ( I[: !£ClIO/ISHOINFIJIII!El'!!ESEIIT"'lØIAI..PI.fIPOIìES ~~~w.P!.A~PER~ GAIIAGE1LVD.FF2CI2.5ATEHTRY SEI:.u«:HTltTPl/oI'fS SECTION A-A '"~ N01[:SECnON~F'ŒI1IEPII:ESÐI1A11OtIÞI.PURPDS£S r&TE~~PLAB£¿[I!1H£ ~ o ;;~ ~ð .. ,- gg ~! .. 00 G:UobsOO' 2:0' l.lAA SPAa/G .L.EŒtiIl ~ < PRELIMINARY PLAN _: _ ;~:£:~~'Œ M'" (~_ ~' ""'"' SUBJECT TO REVISION ~.! ~81 '" "" NOTE: cam:ACla1 10 EXPOSE 0:- WAlER LJ£ ,I,N() \£RFY EL£VAIlCH .8 6""' ~~~~~T'[TOR...Jg=~~SE~R~~OR~f'lPE. fU ~':- - ,~ V 00 Tt£\.OCII ' (J.¡Cf"TtlEÐnSllHGSANnN'lYSEWEflSE':RVlŒIS ~o 6,.!, UNKHO.... SEE NOl!: ON SHErr CJ ~~ , o. o \ ' 06~' UF'TFR SURFACE [ ~ I ¡ 'C if 100: "'~ ~= ~ 4 ~~.. - "V I - ~ '"" ~ : D f _.-pd ...,. < ¡. If- _ L ~ - 2~ ;¡:¡; ~ iQ , 0 .... ..-- } ::!!! -. - "'-:1 b' ~ 0 ~~. . ~ g,0 I . ~ Z '. m I « "'" .. J ! I J "ifj""...J '. J W I a... - I ~ w - ~ >-u I" I 0 1-« .... m-r J Z:J~ ~ "'1· w ~ _~u - - > I-~ . 1 -. L .' ",.~ =>w~ (/) f-¡:: r ... .. >- œ I J ....... :'" ~w~ G ~ «CD a ì .. iiiiiiiiIfï ""ii zO -l ¡¡ 0 00 0'""'1 ;r :::!:~ ~ r~~ro~~ ~ - ANtI$I;:AI'[ARE~DIWNS. 'o.~, _ "'¥ "\0" '"'I" 'ERUETU ~fACE DR~ OCTAIlInOW W >- ( ~ " - "" I[ .. a... f """" .... (\~ ~ __ .... "J¡< I ';i!! ~ ap i \' 0 I 0 ' o 2-0 ~o 60 I I : 1""'\-- , ! SCALE IN FEET: 1"= 20' ¡ I '-_ WDI t ,_..__._,"..__.._.__~~L1MDECk ___ _POCIUUD£C1C: "". 87 r W'..o¡:.""J::JI:'~~~~TIW" "'''''' S', *£;~~,:~i;t¿if'ii 'I t}!"k;~ ~ ~ ¡! ~~~~N~~~~~r:E~TJVE I ~;I . .. lO'± - - ~ PRO~WES. F ThE COHlRACTOR DE1ERM1NE:$ THAT I ~-·-;'i IN. '~"""_/~""ru"""'''''''''"''Q.. H ,.. 0 ~:v.w U.N~[ß ~LAtIIskD ,.;:~ t AREA 4' PCC ~MJ("ØlT AREA. AREA L'(: 4 pC!: WAIJ(WAY -IiYLOPI..AST 8" N..IM£ DRAIN 'IUH S" DOKD ;;i NTl.OPt..ASf rf' IMLH 11'1..... WlTli 8".00WED NYlDPI..AST II' IHLH: DRAIN '/Imt Ø" OOWED DUCìll.£ IRCfj GRATE. INSTAll (J¡ 6" SDR-35 !\.¡, OOCllLE IR()I GRAfE. INSTAll, ON 6 stJR-J5 0UClI1L IRON GRATE. IMSTAll (JI 6" S[ R-35 to' WTtl 8X6X6 lEI AT w..t(. 2D' MAX D.C. ~_~.o WllH,5X6)(1; TEE .I.T "'~_ 20 II,\]( o.C LIrMDSCN>E.D WllH 6XU6 lEE AT !.tAlI, 20' WAX c,c. 1 ..m.. ru """ "''''''' ...." """~ I·..m... ru """ '''''''' ""'"'" """"" I .."'~ ..,~.. ro "'" """"..~ "',,_ . _-'-¡:",:'"'~"'æ¡ ~¡¡;&¡jiÀÄ¡;:ìi:/j !!i!!!j! i NOTJIIS'M!ØAD.IAŒNTPRDI'ERms) NOT C4Sl\Ii8AOJAŒNT PROPERTYtS) ITIST1-{CONlRACTOR"S~ty"roSEDJRE IT!STHECOIIT1U.CTOR'SR£JõPON5I!IIUi'YltISEalFIE ~ ~£=~~~1URB ~~~~ ~~~)l:ÆC~AmPf~ g¡ f'ROPEI!n:s, F THE CON'I11AClOR I':IE1mW£S 1I1A1 POOUII WAll NolO fOOTING 1'(/1 T1iE POOUot WALL AND FOOTN> PER 1t\£ PR(F[~ F I1-Æ CONlRÞC1OR D£TE_CS 111.\1 R TIlE 9.ICI! ACC£5S ÞKi/OR OISTURIIAHCE: 15 NECESSARY. ARO!IlECMAL AIID sTRUC'fIJRAl PlAHS. ARCIfTEC1U<AL AN[) S1RUCTœAl PlANS. S\ICI1 ACŒSS NfJ!ŒI. OISTlI!B..wc£ IS NECßSARY. tAl. PI»/S. Ô SDR-~SD .SUPE SHOWI IN PlAN VI£W- &" SDR-Y-> SD. SU:P£ g O\IN IN PLAN \IIEW- 6" !ÐR-35 so 0 SlOPE SHllII! IN PlAN ....£'/1_ DfI""'ACE 1I.NIŒ1 MV P(Rf(ftf'!ED PP£ PER ~AlNAIZ BLANlCET ÞHD f'œfORA'ŒD PIP!: PER MAflAŒ IUNKET AN) PERF"æATED PIPE PER ¡;¡ GE01ECINCAL EHGlHEER"S REOUIR£WEUS. G£OTrCI-NCAl ENGIN££R's REWIRУN1S ŒO'ftt:I'NCAI- ENGI<IWI'S REOUI!lDÆNlS.. SEE AACIII'IEClURAL A: smJC1URAL PLANS. SEE ARClfTEClURAL .t S1RUCTUIW. PLANS. SEE AWfTECl\RAL 011: SlRUC'MW. PlANS. ~ IWOT ROOT _ER ~ -~ ~ ~ ¡Ñ\ C5 ~ ~ ~ OF6SHE!.TS lOB NO. 0020111 < ~ z . o ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o >~ <8 ~J. ;:d ,¡j;!= .. F. ~ ~~ ;,~ ~, ög ~! ~~ G:lJobsOO ~i -, .. " "', ... ~, ..!!! es'; ~ ;¡ :II ~i ,< ;; , .6 ¡ 'C Ð:;¡ ~! ".nt:i ~l !!iÐ~ ~- ?ubl1<:RightafWo: ~:;;~~-- ~írafjSOO)(_ Slcb;l;,;in~ Fabric or [quol 2" X2' X 1)4" """" "'" S'SPACING (P¡\O<ACEDWl11i SILTHNŒ ,ABRIC) Runoff '0 ~ Sedlm""tlade, - C","pm'¡.d '-- ¡ ¡ I ¡ ! I l l I ¡ I ¡ I I l I " " " " " " '" " , " " " 1 I ¡ l I ¡ ill III m ¡ I _. Fn.redRuno>ft <>= ;-17 -...¡:¡ ;¡ ~ Bindinq ",." dicl.stone 2'-3" " >0 ~. g-ë l~ w" minmum. ,. IIIOVENSEDIt.IENTAl1ON CONTROL FABRIC 36''''AXAeOVE~ BACKFIl.LWlTH NATIVE: MAlffill\L A nON au AIL STRAW BALE INST, NO SCALE _. NCE .. 2'-~ PLAN l8" mi,>'...."'" 1/11<01<..-, SIL T FENCE NO SCALE . õ c z " " z z æ <{ u Ó z <= '" '" 0- => U ~ . " ¡ z « --1 [L --1 o IJ::: f- zW OU u<C a:: Za:: OW ¡¡jf- Ow a:: CD WQ >-0 IJ:::<C « Z :::;; --1 W IJ::: [L ¡ i ~ ~ " · .... ¡. ... "" ~ "" II ~ -.; M < M Z ~ n ~ M M ^ m r < ö - Q o ..., o ... () o "" ",' ... , , '~ , , , , , ,... ;1 _J ... ... I," [\ o o '"' .;¡;: ,R ... " ¡i r~i('" I' 'I I. I' , 1 " "" + Ii , 1 "" I- i ~ it ¿s .i '1 ~, ¡'í .I "" ..,. "" , , . ¡ fi ... Ii "" ...' ... ... ... ... "" ... ~ ... I · ~ " ~ · ~ ~ o PRELIMINARY PLAN SUB.ECT TO REVISION .., !i!!I~ '" .. - SCAL£ IN FEET: I"'" 20' o EROSION CONTROL NOTES: DROP INLET SEDIlAENT BARRERS ARE TO er USED FOR SMAll. NEARLY ltvEL DR.o.HAGE...RE....S.(LESS'lHMl5:(l EMBED THE BAlES 6- INTO THE SOIL "N[) QfFS.ET CORNERS OR PLACE BAlES WITH £NOS TlGH1LY ABUTlNG. GRAV'El. BACKFU NU. F'RE'ÆNT ERCJSK:IiI æ FlOW AROUND TH£ SAlES. THE TOP Of THE S1RtJCT1JR£ (P(N}INIi HEIGHT) t.JJST BE WEll 8B.OW DE: IiROlItfD ElEVATION iI'OWNSl..OPE TO PREVENT RUNOff fROI.4 BY-PASSING THE INLCT. rx(;AVATlON Of A BA$I<oI ADJACENT TO 1HE DROP INLET OR A TEWPQRARY DHŒ ON THE DOV4SlOPE or THE STRUCMtE IIIAY BE tfECE$SARY. ,. 2. ,. ~C1ICJ¡ A-A "','^'" ""'" C6 2!.....!L....!.HEErS 1011 NO. D02:0111 ~IU~_CA1tII_ NOTE: JIDOIT1ONAL SEOOIENT BARRIERS SHALl BE: INST.o.u..ro ARQOND E:XIS1WG I;IJRf! INt.tß DOWNSTREM4 CF THE PRO.I:CT SITE. ff CUR, G:\.JobsOO' ~= ·i~~~ l~~~~ . ~ := -- lbo....oftbooc:pIoD<md'P«_""'_lbe~...k opocific.iœror_Iboy"...~_put>licÐan1llondolWl boox¡n>Sl,limì<edto"""'....-.rq>mducIiœ>...-~\I ' ..ymt\l><lò.íowhol...-inport,Ílprohibirod.1'illolOlb<pIom..... ~..._..wiIhANDfJlSON"'RCHfI1'!CTSIHC__ pr<þo<fl.,., Visual_wilh......plaosBDdopeo;;l\<arioDs_ f;<IIISti"""prtlnalilci<cvida\t.oIQ,o~..rIbo_ ,- Pion Brothers Companies !475Saratoga.Ave Suite 250 ~,.. Adobe Terrace A Mind Use De\'cloprnent 20128 Stevens CreckJ Cupenino,CA.9'50i.! SI..,W ~~~ ~ 1 Î K 6 - u:- T~ c--r-- :-- ---+--- ----.. -------------- ---- -- ~........ ----- !"""".-. -~i I -I ; 'k": ::i, CEm~ ,: i¡ I! --J ~I . ! O ' ' .' I ~''''''''''''''''- " , v : ~'~ ,: I _.._~0Na0 .~~ -t--~ ~ .: -1 ï ~--+ : ' 2 ~ ~ .. ~ ! I ~ / ~ i ~! I ' ~ I"arIung l,"<','~0~"'~ '",,18'-'-01 '7' ~: ~ . 1..-_________ ------ ."" f '-'" ~ ',y~'>-;::';{ "'I . ~I I "---' x lß' ~~~;').m~~ ~ I ; ,<;=our. RA/"PJX)U.NTO v~-77;'/A'0LCIf'E. '/ / I I I r-----; ! PAIöKIHG~ 14/ y//;::"":://(/ / /,1 I U <-='.> IN h / .< 1 / X/-jJ/7"<~.:10 /) ~ ,.,..,VJJ>Ið eæ i ..--, . .._, " :.::.;,. ',,/ . ~ T~~ , , :~_____/ y : = :__,:" 1J_~- -- ; ~ ~ I Z ~.:.. -- ~,~- :.~ j -~ , , ~-- ~~ - ~ o o ~ (E},9.~ ¡ij ~ I ~ I ~ á-, ~ , "" I ~ ~ I ~ I 1ì I 1ì ¡- _.u. ------.-J¡, - 1)1112103 - .,,"'" 07i231!M 09I17¡Øo1 1J!10l04 1/271!M JI16·~I'..o" 0< ~ A-1.0 - - f~ Job:Adobo N. , , , · · · · '" " " Client R.evis.ions IJooøi¡:IôoI,- I'L,I.NN1NGSUØMlITAL SITE PLAN ~ I City Revisjons No !Jes<riplian ~~, 2 REDESJON ) Pl.ANNlNGSUBMrrrALS 4 I'lANtlJNGSUBMflTAl , . , · - ~ )nomll¡-- CIoocUdI!y: SilftCT..... Site Plan and Roof Plan $MoINo.- ". 1 . .. . ".t .. -~ I' nl,.I- !' " I :i ¡i.'I· ~ : Î Ii' , 'I ®" A Iii , ,I , :1 ! II I ¡' . il I' ;, " : '\ I ',-~~ , ! =--t ,I I c.....____L._.... , /__ _~_~___o_=.".~,~,=~-=-~."'=~~~--~--.. L ¿~______________ ---- I -- ~ ~ 'I I II 'I I, II I I'i·-- I , I I' I ' I 'II ¡I' I I ! i .di · 'h. "-Á. ~~~;:; I. I ~~___AIA ------ -~~-~ ~~~~~ . I :;. :.~.:; -~ Tbe...gfrh:scplans-tlpOcifo<ol.....sÞaJlbol"OSlrictrd"'.... ~.iI<fur_\ho)'......~ond >Ubl"""....1b<reoC5haIl ..up=lyfunWto$Ud>.....R<oIse."'f'rOduotionarpublaûortby ...ylllO!lhcxl,in_..ìnpll1.i<prubibMd-TlIktothop.....""" """'¡ßCOI.....I'eIIIOiD>"'ilbAND£RSONAIlCHITECTSINC,~ ¡wojIIdiœ.Vi....."""""""')!!!_pIa;n>_opccIfiœlionsllllo!l 000SI_pri"",fo<jo~vj_of1bo~oflbo_. CliotIt: Pinn Brothers Companies J475SIIIlIIogaAve Suit<:2S0 San Jooe, CA 9512' - Adobe Terrace A Mixed Use Developmo:n¡ 20128 Slevens Cred(BI'-d Cupertino,CA95072 20'-0" r : j 0 ---~ 1 I @ , , I I '" ~U~ I If! n ""'""'" ~ ill Iii I , I ] , I _ I I I i Ii ;-_.11___"___1.._ ,..___¡-._ I . "'1 . I ,.1-~·~---¡---ïul ~ I :': I.'.." <", ¡ I. "m~... ~ - .~II& 9 <'=-::.: ~ ' 1\1i "" . . ..- - . .----1. . ru I I I I , , I I I___,¡¡¡, --". '--,.' _~·-ø"._ r----·- I I II ~ - - ~ ----- , , ~ : ---·r-~;;-~ , I, ; . I I. --..--.....-.. I I " ~ if il v 1 l... I~ ' 1 : ' , ,uTu, r ,~ ...J---r--- ---; II i i:1 II: I~_ : I :: I --":1 1 "--f!\ I I ....---.---r .. " ___L It I ,~,'- ',,~ . -;~I ~~~~'~~.~> ~ .g. ~"""" ":::\," '- ~~, "':-"'\~ ~ ''\S<" ',- "~;,:; '-0~"'0'-''-'~'':\~~)'~.~~è' "'-~::- ~ <::.::.':.' ,,'ii.~~'." '::'~"2,,'~ 0::':,~"'>'S' ',»~ ''-'-:::'', ~-~'-", ,,-~-*~~ /'///;:~ ~ // "'/-//// ~~~ .(...... &LOPE DOlIN, ',////B.<'f,//."/,,/>/ F C////,'j,', / / >;. / //~// (/ :/;';;%'»/;/77::/ -:,////;/// /, "// ..c=// / ////-'// /F,/ ////, /// "/EJ.¿/ //-'/<,/// ,/,,/ :,:::/.(,,~,,;;.r...{-J' /.,// //;(.' / ////// ,/ /f r .,.- I /// ,,/ ~ ". /, I i' "I "': ~; I . I t.__, r fol I I r I ~ : ' I I I ~ ,I I I~J' . .. ~ .-'1 r···~ f , . , .: <,;."::J : "', , .~ => : "lK7eTORAGI!: ,~(s2:::~-~t;-¿~:,:::>~ : ~"~0~.:('-~~0::J, :/>::"S""'."f:--;.'-~:'j: ,V;;--: _~~J/~/; /~, '(;~;~~>J~% : 1 ;-' l- DA&l-ECi..NE INI:>ICATES ~fLDN:S~ ...IJ... j... II I II I +-U . -' ,..---- :.. ~-~ , , , -~.. I _ i ~ ~- . I N I -~-. ". .r~~ - ~=.mn'i=r·1 ~A ~~/j.:r II ~ ,//), ø" ) / / ~, Ie - /h -ø' ":::..t_¡- , ~ '_ø" ,.. 21'-Ø" FACE Of' CURB h I: ': , , , , - , "' , .' I . , " I I I L-- , : A -, Soomp: ~! §: ~ " - w,_ Client Revisions D<scti llion C¡¡".."",,¡... ~ .- 0'1117104 ] i1Oi\M 07.11.\1I0oI 1116""'1'.q' u Pm<n8)" """", SbœtTIUo: Garage Plan & First Floor Plan City Revisions Imcripri""- REDESIGN PLANNlNGSUBIIIDTAL PIlnningS\lbmilt>l ~ , , , · · , · · .. ~ , · , · , · _. .... I'~'~__-~,- ) GARAGE PLAN ~~"'.-- AAI9!P ~!IOX -0-42·-..II..........,j ß~~~~ .....~ a. ._ NC:>~....TlOWS!oeTn,.. ~ ~LINI! ,--~ ;..e·-4~'__ -~ · 'h. · ,,~, -.- '~-I-"- . ~ .... ~od_ ~~" _"",nno¡o.uæ-A !.-lvInS .... &w...., CorrIdor.EIev.lI:Ir 1!>,e2 &q.F1.. P."",- ~ T....I 14,1!1265q.1'\. '" ,....VlN6~ -1.ANC'!5(:._1"'1AN · · , · Of'~1T&. ,.- ,.- "'-oJZ 'm~ ! o I " <1 '7-7'Y' ~ z~ i ..... " ~ Ä ,~ ~ ,: ~ (~ T , I' , , I _ . . '" "'L.~.._. ._ , ",. <. ... ..... -,,-....... t ~ . - -...... . - - ~ 7 "=_ - ·'0 _ -,... -, y~ '. " ~I T /. . " .£ ~ ::::::;<': ~ -.-.............. 1-- · 'h. \: ~' +-=+ - \: I +-;: \f °lli: <:== l--=> N o I 4# +-.. -fE)f'!..AIffEf<S ~ ~ i!i ~ '!' ~ ~ ~ o o too I I I 1 i i I i i I I l ':ì'" I I I I I I i I I J" , I I + A - 2.0 -'<>b:"'-1Im -~ file: . .. .' '" 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN . .-. . 1/18"_ ·.(7' 5CALE: 111&.' . I'-Ø" -~ ~ k...d..._~~ .F~_~ ~~~ . :.:~ _.~ Tho_of_pIoms_ip.d~_be__t(>1I>o ......liosiloú.qic:hOM;ywert-pr...,.J..¡...........-.ordiaU be~"'_t(>""",,_ -'~<Jrpublic:oDoob!' -r~..wbc>Ie"'iøpm.i5pœîbùod. T.,..........-_ lpOCiiicoti<m____ANDERSONAltClU'TEC1'SINC,- projudie<.V-_____pa.......~"'"'1 __......fac;o,_..ftloe_of""'~ - Pinn Brothers Companies J415SIII'IItogaAve. Suite 250 SIU!Jose,CA95t29 ..,.. Adobe Terrace A Mixed Use I>cvtolopmcnt 2012KSicvensCJeekBlvd. Cnperlina,CA9S072 - Client Revisions Do5aip:i.., '- ~ , , , · , · · · " " " -,.............,....,.. LIvIn¡ ......,_n, Con'IdIou,E.........or ~."160!0..6q.~ ..-- ,~!_..Ft ,~, rø,Ðfo1.l26q."'- NO. OF 1.NtT&. ,.- ~ ,.- , >:..OB , '~AL . ----:! , , __~_.J ~ ~ =.-1:' --------------------- ~ I -~ --------------------------------------------------------- . . I ,~... -,..' ~ i- 1 Fl- I ' i~« ii,'·' I I k<,':· ----~--~---~~--- _l!dgIoot'_ L..-_ I t~~---; ,-, I ' . . ::¡ -~ /.?'~ _c_ Þ' , ii " :1 !! 11 !i II Ii ¡, I Ii '(., ¡i ;1 , Ii :1 , "- ., - 1117I2),0Il ~ I17".JI04 ¡1¡~"'I'-O" U City Revisions No DcsaipI;;-- J IlEDESlGH 2 P!aniIIgSilblDiaal , · , · , · - .... DnrfI'II.BY' Cbod«dlly; ....- SECOND FLOOR PLAN Second Floor Plan . .. ~. ". I _No.; 1/'- . I A-3.0 SCALE: 11Ih". 1'-0" - - "" Job:_""" <>""=" k......_~~--= . ~.....-..w. ~~~~. :. :.: -............ n....6f_,..ODd""""ÎficaioDo....llbe~"'1b< spocificsi...b....ÎdlIbey__~OD<I~-...r_ be~¡..ÌlrlóIo......1de- Ileuoe,.....-...~b!' -r.-.ol.iltwbo..otiø.¡ct.ispr<J/l-.l.TAIoIoIbopa..... .....~J<UIÛIII_...'NDERSO!NAIlCHJTEC'1'SINC._ prop.Iice. y...._wilb_pl.-OD<Ispeci_sbd _p1mofacíoo~ofdo<"""",ofu..~ """ Pinn Brothers Companies 1475 Saratop Avt.. SIliIe2.St) SWI Jose, CA 95129 ~'""--.:;-i I ';:-;;·----.T'i__TT i ¡ ! I . , : I J ~I - :OJ 1¡ ., ¡ -----U -j 'T ,I I ~i i =i ' i' ~I ~ I jJ ~~-~._,.___~_~+-.J2:3'-=__~ "¡'!'I'-~-- ~ , i J "'.'"-------1 i 'L'= I] - Adobe Terrace A Mixed Use Development 2012SStevensCreekBlvd. Cupertino,CA9S( 72 0i4.il Sq_ ¡:t - :Ø833 Sq. Fl Flan-IC Livino. Area ea ic.Õrl~ Area 84-:.ø3 Sq Ft - 120.88 Sq. Ft Plan-16 Living Area 6dlcon';:! ,Area Sq. Pt Sq_ Ft b04ß3 - 12825 Flan-IA Living Are.!! Sa icon!:! Area ,. ".,. --~---1 -- --- iT I ' jl I ... Client Revisions - -- ,. , , · , · · · " " " ~I i JJ ";>1 . f__L_-! , , i ¡ I _ I ' ! , ----! ~ \l: è . -Ll J ~I (J (J ì ) J Plan-2C Living Area 681 icon';:! Area Plan-26 Livil"!g Area 6a icon:J Area Plan-2A Living Area ~14.bl Sq. Fl. Bdlcol"!:J Area - 128.33 Sq. Ft ':114.6 l Sq Ft 3Ø?b':1 Sq. Ft. '314.83 Sq Ft. - 12833 Sq Ft. ... 00""" 0'1/17104 City Revisions ~... ~~ PLANNING SI.fBMrrrAL .. , , , · , · , · O1/Oilll4 i_I'.( " ..... ""' Unit Plans ... - -'" Cbocbd1t¡r. -".. A-4 Job:AcIobt.... -.. .. -n :1 "I z t . I -rl 71 "11 -~ , 14' Ø" I I .----; ~..::£:~~------f ,,-," - ---===4 Ji=-"..' -~t= - -"'~-::-~-tTI [ I ~I I ~ [ ," l- èl !} J _ .'! "I ' G " I G I, ! I -1.1 I -í~· ~ll -~ 1---- -- J ~' f;:: , I --L , Fu- ì ¡Ø~3 Sc::¡- Ft - 12825 SC1. Ft. Plan-36 Living Àre¿¡ 88 ICQI"!::! Ar~d 1Ø': 658 Sc¡. Ft. * 146.86 Sq_ Ft Plan-3A Living Ar~d aa Icon!:! ArISe:¡ "-......-t':;~-:= . ~-,.y. 1~~~~~ . ~ ::;:= I-·~ The_of"-eplmo""Ø~_bef<$lriclod"'I"" .".."il\o....forwbi,blboj·w=II'"P"=1aodþUblÒ(:OUon__ bt""P""I~limiledlt>.o<hu><..~_~QI'puI>Ii<#;"'b)' lOIJ'~inwbolc"""pan,~p<o/'ribiIt>d_ TrtIt""lbep_ond ,_roaliom.........WIIh^~AJlCHJTECTS[tIC._ J!ft'iodic<.Vi>uaI<œU<Iwith_J>lam_speeifi__ _ptjrnoÔ<"""Í<I<I>CCoflilooccq>œ>œoIlho_ Client Pinn Brothers Company 1475SaraIOgaAvr:. Suite 250 SiI!110sc,CA95129 T",eot.."J' .1-; ~.~=~.c.'.F=~ Top plate 0+24'- _-------I-- . . . . ~ ~ Second Level 0 +14' , of poduim 0 +4' Grado 0 0 T, ~. T!!-E \tII ~OM NAT\.IRAL E:L.E:YATION NOTES l OLD IJX)RI...D ~ eLEHD ""I'E!tI'tA COTTA' 2. MUCro u.v &AND FINI!+< "OFf' Uj. ITE'. 3. ST~Ji.LI.I1ßoU'1~ANDWlNDow. 4. DaeL£ f", \ o£ Ji.LI.I1N.11 a»c>a1l !o.,A,C;C.ENTTU-E. 6. UR:JlJCiI4T IRON 1-WlDRA1L&. '.IIIOOO1l'iEU.Ie.~~'. "1IIOOOUND(:1W&IU-,ðHp~~~ 9. STUCCO COY£ÆD FOA/'1 ACœNT&"OFF Uj. rTE'. 1£). WOOD POOR STAIN TO HATo-I -n:EU.1& It ~T &TotE ~ 12. COLOI'i. CANVA& AU.NINCj B. PECORATlW- t'ETAL. LIGI-IT FIXTUIõ!E 104-. &TUCCO~I'OAMCOIõNtœ 15>. PECORATIYE tETAL BALCONT lb. ATTIO::\'£NTtPAIN11!.PJ n.DEççl ltATI\lEI"ETAL.~5EELANDf5C,oIF'EPL..w 18. DE~TI\IE"X"OFI!N.~ ~ ",,'.I!:I" I-£IGI-IT 1"ODU'1 UI11-I 2' ~AL LN£S . fI' ¡,pARr. 211'_ f"'t..o/IINTBi eox .t.HP STUCCO PILA5'ÆR& sæ~1"'LAN& ~ o&Il:MB ""'jeel.- Adobe Terrace A MixedUseDcve!oprnem 2OU8 Stevens CreekBlvd. Cupenino.CA950n C¡¡em Revisions Ptseripti",,- Pl.^NN1NGS\J~r.tnHI.. S_p: ~ , , , , , · , · " NORTH ELEVATION ~ ~. Ollnmol 0'II171ð4 1\II01D4 01mlO4 " ~ City Revisions N<> Pos<ription I REDESlú""N ¡ Plannin8S11bonillal 3 Plom>ingSubmi""1 , , · , · - ... -', "'""''' _TIll.· Exterior Elevations -- - --+Top OF RIDGE 0 +35' A -5.0 Job,,,,,,,,," _& Filo:D-j_"I*"""~ WEST ELEVATION ~ Þã.;k.~~~:ks': i . KortB._..oJ.t - ~--~- ---~_. ------. 12~=~.. TeI.108.416.l269 Fax..-._3oI82 I -.~ The...or_.............i I<CÍfiCII__bt_to1... .pe<:ifH:.iI<lot";'Ì<h!ltey-.~_publiatim_obaIl bo~I}'U..iRdto...æ""_-'~or¡a>bl_by III)'-...."'_.....part_~~ YJlItW",",pIanolÐll ~=Wn>wilhANDEII.SONAJlCHJTECTSINC._ po<judi<e.Vu...I.-....willll....pIon!_~:dIoII <oD!Iin>IoprimllfM;i<...;-'of"'ocœpt>Dœoflbe~ el¡_ Pinn Brothers Company 1475 Saratoga Ave Suil~2S0 San]ose, CA 95129 _. Adobe Terrace A Mmed U5C Development 20¡21ISkven5CredBh'd Cupertino,CA95072 - C!i<:nIRevisions ., Dcocri,*"," ~ , PLANNINGSlJBMm^L 0111210,1 , , · , · , .. " " City Revisions ~ Do:oo<ri~"" - , REDESIGN O¡/1&~ , , ~SulJmitlal 1).11(11\)'1 · , · , · ~. OII21K1( .." 31JZ'~I'--o" - On,w~B) OY - ~'" " _TiIJo: Exterior Elevations Sh<!IIINn.; A-5.l - F~D1~I'mjeco>IAdoboIPItmio;r; Job:Adobo I ~. Ridge 0 +35'+-- - ~-- "-"'DCM~"""'- Top Plate 0 +24'+--- - -- Second Le...e O+1f~ - --- Top of PodÌJm 0 H'~ ~ ~-- -- Grode 0 0 ~!..eVATION NOTES t ot.Þ~~TEBLÐID~CCITA""S·TILEUV 2. ðT\JCGOw/&.o\N;>l'lNlðI-<"OFI"I1J.IITE". ~ &T~ALU1I1'U'1~ANC>1Ui'DOU.t -4. DOI.eLE PAtE ALU1Nr1 IUtoIDOW: 5. ACŒNT Tlu:. 1I!>.~fR::INI--IANI:)IIt4IL5. 1. UIOOD TJIII!U.I& 'MAI--IOCS.4HT" ~". .e. WOOD WN;>OW &Ill. PI'C> eI'tACE~ ~ 9.&T\JCGOCO'YEf'IEDFOoiI/'1AC:C:alt$"a'I'ILI-IITE". lei. Ut:I(;:ID DOOR STAfoI TO HATO--I TlQEU.IS Il eAT STOtE AAQoI 12. COLOR c;..\NYAS AIIH~ a.~TIV£!"ETALlJCiI.ITFlXTIJIIIE W. &T\JCGO~I'OM1~lœ 5. ~T VE I"ETAL BAU:ONY ... AT11C \Ð<lT ( DAINÆD' n. ~TJYEI"ETALI'EtCESEE~1"LAN I&. DECORATIVE -4 X 4 oPel eGIJ.IUiiE& I"!I. 4·...,.. I-EI6I--IT FOOIIJ'1 ll/lTi-f 2" IõlEYEAL LN:ð . 5" Al"'ART. 2Ø. I"'1.AN'IÐt eox AND STUC;CO PlLA&TEM ~~....... ""'"_ EAST ElEVATION ~ Pinn Brothers Companies 147SS_oguA"" Suîte250 SanJose,CA.9SI29 f'rojca; Adobe Terrace AM"xedUs~Devclopment 20128 Ste\'en~ Creel." Blvd. Cupcrtino,CA.95072 Stml>¡>: C!ìentRevisions " Dt><riptiool ~ PLANNlNG~\JBMlTIAl (13/]2<00 , , · , · , · · .. " " City Revisions ~ ""'"- ~ , ~,~ nll21W4 , PIaanin¡SUbaliIIaI 0'.I/171V4 , PlaonIngs..o.niUal IIIIG1U4 · , · · ~. '¡¡211V4 _. ]/16"-1'-(1" O"'...By; " 000<1<0<18)" " -- BUILDING SECTIONS _No.; A-6.0 - Fi\e:J:\K-A\Adube\1'Ionoing\I2.30-(\3 Jdr.AdoIoo z 0 ~ . ~ RidgoO+34'-Uf.------ - TopPlo1eO+2-4-'~~- f ';'"... I I SecondLe.....OHf~-- ~.~. .L.. ----I- F1retLevelOH'~-- -~- k Gl'ode 0 0 , -- - 2 ) ~,';?;,~N B-B - 0 " ~ ----------- .. - - --- j - - i - - - - I ¡ ~w ........'.... ~w ~w ~~. ~ j - , ~~. ~w ~~. ~w ~~. ......................."2.0.. ~ j . . -......-.- SECTION A-A =. - ~_._-- ~l ~ , , . -'J-~ y ~ ~-~ï ~ ~. . , ·,,,_~_JI·· O+24'-+"---- O+14'~-t-- I FntLMO+...·~- GracIoO º ',," TopPlale ,....,,- STREET TREES PER C!TY OF CUPERTINO (TYP.) SPANISH GLAZED CERAMIC TILES ON LOW CURVED WALL WI TERRA COTTA POTS SALTILLO TILES IN BANDS (TYP.) ROWS OF PALMS AND HEDGES AT ENfRY POTTED PLANTS AT RETAIL SPACE (TYP.) -- C > .J m RETAIL SPACE II W W Œ U OJ Z w > w I- OJ ~ ~ ~ - - EXISITNG ~ WOOD, STUCCO & TILE - BUILDiNG ENfRY ARBOR INTERLOCKING BRICK PAVERS ~ AT ENfRY AND PARKING (TYP.) SIDEWALK ALONG PROPERTY LINE ROW OF EVERGREEN TREES - AT ENTRANCE TO GARAGE BELOW ADOBE [NN ~~ ~ Cupertino, California ,/ j J · i ¡ ! ¡ I ¡ ¡ , ! , · ¡ , ! · f ¡ i J ¡ , ¡ ~ , · ¡ , ¡ ¡ · · , í · ; i ¡ ; i i i , , · · ! ¡ · j ! I i i ~ 8 @ ~ o O· z~ -': ~¡ ~. . QU Z - j.~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~~r:.: w~ª ¡:: =e æ·ã ¡.¡: ;¡ ~~~ .( E -.; C ¡;o; "{:::'; ~ ¡t}¡-.II ð] :!!.¡ VJ-=....e = Eo- ..,: :z: lie ¡ i "!1~'" .N~ ~ >-w a: 0. ~<I: _uz ~UI« ::¡c.J wZD. a: <I: Q..J DATE 7-16-04 REVISIONS 9-16-04 '" ¡.¡ :.: 0:7; ='"' ~ ~.~ ~ Z = . '" N .... .. ~ <If ~ ~ = - =.s~ ~ E ~ ~<.s~ == ~:;~ Eo- S u;: o e ~N =: 11:1 ~"'" _ rI;J o~ - Ifi ,"",lID Z r--- =~ .. . ~ z - 001-< .... ~ íLJ ";¡i¡ ~ < ..... u o íLJ íLJ < ~ < ~ o ~ ~ ";¡i¡ ~ o ~ ENHANCED PAVING IN AREAS AROUND PODIUM (TYP.) POTfED PLANTS ACCENT ENTRIES (TYP. LANDSCAPE SCREENING AT BASE OF PODIUM (TYP.) PLANTERS. ,RS PROVID HANDRAIL 5' DIAMETER RAISED TILE FOUNTAIN RADIAL TILED BANDS IN PAVING (TYP.) SEATING (TYP.) ITALIAN CYPRESSES AND OLEANDERS AT ENDS OF BUILDINGS (TYP.) z ~ · · o o · ,¡ · · z " o · · z z ¡ S;CAL.E 16" = 1'-0" ~ NDRTH SHEET L-P, OF" 4 RAISED STUCCO PLANlERS WI COLORED TILE ACCENTS (TYP.) RAISED GEOMETRIC TILED FOUNTAIN - TWO TIERS SEATING (TYP.) STUCCO PILASTERS AT COURTYARD CORNERS ¡ ¡ , , ¡ I , , ; 1 ! , ¡ ¡ ¡ , ! f ! ¡ · ! I j ¡ · ! ! ¡ j , , ; ; ] I · , i i I , , ~ j ¡ ! , ! , · , ¡ ¡ , ¡ 8 @ z ~ · · e e < ,¡ · · Z l- e · · z z · i; 00 f.: ~ ,~, z~ II.-¡ z.!! ~ ~ e ..... ~:!! ~ ;.,-; ... =u UH¡;¡ o +1!1~ 00 ¡;¡ E~ rLJ. ;:;¡ =:;¡ < t;~:; ~ ~ " ~ æ1!&:~ -< u:~g, >- ~ ~~¡ ,.... ¡¡¡ _ t-."CI O þ.,rnr-:: <"E :!:.. Ii!!!!'."I ~:a""E! ~ Qf-o..-= Z œ = ~ I~f '" ro< ::E O~ =N . ro< - N '7 -; ~ ~ rJ:J ~ rz or E rL1 æ.s ¡¡;- ~ ~ =~ ~ -- ~ <..s~ = :'=- r-: e «I:!; o -UO\ .. e .r'" o;io " IiI'.I ~ =~~Gõ Z !; =~ Z - oo¡.. .... ~ >- ~I!I ~Z -I-Z ~Z« J<e.J W-lD.. ~D. D.. DATE 7-16-04 REVISIONS 9-17-04 SCALE 116" = 1'-0" = NORTH SHEET L-P" c. .. 72 iG 5 S' romanzoffianum IS G I Queen Palm L' ustnun 0. 'Texannrn' Glossy Privet Neriumoleader White Oleander inDides Pitt rum 'vari~' Variegated Pittosporum Nerium oleander Pink Oleander Cu ressus sem ;rem Its.lian Cypress Pitt 'varie Variegated Pittosporum S romanzoffianum Queen Palm / re?~ Pbormium'DwrarfGreen' Dwart GTeen¥Iax· 24" hi Erigeron karvinskianus Santa HarbaraDæsy Phormium'DwrarfRed' Dwarf Red Flax - 24" high i 1Neriumoleandcr 15 G Pink Oleander Pbonnium'DwarfRed' Dwarf Red Flax - 24" bigh '" I Dwarf Japanese Maple i 1 Pittosoonun 'vari~' 5 G Variegated Pittospornm ts--crl CUPre5SUS senipervirens IS G Italian Cypress 2 Nerium oleander 15 G Pink Oleander 20 Li strum". 'Texanum' 5 G Glossy Privet Pronus callervana 'Bradford' Brad!ordPear ADOBE Cupertino, 3. 4 15G 3 Street Trees citvof 24" Box ~ ~ 24" Box 29 I Li2UStrwn i. 'Texanum' 50 Glossy Privet Phormium 'Dwarf Red' Dwarf Red FIax- RETAIL SPACE ~ w,.w '--I' ~r; + _J \ 4 S· romanzoffianum i 24"Box Q,~~Pa!:t!l __ ------' ~--~--, ~ Li~usttum ¡. 'Texanum' I 5 G Glossy Privet , ! EXISITNG BUILDING BRDUND COVERS TD !!IE: DETERMINED FROM THIS I..IST: II I Campanula species Blue Bellflower GaZania 'Vellow' and 'Mitsua Purple' Gazania Trachelospennwn jasminoides Star Jasmine Viola odoraia Sweet Violet T" 11:- [ . I C > .J m II iii iii II: [J m z iii > iii I- . m /-7,' --,/..-.-.- . ¡'I' = ~ I ~ ~ ii = I 'I - . + ,)----- . c I' " I' !, " " !I !I SEilUARE FOOT CALCULATIONS ßlRI.GATlONCAt£:lJ:UTIONS: 5,020ú.of9pmylrripömœll'*k 2.617..r.~"'BUbbIerJnigÊ<III_podiumplaœn PLAN1'ING CALCULATIONS: 7.6J7Lf.ofLaDdoclpe.....<:oIISistingofground«M<.shrubs....-. ...U nI IOfICdI/Qlll:øpoÎ!llObe.i:n. low to modtrut................ 'Iboft¡,¡""ciliIIntlaooiocapírlganftlObeJalKlYOd. ThcRio....~tuIf_""_ 7,637s.[of~.....aIIØÜIin ¡;ofgroundWl'flt.ohrubs....-. ...nlondsc:opo_lobolowto_"""",,__ Thon:io""siIIint;~œslltlobl!1Unowd. 'J'bcn:Î!I.... ll"llpl-.lturf_..._ , I I i ! I I I l r I i I , I , i I i i i I , ¡ "" I I I I l , i ! ì · · ¡ ) · · , ¡ i ~ · t · ¡ t · ! { , ~ , i ¡ ! I ~ j I i ! · , ! · 1 ! , ¡ , ! ! ! ¡ · ! · ! J I · j ¡ ¡ ¡ ~ <:> or. M . ~ M .. ~ = ~ en ., M - ~ . M = - = = ~ .- ., >1:- <âlÆ< ~=;;: .su; e J~ " :!...,. r/:J'"')õ;' ~ = ~ ..=- ~"'''' ~z «0I!J Z¡:ZZ ~«Z« -I!J ...I ...1-00. wllN Illl 0.- , ,,2 i!i: z. ,<E ..l~ ~. =u ~ 8= ...:1-=.... .0.. §!!~ .~ ...=~ ur./'J. ..... car:& J:C:¡ g ~~¡§ t <E~;! ~~f:::1 ~"fV>..!!! u--" rI; .c:;""e Q....... z· = ~. ... . ..1~S: ~ 00 ¡:;.¡ ~ ... U o 00 00 < ... < ~ o ~ ~ ¡:;.¡ =:I ~ rIJ ~ ~ o == ~ Z ..... ... ~ ~ == ... o ¡:;: = z Ï5 I'< _.l-.J ~----- ~- /:.-.._-~- - '_L --,-- (})nNISH GRADE @RlGlÐPVCjI)RIP @BLUEFLEXRlSER @FR() ,jRÐ.lOTECON1ROL "fUBtAPAPTOR HEIGHT AS NEEDED O~'Æ @8R1CkTOSUPPQRTBOX @S" AQUAPOf'-UP 0CANNISTERF'1L1ER- ASREOUIRED "'''' 155 WESH F'1LTRAl1ON Q)PLAsnc VALVE BOX. wi fl..USH VÞLVE INSTAlLPAR.o.u£I..TO @f'fŒSETPRESSURE EDGES'" ADJACENT TO REGULATOR PAlliNG 'MtÐIE POSSl8LE @RIGlOPVC-WItl36" DRIP REMOTE CONTROL ASSEMBLY WI PDpwUP j. OT 1'0 SCAl£ ø'WQ7BALL @/'fIJLCH~ o J" HIGH WA7!'RlNG fJASJN o FIN1SHG/lADE @8UBBLER-4"ABOVEFlNISHGIIADE @4"ØPEflfORATElJAElSPI.AST1C SI.£EVE. FlU.roBEWW NtJZZI£WT1H3I4"01AM.DRAINRDCIC ø PVC SOl 80 N1PPU ®PVCS1REErEU. @PVCFlEXNJPPLEWTTH -""""'" @~~ L_ j--~ ~ ,----- ,-----,-- :~_._---" ! i ! , , I --- -- [ I i i L_ ~ --t, I"! _ I ! I . I lei I ~ ! I ' OJ , I I I, cO \I ·'1 ... i ... , . , I œ I I u ' ! I , ! ~'\:1, I " I I i ,--H 'I OJ I ' [--i I ' ~_J; , >. , l ' !-.-; ... ' . ,~ I I- #.iL1 II IB _.¡:-d I I II ~ 1: J_~---t- -- II " 'i I I t E ~ 0H41NUNf @ØRlCK7DSUPPOII.T ~M~ @fflL80TroHQFBOXWI "'"DÐ'1HDRAINR()CJ( @~M @SCH40PVCfflfIf'I..E @I'tJ!ST1Cl.O.TAG 0P1ASTTCVA!.VE8QX. INSTIlU.ÞARAJ.l.ELro E1JGES6ADJACEWT'R! PAVINGW~/lE1U5SJØi.E 0PVCHlûNUNE (i)PIIC¿ArrRAI. @)SCJI40FITT1NGS ®FlNlSHGIIAIÆ @RE/fOTECONT1IOI..VAL\Æ REMDTE CONTROL VALVE NOT ro "'^" pcp-up SPRAYßlŒJiilrDP BUBBLER HEAD NOT 1'0 SCALE NOTroSCALE CATE. 7-16-04 REVISIONS 9-17-04 SCALE 16"= 1'-0· ~. NORTH /" SHEET L .. P3 c,4 ADOBE Cupertino, California RRIGATION ZONE LEGEND DENOTES DRIP IRRIGATION ON PODIUM LEVEL PLANTERS DENOTES SPRAY IRRIGATION WI 6" POP-UP SPRAY HEADS ON GRADE .. ~ ALL COMMON AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED ON ONE METER BY AN AUTOMATED, UNDERGROUND SYSTEM WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTION AND HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. DRIP IRRIGATION AND BUBBLER HEADS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. J J ! i · j · , i I i ; , · ¡ I ! i ¡ , ¡ , ¡ , I i ; ¡ ! · , f ~ ¡ ! i i i 1 , Î , , £ J , j ¡ · , j ! , ! i , ! ! 9 ~ ,,=: z· -~ z" z . < . ...'" ~:¡ QU Z Õ j.f¡¡ ~ + ~;g J;oiI ~...: ",..~ ;;;;¡ o::;t-:: ... . ~ u~~ '" ~ p..>G =E ~~¡"Q a = \co! cr: ~~!. -< f .t! ¡.,¡¡....(:::.; I/IooI"I'Jr-C ð] ~-! v.¡-=""a Qf-o ..I: Z ~ "! <=~ ...~~ ~ rJ:J. I";¡; Eo< < ..... u o rJ:J. rJ:J. < Eo< < ~ o ~ ~ I";¡; ~ ~ ¿,"xJ"Z. ~ -- - ... RoO_ ¿µ,- ~s - , \, ,..' > j ~. -----.----..~ '" ¡¡.¡ :E O~ == N = ~.:: N z,¡j ~ S ar ~ rLl '8 CIiI íÍÕ =: ~Ë~ ~ 00( 010. = =;s... ~ ~ØI :: O - u. .. .~ ~ '" QòI..., ...... =." M = :;~i >-:7 r- = 'ot fC-.< ..,. =__ ~ _ oo¡.. ... ¡o., .~ \ II " UJ z UJe -- ...JI- ...J~ 1&.1> 0::1&.1 I-...J I&J . < .\ I': .. .' ~ DATI!: 9~ 1 7-04 REVISICNIi -if .~ "'- ~..~ . 1r~. "': .,....,,: z ! · · D D · ,¡ · · I ~ D · · z z ¡ SCALE 3/B- = l'·C" SHEET L-P4 0,4 " ~# ~ .¡i§)þbf ~/19. 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. I ~ AGENDA DATE January 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Consider application No.(s) M-2004-09, R-2004-40, Centex Homes, The Murano Development (formerly known as Saron Garden): a) Modifications to the previously approved site plan of use permit no. U-2003-02 to widen Poppy Way from 28 feet to 36 feet to add a parking lane; and b) Exceptions to the R1 ordinance allowing reduced setbacks and floor area ratio over 45% for two single-family homes located on Poppy Way. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve the use permit modifications (M-2004-09) to allow the street to be widened and the R1 exceptions (R-2004-40). The project is categorically exempt therefore no environmental action is necessary. Background: On November 16, 2004, City Council heard from numerous residents seeking to increase the street width along Poppy Way to accommodate a parking lane and to match the remainder of public improvements along the street. The Council formally accepted the offer of street dedication along Poppy Way at its December 7, 2004 meeting and directed staff work with the applicant to accommodate the wider road width by modifying the approved site plan and apply for the R1 exceptions for building setbacks and FAR of the two homes along Poppy Way. Discussion: Use Permit Modification, The applicant has revised the approved site plan to reflect the new street/sidewalk alignment along Poppy Way. The new alignment is consistent with the rest of Poppy Way and provides parking on both sides of the street. As result of the new alignment, tree number 62 (Redwood) will be removed and the new sidewalk will meander around trees number 58, 60, 61 (Digger Pine, Canary Island Pine and Blue Cedar). The revise site plan is consistent with the direction of the Council. Rl Exceptions, The homes originally approved will no longer meet the current R1 ordinance in terms of front and rear setbacks or allowable floor area ratio (FAR). The setbacks and size of the two homes along Poppy Way were originally based on the larger and deeper lots that exist with the existing approved curb alignment. Consequently, by altering the site plan to realign the curb to match the remainder of Poppy Way, reduces 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. To accommodate the new street alignment, the applicant is proposing to shift the homes back 1& -I M-2004-09, R-2004-40 Page 2 Centex Homes, The Murano Development January 4, 2004 approximately 8 to 9 feet. As a result, the rear yards of the homes are also reduced by the same amount (Please see chart below). The garage face will be setback at least 18 feet to accommodate onsite vehicle parking. Parcell Parcel 2 Required By the Rl Ordinance Original Revised Delta Original Revised Delta Approval Approval Front 24.6' 16' 8.6' 24.9' 16' 8.9' 20' Yard Setback Rear 20' 14.2' 5.8' 20' 14.4' 5.6' 20' Yard Setback The applicant requests exceptions to allow for the smaller front and rear yard setbacks. Staff supports the exceptions because with the new front yard setback, the alignment of the homes will be more consistent with the adjacent homes. The changes are necessitated by a change to the plan initiated by the surrounding residents. The applicant has agreed to the onsite changes to the rear yard setbacks that will only affect the new homes to the rear. The applicant is also requesting exceptions to allow for approximately 53 % FAR for the two homes, exceeding the allowable 45% FAR, to accommodate for the reduction of lot area. Staff supports the exception since the approved house elevations and visibility of the homes from the street are virtually unchanged. IÛ' '-~!~,,:¡R', I ~~ L_.i.-=_:=L).. : L..; ¡ ~ ,: :( PI.~ I "" I ....;..J I~_',' ,.' I L.. -:. !~~I . ' :~ - - I ...... ~. ' , ",," ,! ,':~ ~_.. ~___Ll__*_~_M'~n-L____1,:~~J' ,\: I " ; ¡ ¡'I't4!011~ :' dU. I .,"," , >- 'I I , ¡-=- J I I I "4¥T'~--- { ~.n· '. ._, <:~~: ·~~f~,,~:~AlJ;·CJIIII QI11~_}~~:;_~:' ' WAY I I ..... I I' I I ti- f ii'r "f' r, n-:"v:fi-' I POPfY I I ..... I I I " I If I II!"_..,. "f' íf"~ ~ .. fb-2. M-2004-09, R-2004-40 Page 3 Centex Homes, The Murano Development Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Enclosures: Use Permit Modification Resolution (M-2004-09) Rl Exception Resolution (R-2004-40) Revised Site Plan :ibzL David W. Knapp City Manager January 4,2004 1&-3 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT (U-2003-02) RESOLUTION NO. 05-010 WHEREAS, on January 7, 2003, the City Council approved use permit U-2003-02 to permit the demolition of the existing 39 unit Saron Gardens Apartment complex and one single-family home and construction of 55 detached small-lot single family units; and WHEREAS, The City Council heard the petitions fÌ'om numerous residents requesting to increase the street width along Poppy Way to accommodate a parking lane and to match the remainder of public improvements along the street; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved, that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. M-2004-09 is approved and the use permit U-2003-02 is modified to allow for the realignment of Poppy Way with the following added conditions: 17. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on the site plan submitted by Centex Homes dated December 10, 2004 except as may be amended by conditions contained in this resolution. The revised location of the homes shall generally approximate the approved site plan, 18. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT A public access/pedestrian easement shall be recorded and placed on Lot 2 for the portions of the sidewalk that is located on Lot 2. The legal description and the language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final occupancy. The Convents, Codes and Restrictions (CC & Rs) for the project shall also be revised to reflect the private maintenance responsibilities of the said walkway. . 19. TREE PRESERVATION The applicant is required to work with staff to design the sidewalk to meander around existing trees (trees number 58, 60, 61) to the maximum extent possible. In the event that these trees cannot be saved for reasons determined to be appropriate by the Director of Community· Development, minimum 24-inch box replacement oak trees replacement shall be planted in fÌ'ont of Lot 2 at a 1 to 1 ratio. Tree number 62 is permitted to be removed. (& - V Resolution No. 05-010 M-2004-09 Page-2- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, this 4th day of January 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 1& -<;' RESOLUTION NO. 05-011 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING EXCEPTIONS TO THE Rl ORDINANCE ALLOWING REDUCED SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RA no OVER 45% FOR TWO SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOMES LOCATED ON POPPY WAY WHEREAS, on January 7, 2003, the City Council approved use permit U-2003-02 to permit the demolition of the existing 39 unit Saron Gardens Apartment complex and one single-family home and construction of 55 detached small-lot single family units; and WHEREAS, The City Council heard the petitions fÌ'om numerous residents requesting to increase the street width along Poppy Way to accommodate a parking lane and to match the remainder of public improvements along the street; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 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 this exception will not result in a condition that is materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; 3. The exception 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 fÌ'om abutting properties. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved, that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. R-2004-40 is approved allowing exceptions to the Rl Ordinance regarding setbacks and floor area ratio to accommodate the realignment of Poppy Way with the following conditions: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on the site plan submitted by Centex Homes dated December 10, 2004 except as may be amended by conditions contained in this resolution. The revised location of the homes shall generally approximate the approved site plan. I h-~ Resolution No. 05-011 R-2004-40 P age- 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cuþertino, thi~ 4th day of January 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 1&- 7 -"--- :-""~-, I I I I I I I I I 36." : I t~............... I I > Z Ü -"---- -/ì- ---Il-~------ --- - --~~~;ib~ÚRé.j;~t! TQ.ftt Rtllôvt00,~___ WAY POppy '~':.f '.> 7'. .r.:.!.. '0, PlANTING AREA 2 , a "' .~:~ . o ;- . i-S -~ I J __ ~.~ _~l-- é):JU8J ~ ". ~ "' ~ o t,l-Ilr-1! ~ì« La V \ \ ~ a \. "". " ^" £ "/', .~\ .- "--/ "", "/ ,,"- '" .S õ; u c '" '"- ~ \ ~ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 PAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. DATE: Tanuary 4,2004 SUMMARY: Consider amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Corrunission recorrunends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration, EA-2002-19; 2. Approve the Ordinance No, 1956, which reflects the amendments approved by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Except for fifteen specific modifications that were highlighted in yellow in the prior staff report, the City Council has completed its review of the Planning Corrunission recommendation for the amendment to the R1 Ordinance, The remaining fifteen items will be the subject of this report. DISCUSSION: Each item will be described in the order it occurs in the ordinance. 1. Topographical Plan - Section 19.28.050 C(1) - This language calls for site plans to include contour intervals. This is more appropriate for an application form. It does not need to be in the ordinance. In hindsight, this item should have been part of the minor technical changes approved at the December 7, 2004 meeting, 2. Lot Coverage - Section 19.28.060 A - Lot coverage measures the amount of the property that is covered by buildings, roof overhangs and patios covers, This differs from floor area ratio, which measures the interior area of each floor of a building on a property, Printed on Recycled Paper II-I MCA-2003-02 Page 2 Lot coverage is limited to 45% of the site. This change provides an additional five percent for porches and roof overhangs, which staff believes is consistent with past Council actions. Background Prior to 1999, lot coverage was 40%. This was increased to 45% to make it possible for an owner to maximize their 45% floor area ratio (FAR) without building a second-story. If you were viewing a property from above, areas that you can see the ground level are "uncovered," which means that areas you cannot see the ground level should be considered "covered." Thus, the building, patio covers, porches and roof overhangs should count toward lot coverage. Swimming pools, patios and walkways are at ground level, and thus should not be considered" covered." If this interpretation were strictly enforced, then a single-story house with a 45% floor area ratio would not be allowed to have a covered porch or roof overhangs, or else the lot coverage would exceed 45%. Since 1999, lot coverage has not been strictly enforced because staff did not believe it was Council's intent to not allow typical roof overhangs or porches. This proposed change is meant to allow staff to enforce lot coverage, which maintaining the 1999 Council's intent of allowing a 45% FAR single-story house. 3. Floor Area Ratio - Section 19.28.060 B - This change specifically states that whether an applicant receives approval for a house with the maximum FAR is a function of the project's conformance with other design regulations and guidelines. That means a project that is very compatible with the neighborhood will have a greater likelihood of receiving approval for the maximum allowed FAR while a project that is not compatible may not receive the maximum FAR. Many residents do not understand that the maximum allowances or minimum requirements of the ordinance can be decreased or increased, respectively, through discretionary review processes. It is hoped that with this language, there will be less conflict over this issue. 4. High Volume Space - Section 19.28.060 B(3) - This change adjusts the high-volume-space regulation to measure high volume space based on a floor-to-roof height instead of a floor-to-ceiling height. This is meant to address a loophole that some applicants utilize to stay within the actual regulation, while conflicting with the intent of the regulation, as shown in Exhibit A. This item was discussed at the December 7, 2004 meeting. 17-~ MCA-2003-02 Page 3 5. High Volume Space - Section 19.28.060 B(3)(a) - This change explicitly describes the current staff interpretation of how high-volume area is counted, In the case of one-story homes, high-volume area is not considered second-story area. In the case of two-story homes, high- volume area is counted as second-story area. 6. Stairway Allowance - Section 19.2&.060 B(3)(b) - This change exempts up to 75 sq. ft. of stairway area from being counted as high volume space. The net effect of this change is an increase to the allowed FAR, which was discussed at the December 7, 2004 meeting, and is shown in Exhibit B. 7. Garage Guideline - Section 19.28.060 C(l)(d) - This is a guideline that suggests that no more than 50% of the front elevation of a house consist of garage space, The purpose of this is to discourage garages from dominating the front elevation of a house. In cases of narrow lots, it may be necessary to have a garage that is more than 50% of the front elevation, This guideline will not be used to prevent an owner of a narrow lot from building a standard two-car garage. 8. Setback/Garage Guideline - Section 19.28.060 C(l)(f) - This is a guideline that suggests that new two-story homes match the neighborhood pattern of side setbacks and garage orientation. Thus, if the neighborhood has a strong pattern of detached garages in the backyard, such a garage will be encouraged for a new two-story house. Also, if there is a strong pattern of having a larger side setback on the left side of the property, with a smaller setback on the right side, this pattern will be encouraged for a new two- story house. 9. Symmetry and Balance Guideline - Section 19.28.060 C(l)(g) - This guideline encourages symmetry and balance through the alignment of architectural elements, such as doors or windows on the exterior façade. 10. Porch Guideline - Section 19.28.060 C(l)(h) - This is a guideline that encourages the use of porches, which provide a friendly façade to the street. 11. Living Area vs. Garage Area Guideline - Section 19.28.060 C(l)(i) - This is a guideline that encourages placing living area closer to the street and setting garages back further from the street. The purpose of this guideline is to encourage owners to break the trend of emphasizing garage space over living space on front elevations. 12. First Story Side Setbacks - Section 19.28.060 D(2) - 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 at /7-3 MCA-2003-02 Page 4 the meeting of November 16, 2004. Under this proposal, the minimum side would remain five feet. 13. Garage Setback - Section 19.28.060 D(4) - This is a change that requires that the front face of a garage be set back at least twenty feet from the property line. This change will only affect corner lots, and will ensure that there is sufficient room on the driveway apron to park cars, which is shown in Exhibit C. 14. Basement - Section 19.28.060 F(l) - This change allows a single-story house to have a basement lightwell up to ten feet by ten feet in area, which is larger than the minimum required by Building Code. This change was originally proposed in 2002 and was meant to be an incentive for utilizing basements instead of second-stories for living area. 15. Two-story Envelope - Section 19.28.060 G(3) - This is a change that sets a building envelope for the second-story. Originally, the Commission proposed using the envelope in lieu of second-story side setbacks, The Council chose to retain the second-story side setbacks. The Council can choose to use the two-story envelope in conjunction with 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. SUMMARY: The refinements approved by the City Council at past hearings and those discussed in this report will result in a slightly more flexible set of prescriptive regulations accompanied by a slightly expanded scope of discretionary review and public input. As a whole, this R1 amendment will allow the City to better serve home builders and affected neighbors. Enclosures: Ordinance No. 1956 Exhibit A: Powerpoint slide for High Volume Ceilings Exhibit B: Powerpoint slide for Stairway Allowance Exhibit C: Powerpoint slide for Garage Setback Staff Report from December 7, 2004 Staff Report from November 16, 2004 Staff Report from November 1, 2004, with attachments er Gilli, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager 17-4 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 ORDINANCE NO. 1956 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 19, CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (Rl) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Title 19, Chapter 19,28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code shall be amended as follows: Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. Chapter 19.28 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RIR-l) ZONES Sections: 19.28.010 19.28.020 19.28.030 19.28.040 19.28.050 19.28.060 Purposes. Applicability of rRegulations. Permitted uUses. Conditional uUses. Site-dDevelopment rRegulations (Site). Development regulations (Building). Lat eavenge, builditlg setbaeI<3, height restrietiaRs aRd pri"laey mitigatiaR measures fur aaRaeeessary buildiags aad struetures. 19.28.070 Landsca{>e Requirements. 19.28.08019.28.979 Permitted yYard e.!j;ncroachments. 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permit. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. 19.28.11019.28.989 Exceptions for preseriptŸ¡e desigR regulatiaRs. 19.28.999 ResideRtial desigR appra"lal. 19.28.12019.28.199 Development rRegulations-Eichler (Rl-eR-le). 19.28.13019.28.195 Development rRegulations-(Rl-aR-l1t). 19.28.119 Praeedure fur exeeptiaRs aRd residelltial desigR appra"lals. 19.28.129 Salar desigR. 19.28.14019.28.139 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.149 f.ppeadix A LaRdseape MitigatiaR Measures. 19.28.159 f.ppeadix B Release af Privaey Prateetiaft Measures. 19.28.169 f.ppeadix C Pri-laey Prateetiaft Plafttiftg f.ffidavit. City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) I /7-5' 19.28.010 Purposes. Rl 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 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, §I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an RI R-+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 Pernùtted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Rl R-+single-family residence district: A. Single-family use; B, A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 ofthis title; D, Home occupations 'lthen aeeessory te pemiÏt requirements eontaincd in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19,92; E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing offood products for consumption by occupants of the site; F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H. Group care activities with six or fewer people; HJ. 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; hJ. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; Jo-K. Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which is at least three hundred feet fÌ'om 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; City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 2 {7-0 K-oL. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RI R-I-single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: I. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a 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 fÌ'om 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: I. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6)E of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons; 3, Residential care facilities facility that fall into the following categories: that is Rot reqtlired to o!JtaiR alie,mse by the State, COtlftty ageRey or dep!lftmeflt !!Rd flas six or less residef!t3, Rot iReltldiRg the prÐvidef3, pro'¡ider family or staff; a. Facilitv that is not required to obtain a license bv the State, Countv agencv or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider familv or staff: b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agencv or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider familv or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the propertv boundarv of another residential care facilitv: c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license bv the State, Countv agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider familv or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet fÌ'om the propertv boundarv of another residential care facilitv: 1.ResideRtial eafe faeility that has the Il Jpropriate State, County ageRey or department liecnse and seven or greater rmideflts, Rot iReltldiRg the pfo-liàer family Of staff, is a miflimum àistanee of fi-¡e oonE\red feet from the property boundary of anethef residential eare faeility; City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 3 /1- Î 5.Resiàeatial eare raeility that is not required to obtain a lieease BY the State, County agcney or departmeftt flftd has seven or greater residents, ftst ifteltldiftg the provider f[lffiily or staff, is a minimum àistflftee of fi'/e !ul!ldrcà feet Rom the proporty BOUftàary of ElI!other residefttial CI:IfO facility; 604. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet fÌ'om the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1688, §3 (part), 1995; Ord, 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord, 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.050 8ite-Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. I, Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the RH~-+ zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Minimum Lot Area Zoning in Square Symbol Number Feet RI 2 5.000 R 1 R--I- 6 6,000 R I R--I- 7.5 7,500 R I R--I- 10 10,000 R I R--I- 20 20,000 The miftimum lot size ift fIft R I zofte is six 1hol:lsalle squl!fe fœt. 2, Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection An) of this section, Seetioft 19.28.0501.1, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. 8. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the fÌ'ont-yard setback line. except in the RI-5 district where the minimum lot width is fiftv feet. C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics. Slopes efThirty Percent or Greater. I.Site plal!s for all àevelopmeftt proposals shall iftelude topsgraphieal iftformatioft at eofltour intervals ftot to eJleeee tOft f-eet. Areas '¡mere slopes aro thirty pereeftt or greater shall be ieefttifiee Oil the site developmeflt plflft. ~ I. Buildings proposed on properties with an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent Oft a portioft of a lot with slopes of thirty pereeftt 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 1 R--I- zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 4 Il-J ~2. No structùre 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, § 1 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992) D. An application for building permits filed and accepted bv the Communitv Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before Februarv 18, 2005 mav proceed with application processing under the ordinances in effect at that time, 19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).Lat Ca..-erage, BllihliBg Setbaeks, Height Restrictions and Prine)' Mitigation Measllres far Nanaeeessar)' Bllildings and Struetllres, A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent ofthe net lot area. An additional five percent oflot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs. patios, porches and other similar features not substantiallv enclosed by exterior walls. 8. 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. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be fortv-five percent.f.ny ne'... single story' hOllse, or single stor)' addition to an existing hOllse may flOt eause the floor area ratio of all strueturm Ofl the lot to exeeed fi3rty fi'{e percent. 2.An)' flew twe story house, or seeond story additiofl to an exiatiflg hOllse, may flat eause the floor arca ratio of all structures on the lot to exeeed thirty five percent, tlflless diseretieflfif)' desigfl EI]9 Jroval is first oÐtaifled ÍÌ'om the Desigfl Review Committee plli'suant to SeetioflI9.28.090. Ifl flO event shall slleh floor area ratio exeeed forty fiye Jereeflt of the net lot area. 3.The fleor area of a seeofld story shall flOt exeeed thirty five pereeffl ofthe existiflg or JfO Josed first story or six hundred sqllare f-cet, whichever is greater. 2. The maximum floor area of a second storv shall be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first storv floor area, or seven hundred fiftv square feet, whichever is greater. 3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured fÌ'om 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. 1, Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines, The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 5 /7- q that the following items are met prior to design aDDroval: issuance onmilding permits: a. The mass and bulk of the design sftaH-should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern, New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. The design sftaH-should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c, For projeets with threc ear garages oricnted to the publie right of way, thc wall plane of the thinl space shall be set back a miliÏmum of ty¡O fcct Hom the viall plane of the other two spaces, or shall incorporate a tandem spaee, There sftaH-should not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. d. No more than fiftv percent of the fÌ'ont elevation of a house should consist of garage area, e. Long. unarticulated, exposed second storv walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second stOry, 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 svmmetrical in number, size and placement. h. Porches are encouraged. , Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more. L All second storv roofs should have at least a one-foot roof overhang. 2.If the Director dom not find that the proposaol is generally eonsisteRt with this seetion, then an applieation must be made for deGigR approval Hom the Design Revie',y Committee ptlrstlflflt to Section 19,28.090, D, Setback-First Story (NonaeeessÐl')' Structurcs). 1. Front Yard. The minimum fÌ'ont 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 fifteen feet, except that no side vard setback may be less than five feet. At least one of t';'{o side yar{ setbacks must be no less than ten feet. The other side yard setbaek ffitlst be no less than five feet. Notv.-ithGtanding the abo'ie, a lot less thfIR sixty fect in width and leGs thfIR six thousand squarc feet shall hfl'ie a minimlffil. side yard setback of five feet on each side yard. In instanees where fIR addition is proposed to fIR existÜ;g building having both side yard setbacks less than tcn feet, the ',,¡dcr set-baek shall bc ætained and the narrower setbaek must Be at least fivc feet. In the case of a comer lot, a minimum side yard sct-baeJc oftwclve feet on the street side of the let is æquired, City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 6 ¡/-IO a. For a comer lot, the minimum side-vard setback on the street side of the 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, c. F or lots that have more than two side vards, the setback shall be consistent for all side vards between the front propertv line and the rear propertv line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. The rCM setback may be rcE!uced to tefl feet if, after the reE!uetiofl, the u3able reM )'ME! is Rot less than twcnty times the lot wiE!th as measureE! from the frcmt setbaek line. a. With a Minor Residential Permit subiect to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback mav be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twentv times the lot width as measured from the fÌ'ont setback line. 4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum of twentv feet from a street propertv line, a. For projects 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 the wall plane of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Floor (NoRaeeessorj' Struetmm). 1, Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. Side Yard. The combination ofthe miRimum side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-storv side setback mav be less than are-ten feet~, fJro-liE!eE! that iR the ease of a flag lot, the miRimlffil set-baek is twenty fœt from fIfi)' fJfÐfJerty linc, fiRd ifl thc casc of a comer lot, a miRimum of Í\velve feet from a street side property line and t\venty feet from any rear property liRe of an existiRg, E!evelofJeE! siRgle family dV/elliRg. a, In the case of a flag lot, the minimum side setback is twentv feet fÌ'om anv propertv line. b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum side setback is twelve feet fÌ'om a street side propertv line and twentv feet from anv rear propertv line of a single-familv dwelling. 3. Se~baek Surcharge. A setback distance equal to fifteeR ten feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the fÌ'ont and side-yard setback requirements specified in subsection E2 ofthis section. /\. miRimlffil of five fect of the fiftcea fect shall bc flfJfJlicd to the side yaffi(s). 1,/\.eeessory BuilE!iRg3/StructUíes, ChflfJter 19.80 governs setbacks, eovcrage and other stl!f!daffis for aeee3sory strueturcs, 5,The height of secoRE! story walls MC regulated as fullo.,vs: a.Fifty fJerceRt of the total perimeter length of secoRd story walls shall Rot have expo seE! wall heights greater thEffi six feet, EffiE! shall have a miRimum two f{)ot high o'/erlfIfJ ofthc adjoiRing first story roof against the seeoflE! floor wall. The overlfIfJ shall be struetural flRd shall be offset a miRimum of four feet from the fir3t story extcrior viall fJlflRc. City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 7 11-11 a.AII second story wall hcights grcatcr than si" fcct, as measured from thc seeond story finished floor, are requircd to hElcve btlilèing waU offscts at lcast every t'¡;cnty four feet, with a minimum tViO foot depth and si" foot width. Thc off3ets shall comprise the full height of the wall plane, c.!.!l seconà story roofs shall have a minimum of one foot ea'¡es, 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 ventilation, except that in the case of a single-storv house with a basement, one lightwell mav be UP to ten feet wide and UP to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3, Lightwells that are visible fÌ'om 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. 1. Maximum Building Height. The height of anv principal dwelling in an Rl zone shall not exceed twentv-eight feet, not including fireplace chimnevs, 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 of two-stOry structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade measured at the propertv line; 2, A twentv-five-degree roof line angle proiected inward at the ten- foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(I) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the building envelojJe in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space mav have a maximum wall height of seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or uµ 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: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade at the propertv line; 2. A fortv-five degree roofline angle proiected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(3)(a)(I) of this section, City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 8 17-fd.. 4. Second Storv Wall Heights. Fiftv percent of the total perimeter length of second storv walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adioining first stOry roof against the second stOry 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. 6. Areas Restricted to One Storv, The City Council mav 1'rescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one storv in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) bv affixing an "i" designation to the R I zoning district. G.t.dditiOlutl Site Requiremefits, I.Height. a.Maximum Buildifig Height. The height OfafiY prifwipal dwelling ifi an R 1 ZORe shall Rot exeeed t';¡efity eight feet, fiOt iRelw:liRg fireplacc ehimfieys, anternUle or other appurtefiafiees. b.The maximtlffi exterior 'Nail height aRd building height OR sifigle story struetmcs ood siRgle story seetiofis of t"vo story struetllies must fit into a btlilding eflvelope defifwd by: i.}, t?/elve root high yertiealliRe meastlfed from fiatural grade ood loeated fi'¡e feet from property liRes; ii.,^. tweRty fi'iC degree roof line angle projected inward at the tv/elve foot high linc refereReed iR sooseetioR Flbi of this scetioR. NotwithstaRdiRg thc aBOYC, a gable eRd of a roof eRclosiRg an attic spaee may ha'ic a maximum "vall height oftwemy feet to the peak of the roof as meas\lfed from Ratuml grade. 2.IIeights execcdiRg tv/eRty f-cet shall be soojeet to thc setbaek regæations iR sooseetioR E ofthis seetion. 3 ,Areas Restrieted to ORC Story. The City C61meil may preseriÈJe that all Èmildings within a desigHated arca be limited to ORe story iR height (ROt exceediRg eighteeR fcet) by affiJliRg to the R 1 zORiRg distriet, the de3igRatioR "i"; provided hO'I¡eyer, that the limitatioR may be removed thrmo1gh use permit BJ3PrÐval, as provided iR SeetioR 19.28.010B by the PlanniRg CommissioR, 1.The maximtlffi entry feat\lfe height, as measured from finish grade to the top of the wall plate, shall be fourteeR feet. 5.1'10 blank single story side y/al13 10Rger thaR sixteen fcct shall faee a publie right of way ,/{ithout at least ORe of the followiRg: (a) at least ORe offset Y/ith a miRimum ('110 foot depth aRd six foot width; the offset shall eomprise the full height of the wall plane; (b) '{{iRdo'.\' ofat least thirty inehes by thirty iRehes; (e) ootry feature leading to a door; (d) trellis with lflRdseBJ3e sereeRiRg. 6,ExeeptioRs ror Hillside Areas, NotwithstandiRg any provisioR3 of sooseetif)fi F 1 of this scctioR to the eORtrary, the Plannifig Comrnis3ioR may make fIR exeeptioR for heights to exeeed twenty eight feet under eertaiR eircumstaRees: a.The subjcct property is iR a hillside area aRd has slopes ofteR pereoot or greater; City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 9 /7-/3 B.Tel'eg;faphical feamres sft"e soojeet I'rßl'erty make an mle"l'tisn te the standard height restrictions nccessary' or desirable; dn no ease, slurll the maximlliR height cxeeed thirty feet for a prineipsl dwclling or t.vemy fcet for an aeeessory Building or dwelling; d.In no case, shall the maximum height of a structure located Ofl promineflt ridgelincs, Ofl or al9o'¡e the four htll1.dred fifty f-oet eomOlff eJlCeeà t'/iemy fect in height. H. Second Storv Decks. All new or expanded second storv decks with views into neighboring residential side or rear vards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit subiect 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 privacv protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-storv decks, patios, balconies. or anv other similar unenclosed features. 1, A second-storv deck or µatio mav encroach three feet into the fÌ'ont setback for the principal dwelling, 2. The minimum side-vard setback shall be fifteen feet. 3. The minimum rear-vard setback shall be twentv feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter mav be varied for a structure utilized for µassive or active solar purposes provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements of adioining µropertv owners. Anv solar structure that requires variation fÌ'om the setback or height restrictions of this chapter mav be allowed onlv upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subiect to Section 19.28.090. H.Privaey Protcction RC'luiremems. 1 ,Required Landsefi)'le Plafltiflg. a.Re'luiremem. IfI order to addrcss privacy proteetiofl afld the æàuetiofl in yisiBle builàiflg mass of flCW t'NO story hemes afld additions, trec and/or sh.-ub plantiflg i3 re< Uircà. b.Plafltiflg Plan, }, buildiflg permit fi)'lplieatiofl for a flew two stery hOl1se or a sccond story adàitiefl 3hall be aeeompaflied by a plantiflg plafl wiTieh idefltifics the loeatiofl, spccies and canopy diameter of eJ£istiflg trees or sh.<lbs subject to staff fi)'lprO'ial. New trees or sfi.-ubs shall be required Ofl the applieaflt's property 'Nithifl a eOfle ofvisiofl defifled by a thirty degree aflgle from the side ·.vindo·,... jambs of all seeofld story' windoy¡s (EKhibit I). New trees or shrubs are flOt re< tlired to r"l'laee existing trees or sh..-ubs if afl Iflternatioflally Certified }.rborist or Lieenscd Landsefi)'le f,rehitect verifies that the existiflg trccs/sh..-ubs are eOflsisteflt with the imeflt of ,^,ppefldix A. Applieaflts for new two story' homcs and additiofls must plant a tree ifl front of new secoRd stories ifl the frORt yard setback area uflless there is a conflict with thc tree eaflopies of the public street !ree (AppcndiK A, page 2), The plaatilJg is required on the fi)'lplieant's property, ulJless thc optiOIJS listed ilJ 3ubseetioIJ rid oftl'lis scetiolJ is fttJJ"lied, This optioa does not fi)'lply to the rroflt yard tree plantiRg requirement. City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 10 /7 - /4 e.PI""tiflg; Reljuiremeflts. THe miflimllifl size of the prejJosed trccs shall Be twenty foar iReh box afu! eight wot minimum IJlanting height. The miRimllifl size of the sh.-uès shall be fifteen gallon and siR foot IJlanting hcight, The pilmting ml:lst be flble to achicye a partial sereefling v¡ithin three years !rom IJlanting. The speeies BRd plafltiflg distance between trees shan be governed BY l.IJIJendix f., The trees or skubs shall be plBRted IJrior to iS3l:1BRee of a final oeeapaney IJe_it. f.n affidayit of planting is rcquired ifl order to obtaifl the final oeeapaney pCfffiit (f.pIJendix C), d.OIJtioRs. 'Nhere IJlanting is reql:lired, the applicant may plant on the affected pfOIJerty owners lot in lieu of their O",'in lot or the affeeted property owner may modify the ftumbers of sh.-ubs or trees, their types and loeatioRs by soomittiflg a waiver to the COffiffil:lnity Devclopment DCIJartment &loflg v{ith the Building pe_it (:\ppendix B). This optiofl doos Rot apply to the required tree IJlanting in front )'ards. e.Applicability. This requirement shall apIJly to second story windo',vs BRd deoks with viev¡s into neighBoriflg rC3idential yards, Skylights, windov¡s ,{¡ith sills more than five wet above thc finished seeond floor, ',vindows v¡ith pe_aflent, exterior louvers l:Ip to six feet above the finished seeond floor, and obsmred, non openable windo'NS are not required to provide privaey IJroteetion planting. f.M&intenanee. The reql:lired plants shall be maintaifled, Landscape plantiflg maintcnance includes irrigation, fertilizatiofl and prurting as fleeessary to yicld a grov{th ratc cxpected for a partieular species. Where reql:lired planting dics it must be rcplaced within thirty days v¡ith the size and speeies as described in AppeHdix A of this ehapter and BR apdated planting plan shall be pfO'Iided to the COHlffil:lnity Devclopmcnt DcpartmeHt. The affeoted property OWfler v;ith pri'laey protection planting on his or her own lot is Hot req,lired to maintain the landscaping. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; On!. 1863, (IJart), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1,1998; Ord, 1781, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord, 1601, Exh. f. (part), 1992) 19.28.070 Landscape ReQuirements. To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two-storv 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 reQuirement shall applv to new two-storv homes. second-storv decks, two-storv additions. or modifications to the existing second-storv decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacv impacts on neighboring residents. Skvlights, 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. City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) II 17-15 B. Privacv Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-stOry house or a second storv addition shall be accompanied bv a privacy planting plan which identifies the location. species and canopv diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs. I, New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views fÌ'om second-storv windows. The area where planting is required is bounded bv a thirtv-degree angle on each side window iamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancv permit. a. New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an lnternationallv Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect verifies that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacv planting species, subiect to approval bv the Director of Communi tv Development. b. Affected propertv owner(s) mav choose to allow privacv planting on their own propertv. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacv screening prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Waiver. These privacv mitigation measures mav be modified in anv wav with a signed waiver statement fÌ'om the affected property owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees. their species or locations. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-stOry homes and two-stOry additions must plant a tree in fÌ'ont of new second stories in the fTont vard setback area. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Communitv Development can waive this fTont-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 Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacv planting trees and shrubs. The list shall include allowed 1Jlant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopv or spread size, and planting distance between trees, E. Covenant. The propertv owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara Countv Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacv planting. or use of existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a final building inspection fÌ'om the Building Division, This regulation does not applv to situations described in subsection B(l )(b) of this section. F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to vield a growth rate expected for a particular species. G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirtv davs with privacv tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced. unless it is determined to be infeasible bv the Director of Communitv Development. 19.28.979 19.28.080 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 fie less than thrcc fcct from the propcrty liRe ifthc applieaftÍ oÐta,ins ',\'fittefi eonsefit from the aàjeifiifig preperty ewner thcreB)' affceteà afld reeeives approval frem the Director of Cemffitlflity Developmcnt. Ofil)' onc sueh exteftsioR shall be pefffiiHed fur the lifc of City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 12 /7-/0 sHeh 19uilding. This seetion applies to the first story only and shaIl not 1ge eenstrued Ie alloy;, the furthcr e¡¡tension of fIfI eReroaehment by aft)' building, -¡;,fiieh is the result of the gnmting ef a variance er e)cecption, either before Ðr after sueh prÐperty beeome part of the City, I. The extension or addition mav not further encroach into anv 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. 3, The extension of anv wall plane of a first -storv addition is not permitted to be within three feet of anv propertv line. 4. Onlv one such extension shall be permitted for the 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 anv 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 e)[tcRsioR or addition may not further eneroach into fIfIY reE¡"lired setbaek; e.g., a siflgle story may be extended aloRg an e¡¡isting fivc foot side yard sctbaek cven though the side yard dÐC3 not eE¡ual tcn feet. IIo';;,cvcr, in flO ease shall aflY y;all plane of a first story addition be placed eloser thBll three feet to afi)' property lifle. &.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 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. Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of this process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunitv to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their propertv or the neighborhood as a whole. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete a?plication, a notice shall be sent bv first class mail to all owners of record ofreal property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subiect propertv, including properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment bv a determined action date and shall include a copv of the development plans, eleven inches bv seventeen inches in size. B, Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director ofCommunitv Development shall approve, conditionallv approve, or denv the application, The permit can be approved onlv upon making all of the following findings: 1, The proiect is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, anv applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title, 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to propertv or improvements in the vicinitv, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safetv or welfare. City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 13 17-17 3. The proposed proiect is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4, Adverse visual 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 proiect shall be notified of the action bv first class mail or electronic mail. Anv interested partv mav 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 permit is filed and accepted by the Citv (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Minor Residential Permit approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specificallv prescribed bv the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for anv reason, the Minor Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Communi tv Development may grant a one-vear extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. E, Concurrent Applications, At the discretion ofthe Director ofCommunitv Development, a Minor Residential Permit 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 Permit in accordance with this section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under 35% shall require a Level I Two-Story Residential Permit, while a two-stOry project with a floor area ratio over 35% shall require a Level II Two-Storv Residential Permit. A. Notice of Application (Levell). 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 1JUblic or private street. The notice shall invite public comment bv a determined action date and shall include a copv of the development plans, eleven inches bv seventeen inches in size. 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall inst-all a public notice in the fÌont vard of the subject site that is clearlv visible fÌom the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmlv attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a, The exact address of the propertv, 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 information for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of public comments. which shall be at least fourteen davs after the date the notice is posted; City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 14 J7-/'i' e. A black and white orthographic rendering of the front of the house. at least eleven inches bv seventeen inches in size. The Citv shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B, Notice of APjJlication (Level II). Upon receijJt 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 within three hundred feet of the subject propertv. The notice shall invite public comment bv a determined action date and shall include a copv of the development plans, eleven inches bv seventeen inches in size. I, Posted Notice. The apjJlicant shall install a public notice consistent with subsection AO) of this section. except that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead of a black and white orthographic rendering. C. Storv Poles, Storv poles mav be required for any Two-Story Residential Permit, subiect to the policies of the Director of Communitv Development. D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Communitv Development shall approve. conditionallv approve, or denv the application. The permit can be approved onlv upon making all of the following findings: I. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, anv applicable specific plans. zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to propertv or improvements in the vicinitv, 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 adjoining properties have been reasonablv mitigated, E. 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 or electronic 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-Storv Permit. Unless a building {Jermit is filed and accepted bv the Citv (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Two-Storv Permit approvaL said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specificallv prescribed bv the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for anv reason. the Two-Storv Permit shall become null and void. The Director ofCommunitv Development may grant a one-vear extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. G. Concurrent Applications, At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, a Two-Storv Permit can be processed concurrentlv with other discretionarv applications. 19.28.110 19.28.989 Exceptions for Preseriptiye De3ign Regulations. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result fÌ'om the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Sections 19.28.060,19.28.070 and 19.28.12019.28.100 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application. the Communitv Development Department shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice bv first class mail to all owners of record City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 15 /7-{9 of real propertv (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 reduced scale copv of the plan set with the public notice, B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve. conditionallv approve, or denv the application based on the findings in this section. Anv interested partv can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 19.136. C. Expiration of an Exception, Unless a building permit is filed and accepted bv the Citv (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 specificallv prescribed bv the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for anv reason. the Exception shall become null and void, The Director of Community Development may grant a one-vear extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive iustification for the extension is provided. D. Findings for Approval . 1. Issued bv the Director of Communitv Development. The Director of Communitv Development mav grant exceptions fÌ'om the prescriptive design regulation described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the following findings: a. The proiect fulfills the intent of the visible second-storv wall height regulation in that the number oftwo-storv wall planes and the amount of visible second storv 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 fÌ'om abutting properties. 2, Issued bv the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee mav grant excevtions fi'om the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.060. except 19,28,060 G(4) and Section 19.28,120 upon making all of the following findings: a, The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b, The proposed development will not be iniurious to propertv or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the vublic safetv, 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 variance that will accomplish the purpose. d, The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed fi'om abutting properties. ",..Issued BY the Direetor of ComfflUflity De'ielopmcflt. 'Nith respect to a request f-er t',vo storl dc'¡clopfflcflt ..¡hich does flot mect the devclopmeflt requiremeRts eOfltaifled ifl Scctiofl19.28,060II (Privaey Protcetiofl Rcquiremeflts) flRd Scctiofl19,28,100C, the CommuRity Dcvelopmcnt Dircctor may grant fIR exeeptiofl to allow two stor! City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 16 /7 - dO develepmeRt if t},e swject develel"meRt, based "peR swstantial evidence, meets all of t},e followiftg eriteria: l.The liteml eRfereement oft}'is ehapter ..viII result in restrietieRs iReeRsistent with the sfJirit and i!!!eftt ofthis ehapter. 2.The proposed develel"meRt '.vill ftot be injurious to property or improvemeRts iR the area ftor be detrimental te the pwlie saf-cty, heaH}' tmd v¡elfare. 3 ,The I"roposed clcvelol"R!Cftt is etherwise eoftsisle!!! with the City's Ce!!eral Plan, fiRY applieaBle speeifie plfifl, ancl with the pUf]Joses of t}'is e},apter. 1.The adjoining I"rol"erties are other.vise proteeted from unreasoftaBle privacy impaets. B.IssHecl by the Desig¡¡ Rcview Committee (Other Preseriptiye Desig!! RegHlatioll3). The Desigft Reviev¡ Committee may gra!!! exeeptioRs from t},e preseriptive design regulatioRs deseribed in Section 19.28.060 aRd SeetioR 19.28.100 mœlusive of SeetioR 19.28.060C1 (Hillside Building Heights) UpOR making all of the follo'Nillg findings: 1. The liteml e!!foreement of the provisioRS of this ehapter will result ill restrietions ineoftsistent with the spirit and iRtent of this ehapter. 2,The graatiftg of the exception will Rot result ill a eORditioll that is materiaHy detrimental to the publie health, safety and welfare. 3.The exception to be granted is ofte that v'¡ll require the least moclifieatioft of the preseribecl cle3igft regulation alld the miftilRliffi 'iflfÍanee that will accomplish the P"ffJose. 1.Thc proposed cxceptieR will not re3ult ill significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. C.IssHed by the Plffilllillg Commissioll (Hillsidc Buildillg Heights). Not'¡¡jthstfifldiRg any provision ofSeetioll 19,28.060 Cl to the eofttmry, the PlarÆiftg Commissioft mfty grant all mweptioll for heights to exeeed t'¡¡CRty eight fect Uj301l malcillg all of the following findings: I.The soojeet I"roperty is in a hillside area alld has slofJes of left fJeree¡¡t or greater. 2.Topegraphieal featHres of the subjeet property malœ an execptieR to the standard height restrietiells Reeessary or desirable, 3.Ift Ile ease shall the ma-ximum height exeeed thirty feet fer a prifteipal d'.velliflg or twenty feet f-or an aeeessory buildiRg. 1.In flO casc shall the maximum height ef a struetlil'e leeated ell a promillellt ridgelille, Oil or aBove the folil' hUlldred fifty feot eOlltolil' eKeeed twe!!ty eight fcet. (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Om, 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1811, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord, 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.11911 Resiàefttial Desigft AppF6val. III the cvcnt that a proposcd deyelopmellt of two stories exeeeds a thirty five pereellt floer area ratio as preseribed ill SeetioR 19 .28.060B, or ifl the evellt that the Director of Community DevelopmeRt ÍÌflds that the proposed t'.vo story de'ielopmel'lt cloes IlOt eO!1.fOfffi to Scetioll 19.28.060C, the applieant shall apply to thc Design ReviC'.y Committee for desig¡¡ apl"ro'ial to allow for the devclopment; provided, hewever, ifl RO event shall sue}, applieatiofl exeeed a forty ÍÌ'ie perccnt floer area ratio, Ifl addition to the public heaflflg and notice requiremcRts deseribed ill SeetieR 19,28,110, at least ten days prier to the date oft},e pwlie },eaflRg, t},e apl"liefiflt shaH City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 17 n-d./ ifl3tall story poles to mülifle the proposed ¡mildifl!; e,Üenor walls and mof as further described by proeedures deyeloped by the Director of Commaflity Develol"meflt. The Dcsigfl Re'iÏew Committee may gnmt a special permit only lIj'JOf! makif!g all of the followiflg fif!dif!gs: A.The projeet ';¡ill be eOfl3isteflt ',vith the ClIj'Jertif!o Comprehellsi'¡e Gooeral Plan, aflY applicable 3pccifie plans, zOfliflg ordif!anees allEl the l"arposes of this titlc. B.The grantillg of the speeial permit ',villllot result ill a eOf!Elitioll that is Eletrimcntal or if!jurious to property or improvemellt3 if! thc '¡ieif!ity, and v¡ill f!ot be Eletrimcntal to the poolie health, safcty or '..¡elf!lfc. C,The proposed aEldition/homc is harmof!ioU3 if! seale aREI desigll ·.yith the gcneral Reighborhood. D,The proposed addition/home is geRerally eOf!sistent with Elesig¡¡ gaideliRe3 dcveloped by the Direetor of Commallity Devclopment. E.The proposed addition/home ,;¡ill f!ot resalt if! sig¡¡ifieant ad'¡erse '¡i3aal ilR 3act3 as '¡iewed from adjoiRiflg properties, (Ord, 1868, (part), 200 I; Ord, 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord, 1811, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.12019.28.100 Development Regulations-Eichler (R1-e)(R 1£). RI-eR-+e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned RI-eR-k. In the event ofa 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 fÌ'ont 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-twelve3-'H (rise over run). 3. Wood or other siding materialloeated 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,Sccofld story Imildif!g wall offscts deseriÈJed if! Scetiof!19.28.060 E5ÈJ are Rot required fDr homes if! the R I e ZORe. 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 fÌ'om 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 19.28,070 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 City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 18 17 -¿;)a c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000) 19.28.111519.28.130 Development Regulations-@.:!R-l1t) 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 R I-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 fÌ'ont-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. 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) does not apply in this district. F. Second-story Regulations 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second -story building setbacks, and may be located on the fÌ'ont and rear only. 2, The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane, 3. The fÌ'ont-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet fÌ'om the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two-story wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving, No more than fiftv percent ~ofthe fÌ'ont yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces, No more than fortv percent 4B%-ofthe fÌ'ont yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: I. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured fÌ'om natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; 2. A twenty-five degree roofline angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)(la) of this section. /. Variation from the R I and R I-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district. City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 19 /7-d,3 J. Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionary review fÌ'Offi the Desigfl Reviev¡ COffiffiitteebased 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) ofthis section.. Diseretioflflf)' fevie'¡¡ proccsses shall be based Ofl Seetiofl 19.28.090 of the CU]3ertiflo MUfliei]3al Code, mœe]3t as amcflded by this ordiflaflee. 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 fÌ'om 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 Rl-a district. 1.Sectiofl 19.28.060 E(5)(b) shall Rot apply to the Rl a distriet. ~4. Garages, The maximum width of a garage on the fÌ'ont 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 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. City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 20 J 7- at{ 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed ÍÌ'om 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 ofthis 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 fÌ'ont setback. Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or maSSive, b. Columns. The use oflarge columns or pillars is discouraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required fÌ'ont setback area. d, Eave Height. The eave height for a fÌ'ont porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e, Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements, f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M, Landscaping 1, Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes, The purpose of the landscaping is to beautifY the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms fÌ'om 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 fÌ'om mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required by Section 19.28.070 19.28.060 II 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 fÌ'om second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated, d. The Director may waive the fÌ'ont yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings. Preeedures fUld Proeess 1 ,Posted Notiee, For all Rew cORstruetioR, the flJ'JvlieaRt shaH iRstall a pablie Rotiee iR the ffORt yare of the subjeet site that is dearly visible ffOffi the vablie street. The Rotiee shall Be a weathef Jroof sigR, at least hvo feet tall flfld three feet wide fifffily attached to a five foot vost. The notice shall rem&iR iR Vlacc uRtil aR aetioR has beeR takeR OR the flJ'JvlieatioR and the avvealveriod has pa3sed. The sigR shall eORtaiR the following: City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 21 /7-;;),5 a.The exaet addre33 ef the I'reperty, iflrnew, er the leeatieR ef the I'reperty, if the addres3 is Rot 1rneWR. b.f, brief deseriptieR efthe preposed projeet, the eontcnt eh.-!tich shall bc at the sole diseretiell efthe City; c.City eemact iRfeffilatieR for poolic iRqairie3; d.An 11")[17" illustratien efthe prepesed house ...;fl(JII viewed ftem the street. In eases where desigH reyie',v iß rcqaired, the illußtratieR shall be a perspeeth'e rellderiRg alld shall illelude the prejeeled aetien date. The City shall approve the illustratiell er rellderillg prior te peßtiRg. 2,t,djaeeRt siRgle f!!f!lily residelltial prepertieß shall reeeive a reduced seale eepy ef the prepoßed plM set ...;ith the mailed Rotice. ~LFindings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project is consistent with the City's single-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors, e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed fÌ'om adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. 19.28.119 Proeedure fer ExeeptioDG sDd ResideDtisl DesigD ,"-ppro'¡sls. t,.poolie IIeariDg Notiec. UpÐII reeeipt ef M applieatioR fer approval, the Direeter Ðf Cemmullity Develepment shall set a time and plaee f-er a publie hearing before the relevant deeisioll maker Md erder the publie fwtiee thereof. t, netiee of the hearillg shall bc sent by first class mail te all OWllef3 efreeerd of real property (aG showlI ill the last tax assessment rell) withill three ffll!ldred feet Bfthe subjeet property. B,E)[piratioll Ðf aR ExeeptiÐR er Resid,mtial DesigH t,pproval. A deeisiell fer apprÐval ';;hie!! has not beell ased within one year f6llewing the effeetiye date thereBf, shall beeome null and void and of liB effect ullless a sherter time peried shall speeifieaÐy be prescribed by the eonditiefls of thc exeeptioR. t,R approval shall be deemed te have bee!! "aGed" wheR a eompletc btlilding pmüit applieatioR iß soomitted te the Chief Building Offieial, aRd eeRtifllieG to pre gress iR a diligem manfler. IR the eveRt that the btlilding peffilit applieati611 eJlpircs, the Re3ideRtial Design Approval shall become Rail aRd'ieid, Thc Direetor ef CommuRity Dcvelopme!!t may gram onc additioRal efle year e)[teRsioR if aR applieatieR is filed before the e)[piratioR date ,;¡ithout further Rotiee and heariRg. C.Decisi6fl. After cloßiRg the publie heariRg, the deeißion maker shall appro'¡e, eeflditioRally appreve, or deny the applieatiofl. City Council Recommendation (January 4, 2005) 22 17-d.0 D.I.I! deei3iOI13 regarding ap]'>re'ia13 eeRtained in this sectien may Be appealed by aR)' iftterested party pUf3uaRt te Cllapter 19.136. ,\R appeal of the DesigR Re'¡iew Committee deeisien shall be ]'>reemsed in the same maBficr as aR ap]'>eal [rem the deci3ion of the Direeter of Comml:mity Deve1opmeRt. E.E)(piratiofl of aR E)(eeption er ResideRtial DesigR f.ppro·¡al. f. deci3ion f{)f appreval ....hieh has Rot beeR I:lsed withiR ORe year folle·....iRg the eŒ:etive date thereef, shall heeome null aRd veid aRd ef ne effect l:1Rle3s a slwrter time peried shall s]'>eeifieally Be preserihed BY the eORditiofls efthe e)(eeptien. An appfO'¡al sllall Be deemed te lIaye been "u3ed" in the eveRt ef the ereetieR ef a struet\:lfe wheR sl:lffieieRt buildiflg aetivity has oeel:lm:d fI:fld, eoRtinl:les te eeem in a diligeflt manner. The Direeter ef Cemmunit)' Development may gI'aRt one additieflacl efle )'ear exteflsiefl if fIR applieatj¡m is filed before the expiration date withol:lt further fletiee aRd hearing. F.Cene\:lITeRt f.pplieatiofls. Netv..ithstaRdiRg any pro·..ision eftllis ehapter te the eORtrary', an applicatien fer exeeption er resideRtial desigr¡. reviev¡ ma)', at tile diseretieR efthe Direeter ef Cemm\:lflity DevelepmeRt, Be precessed eeneurrently with other land use appreyals. (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord, 1811, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord, 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1(99) 19.28.120 Solar DesigR. The sethaelc fI:fld heigllt restrietiefls pre'iided in this ehapter mac)' Be varied fer a struet'l:lfe utilized for passive er aeti'¡e solar pl:l!'fJoses, iR R I ZORes, pre'iided tllat no sl:leh struetl:lre shall infiiflge upen selar easemeRts ef adjeifliflg preperty ewner3. f.ny selar strueture 1Nhieh reE tlires variation frem tile setBaek or height restrieti6fl ef this chapter shall be acllewed efll)' I:lpon i3suaRee ofa eefiditiefla1 use permit by the Direetor ofCommuRity DeyelopmeRt. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord, 1601, Exh. f. (part), 1992) 19.28.14019.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. _In RIR-+ 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 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 allseetioftS and exhibits after SeetioflI9.28.130 City Council Recommendation (January 4,2005) 23 /7-éJ.,7 HIGH VOLUME CEILINGS - Intent Loophole - 15' - -..J I ~ C><:< STAIRWAY ALLOWANCE Allowance so stairways are not counted as high volume area - (net effect of increasing FAR by 75 sq. ft) . 75 sf Lot Size 45% FAR Allowance Net FAR 5,000 2,250 3.3% 48.3% 6,000 2,700 2.8% 47.8% 7,500 3,375 2.2% 47.2% 10,000 4,500 1.7% 46.7% --- --.J I ~ ~ GARAGE SETBACK . · Front face of a garage setback 20 feet' from street Current Proposed ~ -J I ~ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 fÀ-^. (4Uö) / / /-jjjj CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Conununity Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. 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 homes · 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 17-?j 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 /7- 3õ1.. 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. /7- 33 MCA-2003-02 Page 4 Exceptions The issue of Rl exceptions ""as raised at the last meeting. There ""ill 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 GiIIi, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ~Àl David W, Knapp City Manager CÞ.~-{: r sP. Steve Pi Ckl Director, Community Development /7- 31 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-dDevelopment f'Regulations (Site). Development regulations (Building). Lot eoyerage, building setbaells, height restrietions and prŸ/aey mitigation measures far nonaeeessof')' bttildillgs ami struetures. 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. 19.28.08019.28.070 Permitted yYard e.!i;ncroachments. 19.28.090 Minor Residential Permit. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. 19.28.11019.28.080 Exceptions far preseriptiye desigll regulations. 19.28.090 Residential design appro'/at. 19.28.12019.28.100 Development f'Regulations-Eichler (Rl-eR-le). 19.28.13019.28.105 Development f'Regulations-(Rl-aR-ffi). 19.28.110 Proeedure for exeeptions and residential desigtlappro'/als. 19.28.120 80lar design. 19.28.14019.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.140 Appendix /. Landseape Mitigatioll Measures. 19.28.150 /.ppendix B Release of Pri'/aey Proteetion Measures. 19.28.160 Appendix C Pri'iae)' Proteetion Planting f.ffidavit. 19.28.010 Purposes. if~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 /7-35 A. Enhance the identity ofresidential neighborhoods; B, Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C, Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (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 ~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 ~ÂI 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 D. ~=n~h ~ ~Chapter 19.92, E, Horticulture, gardening, and growing offood 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; H:I. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; I,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; ,,",K, 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; 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 17-3& 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the i'{;~ single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: I. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19,124; 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a 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 fÌ'om 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: I. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 !åtfi~ 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 /7-.37 6,4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet fÌ'om 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 shall ~.o..es ond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) followmg the .)::.... zOning symbol. Examples are as follows: Zoning Symbol Minimum Lot Area in Square Number Feet I 111 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 fÌ'ont- ard setback lin I,Sitc plans for all àe'¡ele Jffieflt proposals shall iaelaàe tepegraphieal iafermatiea at cof!tetlf iatervals aet te CJweeà tea fcet. Areas ",-here slopes are thirty percent 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 17-3~ ~ 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. 8. 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. \. 3, Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from 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-stOry 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-story projects to partiallv offset the stairwav area that would otherwise be counted under subsection B(3) of this section, C. Design Guidelines. 1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development sh~~~~. ine that the following items are met prior to ~ City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 5 /7-39 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 fifty 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 rront 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 of the two side vard setbacks shall be fifteen feet. except that no side yard setback mav be less than five feet. f.t leaat one of two side yard setbaeks ffitlat be no less than ten [cet. The other side yard setBaek ffiust be no less than five feet. Notwithstanding the aBove, a lot less than siKty fœt in 7/idth and less than six thousand square fcct shall have a minimam side yard setbaek of five fcct on eaeh side yard. In instanees 'shere an addition is proposed to an existing Building having Both side yard setbacks less than ten feet, the wider setBaelc shall be retained and the narrO',yer setback ffitlst Be at lcast five feet. In the ease of a eorner lot, a ffiiniffitlffi side yard setbaek oftwelve fcct on the street 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 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 17-40 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, E. 3, F. Basements. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 7 /7-L// 1. The number, size and volume ofJightwells 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-story house with a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and UP to ten feet long, 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3, Lightwells that are visible fÌ'om 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 StOry). a. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 8 /7 - c..¡ ¿;¡, City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 9 /7-43 City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 10 /7-4cf City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 11 /7-45' ~81J Permitted Yard Encroachments. ere 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 /7-40 · &.8. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than 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) City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 13 17 -L/7 City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 14 /7-46' City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 15 /7-49 City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 16 /7-50 City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 17 /7-5/ Development Regulations-Eichler BE~ 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 _ 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 fTont yard setback is twenty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. I. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated wit~ the roof line of the house. 2. The maXlmum roof slope shall be ~ (nse 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. 1. 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) 19.28.195~ Development Regulations-(~ 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 Rl-a. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 18 /7-5d- 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 III area. D. Setback - First Story. 1. Front Yard. The minimum fÌ'ont 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 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 fÌ'ont-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 of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces, No more than of the fÌ'ont 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 twel ve- foot high vertical line measured fÌ'om natural grade and located ten feet fÌ'om 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. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 19 /7- 53 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 fÌ'om 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 m'~~ shall be considered a guideline in the Rl-a district. ~~~~~A~ ~4. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the rront 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 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 rrom 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 /7- 54 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 fÌ'ont setback area. d. Eave Height. The eave height for a fÌ'ont porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e. Detailing, Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback, M. Landscaping 1. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautifY the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms fÌ'om 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 ~ mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required by Section ~ of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback fÌ'om 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 rrom second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the fÌ'ont yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. City Council Recommendation (December 7,2004) 21 /7-5S- ~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 ofthe 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 /7-50 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In 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 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 /7-57 Exhibit A Guide to Model Ordinance 2 Legend Eli! 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: I 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 19,2U 16. Deleted 19.28.060 B(3): /7-50 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(1)(a): Page 6 20.19.28,060 C(1)(c): 21.19.28.060 C(1)(d): guideline that suggests that garages should not be more than 50% of the front elevation 22.19.28.060 C(1)(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(1)(g): guideline that encourages symmetry and balance in design 25.19.28,060 C(1)(h): guideline that encourages porches, because they present a more friendly face to the street 26. 19.28.060 C(1)(i): guideline that encourages living area closer to the street, with the ara e ushed further back 29.19,28.060 D: 30.19.28,060 D(I): 27,19,28,060 C(1)ù): 28.19.28.060 C(2): 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 32.19.28.060D(2)(~... 33, 19.28.060D(3): " . ..... ...... .' . 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): /7-59 Exhibit A 36. ' Page 3 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 incentive for o_.r. horn. es with b. asements 40.19.28.060G:~. . ..' . . . .'. 41. 19.28.060 G(3): two-story envelope: consider keeping in addition to s~ 42. 19.28.060G(4): ...... ........ ., .... .. .' .' .... !m.~ 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 51,19.28.1201 52,19.28,120 B 5 : 53.19,28.120 C: 54.19.28,130 I7-ÚJO 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 59.19,28.130 M(2 : 60.19.28.130 N: Page 22 61. Deleted 19.28.110: Page 23 62. Deleted 19,28.120: I 63. Deleted 19.28,130: /7-0/ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX !40R) 777-:i:iT\ 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 Commission 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 GiIIi, Senior Planner Approved by: ~ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper /7-&éÀ 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 from the property line, and a 25-degree angle from therein. 5. Create a Design Review process and Residential Design Review Committee for all new two-story projects with a total floor area ratio over 35%. 6. Create Design Guidelines that all Design Review projects would have to conform to. 7. Create an Exception process at the Residential Design Review Committee. 8. Emphasize a specific limit for floor area of 45% of the lot size. R1 Amendments (2000, 2001, 2003) Staff introduced a total of three amendments to the R1 Ordinance in 2000, 2001 and 2003 with the support of the Planning Commission, to address minor technical changes consistent with the original intent of the 1999 ordinance Printed on Recycled Paper /7-05 MCA-2002-03 Page 2 amendment. The City Council enacted the 2000 and 2001 amendments, but did not enact the 2003 amendment. When staff introduced the 2003 amendment to the Planning Commission, it consisted of a number of minor technical changes. At the direction of the Commission, staff formulated a new review process in response to lessons learned since 1999. The Commission approved these changes on a 4-1 vote. The City Council did not want to approve the new process change without further public outreach. DISCUSSION: Scope of Work On September 8, 2003, the Planning Commission requested that the City Council send the 2003 amendment back to the Commission for further study. On October 6,2003, the City Council agreed, but outlined a Scope of Work for the Commission's review (Exhibit q, 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 Apri12004 edition of the Cupertino Scene, which gave every resident in the community an opportunity to respond, Staff received 492 valid responses, mostly from the Scene, A summary of the results is provided in Exhibit J. Individual Commissioners requested summaries of a few respondent subgroups, which are provided in Exhibit K. Exhibits L through S graphically illustrate public responses to various questions. Kelt 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 /7 -&;1 MCA-2002-03 Page 3 (Ques\:ions 9 \:hrough 13), \:he majmi.\:y of the iegpondentg p1'efei keeping the current regulations. Over half of the respondents believe that the benefit of design review and story poles is worth the cost to the applicant (Questions 14 and 16 - Exhibit 0, Q). Only a small group of the respondents believe there should not be single-family residential design review at all (Question 15 - Exhibit P). Nearly three-fourths of the respondents agree that new construction should have to have building forms, roof pitches, roof heights and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes (Question 19 - Exhibit R), Planning Commission Recommendation: After receiving the survey results, the Commissioners described their individual guiding principles for the 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 many issues, the current Commission came to the same conclusion as the 2002- 03 Commission, which is reflected in Exhibit B. The remainder of this report will focus on new topics or differences with the 2003 recommendation and specifically how these recommendations relate to the Council's Scope of Work and to the survey responses. 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 room on the second-story for three modern-sized bedrooms, which is difficult to achieve with the current rule on lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. /7-05 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 Tab\e 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. f 7 -0 b MCA-2002-03 Page 5 Second Stan} Wall Offsets: The Council's direction was to explore a minor change to this regulation so as not to apply it to second-story walls that are already screened by the first-story roof, The Commission proposes to shift this to a guideline that will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Privacy Planting: The Council direction was to explore ways to "expand or improve protection of privacy," The Commission did not recommend any new methods for privacy protection. Staff intends to request larger planting for cases where there is neighbor concerns with the regular privacy trees. Discretionary Review: The City Council provided the Commission with free reign on the issue of what projects need public review as well as what the review should be, The Commission recommended a process that is consistent with the 2003 recommendation (Exhibit H). Specifically, staff will review all two-story projects that do not need exceptions. Neighbors will be notified and will have the opportunity to participate. Exceptions will remain at the Design Review Committee, The proposed process will be better for all parties involved: · Local architects support a staff level review because they know it will be faster, cheaper and more impartial. They would prefer to have staff serve as the arbitrator in the event of a conflict because there is more consistency at the staff level than at the Commission level. · Concerned neighbors should support the proposed process change because they will have more input into what happens in their neighborhood. Also, they will not have to attend a public hearing at a particular time, which may be inconvenient. They will have a certain amount of time to report their comments to staff by mail, e-mail, telephone, fax or in person. · The City will be able to use its resources efficiently by cutting out the cost of unnecessary public meetings and reducing the need for as many staff reports, Recommended Changes not in the Scope of Work First 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. /7 -tþ 7 MCA-2002-03 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, Page 6 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 Plarming Commission in the Scope of Work. The Commission chose to not study this topic until after the General Plan is approved, Staff believes that a reasonable adjustment to the current regulation can be made without significant study and without waiting until after the review of the General Plan. Staff recommends language that new construction on properties with an average slope of over 15% should have to meet the R1 and RHS regulations. Removal ofS¡;eÓ{íc Language for Vague Language At the final Planning Commission meeting on this amendment, a Commissioner proposed striking out language in the guideline section of the ordinance (Section 19.28.060 C(l)(a)) that states: "new construction should not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entn) feature heights" /7-hf? MCA-2002-03 Page 7 The Commissioner proposed to replace it with: "new construction should be harmonious in scale and design with the predominant neighborhood pattern." Since the item was raised on the same night as the Commission's approval of the Model Ordinance, staff did not have an opportunity to fully consider the effects of this change. Nevertheless, staff opposed this change at the meeting because it was taking language that was specific and replacing it with vague language. After further analysis, staff opposes this change for the following additional reasons: · The language proposed to be removed nearly matches Question 19 in the survey, and 70% of the respondents agreed that it was important that new construction meet the language in this guideline. · The author of the language "harmonious in scale and design" was former Mayor John Statton, who later described that meant having new construction not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights and entry feature heights, which is exactly the language that the Commission proposes to eliminate. · Removing it has the danger of an ad hoc definition (more or less strict) being formed without the approval or the knowledge of the City Council. o Neighbors who oppose two-story construction will interpret "harmonious in scale and design" to mean much more than the City intends. o Homeowners proposing two-story construction will argue that "harmonious in scale and design" is not defined and therefore should not be enforced, Staff recommends the language described remain in its current state. Story Poles Story poles are used to illustrate the size and height of new second-stories. The Commission proposes to eliminate story poles, citing usefulness, cost and potential danger. The Commission felt that alternative noticing techniques such as a posted rendering in the front yard and mailing reduced plan sets to adjacent neighbors provided sufficient information to neighbors that the story poles were not necessary. Residents may have grown accustomed to the story poles, as evidenced by over half of the survey respondents stating that the benefit of story poles is worth the cost to the applicant (Question 16). Fee Changes The process changes proposed by the Commission would result in new fees, most of which are reduced because the new process eliminates public hearings, thereby reducing the cost to the City. The proposed fees are shown on the next page: /7-he¡ MCA-2002-03 Page 9 Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6281 Exhibit 1: Model Ordinance Exhibit A: Current Rl Ordinance (Chapter 19.28) Exhibit B: Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendations (2003, 2004) Planning Commission Documents and Summaries Exhibit C: Scope of Work Exhibit D: Rl Ordinance Schedule Exhibit E: Rl Principles Exhibit F: Specific Decisions Process Flaw Charts Exhibit G: Design Review Process Exhibit H: Current Rl Development Process Survey Documents Exhibit I: Public Survey Form Exhibit J: Survey Summary Exhibit K: Survey Summaries by Type of Respondent Exhibit L: Pie Chart for Question 7 Exhibits M through S: Maps for Question 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 Exhibit T: Minutes from Planning Commission meetings Environmental Review Documents Exhibit U: Initial Study Exhibit V: Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Exhibit W: Negative Declaration /7 -70 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 amendment, minor adjustments will be necessary to the Accessory Structure (Chapter 19.80) and Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14,16). Staff requests that the Council authorize staff to bring these changes to a public hearing. CONCLUSION: The philosophy of the 1999 amendment was to specifically prescribe what could be built on the second-story. Applicants knew exactly what they could get and knew what was out of reach. The Planning Commission proposes a new philosophy where the regulations have more flexibility, but the burden of proof is placed on the applicant to demonstrate that their design is sufficiently compatibility with the neighborhood to warrants the new maximum potential. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Approved by: , gx David W. Knapp City Manager Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /7- 71 MCA-2003-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6281 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO REGULATIONS AFFECTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit 1 as amended. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of October 2004 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/ Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Planning Commission G:IPlanningIPDREPORTlRESIMCA-2003-02 reso.doc /7-7oz EXHIBIT 1 Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. MODEL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (Rl) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 19.28 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RIR-+) 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 uU ses. ConditionaluUses. Site-dDevelopment f'Regulations (Site). Development regulations (Building). Lot coverage, buildiBg setbacks, height restrictioBs and priO¡acj' mitigation measures f-er Bonaccessory IJIlildings and structures. 19.28.070 Landscape Requirements. 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 prescriptive dcsign regulatioBs. 19.28.090 ResidcBtial design appro'/al. 19.28.12019.28.100 Development f'Regulations-Eichler (Rl-eR-le). 19.28.13019.28.105 Development f'Regulations-(Rl-aR-l-a). 19.28.11 0 Proccdure for exce 'Jtions and rcsideBtial design appro'/als. 19.28.120 Solar desigB. 19.28.14019.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.140 A 'J 'Jendix? Landscape Mitigation Measures. 19.28.150 ,A.ppendix B Release of Privacy Protection Measures. 19.28.160 A 'Jpendix C Priyac)' Protection Planting ,A.ffidao;it. 19.28.010 Purposes. Rl R-l-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 /7-73 A. Enhance the identity ofresidential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord, 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, §1 (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 Rl R-J--single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the R] R-J--single-family residence district: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter 19,82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; C, Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter ]9.80 of this title; D. Home occupations wilen accessory to permit requirements contained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for consumption by occupants of the site; F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G, Small-family day care home; H, Group care activities with six or fewer peop1e; Hof. 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; hJ. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but exc1uding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; J-oK. Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19,100 and which is at least three hundred feet fÌ'om any other large-family day care home. The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; K,L. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1860, § 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 II, 2004) 2 17-F-! 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the RI R-+-single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124; 2, Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use, The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code; 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 4, Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84; 5, Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title, 8. Issued by the Planning Commission: I. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6)m of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in pri vacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusi ve noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons; 3. Residential care faci1ities facility that fall into the following categories: that is not reqHired to obtain a lisense BY the State, County agensy or del"artlRont and has si)[ or lsss residents, not including the I"royiders, I"rovider family or staff; a. Facilitv that is not required to obtain a liccnse bv the State, Countv agcncv or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; b. Facility that has the appropriate State. County agencv or department license and seven or grcater residents, not including the provider tàmi1v or staff. is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the propertv boundarv of another residential care facility; c. Facilitv that is not required to obtain a license by the State. Countv agencv or department and has seven or greater residents. not inc1uding the provider family or staff. is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the propertv boundarv of another residential care faci ¡itv: i.Residential sare facility that has the appropriate State, Couaty agency or department licensc and seven or greater residents, not iae]Hding the I"royider family or staff, is a minimum distance of tìve hundred feet from the property bOHndary of aAother resideatial sare facility; 5.Residential care fasility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, Calmty agoAcy or departmeat and has se\-en or greater residents, not including tho pro'/ider family or staff, is a miaimum distance of five h~mdred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 3 /7-75 &.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 8ire-Development Regulations (Site). A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R 1 R-+ zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Minimum Lot Area Zoning in Sqnare Symbol Number Feet RI 2 5.000 RIR-+ 6 6,000 R1R-+ 7.5 7,500 RIR-+ 10 10,000 RlR-+ 20 20,000 The mÏ1ÜmulR lot size iIJ an R 1 zone is six thousand sqaare f-cet. 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A( I) 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 of this title are fulfilled, 8. Lot Width, The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the RI-5 district where the minimum lot width is fi£tv feet. C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. 1, Site plans for all development proposals shall include topographical information at contour intervals not to exceed ten feet. Areas where slopes are thirty percent or greater shall be identified on the site development plan, 2. Buildings proposed on a portion of a lot with slopes of thirty percent or greater shall be developed in accordance with the site development and design standards specified in Sections 19.40.050 through 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter 19.40, or the RIR-+ zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. 3. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. (Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1635, § I (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 4 /7-70 D. An application for building permits filed and accepted bv the City (fees Daid and oennit number issued) on or before Januarv 1, 2005 may proceed with application processing under the ordinances in effect at that time. 19.28.060 Development Re!!ulations (Buildin!!).Lat Ca','erage, Ruilding Setbaeks, Height Restrietians and Pri';aey Mitigatian Measures far N anaeeessar)' Ruilding;s and Struetures. A. Lot Coverage, The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent ofthe net lot area. An additional live percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed bv exterior walls. B. Floor Area Ratio. The obiective ofthc floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square footagc. The FAR shall be used in coni unction with the residential development standards and guidelincs in this ordinance in deternlining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, I. The maximum noor area ratio of all structures on a lot sha]] be fortv-fivc percenU\B)' Be',',' sil1gle stor)' hoase, or single stor)' additioR to aR existing hOtlse ma)' Rot cmlSe the floor area ratio of all structures OR the lot to e"ceed fort)' five percent. 2."',n)' new two story hOlise, or seeond stor)' addition to an e"istil1g house, ma)' 110t wase the floor area ratio of a]] structlires on the lot to CJceeed thirty five pereent, unless diseretionar)' design approval is first obtained from the Design Review Committee pursuant to Section 19,28,090, In 110 eveRt shall sueh floor area ratio exceed fort)' fi'..e pereent of the net lot area. 3.The floor area of a second story shall not e"ceed thirty five percent ofthe e"isting or proposed firot stor)' er si" htlndred sqtlare f€et, whichever is greater. 2. The maximum floor area of a second storv shall be fifty percent of the existing or proposed first story floor area, or eight hundred square feet, whichever is f,'Teater. 3, Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from 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. lIthe house is a two-storv housc, this area will count as second storv floor area; otherwise, the area wi]] count as first noor area. b. A floor area allowance of seventy-five square feet shall be provided for two-storv proiects to p<u1iallv 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 sfla!J-should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New conGtmction shall BOt bo diGproportiOl~atel)' larger than or out of scale 'sith the neighborhood pattem iB terms ofb,lilding f-onBs, roof pitches, oays heigHts, ridge heights, and entry featllf8 heights; Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 5 /7-77 b. New construction should be harmonious in scale and design with the l1redominant neighborhood pattern. 1r.c. The design sbaH-should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; e,d. For projects with three car garages oriented to tRe pHblic riglJt of way, the wall plafle of the third space shall be set back a minimum of t'NO feet from tRe wall plane of the other t'NO spaces, or shall incorporate a tandem space. There sbaH-should not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. e. No more than fifìv percent of the fTont elevation of a house should consist of garage area. f. Long, un articulated, exposed second storv walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second storv. g. The cun-ent pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the ncighborhood should be maintained. h. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one another verticallv and horizontallv and symmetrical in number, size and placement. I. Porchcs are encouraged. I, Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more, k. All second story roofs should have at least a one-foot roof overhang. 2.Ifthe Director does wt find that the proposal is generally consistent with this section, then an application must be made for design approval from tRe Design Rcyie'n' Committee pmsmffit to Section 19.78.090. D. Setback-First Story (Nonaccessory Strnetmes). 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 fifìeen- foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2, Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be tifìeen feet, except that no side yard sctback mav be less than five feet. At least ORe of two side yard setbaclcs mHst be no less than ten feet. The other side yard setback mast be no less than five fDet. Notwithstanding the above, a lot less than sixty feet in width and less than six thousand square feet shall hm'e a minimum side yard setback of five feet on each side yard. In instances where an additioH is proposed to an existing building haviR¡; both side yard setbacks less than ten feet, tRe wider setback shall be retained aRd the narrov,'er setback mast be at least five f-oet. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum side yard setback of twelve feet on the street sido ofthB lot is required. a. F or a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is twelve feet. The other side vard setback shall be no less than I1ve fect. b. For interior lots in the R 1-5 district, the side yard setbacks arc five feet on both sides. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 6 /7-7g- c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all side yards between the fTont property line and the rear propertv line. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. THe rear setback may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than twenty times the lot '.'iidth as measured from the front setback line. a. With a Minor Residential Perrnit subiect to Section 19.28,090. the rear 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 ÌÌ'om the front setback line. 4. Garage, The front làce of a garage in an R I district shall be set back a minimum of twentv feet from a street property 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 the wall planc of the other two spaces. E. Setback-Second Floor (Nonaccessory Structures), 1. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. In the case of a flag lot. the minimum setback is twentv feet limn anv propertv line, The miBimum side setbacks are ten foet, pro'iided that iB the case of a fla¡; lot, the minimum setback is tweflty feot from any property liRe, and in the case of a eorner lot, a minifl1l1m oftwelye feet from a street side property line and tv..enty feet fiom aBY rear preperty line of an existiB¡;, deyeleped siBgle fal-Rily dwelling. 3, In the case ofa corner lot, a minimum setback is twelve feet from a street side propertv line and twenty feet from anv rear propertv line of a single-familv dwelling. 3 ,Setbaclc Surcharge. .^. setback distance equal to fifteen feet sl~all be added iB '.vflole or iB any combinatioH to the ftont and side yard setback requirements specified in subsectioH E2 of this seetiOl:. .II. minimum of five f{)et of the fifleeH feet shall be applied to the side yard(s ), 1..^.ccessory BHildings/Stmctures. Chapter 19,80 go';ems setbacks, coverage and otaer standards for accessory stmctmes. 5.Tbo hei¡;ht of second stery 'Nalls are regulated as f-ollows: a,Fifty percent of tae total perimeter lengtH of second story walls shall not ha'ie exposed wall hei¡;hts Greater than six f{)ct, aHd sHall have a miniIl-mm two foot HibH o'.-erlap of the adjoininb first story roof abainst the second floor wall. The overlap shall be stmctural aFld shall be offset a miFlimuHl of four feet from the fimt story exterior wall plane. b.",.!l second story wall heiglHs greater than six feet, as measured ¡Yom the secoml story finished floor, arc required to have buildiHb wall offsets at least every tWCRty fom feet, with a minimum t',';o foot depth and six foot width. THe offsets shall comprise the full height of the 'Nall plane. c./.II second story roofs shall have a miHimHIH of ORe foot eavos, 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 /7-79 ventilation. except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement. one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a, The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet. 3. Lightwells that are visible fÌ'om 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 an v principal dwelling in an RI zone shall not exceed twentv-eight feet. not including tìreplace chimnevs, antennae or other appurtemmces. 2. Building Envelope (One Storv). a, The maximum exterior wall height and building height ofsingle-storv structures and single-storv sections oftwo-storv structures must fit into a building enyelope defined bv: 1. A ten-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade measured at the propeliv line: 2. A twentv-five-de!-.,,-ee roof line angle proiected inward at the ten- foot high line referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section. b, Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic SJJace mav have a miLximum 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 EnveloJJe (Two Storv), a, The maximum exterior wall height and building height oftwo-storv structures must fit into a building envelope defined bv: 1, A ten-foot high vertiealline measured fÌ'om natural grade at the proJJeliv line: 2. A fortv-five degree roof line angle JJroiected inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection G(3)(a)(l) of this section. 4. Seeond Storv Wall Heights. Fiftv percent of the total perimeter length of seeond storY walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap ofthe adioining first storv roof against the see and story wall. The oyerlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet hom the first story exterior wall JJI311e. a. The Director of Communitv DeveloJJment mav approve an cxccption to this regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28. I 10 D. 5, Entrv Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 8 /7- ?D 6. Areas Restricted to One Storv. The Citv Council mav prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be limited to one storv in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) bv affixing an "i" designation to the R 1 zoning district. G."^.dditional Site Requirements. I.Height. a.Maximum Buildin;; Heigh{. The height of any principal dwelling in an R I zone shall not oxceed twenty eight f-eet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other appurtenanccs. l3.The maxÜrmm exterior wall height and building heig\1.t on single story structares and single story sections of 1','0'0 story stmctures mast fit into a bailding eRvelopc defincd by: i.A t\velve foot high vcrtical liRe measured from natural grade and located fi'/e feet from property lines; ii.i\ t'.venty five degree roofliR8 angle projected inward at the twelve foot high line refDrenced in subsection Plbi oftl1is section, Notwithstanding the above, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height oft\veaty feet to the peale of the roof as measured from natural grade. 2.Heights eJ[ceeding t\yenty feet shall be subject to the setback regulations in subsectioa E of this section. 3."'\reas Restricted to One Story. TIle City Council may prescribe that alllmilàiHgs within a desigflated area be limited to oae story in height (Hot exceeding eighteen feet) by affixing to the R I zoniag àistriet, the designation "i"; proyiàed however, that the limitation may be removed through use pem1it approval, as pro'iided in Section 19.28,01013 by the PlaffiliHg Commissiofl. 1.The maximum entry femme height, as measured from finish grade to the top of the wall plate, shall be fourteen feet. S ,No blank single story side walls lORgeI' thaH sixteen feet shall face a public rigl<t of way witholit at least oae of the following: (a) at least orre offset with a mirrimliH1 two foot depth anà six foot "vidth; the offset shall cOHlprise the full height of thc wall plane; (b) window of at least thirty inches by thirty inches; (c) eatry fcature leaàing to a door; (d) trellis with landscape screening. 6.Excaptioss for Hillside "'\reas. Notwithstandisg any provisiorrs of sUBsectios PI of this section to the contrary, the PlannÏFls CommissioH may maJce an exception for heights to exeeed t'.venty eight feet under ccrtain circamstances: a.The sUBject property is in a hillside area alld has slopes often percm-rt or greater; B.Topographical feat~lres of the sUBject property make aa e:¡eoptios to the standard hcight restrictions necessary or desirable; cjn no case, shall the maximum height exceed thirty feet for a principal dwellin;; or t',','err:y feet f-or arr accessory building or dwelling; d.In no case, shall ti,e maximam height of a stmcture located 01'1 promiaent ridgelines, on or above the four hand red finy foot contoHl' exceed t'lienty fect in height. H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into peighbOling residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Pennit subject Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 9 /7- '1/ to Section 19.28.090 in order to protect the privacv of adioining properties. The goal of tbe pennit reqLtirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacv protcction to the grcatcst extent wbile still allowing tbe construction and usc of an outdoor deck. This section a¡)plies to second-story decks, patios. balconies, or anv otber similar unenclosed features. I, A second-storv deck or patio may encroach three feet into the fÌ'ont setback for· the principal dwelling. 2. The minimum side-vard setback sbaH be filìeen feet. 3, The minimum rear-vard setback shall be twenty feet. I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter mav be varied for a stmcture utilizcd for passive or active solar purposcs provided tbat no such structure shaH infringe upon solar easements of adioining propertv 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.Priyacy Protection Requirements. I.Required LaBdscape PlaBtinb· a.Reqllirement. In order to address pliyacy protection aBd the redaction in visiale auilding mass ofnc"y two story homes and additions, tree and/or shrab planting is required. b,PlaHting Pl8.H, /. building permit applicatioH for a nev.' two story hO\olse or a second story addition shall be accompæ-1Ïed ay a plaBting plaB which identifies the 10catioH, species and canopy diameter of existinb trees or shrubs sllilject to staff approval. New trees or shn:bs shall be required on tbe applicant's property within a COHe ofyision defined ay a tbirty degree angle froH~ the side window jœnbs of all seeond story windows (E)[hibit I). New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified ,^.raorist or Licensed Landscape /d'chitect 'ierifies that the eKisting troes/shrllils are consistent with the intent ef ,'\ppendix /.. Applicants for new t',vo story homos aBd additions must plaBt a trce in front of new second stories in the front yard setbacl[ area \olnIess thoro is a conflict ,':ith the treo canopies of the public street tree (Appendix /., pabe "). The planting is reqlÜred on the applicant's property, unless the options listed in subsection Fld of this section is applied. This opti01: does not apply to the front yard tree planting requirement. c.Planting ReqHirements, The mininlHfll size of the proposed trees shall be twenty four ineh box mId eight foot minimum planting height. The minimum size of the shn:bs shall be fifteen gallon and six foot planting heibht. The planting must be able to achic';e a partial screcning withiA three years from plaHtinb. The species and planting distance aetween troes shall be boyorned by ,'\ppendix ,'\. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to iss:lance of a final occupancy permit. An affidavit of planting is required iH order to obtain the fii,al occHpancy permit V.pfJendix C). Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 10 /7-0d.. d.Options. Where plantiHb is required, the applieaflt may plant OH the affected property owners lot in lioct of their own lot er the atTectod property OWl1cr may modify thc nHmbcrs of Sllrubs or trees, their types and 10Eations by submitting a ''''aiyer to the Community Development Dopartment along with the Imilding permit C\ppendix B). This option does not apply to the reqairod tree plantil1g iH fì'ont yards. o."^,pplicability. This requirement shall apply to second story windmvs and decks with yie'o'.'s into l1eighboring residentiaJ yards. Skylibhts, windows with sills more thafl fiyo feet above the finisheEi seconEi floor, wiHdows with pemlanent, exterior loavers up to six feet abo...e the fiHished secoHEi floor, and obscared, Hon opeRable windows are Hot required to pro'iide privacy protection plaatin¡;. f.MaintoHance. The requireEi plants shall be maintained, LanEiscape plantiHg maintenance includes irrigation, fertilizatioH and pnming as necessary to yiold a ¡;rowth rate expected for a particular species, '},There required plantinb dies it must be repJaced within thirty days ..vith the size afld species as described in l.ppendix l. of this chapter and an "pdated plantinb plan shall be pnr.'ided to the Community Development Department. The affected property owner with privacy protoction planting on his or her own lot is not rcquired to maintain the landscapinb' (Ord. 18G8, (par:), 2001; On\. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord, 1860, § 1 (part), :WOO; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1,1998; Ord. 1781, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord, 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19,28,070 Landscape Requirements. To mitigate privacv impacts and the visual mass and buJk 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. ApDlicabilitv. This requirement shall aDPlv to new two-storv homos. second-storv decks, two-storv additions, or modifications to the existing second-storv decks or existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboting residents. Skvlights, windows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor. windows with permanent, exterior louvcrs UP to six fcet abovc the linished second floor. and obscured, non-openabJe windows are not rcquired to provide privacy protection planting. B, Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-story house or a second storv addition shall be accompanicd bv a privaev planting plan which identifics the Jocation. species and canopv diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs. I. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the applicant's property to screen views from second-storv windows. The area where pl;mting is re(luired is bounded bv a thirtv-degree angle 011 cach sidc window iamb. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuancc of a linal oceupancv permit. a. New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Intemationally Celti1ied Arbûtist or Licensed Landscape Architect Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) II 17-'13 verifies that the existing trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacy ¡ili!11tiI\R5pecies, sLlbiect to approyal bv the Director of Com!llunitv Development. b. AtIected property owner(s) mav choose to allow privacv planting on their own propertv. In such cases, the applicant must plant the privacv screening prior to issuance of a building pernlit. 2, Waiver. These privacv mitigation measures mav be modified in anv way with a sii.,'Tled waiver statement from the affected property owner. Modifications can include changes to the number of shrubs or trees. their species or locations. C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new two-storv homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in front of new sccond stories in the fi'ont vard setback area. The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger. with a minimum height of six feet. The Director of Communitv Development can waive this front-vard tree i[(here is a conflict with existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-of~way. D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allowed privacv planting trees and shrubs. The list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance between trees, E. Covenant. The propertv owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara Countv Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacv planting. or use of existing vegetation as privacv planting. prior to receiving a final building inspection from the Building Division. This regulation does not appl v to situations described in subsection B(1 jib) of this section. F, Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to vield a growth rate expected for a particular species, G, Replacement. Where required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced within thirtv davs with privacv tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it is determined to be infeasible bv the Director of 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 rcceives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms to the following: to no less than three feet from the property line if the applicant obtains written conscnt from the adjoining pmperty owner thereby affected and receives approval fÌ'om the Director of Community Development. Only one sach extension shall be permitted for the life of such bllilding, This section afJplies to the first stol)' only and shall not be construed to allow the further extcnsion of an encroachment by any building, which is the reslllt of tI:e grantin;; of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City, I, The extension or addition mav not further encroach into anv required sctback and the height of the existing 110n-confonning wan and the extended wall mav not be increased. 2. The maximlLln length of the extension is Üf1een feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 12 /7-g,/ 3. The extension of anv wall nlane of a first-storv addition is not permitted to be within three feet of anv propertv line. 4, Only one such extension shall be pel'lnitted for the life of such building, 5, This scction applies to the tìrst story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment bv anv building, which is the result ofthe granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such propertv become part of the Citv. B,The extensioR or addition may not further encroach into any reqHired setback; e.b" a single story may' Be extended aloRb an eJCistint; five foet side yard setbaok eveR thoHgh the side yard does not equal ten feet. However, in no case shall an)' '::all plane of a first story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property 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 auxiJiary 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 reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose ofthis process is to provide affected neighbors with an opportunity to comment on new development that could have significant impacts on their propertv or the neigbborhood as a whole. A. Notice of AppJication. Upon receipt of a complete application, a notice shall be sent bv first class mail to all owners of record ofreal property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are adiacent to the subiect propertv, including properties across a public or private street. Thc notice shall invite pubJic comment bv a deternTined action date and shall include a copv of the development plans, eleven inches bv seventeen inches in size. B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Commlmity Devclopment shall alJProve, conditionallv approve, or denv the application. The permit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: I, The project is coÙsistent with the Cupertino General Plan. anv applicable specific plans, zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. 2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or iniurious to propertv or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safe tv 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, c:. Notice of Action. The Citv Council. Planning Commission, applicant and anv member of the public that commented on the project shall be notified of the action bv first class mail and electronic mail. Anv interested pativ mav aplJeal the action pursuant to Chapter ] 9.136, except that the Planning Commission will make the tìnal action on the appeal. D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Pennie Unless a building permit is tiled and accepted bv the Citv (fees paid and control number issued) within Ol]e year of the Minor Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 13 / 7 - 'Is ResidentiaJ Permit approval. said approval shall become null and void unless a lon~er time period was speciJically prescribed by the conditions ol'approval. In the event that the building pcrmit expires for anv reason, the Minor Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director of Community DeveJopment mav grant a one-veal' extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Minor Residential Pern1it is filed before the expiration date and substantive justification for the extension is provided. E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the Director of Communitv Development. a Minor Residential Pernlit can be processed concurrently with other discretionarv applications. 19.28.100 Two-Storv Residential Permit. Two-storv additions or two-storv new homes require a Two-Storv Residential Pernlit in accordance with this section. Two-storv projects with a floor area ratio under 35%, shall require a Level I Two-Storv Residential Permit, while a two-storv project with a floor area ratio over 35% shall require a Level II Two-Storv Residential Permit. A. Notice of Application (Level n. 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 adjaccnt to the subject propertv, inc1uding properties across a public or private street. The notice shall invite public comment by a determined action date and shall include a copv of the development plans, eleven inches bv seventeen inches in size. \. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is c1earlv 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-Iòot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the appJication and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the followin~: a. The exact address ofthe propertv, if know, or the location of the property, if the address is not known. b. A brief description ofthe proposed project. the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the Citv; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of public comments. which shall be at least fOUlteen davs aner 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 City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. B. Notice of Application (Levell!), 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 cleternlined action datc and shall include a cop v of the devclopmcnt plans. elcven inchcs bv sevcnteen illches in size. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 14 /7- ,fb 1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public notice consistent with subsection A(I) ofthis section, except that a colored perspective rendering shall bc rC(jllircd instead of a black and white orthographic rendering. C. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public comments, the Director of Community DevelotJment shall approve, conditionally approve, or denv the application, The penllit can be approved only upon making all of the following findings: I. The proiect is consistent with thc CllPcliino Gcncral Plan. anv aP¡Jlieable specific tJlans. zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title. ) The granting of the penllit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or iniurious topropertv or improvements in the vicinitv. and will not be detrimental to the public health. safetv or welfare. 3. The proposed proiectis harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. 4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonabl y mitigated, D. Notice of Action. The Citv Council, Planning Commission, applicant and any member of the public that commented on the project shaH be notified of the action bv first class mail and electronic mail. Anv interested party mav appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136. except that the Planning Commission will make the final action on the appeal. E. Expiration of a Two-Story Permit. Unlcss a building penllit is fi1ed and accepted bv thc Citv (fees paid and control number issued) within one vear of the Two-Storv Permit approval. said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was specific all y prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for anv reason. the Two-Storv Permit shall become null and void, The Director of Communitv Development mav grant a one-veal' cxtension without a public notice if an application 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 OfCollllllunitv Development, a Two-Storv Permit can be processed concurrently with other discretionarv applications. 19.28.11019.28.080 Exceptions ferPreseriptiye Design Regulations. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Sections 19.28,060, 19.28.070 and 19.28.12019.28,100 may be granted as provided in this section. A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a cOlllplete application. the COllllllunitv Development Department shall set a timc and place for a public hearing before the Design Review Committee and send a notice bv first class mail to all owners ofrecord ofreal propertv (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 reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public notice. B, Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionaUy approve, or denv 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. Unless a building permit is filed and accepted bv the Citv (fees paid and controlnulllber issued) within one veal' of the Exception approval, said approval shaH become nuU and void unless a longer time period was specificallv Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 15 /7- 't7 prescribed bv the conditions of approval. In the event that the building pertnit expires for anv reason, the Exception shall become null and void. The Director of Communitv Development mav grant a onc-vear extension without a public notice if an application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date and substantive iustification for the extension is provided. D. Findings for Approval 1. Issued bv the Director ofCommunitv Development. The Director of Community Development mav grant excePtions from the prescriptive desi¡,'11 regulation described in Section 19,28,060 G(4) upon making all of the following findings: a. The proiect fulfills the intent of the visible second-storv wall height rcgulation inthat the number oftwo-storv wan planes and the amount of visible second story wan area is reduced to the maximum extent possible. b, The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification onhe prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accompJish the purpose. e. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. 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 all of the following lindings: a. The Jiteral enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. b, The proposed development will not be iniurious to propertv or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the pubJic safetv. health and welfare, c. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modilication of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum vmiance that will accomplish the purpose, d. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting propcrties. .'\.IssHed by the Director of COflffi1unity Development. ',!lith respeet to a reé]Hest for two story development which does not meet the de'¡elopment requirements eontained in SectioR 19.2S.060H (Privacy Protection RequiremeRts) afld Section 19,28,1 OOC, the CommlHJity Development Director may brant an e)WeptioR to ano\\' two story develo JIneRt ifthe sHbjeet development, based Hpon sHbstantial evidence, meets all of the following criteria: I ,The literal enforcemeRt of this ehapter '.vill result in rcstrictions incoHsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2.Thc proposed de'¡elopmcnt will not be injHrioHs to property or iH!jJrovements in the area nor Be detrimeRta1 to the pablic safety, health and welfare, 3.The proposed development is otherv..ise consistcnt with thc City's General Plan, any applicable specifie plan, and with the purposes of this chapter. 4.The adjoining properties are otherNise Jroteeted from unreasonable Jriyaey iH'rpaets. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 16 /7-ð 0 B.IssCled e)' the Desi¡;n Re', iew Committee (Other Prescripti"'e Desi¡;n Re¡;ulations). The Design Review Committee may grant exceptions trom the prescriptive design rcgulations doscribed in Section] 9.28.060 and Section 19,28.1 DO exclasiye of Section 19,28.060G1 (Hillside Building Heig;hts) upon mabng; all of the followin¡; findings: l.The literal enforcement ofthe provisions of this chapter '.",ill result in restrictions inconsistent witll tile spirit and intent of this cllapter. 2.Tlle granting eflha exception will not result in a condition that is materially detlimental to the public healtll, safety and 'Nelfare. 3.The e)[ception to be granted is one that 'NiIl reqHire the least modification of the prescribed design regHlation amI the minimam variaflce that will accomplish the purpose. 1.The proposed e),ception will not result in signifieant visHal impact as yiev..ed from abutting; properties, C.Issaed by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building Heights). Notv..ithstanding any provision of Section] 9.28.060 G I to the cORtrary, the Planning Commission may grant an eKception for lIeigllts to e1leeed twellty eight f.eet Bpon mabHg all of the following fiRdiHgs: I.The sabject property is iH a hillside area aHd has slopes often pcrccnt or greater. 2.Topographica1 featui'es of the subject property make an exception to the standard lIeight restrictioHs necessary or desirable, 3.In HO case shall the maximum height exceed thirty f{)et for a principal dwelliH¡; or tV/etHY feet for an accessory building. 1.!R no case shall the mæ,imHfIl lIeight of a structure located On a prominent ridgeline, en or above the fOBI' lIundred fifty root oontoHr exceed twenty eight feet. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. ]860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1811, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord, 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19,28J}99 Residential Design l.fJ lFBval. ill tile event tllat a proposed development oftwo stOlies exeeeds a thirty five percent floor area ratio as prescribcd in Section 19.28.060B, or in the event tllat the Direotor of Community Development finds that tile proposed two story development does not conforrn to Seotion 19,28.060C, tile applioant shall apply to tile Design Review Cemmittee for design approval to allow for the development; provided, lIowcyer, in HO event shall such application exceed a forty five peroent floor area ratio. In addition to the public hearing and notiee requirements described in Section] 9.28.1] 0, at leaGt ten days prior to the date of the publie lIearing, the applioaflt sha ] iHGtall stery poles to oBtline tlle proposed building e¡[(erior walls and roof as Ülrtller deseribed by procedBres developed by the Director ofCommHnity Development. Tile Design Re,..ie'N Comn~ittoc may grant a speoial permit only "pon making; a ] of the following findings: ,^,-.The project will be consistent with tile CBpertino Compreheflsi'¡e General Plan, ailY applieable specifio plans, zOHing ordinances and the purpeses oftl~is title. B.Tlle granting oftllo speeial permit wi ] not result in a condition that is detrimontal or injurioBs to property or improvements in the '¡ioinity, and will not be detrimental to the pHelic health, safety or ',yelfare, Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 17 ./7-fC¡ C.The proposed addition/homs is harmoflious ifl seale and design with the gefleml neighborhood. D.The profJOsed addition/home is generally consistmÜ with design guideliAes developed by the Dircctor ofCommuflity De'ielopment. B.Thc proposed addition/home will not result in significant adverse Yisual impacts as vie'sed from adjoining properties. (Ord. 18á8, (part), 2001; Ord, 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 18<11, ~ I (part), 2000; Ord. 1831, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.12019.28.](10 Development Regulations-Eichler (RI-e)(R Ie). RI-eR--te 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-J-e. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition, A. Setback-First Story. I. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. 8. Building Design Requirements. 1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roofline of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shall be threc-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.Second storj' builàing Viall offsets describeà in Section 19.28,060 ESb are not reqHired for homes in the R I e zone. S, Scction 19.28.0600(4) shall be considcred a guideline in the Rl-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. I. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows, In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Section 19.28.070 19.28.060H, the following is required for all second story windows: a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor; or b, Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor; or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000) 19.28.10519.28.130 Development Regulations-(RI-aR-l-a) RI-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned RI-a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 18 /7- 90 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: 1. 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, I. Front Yard, The minimum fÌ'ont yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard, The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard, The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 1.The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) does not apply in this district. F. Second-story Regulations I, Second story decks shall conform to the second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane. 3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet fÌom 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 ~of the front yard setback area may ·be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than fOliv percent 4G%-ofthe fÌont yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: I. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured fÌ'om natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; 2. A twenty-five degree roofline angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)Qa) of this section. /. Variation from the RI and RI-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 Dosign Roview Committeebased 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 N( I) of this section.. Discretionary review processes shall be based on Section 19.28.090 of the Cupertino Mtmieipal Cede, except as amended by this ordinance. K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence. Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 19 J7-q( 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 ÍÌom 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. 1.SectioR 19.2~L060 E(5)(b) sHall Rot apply to the RI a district. M, 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 fÌ'om 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 ofthe 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 /7-C;¿:z supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtmsive or massive. b. Columns. The use oflarge columns or pillars is discouraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area. d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. M, Landscaping I. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties, Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences, 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required by Section 19.28.070 19.28.060 H of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of twelve -P--feet at the time of planting. c, Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views fÌ'om second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d, The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. N. Design Review Findings, Proeedmes and Process I.Posted Notiee. For all Rew eORstructioR, the applicant shall iRstall a pHBlic Rotiee in the froRt yard of the subject site that is clearly visiBle from the ¡JHb¡ic street. The Rotiee shall be a weatherproof sigH, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firnlly attached to a five !Qot post. The notiee shall rom aiR in plaee HRtil an actioR has beeR takeR OR tile applicatiOR aRd the appeal period ¡laG passes, The SigH shall cORtain the f{)lIowiHg: a.Tho exact address oftllG property, iflmow, or the locatioR oftlle property, if the address is not knovm. b.A brief descriptioR onhe proposed projeet, the conteRt of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c.City contact inf{)[matioB for public inqairies; dJ.n 11 ")[17" illustration ofthe proposed house when viewed from the street. IH cases where design review is required, the illHstratioR shall Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11,2004) 21 /7-93 be a ßerGßeeti'. e rBBderiag and shall iBGlude tAe ßre-jected astion date. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. 2..^.djaccnt single family rcsidcntial properties shall roceivc a rodaeed scale copy of the proposed plan sot with the mai1ed notice. *LFindings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or irDurious 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 sing1e-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. 19.28.1111 Praeedure far Exeep!Íans and Residential Design Apprayals. .^-.Public HeariBg Notice. Upon reeeipt of an applicatioB for approyal, the Director of Community Deyelopmerl! shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the relevant decision maker and order tne public Botice tnereof. :\ notice of the hearing shall be sent by fimt class mail to all ovmers ofrecord of real property (as shown in tne last tax assessment roll) witniB three nundred feet of the subjeet property. RExpiratioB of an Exeeptioa or Resideatial Desi¡,'fI Approval. I, decisioa for approval wnieh has not been used v,'ithin one year following !ne effective date thereof, snall become null and void ffi1d of no effcet unless a snorter time period sRall specifisally be prescribed by the eonditions oftne e;¡eeption. l.n appro'lal shaH be deemed to have been "used" when a somplete bailding permit application is s"bmitted to the Chief Building Official, and oontinuos to progress iH a diligent mlillfler. IH the event tnat tRe lmildiHg permit applicatioH expires, tne Residential Design l.pproval shall besome Hull and void. The Director of Community DevelopmeHt may grant one additiona1 ORe ycar extensioR if an application is filed bef-ore the expiration date ""itho,,! further notice aRd heariHg. C.Deeision. /\fter elosiHg the publie heariBg, the desisioB maker shall approve, eOBditioHally approve, or deny the application. D..^.11 decisions røgardiag approvals eOBtained in this seetion may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 19.136, /\11 appeal of the Desi;;B Review Committee desision shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal !Tom the decision of the Direetor ofCommanity De'ielopmcnt. E, Expiration of an ExCeiJtion or Residential Design Approval. /\ decision for appro'ial which has not Been used within one year followil1g the effective date thereof, shall besome null and ','oid and of no effect Hnless a shorter time period shall specifieally be prescribed by the conditioBs of the exception. An approval shall be deemed to ha'le been "ased" ia the Planning Commission Recommendation (October II, 2004) 22 /7 - 9'1 eyeRt ef:he ereetien ofa stmeture when sufficieRt building activity has oeeun-cd afld, CORtiRUCS to occar in a diligent manner. The Dirøetor of Community Development may ,,'rant one additional OHe year e:ctensien if an apf'lieatien is filed before the 0;cf'iration date without further notice and heariHg. F,CoHcun-ent .^.pplications, NotwithstaHdiHg aR)' provisioB of this chElj'Jter te the coetrary, an Elj'Jplication for exception or residential design review may, at the discretion ofthc Director of Coml1'Hmity Devclopment, be processed cOt:ÐtllTcntly with other land use Elj'Jprovals. (Ord. I g6g, (part), 2001; Ord, 1 g60, § I (pa¡i), 2000; Ord. 1 g~~, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1 g31, (part), 1999; Onl. Ig08. (part), 1999) 19.28.120 Selar Design. The setback and height restrictions pro'iided in this chapter ma)' be '¡aried for a structure Htilized for passive or aetive solar purposes, iH R 1 ZOHes, provided that no sueh stnwtme shall infiinge :Ipon solar easements of adjoining property OWHers. l\fl)' solar stJ'lJetme which requires yariation from tl:e sctback or height restriction of this ehapter shall be allowed oal)' upon issuanee of a conditional use permit by the Direetor of Commlomity Devclopmeat. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 183~, (part), 1999; Ord. Ig0g, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, E)[h..li (part), 1992) 19.28.14019.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. _In RH=1c---I- 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 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 seetions aHd exhibits after Section 19,28.130 Planning Commission Recommendation (October 11, 2004) 23 /7-95 EXHIBIT A Section 19.28,010 19.28.020 19.28.030 19.28.040 19.28.050 19.28.060 19,28.070 19.28.080 19.28.090 19.28.100 19.28.105 19.28,110 19.28.120 19.28.130 19,28.140 19.28.150 19.28,160 19.1&.\\1\\ 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 strucnu-es. 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 -I singie- 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 individnal 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) 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-I single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title, (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.030 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the R -I singie- family residence district: A. Single-family use; B. A second dwelling unit confonning to the provisions, standards and procedures descrihed in Chapter 19,82, except for those second dwelling units requjring a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise confonning with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D. Home occupations when accessory to permit requjrements 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. SmaIl-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; L Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, mairrtenance facilities, or corporation yards; 1. Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large-family day care home. The Director of Community Development or hislher designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requjrements; 29 /7-q0 19.28.030 Cupertino. Zoning 30 K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord, 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.28.040 Conditional Uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-I single-family residence district, subject 10 the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporary uses, subject 10 regulations estab1isbed 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 10 Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued by the Planning Commission: I. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28,060 E2 of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons ; 3. Residential care facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff; 4. Residential care facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a urinimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility; 5. Residential ~are facility that is not required 10 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 urinimum 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 urinimum 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 Site Development Regulations. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. I. Lot area sha1l 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-I 6 R-I 7.5 R-l 10 R-I 20 6,000 7,500 10,000 20,000 The urinimum lot size in an R -1 zone is six thousand square feet. 2. Lots. which contain less area than required by Section 19.28.050 A I, 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 urinimum lot width sha1l be sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. I. Site plans for all development proposals sha1l include topographical information at contour intervals not 10 exceed ten feet. Areas where slopes are thirty percent or greater sha1l 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-I zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. 3, No structure or improvements sha1l 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) i /7 -q 7 31 Single-Family Residential (R.-l) 'lones 19.28.060 19.28.060 Lot Coverage, Building Setbacks, Height RestrictioDS 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. AIly 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. AIly 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. AIly new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following items are met prior to issuance of building permits: a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches. eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces; c. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of the other two spaces, or shall incorporate a tandem space. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. 2. If the Director does not fmd 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). 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the setback shall be fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. At least one of two side yard setbacks must be no less than ten feet. The other side yard setback must be no less than five feet. Notwithstanding the above, a lot less than sixty feet in width and less than six thousand square feet shall have a minimum side-yard setback of five feet on each side yard. In instances where an addition is proposed to an existing building having both side yard setbacks less than ten feet, the wider sethack 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 sethack is twenty feet. The rear sethack 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. /7-q r 19.2s.o60 Cupertino - Zoning 32 4'nin '. ~ oIEHt . : b '" :::::::a. 9 b ¡" -' rv~UII height ...... b oS I I .second N IIoor wall . ) I 2. The minimum side setbacks are ten feet? provided that in the case of a flag lot, the minimnm sethack is twenty feet from any property line. and in the case of a corner 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, coverage and other standards for accessory structures. 5. The height of second story walls are regulated as follows: a. - Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights 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. . SeaX1d Floor Plan è E ~ ..." ,~ 001., . ~ ~ 24"-0' ~ 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. 17 -9q 33 Single-'Famil-y Residential. (R·l) Zones 19.28.060 F. Basements. I. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors sha1l be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and ventilation. 2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area except as follows: a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet; b. The minimnm rear setback for a lightweU 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 imm"'¡iately adjacent to the lightweU. 5. The perimeter of tbe basement and all lightweU retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the Director of Community Development. G. Additional Site Requirements. 1. Height. a. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R-l zone shall not exceed twenty- eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or otber appurtenances. b. The maxllnum 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 vertica1line measured from 0JIIUraI grade and located five feet from property lines; ü. A twenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection FI bi of this section. Notwithstanding the above, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of twenty feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade. ~ . .... T-at ~. ..... . =... --., Finish I ..- I ~ ;! 2. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to tbe setback regulations in subsection E of this section. 3. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescn'be 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 maxllnum entry feature height, as measured from finish grade to the top of the wall plate, shall be fourteen feet. 5. No blank single-story side walls longer than sixteen feet shall face a public right-of-way without at least one of the following: (a) at least one offset with a minimum two-foot depth and six-foot width; the offset shall comprise the full height of the wall plane; (b) window of at least thirty inches by thirty inches; (c) entry feature leading to a door; (d) trellis with landscape screening. 6. Exceptions for Hii1side 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. /7- (00 19.1UI6!\ Cupertino· Zoning 34 H. Privacy Protection Requirements. \. 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 the 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 m;n;mnm planting height. The minimum size of the shrubs shall be fifteen-gallon and six-foot planting height. The planting must be able to achieve a partial screening within three years from planting. The species and planting distance between trees shall be governed by Appendix A. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. An affidavit of planting is required in order to obtain the final occupancy permit (Appendix C). d. Options. Where planting is required, the applicant may plant on the affected property owners lot in lieu of their own 101 or the affected property owner may modify the numbers of shrubs or trees, their types and locations by submitûng a waiver to the Community Development Department along with the building permit (Appendix B). This option does not apply to the required tree planting in front yards. e. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to - second story windows and decks with views into neighboring residential yards. Skylights, windows with sills more than five feet above the finished second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured, non-openable windows are not required to provide privacy protection planting. f. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, 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 lanrl"""Ping. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1 (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 along its existing building lines to no less than three feet from the property line if the applicant obtains written consent from the adjoining property owner thereby affected and receives approval from the Director of Community Development. Only one such extension shall be permitted for the life of such building. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. B. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback; e.g., a single story may be extended along an existing five· foot side-yard setback even though the side yard does not equal ten feet. However, in no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. C. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance DOt 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) 19.28.080 Exceptions for Prescriptive Design ReguIations. 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. /7 - fa I 35 Single-Family Residential (R-1) 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 contùned 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 19.28,060G4 (Hillside Building Heights) upon malcing all of the following fmdings: I. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictionS inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter, 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition that is 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 minimwn 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 malcing all of the following findings: I , The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes of ten percent or greater. 2. Topographical features of the subject property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or' desirable, 3. In no case shall the maximwn height exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling or twenty feet for an accessory building. 2004 S- 2 Repl. 4, In no case shaIl the maximwn height of a structure located on a prominent ridgeline, on or above the four hundred fifty-foot contour exceed twenty-eight feet. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1844, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.090 Residential Design Approval. In the event that a proposed development of two stories exceedsa thirty-five percent floor area ratio as prescribed in Section 19.28.06OB, or in the event that the Director of Community Development finds that the proposed two-story development does not conform to Section 19.28.06OC, the applicant shaIl apply to the Design Review Committee for design approval to allow for the development; provided, however, in no event shall 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 shaIl 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 malcing all of the following findings: A, The project will be consistent with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. B. The granting of the special permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, C. The proposed 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, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.100 Development Regulations-Eichler (R-le). R-Ie single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned R-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, 17-loa 19.28.100 Cupertino· Zoning 36 A. Setback-First Story. 1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B, Building Design Requirements, 1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shall be 3: 12 (rise over run). 3. W cod or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shaH incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart, 4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines. 5. Second story building wall offsets described in Section 19.28,060 ESb are not required for bomes in the R1- e zone. 6. The fIrst floor shall be no more than twelve inches above the eiliting 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), 2000) 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 m;n;mnm lot size is ten thousand sqnare feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows: I. A second floor may be at least 700 sq. ft. in area. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than 1,100 sq. it, in area. D. Setback - First Story. I. Front Yard, The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2004 5-2 Repl. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard, The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback - Second Story. I. Front Yard. The m;n;mnm front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks sha1l 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 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 front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of tWo-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: a, A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from property lines; b, A twenty-fIve degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in. subsection H(2)(a) of this section. L Variation from the Rl and R1-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the R1-a district. J. Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionary review from the Design Review Committee. Discretionary review processes shall be based on Section 19.28.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except as amended by this ordinance. K. Design 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 shan Wœ precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shaÍ1 be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. /7-/03 36A Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones 19.28.105 \. 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 E (5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in the RI-a district, 4. Section 19.28.060 E (5)(b) shall not apply to the 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. Architeétural 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 Commtmity Development. 2004 S- 2 Rep!. 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 lieightfor a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. e, Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback, M. Landscaping, I, Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building fonns 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 Mtmicipal 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' 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. Design Review Procedures and Process. I. Posted Notice. For all new construction, the applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide fumly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property. if the address is not known; 17-104 19.28.105 Cupertino - Zoning 36B b. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. An 11 "x 17" illustration of the proposed house when viewed from the street. In cases where design review is required, the illustration shall be a perspective rendering and shall include the projected action date. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. 2. Adjacent single-family residential properties shall receive a reduced-scale copy of the proposed plan set with the mailed notice. 3. Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for 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), 2003) 19.28.I10 Procedure for Exceptions and Residential Design Approvals. A. Public Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of an application for approval, the Director of Community Development shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the relevant decision-maker and order the public notice thereof. A notice of the hearing shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment roll) within three hundred feet of the subject property. B. Expiration of an Exception or Residential Design Approval. A decision for approval which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of the exception. An approval shall be deemed to have been ·used" when a complete building 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 Repl. shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may grant one additional one-year extension if an application is filed before the expiration date without further notice and hearing. C. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. D. All decisions regarding approvals contained in this section may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 19.136. An" appeal of the Design Review Committee decision shal1 be processed in the same manner as an appeal from the decision of the Director of Community Development. E. Expiration of an Exception or Residential Design Approval. A decision for approval which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescnòed by the conditions of the exception. An approval shal1 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, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, be processed concurrently with other land use approvals. (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1844, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999) 19.28.UO Solar Design. The setback and height 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 ~ementsof adjoining property owners. Any solar structure which requires variation from the setback or height restriction of this chapter shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit by tbe Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1860, § I (part). 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, EJth. A (part), 1992) 19.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In R -I zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this /7-/05 37 Single-Family Residenlial (It..l) 'Lone!'. 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) 19.211.140 Appendix A-L",,,,lscape Mitigation Measures. PRIVACY SCREENING MATERIALS I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES A. Cedrus Deodara-Deodara Cedar B. Melaleuca Linarifolia-Flaxleaf Paperbark . C. Pinus Heiipensis-Aleppo Pine D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos-Silverdollar E. Cinnamomom Camphora-Camphor F. Arbutus Marina G. Magnolia Grandiflora-Southem Magnolia Height to 80' 30' 40-60' 20-60' 50' 40' 80' 19,28.130 Spread 40' @ ground 12-15' 20-25' 10-15' 50' 35' 40' Planting Distanee- Maximum 20' 6' 10' 5' 20' 15' 20' The miIrlmum tree size shal1 be 24' box minimum and a nrinimum of 8' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for nrinimum planting <ÜStance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. II. NON-DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A. Pittosporum Eugenoides B. Pittosporum Tenuifolium C. Pittosporum Crassifolium D. Pittosporum Undulatum- Victorian Box E. Cupressus Sempervirens-Itaiian Cypress F. Podocarpus Gracilior-Fem Pine G. Privet Ligustrum-Glossy Privet H. Laurus Nobi1is-Grecian Laurel I. 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 minimum shrub size shal1 be IS-gallon nrinimum and a nrinimum of 6' high planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for nrinimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. Notes: The Community Development Department may use otber species than those listed above subject to approval. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other planting materials. Documentation shall include a letter from an Internationally Certified 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 screetùng after three years' growth following planting. The purpose of this list is to give the nrinimum planting distance between the required street tree/shrub planting in front yard setbacks and the City street tree. I 7 - / 00 19,28.140 Cupertino - Zoning 38 CITY 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' IS' H. Flowering Plum* 30' 15' I. Mayten 30' 15' J. Melaleuca 30' 15' K. Eastern Redbud* 30' 15' L. Brisbane Box* 40' 20' M. Liquid Amber 40' 20' N. Carob 40' 20' O. Geigera 40' 20' P. Rhus Lancia 40' 20' Q. Lirodendron 40' 20' R. Chinese Pistacio* 50' 25' S. Ginko* 50' 25' T. Chinese Hackberry* SO' 25' . U. Elm 50' 25' V. Sycamore 50' 25' W. Mulberry 50' 25' X. Silk Tree SO' 25' Y. Raywood Ash SO' 25' Z. Medesto Ash 50' 25' AA. Shammel Ash 50' 25' BB. Camphor 60' 30' CC. Zelkova 60' 30' * Denotes tree currently on street tree list. Other trees previously on list and may currently exist as a street tree. (Ord. 1860, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) /7-f07 19 Single-FlUllÎl.y Residential. (R.t) Zones 19.28.150 19.28.150 Appendix B-Release of Privacy Protection Measures. Single-Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Family) requires that after September 21, 1998, all new two-story additions or homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to t\ris requirement if the adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirement. 17-IO't 19.28.150 Cupertino - ZoIlÍllg 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, § I (part). 2000; Ord. 1834. (part), 1999) f7 - ( 09 41 Single-Family Residential (R-!) Zones 19.28.160 19.28.160 Appendix C-Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit. Purpose. To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according to the planting plan. Validation. An Internationally Certified Arborist or licensed Landscape Architect 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 that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at: address and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscapeplanting and irrigation plans drawn by dated (attached). Name Title Professional License # Date (Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860. § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999) /7-/(0 19.2U60 Exhibit 1. Cupertino - Zoning 30· Angle ". . Privacy Invasion Mitigation required in shaded areas 42 Rear Yard Window WII1dow Second Roor . ," I I I .1 I I· I' I I I' I I. I /7-111 EXHIBIT B Comparison of Planning Commission Recommendations for the R1 Ordinance Feb. 2003 Amendment (4-1-0 vote) oct. 2004 Amendment (4-0-1 vote) Explicitly state high volume area regulation (double- countin Second-story can be 50% of first story or 800 sq, ft. Adjust high volume area regulation. Provide allowance for stairwa s. Feb 2003 recommendation not adopted Remove specific language in Section 19.28.060 C(1 )(a) - replace with general "harmonious in scale and desi n" Ian ua e Convert guideline that calls for a third car space to be setback from the other two garage doors to regulation Add minimum ara e setback of 20 feet Change first-story side setbacks for all neighborhoods to a combination of 15 feet instead of 5 and 10 Same as Feb 2003 Amendment Use of rear yard setback exception requires minor staff a 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 /7-1/8 Start the building envelope at the side setback line Oct. 2004 Amendment (4-0-1 vote) Start the 1 st story building envelope at the property line Allow gable end outside the building envelope to not have to be attic space with minor staff approval for hei hts over 17' Create 2 story building envelope to replace second- sto side setbacks and surchar e. Transfer Privacy Planting requirements from Building Development Regulations to its own section and re uire covenant on ro ert Delete privacy tree documentation and include it as a se arate handout '~~é~";'d~'(~lt~'*"~: :¿I!L~'!æ!;)~J,,!h~!ii; §¡ !!!f!"IH~!:~'P,!l§'.L All two-story projects need staff approval: adjacent noticing with a copy ot 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 exlension to a legal non- conforming building line and the height may not be increased. Same as Feb 2003 Amendment Same as Feb 2003 Amendment 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 /7 -113 Work EXHIBIT C Planning Gommission Scope of recommended by staff and/or the Planning changes new development - review process for Approved by City Counc Staff Recommendation Type of Change 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 Process change Regulations affecting the Commission Non-Process regulations that staff believes the Planning Commission wishes to study I) ....." Minor technical change recommended by the Planning Commission in Feb, 2003 Minor technical changes suggested by staff Regulation Intent Allowed Uses Trigger for greater review of development in R1 hillside lots sizes RHS & R1 review for development on 30% slopes Minimum lot Minor technical change Set a maximum amount of the lot that can be covered by buildinos 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 impacts Coverage of 45% Lot Area Ratio of 45% 35% triggers Floor Two-story over desion review Any change should be minor and mitigated by other mass, bulk and privacy protection measu res Process change Study item Limit the mass, bulk and privacy impacts of new two-story development Second Story Area = 35% of first story -- ...j I --- -- ~ Staff Recommendation process Part of the overa review Type of Change 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 Process change Iclent space at rear 0 ight, air, quality of life Story Setbacks Front Setback - 20 feet, side- facin e can be 15 feet First None 10 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 and Rear = 25 feet Front item item Stud Stud to reduce mass mass and bulk of space Provide sufficient and bulk Reduce apparent second stories 1 0 feet Surcharge = 15 feet applied In combination to front and side Limit on Visible Second Story Walls Side Setback = Make this not apply to second story walls that are screened by the first-sto roof None Minor technical change None Soften apparent rnass and bulk of second stories Soften apparent mass and bulk of second stories Prescribed second story wa offsets ,e ~ ,,01i~ýrec~r;r¡f1}enaafion to'allo~ ~Jn~!~~st,9~~homes to, ' have00ne 10 x1 0 itlightwell '1>ÄH:>0t>;>qi<;:.;.<:,',;-,_,_ _»,:+(8,,:' - -." '. '_',_ ;,;; c:'.)" ( encourage¡single-story developmeñt)'~ . foot 1 Second Story Eaves = - -J \ --- G\ Type of Change Staff Recommendation - - None - None - None mass and bulk of ntent Limit the overa deve' Limit Regulation Maximum Building Height = 28 feet 1- n t de Height Change to remove attic requirement Remove - redundant after addition of Building Envelope reoulation Minor technical change Minor technical chanoe Require mass that appears two-stories to meet second-story setbacks Reduce mass and bulk of large e Heights exceeding 20 feet must meet second~story setbacks Maximum entry height of 14' None ntries Consider removing - ftas not appeared to be necessary Minor technica change Miscellaneous Blank single-story waßs racing street Consider ways to expand or im rotection of rivac Feb'2003 PC recommendation to remQve'lisffrom prdinance to allow for easier upda'tes Feb 2003 PCreç;ommendation _,"'.. ...... ':':>" ·····.·.·...:i;</\'O:·.. :.- ....J........ :__:<','>.:' tç> spècificallyre,qaire this- refe,renceålreàdy in the Tree <" .·!it<,,··<:'2>·<·<>'Fè.<··.,.......·,.._.." ..,......., :,_.:,',- -:'" Ordinance, but not R1. Avoid plain facades facing streets item Stud to reasonable level of privacy two-story Privacy Protection Planting to block None Consider ways Study item lalternatives to None to Provide neighbors opportunities their own solutions Provide reasonable Waiver with ne Planting not necessary certain cases privacy to nel hbors Ensure maintenance of a reasonable of privacy planting level of privacy to neighbors ,opment 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 is for attic space or vaulted ceilinos level of rova n Replacement - --.J I --- -- ~ Staff Recommendation '^+~!;;;,';Z2Ç:;;i~'" . ,i"'" " .< Feb 2003 PC recomrrÍ~ndation to refT10ve neighþor approval requirement andnot,allow height to be incrèased. reÝent abuse ways to Improve rocess review Consider improvement - part of review Process chan None None the Allow exceptions for structures Allow the Director to make interpretations of the code based on intent energy sOlar Regulation Miscellaneous Exceptions to R1 regulations Residential Design Approval process Eichler regulations Procedures for review (includes story poles) Solar design nterpretation by the Director part Consider improvement - part of review Type of Change Process chan None ntent Provide ability to vary fro regulations in cases where it is necessary Provide the city and neighbors wi opportunity to review mass and bulk impacts from two story development Special zoning rules for Eichler neiqhborhood Part of process review - Improve or possibly eliminate Process change 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 (not Design Guidelines Design Guidelines --- -...J I ---- --- -J EXHIBIT D Planning Commission's Rl Ordinance Schedule PC date Topic 12-Apr Review "R1 Schedule" R1 Design Review projects (1999 - 2004) Feb 2003 PC Recommendation 26-Apr Regulations from other Cities 10-May Complete Survey Results Non-survey public input received so far l3-May Commission's Guiding Principles 24-May High volume ceilings Second Story Area (% of first story) Second Story Area (minimum allowed size) l4-Jun Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge Second Story Wall Offsets Privacy Planting 28-Jun Finalize Second Story Setbacks, Offsets, Privacy Lot coverage, comer garage setbacks, blank walls facing streets, second story decks Minor topics from Feb 2003 PC Recommendation: narrow lots, lightwells, extension of building lines Single-story impacts: second story setbacks for tall walls, building envelope: gable end height, gable end consisting of attic space: mitigations 12-Jul Review process: what is reviewed Tools for review process: guidelines, consultant review, story poles, notification techniques Review process: who does the review 26-Jul Finalize Review Process 9-Aug Review Design Guidelines 23-Aug Palo Alto presentation - daylight plane, design review, guidelines 13-Sep Finalize Daylight Plan discussion 27-Sep Introduce Model Ordinance 11-0ct Approve Recommendation to the City Council 17 -/nr 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. 151 - 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 151 - 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. 17 -lIq First Story Side Setback 20' Minor adjustment Page of4 Support First Story Side Setback Lots 5' & 5' Garage Support Narrow Lot Coverage 45% + 5% for overhangs Scope of Work Support Delay discussion of the trigger point for RHS review of sloped ots until the General Giefer prefers discussing R1 'Brage slopes over 20% should have to meet RHS and R1 Re move second-story side setback surcharge in R1-5 Keep privacy ruies, require recorded covenant, encourage trees in affected neighbor's prO¡Jerty Related to PC IChen, recommendation from 2003 Miller, Giefer, Wong Saadati Encourage larger pianting in sensitive situations nd that construction on Related to PC ¡Chen, recommendation from 2003 Miller, Giefer, Wong Saadati Support Modify high volume area rule to double-count all area with floor-to- roof heights of 16 feet ncrease second-story minimum allowed area to 800 sf. ncrease second-story area pro¡Jortion to 50% of the first story scope of work, so long as other mitigation measures are added Not specifically referenced on scope of work, but the regulation is part of the proportion reguiation above. Saadati Giefer Chen Miller, Wong Miller, Wong agree with an increase, but prefer ,000 sf. Support 800 sf.: 1,000 sf would 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- story area. Related to PC I Saadati, recommendation from 2003 Giefer Chen Saadati, Chen Giefer. Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen Related to PC Giefer, Miller, recommendation from 2003 Wong Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen Miller, Wong Giefer that this increase wit to future increases increase, but the ease of caiculating and explaining a 50% figure is preferred. The difference of 5% is not si.9nificant. Giefer believes 50% is too much and is concerned lead ange to regulation authorized by Pfannmg Commission Specific DecIsions EXHIBIT F (J f6 --- I r- --- Eliminate story poles posted renderings in of the subject site 300 foot mailing, adjacent neighbors get 11 x17 plans: rendering, site plan and elevations plans of Review n favor of the front yard Part of Design Review Process review Saadati, Miller, Wong Giefer Chen Saadati, Giefer, Miller, Wong Page 2 of 4 a noticing tool. Proponents of eliminating story poies cite safety, cost, usefulness and practicality concerns. PC minutes. Support elimination, but the Council See should consider the strong support indicated by the R1 survey. upport noticing except it should include fioor plans so neighbors will know which windows apply to which second story rooms Giefer prefers the retention of story poles as Allow one 1 0'x1 0' lightwell for single-stories with basements Building Envelope Gabie 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 public hearing Extension of LNC Building Lines (remove neighbor approval, limit length to 15', no height increase. Director's Approval) JI,J!~f12,1200~"ii:i~' Related to PC recommendation from 2003 Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Saadati, Chen Related to PC Giefer, Miller, recommendation from 2003 Wong Minor adjustment Scope of ssue Elim inate 2nd Story Setbacks for Tall 1st Story Walls Sco¡:Je of Rear Setback Reduction Director's ApjJroval Act; Work on Basis Yes Saadati. Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati. Chen, Related to PC Giefer, Miller, recommendation from 2003 Wong No Absent Notes Staff Position Support Support Support Support Support Support Work for attic Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong - <G -- \ r-- - Convert the second-story wall offset regulation into a guideline Page 3 of 4 Chen, Miller, Wong Giefer Giefer prefers to retain ¡the offsets as Saadati requirements Eliminate the second-story setback surcharge Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong accommodate story area Support conversìon sìnce Ulere are instances of a project not needing Ihe offset, thus a guideline is most appropriate Saadati Support: this work, but it is that setbacks is not on the scope of reasonable to expect would be reduced to the larger second- Eliminate second-story side setbacks Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati Utilize Palo Alto's building envelope for two-story elements: 10' height at property line and a 45 deg ree 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 envelope Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati Support: this is not on the scope of work, but the envelope is basically equivalent to the current minimum setback. Support: this is not on the scope of work, but the envelope is basically equivalent to the current minimum setback. remain as gUidelines) August·23.: 200f!,~ ' o Issues agree upon ~eptemlj¡¡~:it13;200~ ncorporate key guidelines into the ordinance - Section 19.28.060 C exh ¡bit (the guidelines will be placed in the ordinance, but wil Part of Design Review Process review Saadati Giefer Chen Support putting guidelines in ordinance: this is consistent with the Use Exhibit G as the discretionary review jJrocess Part of Design Review Process review Saadati Giefer Chen Miller, Wong Miller and Wong have concerns with formalized review of two-story homeslsince It under 35% FAR l£arties Support Exhibit G: has the support many local architects and builders saves time and money for all Action A4gu!it!9~~g04- o m CO --- I r- --- Allow for a Director's exception for visible wall height regulation that a three- car garage must have a 2 foot offset on the third garage to a reg ulation 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 Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Page 4 of 4 Support Support Support Create 75 sq 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 Convert the other the guideline Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Support: this is t work, but there ,~ I total side setback. on the scope of " no change to the Saadati Wong Miller, Chen. Giefer Chen, Giefer support the original 50 sq, ft Support 75 sq. ft. sq. ft. is substantial discussed as well, which somewhat excessive. the additional 25 100 sq. ft. was is cD r6 --- I r- - l (#) Exceptions Two Story over 35% FAR * Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC ~ ... Consulting Architect review for Design & Staff Review for Guideline Conformance f-Þ 300' noticing Story Poles, 300 noticing ---. DRC (#) * FAR = Floor Area Ratio ** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming *** DRC = Design Review Committee **** PC = Planning Commission ***** CC = City Council -----1 , , , , :t. *** Two Story under 35% FAR * 1----' , L Staff Review for Guideline conformance T Building Permit Extension ofLNC ** bldg, line Neighbor approval -. Staff approval One Story CURRENT Rl DEVELOPMENT PROCESS EXHIBIT G ~ r6 - \ r- - (#) 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 Minor Residential Permit (#) Two-Story Permit Level I: under 35% FAR Two-Story Permit Level II: over 35% FAR Design Review: Ordinance Exceptions 300' noticing, 11x17 plans to adj neighbor Consulting Architect review for Design & Staff Review for Guideline Conformance -. yard w/ colored perspective rendering Story Poles, 300' noticing, 11 x 17 plans to adj, neighbor, posted notice in fTont Staff Review for Guideline Conformance r-. Adjacent noticing w/11x17 plans, posted notice in front yard w/ b/w rendering Director's ~ Approval ¡ (no hearing) I (##) Design Review Committee (##) j Courtesy Notice ~ I Building ~ Permit Adjacent noticing w/11xI7 plans One Story EXHIBIT H DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS \0 Cõ - \ r- -- EXHIBIT I Public Survev - Rl Ord.. .tllce The Planning Commission is reviewing the Rl Ordinance and would like your input! Please fill out this survey and snbmit it to City Hall by Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 5 p.m. If you have comments about specific questions, please use the Comment section at the end of the survey. The City has a zoning ordinance (referred to as the Rl Ordinance) that limits what can be built on single- family residential properties. In the late 1990's Cupertino residents voiced concems about the size of new two-story homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new second-story regulations and created a design review process. The purpose of the Rl ordinance is to ensure that new construction be reasonably consistent in scale and design with neighboring homes, as well as protecting the privacy of neighbors and reinforcing the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods. Please tell us about yourself: 1. Are you a: (check all that apply) D Homeowner in Cupertino D Homebuilder or designer in Cupertino D Renter in Cupertino D Other 2. How many years have you lived in Cupertino? D 0-4 D 5-9 D 10-14 0 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 o 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 below. Only one survey per household will be accepted. (this infonnation 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 (FAR) Information The Rl Ordinance uses "Floor Area Ratios" (FAR) to limit the size of new single-family residential construction. The FAR is a ratio of the total area of the building (including the garage, but excluding basements) as a percentage of the lot size, Homes cau have a Floor Area Ratio of 45% of the totaliot 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. /7-/:;1.,0 Second Story Area The Rl Ordinance al10ws a second-story to be as much as 35% oflhe first story oflhe house, For a 2,700 sq. ft. houge, the gecond-gtory can 'be a maximum of1(\(\ 'c!. ft, leaving 1,(\(\(\ sC!. ft to the Erst story. In all cases, a homeowner is allowed to have at least 600 sq. ft. on the second story. Therefore, if you have a 1,000 sq. ft. single- story house, you can build a 600 sq. ft. second-story addition even though it is more than 35% of the fust story area. 7. I believe that the second-story proportion should be: (check one) DOver 50% of the first story D Less than 35% of the first story D 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) DOver 1,000 sq. ft. D Less than 600 sq. ft. D Between 751 sq. ft. and 1,000 sq, ft. D Don't increase it - keep it at 600 sq. ft. D 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 D Reduced D Don't Know / No Opinion The RI ordinance requires the second-story of a home be set back 25 feet from the fiont and back property lines and a total of 25 feet on the sides of the home. An additional setback of 10 feet must be added in any combination to the front or sides. 10. I believe that the second-story setbacks should be: (check one) D Not changed D Increased D Reduced D Don't Know / No Opinion Heights 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," 11. I believe that the heights allowed by the building envelope should be: (check one) D Not changed 0 Increased D Reduced 0 Don't Know / No Opinion Entry features consist of special roof elements that mark the location of the front door. The roof eave of an entry feature is limited to a height of 14 feet. 12. I believe that the entry feature height should be: (check one) D Not changed D Increased 0 Reduced o Don't Know / No Opinion Privacv 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 / No Opinion /7-1d.7 Desie.n Review Process Proposed two-story homes or additions that exceed a 35% FAR are required to participate in a Design Review. Two-story homes with aFAR of 35% or below and single-story homes do not participate in the Design Review process. The purpose of the Design Review is to "ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods" for proposed new two-story homes or second story additions. The total cost a property owner might incur during the Design Review varies and may include City fees, architect or designer fees for required modifications to the plans and developer interest fees on the property. All fees or costs are the responsibility of the property owner. The Design Review can increase the cost of a new home or two-story addition by 0.5% to 1%*; roughly $2,500 to $8,000 depending on the size of the project and required changes to the design, excluding interest or taxes. In general, the Design Review process can take several months and is completed when the architectural design is reviewed at a public meeting. Neighbors within 300 feet of the project site are notified by mail of the Design Review. Neighbors have the opportunity to provide input throughout the Design Review process, which includes public meetings. The Design Review places extra costs on the individual property owner while giving neighbors the opportunity to provide input on the proposed project. *Source: Contractors who build in Cupertino. 14. I believe the benefit provided to the neighbors is worth the additional costs to the property owner associated with the Design Revie;w. (check one) o Strongly Agree o Agree ODisagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know / 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 OAgree ODisagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know / No Opinion N oticine: 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 IT' 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 conunence 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 o Disagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know / No Opinion /7-{;;J.f? Desion 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 :h.tl1.'):/íW"\,~.Clm..9rti.!J52-,-QIg{Q!.ªP':'IJ"iDg - 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 DAgree ODisagree o Strongly Disagree ODon't Know / No Opinion , 20. Specifically, I helieve the following types of projects should meet guidelines that encourage building forms, roof pitches, roof heights and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes: (check one) o Two story homes or additions with aFAR D All new homes or additions resulting in over 35% increased square footage D All two-story homes or additions' 0 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 rehuilt: (check one) o Less than 25% of the homes are rebuilt 0 Between 50% and 75 % ofthe homes are rebuilt D 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 17-{;;;(cr 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 92 '% of Group Total 46% 19% 46% support the current second story setbacks. 19% support an increase. 116 24% 10% 24 % support a reduction, while /7-/'70 Question 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 All Respondants (4, Building Envelope 85 18% Responses 246 % of Group Total 51 % 51 % support the current building envelope regulation. 22% support a reduction in the building envelope while 18% support an increase in the height allowed. 263 % of Group Total 55% 27% 55% support the current privacy protection rules. 27% support an increase in the privacy protection measures while 12% support a reduction. 109 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. Noticing Methods (can check more than one) !Î-f31 Question 18 19 20 21 All Respondants (4. Courtesy Notices Responses Neighborhood Compatibility What Should Meet Compatibility Guidelines? 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. l( 137 % of Group Total 31% 23% 22% 23% This question had the most even split. 31 % believe that if 25% of the neighborhood has been rebuilt, new construction does not have to be compatible with the original neighborhood. 22% to 23% each believe that either new construction does not have to be compatible when either 25-49% of the homes in the neighborhood have been rebuilt, 50-75% of the homes have been rebuilt or over 75% of the homes have been rebuilt. There is a strong possibility that respondents made mistakes when answering this question. While tabulating the results of the question, it was frequently observed that respondents who opposed regulations or guidelines often selected choices C (50-75%) or D (over 75%), when you would expect that respondent to favor the least restriction choice. Likewise, respondents who favored stricter regulations and more design review often selected choices A (less than 25%) or 8 (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." /7 -{3d-.. 10 9 8 7 3 2 1 6 Second Story Minimum Allowed Area Question Residents that Built Additions All Respondents (491) or New Homes (88) Respondent (can check more than one) [ij Respondents that Answered "Yes" for Question 6 (163) Neighbors of Residents that Built Additions or New Homes (211) EXHIBIT K R1 Survey Summaries by Type of Respondent r\\ ('(} "- \ I"- - Question !!J ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ Courtesy Notices 1 8 Responses % of Group Total 10% 12% 5% 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 ~ r<) --- 1 r-- -- 21 20 19 Question All Respondents (491) Neighborhood Compatibility Neighbors of Residents that Residents that Built Additions Respondents that Answered Built Additions or New Homes or New Homes (88) ·Yes· for Question 6 (163) (211) l'\ t<) - I r- -- .a > 50% III!I b 41-50% II C 36-40% Od Keep 35% 8e < 35% EXHIBIT L Question 7: Second Story Proportion b 18% ........ d c 9% 7% -. -.J I - VJ CS' ]' - 'i , ~ P1fqqns. uh oJ . . ..;1 , . .' ..:. ~// .~ . ,.. I '" .ø . , ~ -t4 ..... õ-' j' '~, : I ':V",,",ll_ -, ] ~n' J')p",nPM ..JL : /----.----, I' , " i oD !~~ :~'~. ;"~"",,,' ~ .' . '-:. ~'l . , ~'~L-~ . . . '·r II' '" : ~ ,MY lamw -.J~ _ 1 DL-J· E P ~ " .\ \ ,,~/ ~ /;~ ., ,. /' , ~'----<> .. ! ....,......,. M ;co,. -1 \ PìlJ:lU!lIa¡s . [¡..: ,- I~ I ¡ .- ,U- M . . .' . . , ;1 oD J I .' N. . . '" ::E ¡.... ~ ~ ~ ~ >< ~ . ~~ ~ Q ~ 0 8.00 00'" ~ " ..9 .s >-~ l~~~~;~* ::0 ... 0 Lr\ .... '" '" Lt") ~ "', U ...:c ^ ..,. '" v '" ~ ., ð~~IIDDDO ' @G "Ii L ,.. ð:H ~H iI- îðg. i ~ , , , ¡ . ~ , ¡ ,-< ~ ! ~ , ! ~ 1l~1 I II ! I 'N _ N ~ ~ ¡¡ ~ , - ~ co N '" /7-/37 J nil ';V".",~I _ ~- 4 II I - . ---^ l' ,.~ y,.:J ~'_~, ~ , .\'.'.., · '. ","1' .._. , . ,'t 1_·' " t_ .'" / t<.. r-' \e I \ , '~II ' "', ":'., ~ >', I: . ~ . , ."00 --r!. r..I~·'" Id¿~~ ~ ':'P ':/ ~ r-~ -''"¡'ll,,"'" .. :'. ;~~"'-' ) " ) , - r-' " -~ ~ , "i E o X . , '" . 0- z ¡.., ~ ¡:Q ~ p;.¡ . 00 ~ ~ ~ " 0 0- p.'" 11\" . Ó o~ ~ ... 13 t'~ ~ § ~ '" ~>~§'--<~8æ ð;ï.s ....."'8"'8 ~ ..... rJ)'" ^ "" '" y '" -< ¡¡; ð;2 ~ IIDDD 0 ~ ~ @~ .~ "II ~ i L~ lil' ¡H H~ i j í , , ¡ < ~ ~ 'N " N )î '" ;Ø Et;4 '" {7-(3F -J-, ;~- I,' , I 3lt.yne¡ue1 I - r / I' '" I' N __ _ ---.J ') PH·¡¡^M ~ - : I/-------,- 1- " . 1 '" /":'-;:"~j . ';,,',. L- . .oy'.o,,, ~ J_ .' "__l- '>--J I ,I alt.VJ"mw -.\ 'I \ ',J '/: , (If . . , , P^!H. ezuy "0 " " æ ¡¡ , o Z " "'- ~ , 'I.. ~-~.. II I I C1,/n K. ~ . ~ -~-I 7)' .~~ N . 0 , ~ , .. ~ I '~ 10 ..---- . ~.. I ,r _. ~, II 'ro -v-..ò II~' I '" " ;-' ',/ . '.-::1 ,~ ~--~~"i; - ;r:"" - o N R II \ __ F'_~¡¡U!ll<lIS 1·'- " I" PMqqng " . , o E- S ~ >U '" " , . ~; . iSi ~¡ P gf§ ~ï1 t!! i B ¡ , , , . . t .-00( ~ ~ ~ .~ 'JJ > § ¡:;~ e 8.g, & ~.~ t~ ~ o~ò ~ _~~ '" >... -< c:3 ¡¡¡ .~<1J~.ã; ~~~ -- §' t:: § 8 t .( ! 2 § ï ~cË~ rñ<Où)Q.( Wi g¡2 & IDD~I 0 : ~ . '" N I" '0 , I] o .Iª -; ~.... '" .¡ It 1,-(39 II: 'I' :;- ""':-, ' '1·'vO""'" ,,' . ---Îì i . "' . 'I ,,' . ji I I- _PH·nOM _ j 1':,' N .' .' I ~~:~.. ~'-\.' '" ;. ,";¡: "_1 . ~.~.. ", L-~ . \ .' . .-;-;¡. . _ "V "'"'19 ,-- \ ., ","I . .: ,....j "" , ,"! . ,.... : ",=" lic 'L 0 " ~. ",. ',' --. \ "",'1 " y~ ~;...-j/...I . ",. - J, '~ ~.'. ~ . ~, ~" .;"':~.> >. .IJ ! ß ~ ... r.o' "'~f . , . i· , · .. r----=-\-'..:-l ..' " I .·L'" \';';" ') .- \'___ ~ "!HIT"''''" ':' '.., .:).v N, ,~: .1' , " , \D'" lIII ~. , , . " t'- ~ - ~ III.~ "" .. o '- ...-'" .. p.. I-< § ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ = . o p::: +' ~¡¡,~ Q)"¡¡j ~ t e¿ · ., , ,.,e> ~ ~ , ~ ~~~s~~~ ~ 1-1 ¡;;; <1j :i- ;g- U ::s.o ~::::: ð '1õ CI) ~ E-< ~ :( z þ"" "III û¡>i& .00 ~ ~..c: ~~ §! Iii "' l1i ~ m Q, ~ 'I¡ ~ rJ~ t .3 , ~ í k ¡ 0, , , I' ~ _Ii '" ~ .¡~ . /7 - (40 j. e I " -I-'::"""'~ - . ~'" I'"" j I ì ",'noM I - I' '. .... I ~..~, o~..-\ ~ ,\ " , I';} . ,",~, .... I J ~. .___L 0 ...l il I---~rl "^",,uY"G I · I ~ -~~-> .- . " 0 ,,¡- ,-;-' : _':::':"11',1 N ,.... I'" I __"'"m"s ,'<,!: ... ~-l9 .?:::~".~j / V-~ l;j! .';.' . I ~ 'VI ..... . J,..í I~~i \ ~--~- \'. i - : ."(i"J .- ,;-, . I . . . ~ -~ .,~ -----~_.¡;-,~~:. ,,- -. ~. -.' ~ N ;¡¡ . CI b - p:¡ - :r: >< ~ '" . ~; I ", ~. : ~ ~!5 Hi ~ 'd 1; ... !ð! í 3 I ¡ , 1 ¡ ,-< '" ~ '" . = . ' o Õ .~ P;~ 8- ~ ~ ~ 0 ¡:::::..8 ~ !;b :z ]>-~ ~ ~~ R~~]; ~-""ª ~ ;: I-< § ~ M œ ~ -"" ~ u :j.... ~ ~ -- e § ~ 'õ CJ) ~ <fJ 0 <ñ Q .( ~ 812 g IDD!!JI 0 ¡ ~ 0 ~ r' I i , It -)£ _ f:I ç ~ .. /7 - (4/ J -1-'·-;: " ~.. __ J') II' ,,--,i.:. N I ) ,"'¡¡OM J~_ ~- I ">"11'1'1 '" / . "'''~. . . eo -- \: L--. . ~... "" J '^V'-U'IH \ CO ··_Ii~ :.' ~ 'j ~ Li' ~co-77 , ':,·1 '" ---j¡ -." I'''' I ;.-. '"'~!!"S ~ ' " ( l'R _ e- _ I : I'I~]-" ~ ~ . ~ ~' ;'" , / -3/ ~ ':~.. ". ,I, - "~ , --~ ,I D 'J- r--- ~ ~ ~ . ¡¡ E o " " _---\ \ ·I~_ ì/~. I·'ro 1/. ~ I ,g . "". r-==- N j ~-~'!!""OO, ,u ~ . 11' , .' ~ - '" .. N. '" ç.:: "'" P5 ~ ~ -of >.1 . " ,~ PMqqna.. I iL. .,.1 :. I' , .-00(.:81.' ~~ ,! 'Ii __ !ò lif ~ ~11 -tð~ ~ i:3 , ¡ , 8 , , ¥ ! ~ ~ ~ '" ¡::: ~ § 02 .", ~.~ "t '" . U a,¡ ¡:: ~ 0 o c::: 8 ~ Q, Z ~ t';!j ~ ~ ? g. e: c::"§' ij ~ ª u :::I 0 0 ~ ~ 0: ,... 'õr.f).~~~6~§ ~ 812 & IDD~i 0 : ~ -- 'N N Ii J' -- ~ " o II ~ .. . '" ~ rJI4 W '-ì . 17 (4 C;Z i I r I.' G l P"'~II''5 -I~ ¿: . -- \~/ "- N, I ~ 'D. 0-+' [/j E-- - E9 R 0C1 ~ '", '-0( ~' ~ ~. ~ ~ >, , m 00 ,. ~ ~ oJ:+' W ~.~ ~ 00 " . " in ~ " . fð! ,,~8 ~ ~ § -i t'ö ~ <g ::§ "" ~ ' , . II> :> C'I Œ ;¡: '\: .5 ., §' 1-4 § c!: ~ 1j ¡ ¡ u::¡:~~«z ! ð ~'" "11mJ D , 1=-"1"""1 ~ f,: O~ CI ,', 0 ~ '.- ~, , , ; ('f) __... .. -' o N ." _~I /- '" 1-- ~ N N )1 J:, -- .-< I " I a:Vl1e¡UI!.l1 . r '-'. i, f"J', ~"1 r -", I: -"Y",II!Þ'/ . --:,,""~ " I "..":~; 'j ~L . / ""'=Y'O ~I'~ - - ~ &...,.....,.. .-< .. I~ II ¡:j 7", ..,/..N ~. '.'f) I 'ro if, .. . . I _ ".g /. I"~ I I _ : /('ff ~ " '~l ~ ~------~ :L"~91l1l'¡:¡OO.d ul -..~-' ~. III ----i.----,-;' ~.!'_ , " r ~~ ~.. ~~ ." i5 , ] .5 ~ h ,¡ " . ~',' . , . , '" .J J~ ~ /7-(45 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 POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None . CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No,(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the Rl Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2004 (7-(4c1 Planning Commission. .lUtes 2 March I, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Rl survey, which includes some modifications that were recently incorporated. · Asked for cOnllnents Com. Wong: · Asked for clarification on Question 15 of the survey regarding Design Review, saying that the instructions to "check all that apply" could cancel each other out if someone checked the "There should be no design review for anything" box and any of the other boxes · Asked for an explanation of how these instructions came about Com. Miller: · Said "check all that apply" should be deleted No further discussion was held on this point and the commissioners agreed to delete "check all that apply" from the instructions on question 15. Com. Wong: · Regarding question 19: Since the 1999 ordinance already states that new construction should be designed to have architectural fonns, roof pitches, roof height and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes, he would change the statement say "Generally, 1 believe that new construction should be designed to transition to architectural fonns..." · Asked for clarification of staff s thinking when they drafted question 19 Com. Miller: · Explained that the original question said "Everybody should be compatible with their neighbor. " · Said he objected to the term "compatibility" · Tried to use definition of compatibility in the guidelines, which went along the lines that people need to be compatible with respect to architectural fonn, roof pitches, roof heights and eave heights---which for some reason got changed to wall heights · Original intent was to do away with the word "compatibility" because it means different things to different people, and to go with the actual words in the guidelines · Wanted to know why "eave" heights got changed to "wall" heights Com. Giefer: · Stated that the survey ÍÌ'om the last meeting also showed "wall" heights rather than "eave" heights, but the word "consistent" was used instead of "compatible" Com. Miller: · Asked Com. Wong if he is suggesting that in neighborhoods where there is a major amount of redevelopment occurring, there should be more latitude for transitional neighborhoods Com. Wong: · Agreed that this is what he intended · Asked Com, Miller if he thought question number 19 should be replaced with the question regarding transitional neighborhoods /7-/éfS 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 rrom the older 1950-1960 homes to more modern 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 rrom neighbors supporting his application · Commissioners had the feeling that neighbors were supporting the application because they would eventually be doing the same thing to their houses · That was neighborhood where people wanted to move in different directions · Said the question should be asked that specifically addresses that issue to find out how many neighborhoods are similar Commissioners agreed to add question 21: Generally, I believe that construction in neighborhoods that are in transition from an older to a newer style should not necessarily be consistent with the older style. Com. Wong: · Regarding question 20, the Design Guidelines are meant for 2-story homes over 35% FAR. The two check boxes for all new single-story homes and all additions goes beyond the City Council's directives · Those two boxes are inappropriate and should be removed · Design Review Guidelines would need to be revised if commissioners want to address single-story homes and additions 17-/cfro Planning Commission "lUtes 4 March I, 2004 Com. Giefer: · Recollected that when the question was drafted, they wanted a "barometer" of what current opinion is: Should we leave the Design Guidelines as they are or should we expand them? Chair Saadati: · Some single-story homes may be taller and have features that neighbors may object to Com. Chen: · One of goals is to solve some of inconsistencies between Design Guidelines and 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 nnder 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: · Formatting issue: page 2, the box does not line up well in the "Between 60 I sq. ft. and 750 sq, ft," selection · Question 14: There should only be one text box under the heading of Design Review Process. The box should not be broken up into two parts · The text describing story poles should be above question 16, rather than question 14 · On page 4, the heading Design Guidelines should be. in bold font Com. Wong: · Requested that a final copy of the survey be e-mailed to the commissioners before it is printed for the public · The timeline for the survey should be IS days for the "Cupertino Scene" and on the website · Once the survey is formatted it will be mailed to 2,000 applicants, and counting 15 days !Tom the mailing date, there will be two sets of data-first !Tom the applicants in surrounding neighborhoods at the end of March, and then another set of data at the end of April from the "Cupertino Scene" and the website · Regarding timeline for the public hearings: Commissioners have gotten e-mails and letters from the previous survey that was sent out in January, and the Commission asked for feedback regarding other city ordinances, Also, Lisa and Marty brought up other technical changes · Does not want to lose momentum and wants to keep having public hearings on the RI ordinance, divided into the six categories in the Jetter that Peter wrote Chair Saadati: · Depending on the time, at least one of the categories can be discussed at each meeting 17-/47 Planning Commission. .l1utes 5 March 1,2004 Ms. Wordell: · This item needs to be continued to whichever meeting date the commissioners want to re-hear it , rather than re-noticing it Com. Miller: · Depending on how extensive the agenda is with other items, individual categories can be discussed · Need to review data rrom other cities · Should review recommendations made by Planning Commission last year at this time Ms. Wordell: · Suggested that item be continued for three weeks to the next regular Planning Commission meeting (the second meeting in March) · The length of time 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 snrvey and to mail the survey to selected residents prior to publication for the public. Vote: (5-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller to continne this item to the Planning Commission meeting of·March 22, 2004. Vote: (5-0) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 3 :00 p.m. on March 2, 2004, SUBMITTED BY: Is! Nancv Czosek Nancy Czosek, Acting Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Is/ Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson ATTEST: Isl Ciddv Wordell Ciddy Wordell, City Planner (1-14 í! Planning Commission. ,lUtes 19 April 12, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · A simple solu(jon 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---if not sheet ss walls Com, Miller: · More windows would be fme · That shopping center has been struggling, a · The only concem is that the patrons m' t "take the party outside too much", but as the applicant indicated, right now people g utside to smoke and this would not be too different · Supports the application Chairperson Saadati: · Any window that is installed s uld be such that one can view the whole room Mr. Gilli: · These are the added con o The hours operation are II :00 a.m. to II :00 p.m. o Lounge oms shall all have windows on the doors and on the walls. The windo on the doors shall be at least 24" by 24", The intent is to make as much of ro visible as possible from the hall o P_a')'lng wi]] be reviewed six months after the use opens o ~ .~lcohol will be sold on site or brought on site. There wi]] be a sign on the door n the sign or the wa]] of the business sta(jng the no-alcohol policy. There will be review by the Planning Conunission if there are behavioral issues in the parking lot or inside the building. There wi]] not be a time limit on this issue-if issues arise, it will come back to the Planning Conunission. Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller to approve U-2004- 02 as amended (Vote: 5-0-0) OlD BUSINESS: 5, Preliminary schedule of the Rl ordinance review process Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner: · Staff reconunends that the Planning Conunission 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 17 - 149 Planning Commission L. .!lUtes 20 April 12, 2004 Chairperson Saadati: · It is usual that one meeting is cancelled during the summer. Will that impact the schedule? Mr.Gilli: · It would just move the whole schedule down Com, Wong: · Wants to hold off on the "Commission's Guiding Principles" and "Commission's Objectives" until after the public hearings and the survey results are in · Because of limited time, and because of the large applications such as Vallco, General Plan, etc. coming in, and with one of the meetings being cancelled, could this be condensed into study sessions? Com. Miller: · Concerned that the process is extended out too long, and there may be conflicts with the General Plan and some of the other applications · Would like to move more quickly and get started as soon as possible · Does not feel there needs to be a session on "Guiding Principles". The commission is taking input and deciding if the Rl ordinance needs improvements and, if so, making the necessary improvements. Does not see any other guiding principles or why there is a need to spend a session on that · Should try to condense the schedule and perhaps add study sessions where appropriate Mr.Gilli: · Part of the layout of the time if the how long it will take staff to prepare materials to be presented · If there are study sessions, it does not necessarily mean that twice as much can be accomplished in one day. It will still take an additional amount of time to prepare for each of them · The issues of the background and the survey are appropriate for a study session · If we are on a fast-track, maybe we do not need to do a review of other cities---if we lrnow our rules, and we lrnow 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 from 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 information more quickly than is listed in the schedule? /7-/50 Planning Commission "~~,1Utes 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 overaU 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 wiU question the reasons for certain actions. If a principle is established at the beginning stating that aU 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 aU 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.GiIli: · That topic is on the first sheet of the Scope of Work · One commissioner had said he was happy that we are looking at R I review on sites in the hills Mr, Piasecki: · This is an issue that has been faced in the past. There are a few lots in the hillsides that are on relatively steep slopes that are zoned R I · This creates problems when applicants bring forward homes following standards that are inconsistent with the hillside standards Ms. WordeU: · The commissioners wiU 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 wiU be lost during the summer, so a study session may be one way to make up the lost time /7 -{51 Planning Commission. _JUtes 22 April 12, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · The next two Planning Commission meetings are April 26 and May 10. If the connnission would like, the R I issue can be continued from tonight's meeting to a study session on April 26 · The amount of time needed will be dependent upon how much detail the commissioners want on the regulations in other cities · Information has been received from all the cities in the county except Monte Sereno and Milpitas · Because this is an Old Business item, it is not an advertised public hearing. It would be best if the commission refrains from going into detail and stating individual stances on the 2003 recommendations until there is a pubJic meeting · A study session could be a public meeting Ms. Wordlell: · A study session is a pubJic 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 Rl so far have been public hearings, but the chain was broken because RI was not discussed at every meeting, and no date was set · We will need to re-advertise if we want it to be a public hearing, These are all public meetings, but people don't hear about them in the same way · There is not enough time to advertise a study session as a public hearing for the April 26 meeting Mr.Gilli: · If the commission is going to strike the guiding principles and objectives outside the scope of work, the items could be condensed and the commissioners' stances on past actions could be discussed in a study session format on May 10 · The survey results will be in a database so information can be pulled up in any way desired · If any of the commissioners have ideas on what types of information they would like to have pulled from the survey, please present them at the April 26 meeting, so the information can be gathered for the May 10 study session · A large stack of plans is in the materials presented with this report. These are for reference and commissioners can call or e-mail me if there are designs that they don't like and they want to know why a particular design was approved · Presented slides of projects that were approved in the Rl zones from 1999-to the present. Stated that it is good to take the time to look at these projects on the computer because they are three-dimensional and it is easier to get a feel of whàt the project looks Jike than from the plans · Each of these projects went through a public hearing · Asked each of the commissioners to let him know if they see a site that they would like to have photographed and presented to the other commissioners · Presented a brief overview of the Rl ordinance approved by the Planning Commission in February 2003: o Revised illustrations: The graphics in the ordinance will be made more applicable o High volume area: The definition section of the ordinance specifies when an interior area is double counted, There is no explicit explanation of when it counts as first-story and when it counts as second-story area. It does not make sense to count high-volume area in a one-story house as second-story area. In a two-story house, if there is a grand entry and stairwell with a ceiling over 15', then the part that is over 15' will count as second story area, In a one-story house, the applicant f7 -{5d.. Planning Commission. .lUtes 23 April 12, 2004 will not have to go to design review ifthere 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 approva1. Unless an exception is asked for, it is handled at staff level approva1. Neighbors are notified, they comment to staff and staff would acts on it. If there is controversy, it is appealed, Some of the commissioners felt that it was a waste of the applicant's time to come to a design review meeting if there was no controversy from neighbors o Exceptions: This would be renamed as "design review" rather than "exception" to eliminate the negative connotation, The idea was that RI is a "one size fits all" and that doesn't work. There are cases where exceptions should be done, and the past commission wanted to encourage that o Narrow lots would have 5' side setbacks: A narrow lot should have 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 from the property line, goes up 12' and then comes in at a 25 degree angle. The recommendation in 2003 was to start the building envelope at the side setbacks, which are 5' and 10'. That would make a minor reduction in height on the 10' side o Basement lightwells: If a basement is built, it will not count as floor area as long as the lightwells are as small as they need to be, It was suggested that, as an incentive to build a single-story house and a basement, without having a second story with its impacts, one lightwell that serves more as a patio would be allowed o Privacy planting species list: The past commission removed the list of species from the ordinance and agreed to refer to it as a handout. That allows staff to update it more easily o Privacy covenants: If there are privacy trees, they will be on a covenant on the property, This was in the tree ordinance, but not in the RI ordinance and the past commission wanted to make sure people knew about it o Second story decks: This proposed to move the rules out of the Accessory Structures ordinance and put it into RI o Variation to FARs and first story setbacks requires a Variance: Everything needs an exception, which has fmdings that are easier to meet than a variance. With a variance, one needs to have some hardship or some issues with the property. The idea was that exceptions would apply to the design aspects in the ordinance- second-story wall offsets, visible second-story heights, and not to the FAR. If someone wanted an FAR over 45%, it wasn't supposed to be an exception, There is a lot of documentation in the code stating, ".,. but in no case shall the FAR be over 45..." Staff proposed explicitly stating that this would be a variance, which is a different process. Staff also suggested that first-story setbacks have a variance, Everything else would have an exception process 17-{53 Planning Commission ..11utes 24 April 12, 2004 · Al1 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 a1l 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 origina1ly scheduled for the June 14 meeting and so on, until the date the Planning Commission schedules as a break Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong to approve the tentative schedule for the Planning Commission's review of the Rl Ordinance as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) 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 wi1l be mitigated, Discu ed ways low cost housing can be improved in Cupertino and ways to serve the entire commu Ity. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting held. Ma or's Monthl Meetin With Comm' sioners: The key information shared by Mayor James was the ba1l0t initiative attempt by th Cupertino Concemed Citizens. The group is currently c01lecting signatures to have an initiat' e put on the ba1l0t. The City has determined that it will not take any legal action at this time, b reserves the right to do so at a later time, An outside firm is conducting a study to determine w, at the results might be if the initiative is approved by Cupertino residents. The cost of the study, i1l 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 ba1l0t, 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 insta1led in the City Center Park (which wil1 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 wil1 impact the new libr , probably in the form of cuts in library hours. 17-[54 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: ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Angela Chen Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director City Planner Senior Planner Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the RI Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continuedfrom Planning Commission meeting of May 10,2004 {7-/55 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 pubJic discourse and discussion · The purpose of this during the public hearing session would be to hear the arguments for and against the concept of relaxing the standard in various formats, The commission could then decide how to go about making changes · Cautioned that the commissioners need to be clear that the current ratio of 35% of second floor to first floor really gives a roughly v.. - % relationship · 35% is approximately 1/3, and the comparison has to be 1/3 compared to 3/3, so it is basically 1. 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 front porch, or is it literally the whole neighborhood?) · Large neighborhoods such as the Rancho Rinconada or Monta Vista areas may be handled through neighborhood plans rather than through the ordinance Chair Saadati: · Privacy is another item that might need to be considered Mr. Piasecki: · There does not seem to be a lot of controversy regarding privacy · The commission could decide whether they want to enhance or not enhance current privacy regulations · Most people responding to the survey want the privacy regulations /7-(50 Planning Commission ~. ..Jy Session Minutes 3 May 13,2004 Chair Saadati: · Design review seems to be a big issue. A lot of neighbors have concerns about the current policy that allows trees to be planted that take three years to grow. This could be something that wou1d 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 staff reports Chair Saadati: · One of the largest issues is the second floor to fIrst floor ratio · Feels this should be the number one item · Asked each commissioner to identify his/her top three priorities for discussion at the public hearings Com. Giefer: · Agreed that it would be a good idea to identify each commissioner's top three items and see what are the most heavily weighted issues among the commissioners · Wants to understand better what the right first/second floor ratio is, if change is necessary, that will provide flexibility for people who want to 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 peop1e like that, is there something that can be done to he1p 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 p1ans, 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, /7-157 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: /7-/57 Planning Commission 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 Jive there 3-6 years compared to a neighbors who are building around that person who are planning to live there for the next 20-30 years and are building for the next generation? · How much is the new home forced to be restricted by the current home? Chair Saadati: · The privacy aspect addresses both sides · There is public noticing and a hearing process. People can express concerns and work out the issues, Permits under design review are not approved until everyone is pretty well satisfied with the outcome Com. Chen: · In addressing changing communities, the first priority is to provide an Rl ordinance that gives the maximum amount of flexibility for a good design, without forgetting the bulk and mass we're trying to avoid · The goal is to have a good looking community · Some of the rules, such as the building envelope and the first-story to second-story ratio need to be relaxed · The second principle is to give more thought to "compatibility" and to the definition of compatibility · Does compatibility pertain strictly to height and volume, or could it also pertain to materials and basic design style being in compliance with the neighborhood · Wants to see if the total bar percentage for two-story homes be loosened. For the two- story, right now if it is over 35% FAR, it has to go through the design review process. Would like to raise the bar to 45% FAR, while adding other restrictions to encourage compatibility and correct design · For the third principle, wants to add language to encourage environmentally friendly development · Wants to establish balance between homeowners and neighbors. Neighbors need to get plenty of advance notice about proposed changes in the neighborhood · Privacy issues can be addressed as part of the balance between homeowners and neighbors. A workable privacy plan needs to be developed to protect both homeowners and neighbors Com. Wong: · First principle is to stay within the intent of the ordinance which is to reduce mass and bulk o The second story ratio should be Jess restrictive-increase to 45% o Ful1y enforce the daylight plane, Perhaps follow Palo Alto's example of not using a percentage of the second story ratio to still achieve the intent of reducing mass and bulk · Second principle would address the Design Review Guidelines o Make them user friendly to applicant, staff and public o Fold Design Review Guidelines into the 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" 17- f5'1 Planning Commission _ .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 he done the same way. This needs to be kept in mind · Policies need to be done in a way that minimize future changes and the policies need to be "built to last" · The second to first story ratio needs to be flexible. We can be flexible by increasing the ratio and tying it to the setback by adjusting the setback--the more mass on the second floor, the more setback · The focus should be on how we can build homes that are nice and compatible with the neighborhood. Compatibility does not mean having tract homes that all look the same and don't enrich the neighborhood, The more desirable neighborhoods are those that have individual homes that are not all the same Mr. Piasecki: · Getting this infonnation 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 attractive homes that have been built in Cupertino · Provide a design guideline booklet that can be handed out Mr. Piasecki: · The booklet could discuss basic design principles such as symmetry and balance and alignment of features · To get to that element, there needs to be an implementation mechanism and the guideline booklet would be one "soft" and suggestive way to do that · Most of what will be seen in the communities will be homes that are added on to. There will be relatively few new homes, so most of the construction will be in existing, constrained homes. The homeowner may want to add a larger master bedroom on the second floor, enlarge a kitchen or develop a particular feature · It is harder to design high quality into that type of construction Chair Saadati: · The third principle is in the line of 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 17- ((00 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 concems to be sensitive to the concerns of his neighbors Com. Giefer: · Asked Mr, Gi11i 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 ta11 wa11s-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 wi\1 discuss the topic and provide direction to staff on how to craft that section of the ordinance · By the end of the process, there wi11 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 /7-/0/ Planning Commission c .dy Session Minutes 8 May 13, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Staff had envisioned possibly writing the whole ordinance and letting commissioners review it · It seems that the preferred method is to listen to the discussions and then write the ordinance rrom the results of those discussions Com. Miller: · This method would be less confusing and would allow commissioners to take public input before committing to a particular position Mr. Gilli: · This process will slow down the schedule · These steps will need to be taken: o The commissioners will talk about the issues and try to establish a consensus direction o Staff will draft that section of the ordinance o Commissioners will respond to the draft section at the next meeting to make sure that language reflects what was intended o Commissioners will then discuss another issue and try to give staff enough to write language for another draft section of the ordinance · If we look at past issues that have been handled in this manner, it has taken two or three meetings to finalize Mr. Piasecki: · There doesn't seem to be another practical way to manage the process · Some of the guiding principles conflict with one another and staff couldn't write a s~ction of the ordinance right now if commissioners asked them to Ms. Wordell: · Another way to do it would be to not visit it until the end and then say, "Here is what you said in the last few months." Mr. Piasecki: · That method could be done, and in that way the issues would not be debated at the next meeting · There would be a record of what commissioners intended for each topic and there could be a wrap-up meeting at the end to go through everything one more time · Wants to be an advocate of keeping the process simple so there will not be confusion of overlapping rules in the ordinance Com. Giefer: · As we look for input on a specific issues, such as, should the first-second story ratio be increased and more flexibility be allowed, commissioners need to go in with an open mind · When the survey data was reviewed, 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 / Î -((Pd Planning Commission ~ Jy Session Minutes 9 May 13, 2004 · The public hearing is very important to get input rrom citizens Chair Saadati: · One e-mail or letter received as part of the survey said that the decisions should be left to the professionals · We need to infonn and educate the public. Most of the public are not architects and have not in general dealt with a lot of buildings, but they live in the community and need to be able to comment on what is being built there Mr. Piasecki: · Staff will combine all the principles that were shared by more than one commissioner, but otherwise leave the list as it is · Commissioners can decide at any meeting to combine topics for discu¡;sion as long as at least three commissioners agree to the discussion Com. Wong: · Wants to discuss slope lots and RHS at a different hearing, even though they are within the scope of work for the RI Com. Chen: · When this was discussed before, it was detennined that slope lots and RHS were more of a zoning issue and belong in a different category Mr. Piasecki: · Finish the RI, and on the heels of it, bring up the slope lots and RHS · The RI ordinance may be amended twice-we'll write an ordinance without it, and on the heels of that, you'll discuss the slope lots and RHS and we'll write another Rl amendment Chair Saadati: · Asked if there is an estimated time for each meeting Mr. Gilli: · It was anticipated that each topic would require a three-hour meeting, not counting public input · Commissioners have a lot to talk about on each issue · Staff 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 adj ourned to the regular Planning Commission /7 -((p 3> Planning Commission ~_ _.utes 12 May 24, 2004 · Com. Chen: · Supports the proj ect · Pleased to see the lot being used · Pleased to see another commercial business in Cupertino Com. Miller: · Supports the project · Concur with Com, Chen; the project is a major im rovement on the site Com. Giefer: · Supports the project · Ideal use for the facility 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 .¡:U-2004 5; with the addition of two auto spaces for auto sales, totaling 11 spaces. Planning Co . sion decision final unless appealed to City Council. Chair Saada declared a short recess. / 6. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19,28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed topics to be discussed: high volume ceiJings; 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 ceiJings as outlined in the staff report o Staff recommends increase from 15 to 16 feet for ceiJing height Cary Chien, Felton Way: · Said he was pleased with staff recommendation to increase from between 45% to 50% of the second story ratio /7 -f~t.f Planning Commission JL.Jutes 13 May 24, 2004 · Stated confusion; reminded the Planning Commission why there has been a call for increase in percentage because applicants and architects say they do not have enough space upstairs; to tie it with high volume ceilings and then say they equate, does not accomplish what the people are asking for · Recommended that they encourage the second story FAR to stand on its own merit; those merits are what people are telling them about not having enough space upstairs, and ask that the percentage be increased · Said he did not feel it was tied to the high volume ceiling Mr. Gilli: · Staff would like the Planning Commission to come to agreement on the general language of the three topics Com. Miller: · Said he was pleasantly surprised by 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 /1-(ws- Planning Commission 1~d,utes 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 minimum based on what staff gave in Exhibit B, for smaller lots in Rancho and Monta Vista, it would be difficult for them eVen for 800 to fit 3 bedrooms above · Agree with staff that 50% is good, but still advocate daylight plane and have it go through design review Mr. GUll: · Clarified that if there was an architect on DRC, it would be at the applicant's cost, not the city's · Explained the fees and deposits involved Chair Saadati: · Measuring the height based on the outside vs, the ceiling is more appropriate; it lifts many restrictions · Increasing the second story ratio would be appropriate; 50% is easy to apply · Regarding daylight saving plane, need to 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 /7-{{¡;(O Planning Commission l'v.ülUtes 15 May 24, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Weare not doing much in the arena that Palo Aho 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 COI1111llssion 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 Aho does, to a daylight plane; it has nothing to do with good design · Cupertino al10ws the applicant to hopeful1y 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 infoTI1lation on just what kind of flexibility it allows or doesn't allow; it may lead you to say it is very flexible and be sure to look at the product of what comes out of this · The idea of bringing back more infoTI1lation 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 Aho 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 al10w 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 /7-/07 Planning Commission l\...mtes 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 lmow 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 day1ight 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. Gilli: · Said it is possible in Rancho that if the minimum were 800, there are some cases where it could result in first and second story being the same /7 - ((Per Planning Commission J\~~~,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 information on the daylight plane and present it to the Planning Commission at the next meeting, so that they could continue with the rest of the items Mr. Gilli: · Said in the interest of planning for having a document at the end of this process, what he heard was 50% is a good number; verified that at least three are happy with that figure; Com. Miller said two Planning Commissioners said 1,000 and would support it as a backup plan; and the other two are still with 1,000; three for high volume ceilings; three said they supported staff language Vice Chair Wong: · Even though the design looks unusual, examples 45, 52, 64, can they still do this even though the design is not really good inside and even if they were to convert it, they would still have to come back for a building permit to convert it Mr. Gilli: · 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 still had to come back to DRC and the staff recommendation on that particular one in Monta Vista, staffrecommended Yes. Mr. Gilli: · There was no point in saying No because the mass was already there Vice Chair Wong: · We can literally enforce it and staff could have said No Mr. Gilli: · Said it was his opinion that it would not hold up at the City Council level to say No when the volume is already there and it only adding a floor in Vice Chair Wong: · On these particular ones since it is not open; it doesn't open out to a living room area; it is just the staircase area; instead of it being double counted, said he was not opposed to allowing this type of ceiling /7 -/roc¡ Planning Commission tvHllUtes 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 will 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 count it? · Another approach may be that if it is in the stairwell, which has to be there by definition if you have a second story, why not not-double count it in the stairwell and then double count it anywhere else Mr. Gilli: · Minor drawback is if the stairwell was never double counted; you may get people who exaggerate the size of a stairwell, and have it be larger than it needs to be; or an exemption of up to a certain win 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 wi1l not accept that it is part of the stairwell; it will be double counted · Accepts staff's language Com. Miller: · It seems fair Mr. Gilli: · Staff will look through the plans to see the average size of the stairwell and put the number in · One note on the recommendation; based on wanting to consider a minimum of 1,000 square feet; in that case for the regulations to make sense and work together, the Planning Commission should explore the idea of a second floor that is 60% of the first floor because if /7 -/70 Planning Commission k.,¡utes 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 frrst 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, if they go with 1,000, look at a higher proportion. Chair Saadati: · Suggested a one hour study session to review the material Com. Chen: · Said she understood Vice Chair Wong's concern about flexibility for the second floor design. · Qualify the distinction in the ordinance that the 1,000 applies to certain lot size, with the design review process in place which will take everything into consideration Mr. Gilli: · Said the idea of having a special rule in Rancho because they are all smaller lots makes excellent sense because it is a completely different problem there, with the size of the lots, width of the lots, it cannot be compared to a 10,000 square foot lot in the old Monta Vista area Mr. Piasecki: · Said staff had sufficient direction to return to the Planning Commission in two weeks. OLD BUSINESS: None /7 - f7 / Planning Commission !\HDutes 9 June 14,2004 5. MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2004; Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Discussed the topics of focus as set forth in the staff report: o Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge o Second Story Wall Offsets o Privacy Planting o Old Business: Second Story Area (Minimum) o Old Business: Second Story Daylight Plane · Staff recommends that either the offset sizes be increased or that part of the approving action of a design review project, if all two story projects are reviewed, will be to make sure that the offsets are effective, and then it will be case by case and up to the approving body, · There are also cases where the offset may not be necessary and those are cases where the second story wall is not very visible; the only occurrences of this have been with a building permit, not a design review project, that is a two story project with an FAR of3S% that didn't need design review, that they had to add in an offset where it didn't really need to be done to reduce the mass and bulk of the second story · Along those lines, staff recommends that the offsets not be required in cases where the exposed wall height of the second story is less than three or four feet and whichever figure is more comfortable with the Planning Commission or even higher or lower; that is a ballpark amount that staff believes is reasonable. Com. Miller: · Requested that second story wall heights be added to the discussion (19.28.060, Section FA) · Said that in looking at the requirements, he had a general concern as it is a complex ordinance. · Said he felt the daylight plane would simplify the discussions in terms of many issues and would satisfy the issues relative to bulk and mass, and at the same time simplify the ordinance to make it easier for a layperson to understand how to comply with the requirements, The daylight plane concept applies just as much to all the things relative to second story setbacks and offsets as it does to the other issues. Mr. Gilli: · Said it was not in the scope of work from the City Council, that is why it was not included in the staff report. Mr. Piasecki: · Said they contacted the city of Palo Alto to request that they come to speak on the daylight plane. They were not able to be present tonight, and staff will also get written material from them for the Planning Commission before the next meeting. Mr. Gilli: · Said city of Palo Alto staff would not be available until August. (7 - f7 ~ Planning Commission l,...mtes 10 June 14,2004 Com. Giefer: · With regard to recommendation on the privacy planting, who would bear the cost of a tree in ones neighbors yard; would it be the homeowner? Mr,Gilli: · It would be the person who built the two story house. Acting Chair Wong opened the public hearing, Susan Lui, Woodburry Drive: · Asked for clarification on second story surcharge in addition to the setback. · Asked if changing the second story minimum square footage from 600 to 800 was being continued for discussion. · Relative to the setback of the house, one side has to be 10 feet, one side 5 feet, can a property owner place the home 8 feet on one side, 7 feet on the other. Acting Chair Wong: · It is being continued in discussion, Mr. Gilli: · Relative to the surcharge, said the ordinance has minimum second story setbacks and also a surcharge to insure that there is more than enough offsets off the first story. · The rules were prior to 1992 which was prior to the city having a limit on the area that the second floor could be, The surcharge says that you need to add 15 feet more to the front and side setbacks, and at least 5 of it has to be applied to one side. · The front setback on the second story is a minimum 25 feet, the sides are 10 feet; the surcharge can be split amongst the front and side, but at least 5 feet has to be on one side, One option is to keep the ¡ront 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 005 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. · Acting Chair Wong had answered the second question. · The first story setbacks that were specifically in the scope of work that the Council gave to the Planning Commission were in cases where there are narrow lots, What the Planning Commission may still want to pursue is make some recommendations that aren't in the scope of work and staff can present that to the City Council for endorsement. · There have been people in the past bringing up the idea of splitting up the sides; although there have been people on large lots as partially reflected in the surveys, that believe the large lots, over 10,000 should have 10 feet on both sides. There are many nuances to that and the Planning Commission may want to look at that further. Acting Chair Wong: · Wanted clarification; for the second story surcharge, what is the purpose of it again, since we already have second story setbacks, 17 - f73 Planning Commission lvllnutes 11 June 14, 2004 Mr. Gilli: o When the rules were put in place, the idea was that the minimum setbacks were not enough, but they wanted to have more setbacks, and to provide the flexibility where the applicant/architect can place the additional setback wherever it worked in their case. Part of the reason a minimum of 5 feet is to be applied on the side, was to make it harder to have a two story wall pJane 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 wal1 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: o Currently, are they any other cities that have this surcharge. Mr. Gilli: o Based on the review of the cities and county, I don't believe so, Acting Chair Wong: oMs. 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.Gil\i: o 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 al1 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 Secoud Story Setbacks and Surcharge: Com. Chen: o 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. o Said she felt the intent of the setback was to further reduce the bulk and mass, Mr. Gil\i: o 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 additionaJ surcharge that would keep al1 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 al1lots. o 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: o With the second story setback plus the limit on the maximum square footage on the second floor, do they all work out? /7 - 174 Planning Commission 1<lmutes 12 June 14,2004 Mr. GiIli: · Said he could only speak to the projects that have been approved with the second story at 35% or in some cases 40% of the ground floor; they have never maxed out the allowable area on the second floor within the setbacks; so there has always been extra setback area that has either been on one side, both sides, the rront or the rear, and that leads to a lot of variety and flexibility in design, · I do not know if the second story is 50% if that will still exist, I believe it will, but there may be some cases where you could have a second story that fills out the entire second story building envelope, Probably that would be on smaller lots. Com. Chen: · Basically do not disagree with second story setbacks, although 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. GiIli: · 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 recommendation that the Planning Commission consider the benefits and drawbacks of privacy planting: the existing rule is appropriate. · Agree with staff that offsets should not be required in cases where less than tlrree or four feet of the wall height is exposed. Com. Giefer: · Supports staffrecommendation 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 tlrree sides, the one part of the building where the homeowner will not invade anybody's privacy is in the rront of their home; yet it is required that they push the second story to the rear which invades tlrree other neighbors. · Said it would be ideal to design 100% rront facing walls to push as much of the house to the street as possible as part of privacy protection; but it may result in designing a lot of ugly boxes. The more of the house that can be pushed to the front, would create less invasion of neighborhood privacy; yet again it would create bulk and mass which is specifically what is trying to be reduced, · Pleased they are doing something to help the neighbors in Rancho Rinconada, and support that the surcharge for the Rancho Rinconada owners be eliminated. · Supports privacy plantings; would like to see choice in privacy plantings for screenings; said that if re-Iandscaping her yard and there is not enough room on her lot for all the trees, and if there is still a privacy issue, she would like to have the option of planting live trees on the 17 - ( 75 Planning Commission IvwlUtes 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 Eich1er neighborhoods. · Supports staff recommendation with regards to the second story offsets, Com. Miller: · Relative to privacy, the majority of peop1e in the survey said àe---fiet leave the privacy unchanged and I agree with that. · Staff had a good suggestion in tenns of exploring wherever possible if there are issues with privacy, putting the trees on the neighbors' property who has a concem about the privacy, · Moving to the topic of small lots and sections of town such as Rancho, said he was going to suggest something perhaps radical. There are a number of planned communities in town that are somewhat similar and the one that comes to mind, is Seven Springs, and many of the lots are similar to the size of the lots in Rancho that we have to deal with, and yet Seven Springs is a development that I think was done very well. Allowing that kind of development in areas where we are dealing with small lots is a good idea; furthennore picking up on what Com, Giefer said about moving the second story setback on the tTont 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 dayJight 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 ITom Palo Alto come and discuss daylight plane, the Planning Commission would not be looking at all these unnecessary ordinances and procedures; it might simplify the process, which is one of the principles he said he was advocating. · Regarding the Rancho Rinconada area, support staff recommendation to eliminate the surcharge regarding the simplification that staff is suggesting for wording; my question to staff is that if we go to 50% to the first FAR with the second story setbacks, will they still have enough building envelope to build. Mr. Gilli: · Said that he agreed that bigger lots would be fine; they would have to draw it up to see, For the small Rancho Jots, 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. /7 -/70 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 on]y get 750 square feet on the second story, Even if we 100k 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 R], it wouldn't happen because of these wall offsets. Mr. Gil\i: · 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 wi1l be twice as wide so there will be the opportunity to have a wider first story and even possib1y a wider second story, to provide some articu]ation on the side, Acting Chair Wong: · Regarding the second story wall offset, the recommendations that if the P1anning Commission detennines that a design review is necessary for all two story homes, then the Planning Commission may leave the regu1ation as is, but requiring the approving body of two story projects detennine that the offsets are effective on a case by case basis. I real1y 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 real1y have a strong concern, and of those who did understand the R1 ordinance, 60% did not have a strong concern on privacy p1anting, · 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 1andscaping 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 litt1e stringent; wou1d 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 100\cing into that; it is part of the reason why in the recommendati~n on the second story setbacks and at a later meeting on the first story setbacks we have recommendations that make it easier to bui1d in on the RI-5 lots, It is difficult to compare because Seven Springs was one who]e development but is along the lines of a special neighborhood plan, Before going too far, it should be detennined if the Rancho residents want that, because a lot ofpeop1e supported annexation because they had a concept of what the ru1es 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. /7-/77 P1anning Commission lI-~ülutes 15 June 14,2004 Com. Chen: o Asked Acting Chair Wong if he was suggesting that for as long as the design is within the ordinance and guidelines, it not be reviewed at all; since he was strongly opposed to having two story buildings reviewed by staff. Acting Chair Wong: o Correct, that is the current ordinance, except for if it is over between 35 to 45%, it is reviewed by staff. If it is under 35% it is not reviewed by staff as long as it meets the current ordinance; because if staff recommends that all two story developments should be reviewed by staff, that is what was approved in the last Planning Commission hearing in December 2003. Com. Chen: o In the meantime, increase the total square footage to 45% also for two story buildings; these two go together. Acting Chair Wong: o They go together, but the review process portion will be the appropriate time for discussion, These are not exclusive, everyone addressed them individually first and then at the end, If the Planning Commission still determines that they are not exclusive and they should be together, it will be determined at that time. If they can come up with an ordinance that meets everything, the staff will not have to do discretionary review. Com. Miller: o Agree with Acting Chair Wong, am hesitant to expand the scope of review to second story structures that are below 35% and the original ordinance doesn't require it. o It adds more complexity to the process àt 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 ofthe lots are small, it is specifically designed to give the feel of open space and flowing neighborhood that is highly walkable; and don't feel it can compare one to one between Seven Springs and Rancho Rinconada. o Also appreciate staff's comments that the reason why they voted for annexation was they perceived a better quality of zoning with the way the neighborhood is zoned today vs, the way it had been when it was county land, o Reminded staff that Palo Alto has a one to one relationship between using the daylight plane or building envelope and design review; all two story homes in Palo Alto go through design review, and that is their process. Not sure what would happen if you didn't pair those two hand in hand. o Numbers staff provided on Page 5-5 are good with regards to house size, the FAR, and what the potential 50% second story size would be. o It would be very informative to apply our rules today to a 50% second story to see if it is doable, or if we apply our current setbacks and offsets and surcharges, is it even possible to have these 50% numbers on the second floor, which we as a group have not agreed that the first to second floor ratio is 50% yet. Wanted to remind everyone that it is a working number, not a final number. (7-(7? Planning Commission 1~u,utes 16 June 14,2004 Acting Chair Wong: o Said the summarizing was direction for staff, and as Com. Giefer said, it is true there was a majority of commissioners who would like to go 50% to second to first FAR, but at the end once stafflooks at everything, they may recommend likewise, o Summarized for direction to staff that regarding the first recommendation, the majority of the commissioners feH that regarding the Rl zone and Rancho Rinconada that a surcharge be eliminated; majority saying yes, o Regarding simplification, at least two commissioners support it, which he expressed concerned about. Asked staff to come back with more information on flexibility. o If the Planning Commission determines a type of design review, the Commission is evenly split today; there was no comment regarding increasing the minimum width offset with 6 to 8; that remains as is. o Regarding the unnecessary offsets, the commission is split; regarding the privacy planting, all agree that it should be as is. o Said he supported having a presentation from Palo AHo regarding the daylight plane, and asked Corns. Giefer and Chen to comment on whether they are interested in hearing a presentation from Palo AHo. Com. Giefer: o Said she was agreeable, and would like to specifically understand what their issues are with it, what they have run into on a regular basis, and what they believe would be the impact if they did not have the design review coupled with that. Com. Chen: o Said she would agree to learn from their experience, Com. Giefer: o Relative to second story wall offsets, agree with staff. Com. Miller: o I think that is an increased restriction and I don't agree with that. Com. Chen: o I agree with staff on this one, Mr. Gilli: o On the issues that are split 2/2, one was the wording change in the surcharge; Corns, Giefer and Chen wanted to go with staff recommendation on the wording, and Com, 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: o Yes, if the Planning Commission goes along with exploring a different method, that is my first choice; if we are going to stay with the current method, then I would go with the revised wording. Acting Chair Wong: o Said he concurred. /7-/79 Planning Commission tvllnutes 17 June 14, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · For now it will remain as 2/2. Com. Chen: · Said she felt the surcharge was stringent; agree with setbacks, but don't necessarily agree with the surcharge, Mr. Gilli: · I had it in my notes that you were agreeable to the change in the language, but if you are not, then I can adjust that. Com. Miller: · This is actually, what I think the majority of us are saying is we would like to eliminate the surcharges, is that correct. Com. Giefer: · The thought was that the surcharge is confusing on how to apply it; said she liked the simplification and language and would like to see flexibility on how that additional five would be added to one side or the other. Com. Chen: · Yes, basically correct, but I would also like to see how that would work with a 50% second story, so no decision on surcharge, I would need more information. Com. Giefer: · Said it was not unlike the comment she made earlier that with calculations for second story area with all the setbacks and surcharges, are those second floor; can you actually put that much second story square footage in those houses at 50%, because if we go down fTom there, they will be impacted more greatly. Acting Chair Wong: · Definitely on smaller lots we would have to do adjustments, especially on lots under 6,000 square feet in Ranch Rinconada or in Monta Vista. · Three commissioners share that concern. Mr. Gilli: · Privacy rules: the same, although there is interest in seeing if it can be in the neighbor's yard; but that can be on a case by case basis unless language is desired. · The daylight plane we are going to bring back; Planning Commission wants to make sure the surcharge works if the second story area is allowed to go up to 50% of the first story, and it is split on the offsets to support making it wider to oppose primarily because you want to go a different route. · Agreed that more communication would result in less rules and they should strive for that. · The issue with the daylight plane, one thing that is going to be an issue is if you have a daylight plane that allows you to build out to a certain area, that is equivalent to having minimum setbacks without a surcharge. If you had a daylight plane that allowed everything in this envelope without additional rules, you will see houses that are built out to that envelope and there is a likelihood that they will start to look more or less the same, Palo Alto takes care of that through design review; it would be good to have them here to explain how it is done. / 7 - ( to Planning Commission ]I,..."utes 18 June 14,2004 · Relative to the offset recommendation in the staff report, if the design review is agreed upon for all two story projects, then the idea was perhaps you don't have to adjust the actual rule, you can just look at it on a case by case basis. The review could be all Design Review Committee, staff, none; it has not been looked at yet. · Said that the comment that there is no review of two story homes under 35% FAR, is not correct The ordinance now calls for staff to look at the general compatibility of a two story project that does not need design review; if it cannot be corrected, it would be referred to the Design Review Committee; that has never been done, so I would like the Planning Commission to understand that and take that into account · Reviewed the list of topics for the next Planning Commission meeting, in addition to some things that need to be brought back to the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Wong: · Said it is true that staff does review every application that goes through, even two stories and reviewing for compatibility, because that was done with the design review guidelines, and is required by the current ordinance until July. · Said he saw a different interpretation. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Chen, to continue Application MCA-2003-03 and EA-2003-19 to the next Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chairperson Saadati absent) OLD BUSINESS: None 6. Consideration of cancellation of one Planning summer months. meeting during the NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Wordell: · Explained that the Planning Commission may oose to take a week off in the summer and may consider the last week in July to coinci with the City Council break. · Staff recommends canceling the July 26 eting. Com. 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. 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 s felt they would not meet their schedule if they canceled a meeting, · Felt ther were many things that they required infonnation for; suggested that Palo Alto may be ab~o attend the meeting to discuss daylight plane, . ,.. /7-f'i?( Planning Commission Nllnutes 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 ofthe Cupertino Mnnicipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continned from Jnne 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Conncil Date: Not Schednled. 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 tjme 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. GilIi: · 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 jt held true today? /7-!'i!d.- Planning Commission Jhlnutes 32 July 12, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · The issue of story poles is not something staff needs; the survey indicated many people liked them, but staff does not need them, not important for their review. There have been cases where story poles have fallen, and not constructed properly, Mr. Piasecki: · Said they were a hassle to install on an older home; the survey indicated people liked them; however staff does not need them. o Said it was the call of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wong: · Referred to Exhibit A, Page 4-6, Question 16, and discussed the breakdown of the responses from various homeowners with different levels of experience with the process, · Regarding guidelines, based on the three processes, that is how staff will make the recommendations on guidelines. Mr. Gilli: · If the idea is to remain status quo, you may need some level of guidelines, if the idea is to move c10ser 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, al1 the towns and cities that have more review, have detailed guidelines and they enforce them, · If you look at the three options: more review, less review, or remain status quo; likely would not need guidelines for less review; for more review, you would need to have them and expand on them, and for status quo, you could reduce them slightly, increase them or change them a little, depending on where you want to go in the spectrum. Vice Chair Wong: · Said that the City Council let the Planning Commission look into design guidelines, · Also let the Planning Commission look at residential design approval; Page 4, but was limited to two story, on the second story that is over 35%. · If you look at your process review here, you are also looking at one story and that was not in the scope of work, so if you want to fol1ow that direction, he recommended a minute order. Mr. Gilli: · If you would like to and you believe so; but what was presented to the City Council was the Planning Commission would look at the whole review process, what was reviewed, how it was reviewed, who reviewed it. That was presented to the City Council in those words and they agreed to that. o 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 concemed residents when they came to review that, said he found that the story poles in a number of incidents actual1y 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, . /7 -( Y3 Planning Commission Jvünutes 33 July 12, 2004 · Questioned how valuable the story poles are in terms of neighborhood notification; Said he felt it was likely better to notify them and/or give them some kind of picture of what they are looking at; because story poles don't represent what is actually going to be up there when it is constructed. · Noted that only Los Gatos and Cupertino are currently using story poles in the surrounding area. (Others commented that Palo Alto and Los Altos also used them) · Concurred 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 va1ue 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 to01, 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 ofthem 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 p01es or word of mouth, and are most concemed about not knowing what is being built, and once they come in and see the plans and have the regulations explained, they are calmer. People need to take the time to contact the neighbor and ask them what they are doing and the neighbor will show them. · There are other ways to notify the neighbors; we are taking one notification away by taking away story poles which is a health and safety issue, but you can also notify people by sending the application and plans, elevation only to the immediate neighbors and if they really want to learn more, they can either contact the applicant or go to City Hall and contact the professional planner. · Other 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, 17-1 g1 Planning Commission ¡,ünutes 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 poies 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 altemative 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. o We 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 11 x 17 plan, not just the elevations, Com. Miller: o Suggested using legal size paper as II by 17 is difficult to work with. · Said it was not clear why a neighbor would need to see the floor plan, but just should be concemed with the elevations and not the interior of the house, It is inappropriate for the neighbors to comment on the interior of the house. · Later in the discussion, he said that if there are copy machines to easily copy 11 x 17, he stood corrected, Mr. Gilli: · Asked if there was agreement to have the site plan with it. Com. Miller: (7-(Y5 Planning Commission ,,,,nutes 35 July 12,2004 · Said the site plan is fine. Vice Chair Wong: · Also concur with Com, Giefer as well as Com, Miller to have a site plan; the elevation, no floor plans; it is the property owner's rights; the main concern is mass and bulk and we want to make sure that we address that issue. · Regarding privacy, if they are concemed, they should make the time and come to city hall to look at it, when they get the noticing for the DRC, it is a second opportunity for them to come. · It if raises a concern to the immediate neighbor, they should come and see the full set ofþlans at the counter. · Want to make it cost effective for the applicant. · The other concern is no story poles, but if we increase that notification for the DRC to more, they can also get the notification to come to the DRC to see the second story addition. · It is very important to keep the DRC so that it is another way of notification. · Recommend legal size, much better for economic reasons. · Summary: Will have a site plan, the elevation, the renderings, no floor plans; and also a contact information from staff. Mr. Gilli: · Commented that legal size paper will end up being very small with a large amount of white space on the bottom, whereas 11 x 17 is a better fit because the plans generally start out at a certain aspect ratio that works better with II x 17. Chair Saadati: · Also in favor of expanded noticing; the site plan; as more people receive notification, hopefully there will be less outrage and surprises. Mr. Gilli: · Is there any discussion on courtesy noticing; or is this the courtesy notice? · There are two levels of notification; one is there is an action that the city is taking, in which case, in the alternatives, staff has this as one of the elements and then the other is right before a permit is about to be issued, it would be a letter saying the owner of this address is receiving a building permit to do an addition. Vice Chair Wong: · Do the courtesy notices, Com. Miller: · Generally feel that rather than create a new review, expanded, or reduced review, to stay with the current development process review and make some small changes; I am in favor of staying with Exhibit D, · One of the things with Exhibit D I would like to review is the design guidelines and one of the issues that we have had that we have heard about with design guidelines is that there is an inconsistency between some of the design guidelines and the existing ordinance, and I would like to take a look at that and perhaps fold some of the design guidelines into the ordinance and do away with the rest of them, and so that to the extent we can, we have more of the design guidelines in the ordinance, but you also iron out the discrepancies between the ordinance and the design guidelines. · The other place where it might be potentially a good idea is staff's suggestion to have more architectural input and adding an architect to the DRC has some merit; although it is not clear /7 -(fro Planning Commission 1.dnutes 36 July 12,2004 that the archÜectural consultant would do it because that is going to be an added expense. Said Ü was not difficult to get archÜects 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 ITom 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 archÜect, you may have to go outside the city to get one; we would normal1y go to the Santa Clara County AIA, Com. Giefer: · I am somewhere between keep it where Ü 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 I think one of the things that I appreciate about some of the other guidelines that we have, is they are more illustrative of the do's and don'ts and I would actually like to see ours enhanced and not just go away. · Also am in favor of having more professional participation in our DRC, instead of having Planning Commissioners on the DRC, I would recommend just having professionals, architect and staff on the DRC to make those reviews and decisions. That is potential1y 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 from an organization to support our city that we would not have to compensate. · I would also be in favor of having our current design review with some architect participation on that as well. Vice ChaIr Wong: · Agree with Corns, Giefer and Miller, that the current process is working; but don't want to majorly change the process. · Suggested that in next meeting regarding processes, is to give some guidance to staff on what particular guidelines we would like to see folded in, and what we don't. · Not prepared at this time to say likes and dislikes; vs, having staff second guess us; perhaps do jt 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 AIA, but I feel that the City Council needs to appoint that architect from 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 equal1y. (7-('i7 Planning Commission l>Æutes 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 in/othe 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 from the ordinance with some sketches or drawings that helps them to understand it better. · Also Exhibit D, having a professional on board would be an added benefit. · Finding an architect in Cupertino may be difficult; different professionals to sit on different matters, but you may not find the same person all the time. · Sometimes the benefit is if you get somebody from outside, you get an impartial opinion, Mr. Piasecki: · One of the best architectural advisers we had in Campbell was an instructor over at West Valley College; he did not live in the City of Campbell and he was excellent. You may get somebody in your own city, but you might not get the quality, Vice Chair Wong: · If there is concern about not being able to find someone in the community or their impartialness, whether or not the person may be in the community or not in the community, if it is a non-voting member, there would not be any worry about that particular issue, Chair Saadati: · Already have an architect who is a non-voting member and expresses his opinion and who reviews all the plans. Mr. Piasecki: · I have seen both models work; the one that Com. Wong is talking about is just an advisor at the meeting who can help you work through the plans, that is one way to do that, you can have him voting, you can even indicate that your preference is to find an architect in the community. · In the event that you don't find one, then you would select one outside the community, still the best qualified; but you would encourage community architects to be involved. Vice Chair Wong: · By making it non-voting, it addresses the Chair's concern about having a quorum. Chair Saadati: · It may lower the interest level of the architect wanting to sit on the committee; if they are a voting member, they may be more interested to come on board; it could go either way. Com. Mi1ler : · 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, /7 -I of Planning Commission ",mutes 38 July 12, 2004 Chair Saadati: · That won't change anything, but having a professional at the meeting, there is a dialog; that is different than having just a comment coming in, Com. Miller: · I understand that, and most of the time you would expect if we had someone participating as a member of the committee, he would be there and it is not the ideal case that he is not there; but it is somewhere in between; ifhe stil1 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 ofthe 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 of the meeting. Com. Miller: · The speaker raises a good point, and in fact the only reason for having an architect is that issues come up after the initial review by the architectural consultant to the city, that particularly at the DRC meetings, that potentially could be facilitated easier. As to how much value, that in itself is a good question, · In terms of should we be moving towards more architectural review, I am always hesitant about what level of architectural review we are going to do into single story houses; because it is hard to get two architects to agree very often on architectural issues associated with the house; and it is not clear that we are going to be adding to the process if we put people through further architectural review, or we are basically opening up another whole new issue to explore I 7 - f YC¡ Planning Commission ..~mutes 39 July 12, 2004 and then create guidelines for what architectural items we are going to review and not going to revi ew. · 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. GiIli: · 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 tbrough, 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. · Ifthe 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 II x 17 or legal size, they will be dealing directly with staff, they wouldn't be directing the Planning Commission. · Said he wanted it to come back to the Planning Commission and not to staff, and let the Planning Commission take the hits, not staff. Mr. GiIli: · 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. Gilli: · Generally it will cost an extra couple of thousand dollars ¡fyou go to hearing at applicant's expense. 17-/90 Planning Commission Ihlllutes 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. GilIi was saying, it gets back to what your philosophy is; if it is mass and bulk, the last thing you want to do is bring an architect in to talk about architectural details and if the roofleaks. · You want to keep it focused and keep the messages pure and unmixed, Vice Chair Wong: · It should be about mass and bulk and I appreciate the person staying here so late, but we even decided not to cancel a meeting to continue discussion about this, but the emphasis should be mass and bulk, and design compatibility, we can discuss it at a later time. Mr. Gilli: · Based on what we heard, the next meeting we are going to bring back a process based on Exhibit D, with information about guidelines and minor changes as discussed regarding story poles, notification, · After one with the possibility of an architect, 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 concems with that. /7- ( 91 Planning Commission Minutes 41 July 12, 2004 · Should that stay in this model or is that off the table now. Vice Chair Wong: · I think we should take it out oftrus process and address it differently, because I remember clearly the second story decks were going to be a Director modification; it wasn't going to go through DRC, because it saves money on that. · Can't respond on the others because of lateness of meeting. Com. Giefer: · Suggested that it be continued to help review entire process and be able to see that it really will help streamline the process and makes it easier for the applicants. Vice Chair Wong: · Requested that the staircase issue be discussed at the next meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) to the Planning Commission study session on July 26, 2004 at 5 p.m. in Conference Room C. (Vote: 4-0-0) Housing Commission: Com, Giefer reported on the ly 8th meeting; the Valleo Rosebowl development was reviewed and she was asked to sh e the following comments: The Housing Commission recommends that the applicant maxi . ze the density of units per acre and possibly request a density bonus in favor of adding more w cost housing to the project. They feel that it is an ideal situation because the project does not' pact an existing neighborhood or cause additional crowding to an existing neighborhood. ere was a meeting scheduled for OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Wednesday, July 14th. Mayor's Monthly Meeting: No Report, Com. Giefer asked if someone could attend the August 17th meeting in her placé; 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 I]-(qa CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED STUDY SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM C 6:45 P.M. MONDAY The Planning Commission Study Session of September 13, 2004 was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Vice Chair Gilbert Wong. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chairperson: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Senior Planner City Attorney: PLANNING COMMJSSION 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. /7-/93 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 27'" to review the fIrst draft of the model ordinance. Mr. Gilli: · In response to Com, Giefer's question about frequency of offsets, he stated that currently the rule is if you have a span of a second story wall over 24 feet in length, you have to have a wall offset of at least 6 feet width and 2 feet in depth. At an 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 ofthe second story wall. Com. Giefer: · Do you feel that if we looked at adopting a second story building envelope, that it would impact or change the frequency and requirement of where the offsets would be; is there any tangible difference between the way our prescriptive method is and the way it would be after ftII-8 a building envelope? Mr. Gilli: · If you had a building envelope without any wall offset requirement or guideline then there would be no regulatory method to have an offset; you could have a second story that could be a straight wall over 20, possibly even over 30 feet in length, 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 fonn is just that it fit, state that wall articulation is desired on second story and then it doesn ~t go into detail on how much, That will be looked at on a case by case basis, Com. Giefer: · How would that work if it was a guideline for enforcement. Mr. Gilli: · If it is a guideline then it could still be enforced through design review; if there is not a review process then it can't be enforced. n-¡qc¡ Planning Commission c_dy Session 3 September \3, 2004 Com. Miller: · Asked if the reason for having two different daylight planes is because of staff s concern for the first story placement. Mr. Gilli: · Said yes, if they did not have a single story envelope then a property owner could propose a one story house that had 15 foot height on one side and a 19 foot height on the other side, in terms of the wal1 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 potential1y understanding daylight plane; however, the people who actually design the house will not have difficulty understanding it and nonnally 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 Bumett's remark last time which is he was in favor of going in this direction and felt that the Palo Alto ordinance actually did a better job than Cupertino's, · Supports the daylight plane. Com. Chen: · Many changes will be made if going for the daylight plane, specifically regarding the single story heights. · It is a major change and not within the authorized scope of work, will likely delay the process and create confusion, · Said he feels the existing plan works well, and will support staff's recommendation. Com. Giefer: · Several things were solved by the Palo Alto daylight plane policy; during their presentation several concerns that I had; one of them being privacy and I think my understanding of the way the plane works is the higher you want your walls to be the further in you need to go and that is always a concern of mine, I think we have issues with how to design around the existing one story; that was very attractive to me. I think there are several things we would need to work out with regards to the detail relating to height; I would not want to see us use daylight plane and make any changes to single story Rl because that is not our directive from City Council. · I think we would create a lot of confusion, and going into this, if we are recommending a change, I think we would have to acknowledge people who have traditionally built in Cupertino and have invested time and effort understanding our current ordinance; this is a re- education process and I am not sure how we address that, or if we have a way to address that within the building community in Cupertino. · I want to see some setbacks required, am not completely comfortable tossing them out and saying they are al1 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, 17- /q 5 Planning Commission" .Jdy 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 RI and protect privacy of neighbors which is attractive to me, and I wouldn't have a problem having the starting point for a single story and second story being at the same point; just to make that more simplistic. · Do not want to see the overall height as high as Palo Alto allows for single story; I wouldn't warit to change that. Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr, Gilli) · If we were to go with the Palo Alto daylight plane, our maximum height of our RI ordinance is currently ;w,s 28 feet, so even though the envelope goes over ;W 28 feet, which would supercede, the envelope or the height of 28 feet. Mr. GUll: · 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 ofthe designs that you were concerned about to make sure that the design was important to you; and that is how I felt that by using the daylight plane it allows flexibility; · Asked Corns. Chen and Giefer if they would reconsider if Cupertino had a good design review guideline similar to Palo Alto. Com. Giefer: · For second story, don't have a problem with the daylight plane, but want a staff review of every second story; not just guidelines, · Staff to actually review and approve it as they do in Palo Alto. · Supports one story, if it doesn't go over 20 feet. Vice Chair Wong: · Currently all second stories are going to be reviewed. Mr. GUll: · 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. GilU: · 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. n -/90 Planning Commission 0.~Jy Session 5 Septernberl3,2004 Com. MiUer: · Supports two story daylight plane. · Supports reducing the complexity of the ordinance if it made sense, but if the majority of the commissioners are concerned about what that impact might be on the first story, we are going to make recommendations to the City Council and it appears to be an open field. Vice Chair Wong: (To Mr. Gil1i) . Asked staff to explain what the concern is about if it is one story; why is staff so concerned about not having proof of one or two story, Mr. Gilli: · If you look at the exhibit in color, you could build a one story house that filled up the green and the blue, whereas right now if you build a one story house, you could only be in the turquoise or the green, so what we are proposing if you do a one story you stay under our current envelope, if two story stays under the blue envelope; if you didn't have the single story envelope, there could be a 19 foot tal1 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. Gilli: · It comes in at 5 feet, what we are suggesting is make it at the property line; that equates to having 10 feet; it is currently a 12 foot high wall; at the property line it would be 10 feet. Vice Chair Wong: · Four commissioners agree to support the two story daylight envelope with a very good offset of guidelines; and Com. Miller said that if the majority chooses, to remain with the one story. · Said he concurred with Com. Miller. Com. Giefer: · Clarified that the one thing not said which would change her position 100%, is that there is not a mandatory staff review of al1 two story homes; and she would not support it. Com. MiUer: · 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, /7 -rq 7 Planning Commission ~ .Jy Session 6 September 13, 2004 Com. Miller: · On the two story homes, we are allowing the Palo Alto ordinance; you are saying if you come in with a two story design, it is okay if you go that high. If you come in with a one story design, it is not okay. Mr. Gilli: · If you have a one story element, you would have to meet the Cupertino one; it is as it is now; on the building envelope now, only the single story has to be under that and the second story, it is okay to be outside of that; as shown on the example, all of the one stories are under the envelope. Com. 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 basical1y 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 stil1 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 ofthis in the guidelines, Mr. Gilli: · That was staffs recommendation if you implemented this to take out the surcharge, to possibly even take out al1language about the side setbacks and with the wal1 offsets. · If there is a review of al1 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 !Tom 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 tenns of eliminating story poles; I want them. It is the best way of /7 -(9 r 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 fTom 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.GilIi: · 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 fonnalized 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 if he 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, /7-(99 Planning Commission ~ JY Session 8 September 13, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · Said it was dependant on whether they wanted to incorporate them into an ordinance or separate guidelines, which should be resolved first. · Now that you have decided on daylight plane, what should the guidelines say, how specific do they need to be; now they don't want them in the ordinance whereas before they did, · What is the pleasure of the Commission; it can be done either way; it will be a more subjective process if they are not in the ordinance, but it was thought that the idea was to make it more ordinance driven. Mr. Gilli: · It is not that the guidelines are now required; the guidelines are in the ordinance so that people cannot say they did not see them. Com. Miller: · Said he was incorrect in thinking that putting the defmition in the ordinance meant it went from a guideline to a requirement, but understands that it is put in the ordinance to make it easier for people to pick it up in one package. Mr. Gilli: · We may still have a separate sheet that may have some illustrations but the actual wording will be in the ordinance. Com. Chen: · A follow up question is when staff does the review, the more formal; the more extensive reVIew. Is staff going to follow the guidelines more closely. Mr. Gilli: · Staff's intention is to follow the guidelines about how they have been enforced to date, For example, there was an issue over wall height, a couple of years where it was enforced strictly, now we are in a period where it is not enforced strictly, and will likely continue that until there is a decision at either the Planning Commission or City Council that says we are still too strict or too loose; that is where our intention is on the guidelines at this point. Mr. Piasecki: · Would you write the guidelines to reflect current practice or keep it vague, Mr. Gilli: · The draft language now is rather vague; it allows for us to adapt to a neighborhood, · That has no interest in protection of mass to a neighborhood that has extreme concern about new mass and also to change in time if a new council was elected who has completely different ideas, Com. Chen: · What is the difference between a formal review process and an informal review process, Mr. Gilli: · F or 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 /7 ~ aDo Planning Commission, 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 front 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. Gilli: · It is not going to be called anything different, but it is going to have a larger noticing in and more elaborate rendering on the board out in the front of the house, Mr. Piasecki: · The expectation is to try to write the guidelines as objective as possible. Let staff prepare it and bring to you in a meeting with the ordinance: study it; if it has to be continued that is fine. · Staff wants the opportunity to make sense of it. Vice Chair Wong: · Said Com, Chen had appropriate questions. They agreed that there would be a 300 foot distance; adjacent neighbors would get the II x 17 plans, elevations, · Said he was not comfortable using the floor plan because he felt that if they really wanted to come inside to see where the windows were showing, that the nearby adjacent neighbors would come to look at it. · Asked Mr. Gilli about staff's position, said he did not recall their position regarding having floor plans. Mr. Gilli: · We think if it is going to be a case where the neighbors are getting notification of a two story house next door, it is going to be important to the affected neighbor which room is looking at them, and if you just look at the windows you don't know what room is behind them, you may not be worried if it is the bathroom, you may be only worried if it's a bedroom, but if you don't have the floor plans, you are not going to know. 17 -;:)0/ Planning Commission, ly Session 10 September 13,2004 Vice Chair Wong: · W ouldn 't that be indicated with the landscape plan and also force them to get more information by coming to city hall. Mr,Gilli: · From our position we think we should give as much information as the average person would want and our position is we think the average person would like to have the floor plans so they can see what is going to be the room that is looking down, Com. Chen: · Palo Alto pian limits the square footage. Mr.Gilli:· · The Palo Alto situation is if you have a 5,000 square foot lot you get 45%; as the lot gets larger, the FAR goes down. When you get to lot sizes of 7,500 to 10,000 the FAR is about 35%, with an acre in the RI zone in Palo Alto, the FAR would be .3, Com. Chen: · Palo Alto has a maximum home size, Cupertino should consider having maximum home size, · Too many two story homes exceed the 35% coming forward and getting approved as a standard process; it takes longer and delays the project. · Would like the fonnal process for all two story reviews; make the notification more unifonn, for two story building. · Allow 45% and go through the process of review notification and don't have to trigger the design review process, Mr. Gilli: · What the Commission agreed on was to have all two story reviewed, but not have a public meeting because the public meeting often appears not necessary. · The plan is to review all two story homes now, but nobody needs to go to a hearing unless they have an exception. The idea is to save time for all parties and save money which would translate into less fees. As it is now, our RI design fees are not as inexpensive as they were and if we go to a process without a hearing, they can be reduced. Com; Miller: (To Com, Chen) · Wanted to clarify: in terms of the process, the process that everyone agreed upon is that staff gets to review everything, and if there is an exception it goes to DRC; if there is no exception, it doesn't. Was that something you agreed with or were you concemed? 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, 17 - aoO-. Planning Commission ~ ly Session 11 September 13, 2004 Mr. GiIli: · 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 stiIl 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 II, 2004 f7 - d. 03 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair ong, second by Com. Chen, to approve Applications 003-09. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Saadati moved the agen a back to Item 2. 2. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Citywide Location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continuedfrom September 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled. Mr. Gilli presented the staff report: o He reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report. o Based on the presentation rrom the City of Palo Alto on wall plane, the Planning Commission agreed to go with that concept and remove the second story side setbacks. o He reviewed the changes to the second story area, second story side setbacks vs, two story building envelope; second story wall offsets; design review process; and guidelines in the Ordinance; as recommended by the Planning Commission, which were outlined in the table on Page 2-2 of the staff report. o Staff s recommendation is to review and comment on the draft, to take public input, and either provide direction to staff which wi]] be incorporated into a final draft at the next meeting, or to recommend approval of the draft with some modifications to the City Council. Com. Miller: o Said that the surveys were included in the packet for all residents, and asked that a complete packet be made for the City Council that also includes the cuts the Planning Commission made for the people who know R 1 and also for people who went to a public hearing, o In the draft itself; page 2-39; staff added a category Rl 5,000 to the ordinance; I don't believe we discussed that. Concern is that without discussion, what I wouldn't want happening is larger parcels being divided down into 5,000 square foot lots; obviously we have inherited some and they are there because we inherited them, but it is not clear without further discussion that we should be opening the door to 5,000 square foot lots. o Page 2-40, No. 3b; 50 square feet doesn't nearly cover what a stairway is going to take, and if we are going to give some allowance for stairways, we should make it more reasonable. I would suggest 100 square feet, or something higher than 50. o Page 2-41, Cl.h.; Looked at what existing houses were in town, roughly speaking 75% of the houses that exist in Cupertino, which is subjective, have the garages closer to the street than the homes, but this guideline suggests that we do the opposite. There is some inconsistency there because in other parts of the ordinance we talk about being consistent with existing neighborhoods, but here this proposal is to be doing something completely different than what is in existing neighborhoods. o Page 2-41, D Setback, side; our ordinance currently states that it has to be no less than 10 feet on one side and no less than 5 feet on the other side, and the suggestion here was we might want to allow more flexibility so that the total minimum is 15 square feet, but if for some reason there was a need for flexibility because of the particular configuration in neighboring houses to allow 7 and 8, or 6 and 9, I think that would be a reasonable addition. o Page 2-42, G. Height: I know we talked about Item 2.a.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. /7 -éJ.oc.f- Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · This case is within 3 inches, if you do the trig, it is the c10sest 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, 11 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 potential1y 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 al1 that is going to be included, I would like to include some notes that give the reason that the Planning Commission voted to remove the story poles, namely that they are expensive and of questionable use. Cupertino and Los Gatos are the only two cities that require them; so much comment in favor of keeping them, yet the vote was to eliminate them; I would like to add some comment to that side as well. · Page 2-86, August 9: comment that Corns. Miller and Wong may have misunderstood the intent, regarding incorporating key guidelines into the ordinance; said he did not misunderstand the intent at this point. · Vote remains not to do it, Com. Chen: · Page 2-40: Same question regarding the 50 square feet of bonus which was not in there before; has there been discussion about adding that in. Mr. Gilli: · June 28 - it was talked about; you were in attendance and in support of it. (Page 2-84) Com. Chen: · Said she would not want to exceed 50 feet. · Page 2-47: 19.28.075: minor residential pennits: I assumed that the definitio,ns 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. 17 -J05' Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: · Those are the items in the code that say they need a minor residential permit and if it is highlighted in the code and you will only see it if you are at that section, One thing we could do is specify in the minor residential permit section also, Com Chen: · I think that would be good if we could clarify it by doing that. Page 2-48 we have small two story residential permit; do we talk about the title being small and large, or have we discussed a possible change to a different title, major or minor. Mr. Gilli: · It was presented as small and large and I noted at the study session that the commissioners may want to come up with a different name; that is just a first draft. · Major, minor, the only conflict with that is we have minor residential permits and you are going to have a minor two story and then a major two story, Com. Chen: · Concerned about large, because large is still within the 45% FAR and all has to comply with the guidelines, regulations and don't think it is large; it seems to give the wrong perception, · It needs a title, · My last conunent 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 ORC box, so we know it is a public process, not within the department process. · Re: II 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, II x 17 color would be appropriate, Com. Giefer: · Also request one cut of the survey data we did earlier and I know Mr. Gilli: ran this and I am not sure if it was distributed to all conunissioners; I would like to see the second story ratio as the answer was given by home owners in the area; I think that is a really good representation of what percentile people who are vested in our conununity 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 conununity 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 RI 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 specifically as you get to larger lots; many of these are located at the base of the hillside at the west side of our conununity; the potential to build extremely large homes exists there and there is no way you can adequately screen a 15,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 square foot two story home at 50% you are going to have an extremely large home and we have a lot of people in our community who are sensitive to their protection of viewing the hillsides and I don't think they acknowledge or understand how quickly those hillsides are being built up with large homes, I would like to add a maximum home size in Cupertino. f 7 - ;J,oro Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 27, 2004 o 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, o If those lots are blocked by property owners in legal suits, which would be another concern, there is a lot of building and massive homes that could be built in the hillsides, I would like us to add a maximum home size under Section 19.28.060, Page 2-39; that no RI homes may exceed, and the hillside number I believe is 6500 square feet, so I would like to suggest that, regardless of the FAR within the Rllot. o 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. o Page 2-40 with the design guidelines I understand why we have changed some of the "shalls" to "shoulds" because they are perceived as guidelines and I am comfortable with most of them. The one I am not comfortable with is the ones that are regarding a three car garage; I think that if you have a three car garage that is a huge wall plane and if that is facing the street, I don't think it is appealing for the neighbors. o 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 fee1 that we should not have a three car wide garage on a lot less than 60 feet because the 10t becomes primarily garage at that point and from an aesthetic point, I don't agree with that. o 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. o Page 2-48: One of the things I was 100king for in reading the RI draft is language explicitly explaining that staff would be doing a review of the design. I like the idea of staff reviewing the design, I like the work design; and I feel confident that we will see more consistent improvement in both the mass and scale of homes and hopefully have better designed homes with a staff review of this. They are professionals and they can add value to the process without slowing it down. The review will be done early enough in the process so as not to increment costs at the time of structural drawings. I would like that called out more, and also just to make people aware of what the process is; and I am not sure where the right place to put it, and if it is here or earlier on in the document. o On stairwells, am comfortable with 50 square feet for stairwell allotment. o When addressing where the notices will be posted, there are a few flaws: on a flag lot, where does the notice about remodeling go; you cannot see the house from the street and there is no direct access except for the driveway to the street; and this specifically says that it needs to be posted by the sidewalk; but where, is it within 3 feet of the sidewalk? Needs to be wordsmithed for clarity; also need to say how long it is to be posted, /7-é}.07 Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 27, 2004 · Page 2-49, 0: I suggest that we send everything by first class mail and electronic mail. The reason is that if the e-mail stops moving, e-mail can be lost, If you approach it from both physical mail and a virtual mail environment, one of them is bound to go through, so I would like to have both of them sent. · I would also suggest that we have the staff review on the matrix of RI regulations, recommendations for changes, and study. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the process change is not included in this document and is only in the flow diagram, will Council understand that it is a process change. Mr. GiIli: · It will be in our presentation to them that there is a process change; it is not known whether they would be able to gather that by reading the ordinance, Com. Giefer: · It is a positive thing and adds value to the process without slowing it down or creating incremental fees. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he shared many comments made by his colleagues, · Regarding the group care activities with 6 or fewer people, asked staff to review. Mr.GiIli: · It is a change we considered minor because under conditional uses you are allowed to have group care with over 6 people, you would infer that as permitted use you could have group care with under 6 people, and that is the intention in the ordinance; it is added as language, Vice Chair Wong: · Said he agreed with Com. Miller that the mmlmum 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 harmonious, I don't see that as being harmonious. I would rather see that as a guideline vs. in the ordinance. f7-aDf) Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 27, 2004 · Page 2-41, same thing on the side setbacks for the first story; maximum of 15 feet, also want flexibility, 8 and 6 or that also. · Page 2-43, No.4: Would like to see 50% percent of the total perimeter length be a guideline also, Many people would rather see a window or some things other than seeing roof trying to cover the mass and bulk. I agree with the principle of reducing mass and bulk, but by seeing roof, I don't think also achieves that goal either. · Page 2-44, second story setbacks: Not comfortable with 15 feet; suggest 10 feet since currently the ordinance is 5 and 10 and by making it 10 feet including the landscaping mitigation measures; would like to see it 10 feet. · Page 2-46, No. II,C: front yard tree planting: Feels 24 inch box or larger as excessive. · Page 2-48, top of page: development plans: I want to be specific, we did agree in the matrix of the Planning Commission tentative decisions that we agree that would be the site plan and elevation plan that was on Page 2-85; four commissioners agreed to that. · Page 2-48, B3: When I read the goals of the RI were to reduce mass and bulk, make the guidelines user friendly, etc., design is in the eye of the beholder and although we have a great professional staff, you can never get two architects to agree and I am not sure if I want to emphasize design; I think I want more emphasis on reducing mass and bulk. · Page 2-49, B.!.: Regarding posted notice, agree with Corn. Miller that it should be black and white; should be cost effective. Agree with Com. Giefer regarding notice of action to City Council members and Planning Commissioners that if for some reason e-mail doesnotwork.it should be sent by first class mail unless it is requested. Currently I think I am the only Planning Commissioner and none of the City Council members, everybody is receiving it through e-mail, but I do request it through first class mail, unless it is requested just bye-mail. · Commended Mr. Gilli for the excellent job of putting the Planning Commissioners' tentative decisions in a matrix which will assist the City Council and public understand that we have been at this since May 24th and even earlier. The application actually began in 2003; we have been at this for two years. · Want to make sure this is correct, regarding August 9, 2004, it was clear in my mind on how I voted, so I wanted to make that note to staff regarding incorporating the key guidelines. · Regarding story poles, I think that Corns. Giefer and Mi11er had some good ideas but I think that it would be easier, either to include both their comments or not include either of them and they could just read the minutes in the report. I appreciate Mr. Gilli for putting all the minutes in the report. · See not having story poles because of the safety hazard; also as an expense, staff supports eliminating story poles; there was an e-mail done to the Planning Commissioners that the Director is not really married to the story poles and I wanted that on the record as well. · Agree that we should be more specific on where the noticing should be in rront; 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 wi11 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 Corn, 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, 17 - éW9 Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 27,2004 · We spent a lot of time this year discussing the second to first floor area ratio, and wanted to reiterate that I personal1y had to take a lot of compromise and want to thank staff for supporting the 50% to second first floor area ratio and also taking into consideration the second story plane, The reason I am supporting the 50% is to allow flexibility so that you can get a master bedroom, two bedrooms upstairs. · He said that Council member Don Bumett 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 triendly to the applicant as well as the staff and the Planning Commission and City Council. Com. Miller: · Relative to the chart of significant changes, one is to highlight that we are increasing the noticing significantly, because over the last couple of years if anything it has come back to us that we are not doing sufficient noticing for some of these projects. That is a significant change that I think the City Council will appreciate. · Relative to the 50% ratio for second/first story, one of the things learned trom people who are building houses is that in many instances, people are building larger first stories than they nonnally 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 tenns 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 adj acent neighbor is, for example, if I live 011 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 freflt of the house should not be more than 50% garages; do not recall seeing that. Mr. Gilli: · Said it is not in the ordinance or the guidelines. Chair Saadati: · If we put that in, that will take care of the garages taking over the whole house; it is one item we should emphasize, · Page 2-39 regarding the porches; somehow I wasn't sure if using unenclosed porches and patios would clearly explain what we are looking for. Is there any other way; if it is enclosed by glass, it is closed, but it can be viewed; privacy is going to be impacted. J7-¿;UO 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 concem about this in the past and still think putting a 24 inch box tree with a 6 foot high limit on it, that is too long to wait for it to mature. Perhaps we should look at this in such a way that the privacy planting shall be sufficient to provide the desired needs within two years or frosted glass or other things that we discussed. We have heard from the public that the trees are not enough, · Page 2-48: Had same concerns regarding small or large; probably should come up with a different definition; it does not accurately fit the description. · Page 2-48, No. B,3: How much will staff influence the design material because I am not necessarily looking for the adjacent house to look the same; it is good to have variety if done with taste; if the intention is to achieve that, it is fine; but not dictating to every owner who wants to build their house, how to design it. Is that going to be done through the architect's review? It is for the larger homes. Mr. 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, Com, Giefer brought up, I have been concerned because I am not sure if this ordinance would really increase the possibility of the homes being more visible, Going through the design process will help to make it less visible, by how the house is situated in the hillside and the way it is designed, and also the tree planting that is required, so the 17- ¿)// Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 27, 2004 design is a big factor in how the house is going to turn out. The size of it doesn't necessarily will resolve the house that is very visible from distance looking up the hillside. · Noticing should be specific and the duration needs to be mentioned, · Regarding the stairway, the usual stairway is about 8 feet wide and 10 feet long; from first story to second story, If it is a single climb, it is about 4 feet wide so you can; if you put in a curved stairway, you need a lot more space, 75 feet would be a good compromise, I am willing to concur, to provide some flexibility. · Agree that first class mailing and e-mail both should be used to make sure all information is received. · The building envelope is an improvement; it provides a guideline and flexibility for people to build their homes within a given space and if they chose to build more on the second story, they push the building back, resulting in a nicer home. Vice Chair Wong: · Agree with Chair Saadati and Com. Chen that the draft language on the name "large and small" homes may not be the right name in the eye of the beholder. · Instead of having large and smaller homes, perhaps it should be two story residential homes that are under 35% and two story residential homes that are over 35%. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the definition of smaller home is under 35%. Mr. Gilli: · Yes, that is correct. Com. Giefer: · Suggested the altemative of two story residential I, and two story residential II, then you have no judgmental language; it is not confusing and not a long name, Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Ms. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Pleased with Rl since its inception as of 1999 to 2000; it was a vast improvement over what the Rancho Rinconada community experienced under county jurisdiction prior to 1999, · Was pleased with RI when annexed into Cupertino when Rancho came in. · The current Rl has effectively solved most of the problems the Rancho community experienced prior to 1999. · At this point see no reason to change R I; it is a General Plan year and there is a tendency to change the document. · The RI 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 R I being counter-manding my property value; I think that we should keep the story poles, they work effectively in the neighborhood and some other cities require them. Increasing the second story allowance to 800 square feet would be disastrous in Rancho where most of the lots are under 6,000 square feet. · Eliminating second story setbacks would be disastrous; saw what happened prior to 1999, and invite people to come into Rancho and see what types of homes that were constructed there, /7 -d /éì-.. Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 27, 2004 · I hope that everyone will see fit to keep R 1 as tight and strong and as effective as it has been; it works for me; it appeared from the survey and I was here in January of 2004 which was the first time I was aware that this document was being changed for RI, the consensus was that the neighborhood property owners did not want to change significant portions ofRl. · Urged everyone to keep Rl in tact as much as possible. Mr. Dennis Whitaker, resident: · Reported that a fire occurred last July where the landlord thought there were 8 people living in the home, but there were 14 people living there; and a child died in the fire. · Expressed concem about garage conversions; noting that safeguards into garage conversions had not been mentioned, · There has been talk about decreasing the size of garages, setbacks, moving them around; but the purpose of setting limits is to make sure you have in the places and you can't stop families from growing but can stop additional families from moving in, · What kind of safeguards can be placed into the draft to protect against conversion of garages to increase the living space for uses other than what is originally intended. Mr. Piasecki: · Said there were parking requirements for enclosed number of parking spaces that prohibit people from converting legaily; if they convert illegally then it is on a complaint basis, staff responds to that and through code enforcement and the Building Department, we will either stop an in-progress conversion or insist that they convert it back when it comes to our attention. · No additional verbiage is needed in the ordinance to prohibit garage conversions. Leslie Burnell, Hollyoak Drive: · Was present at ail the RI meetings several years ago and is familiar with the issue. · Like the idea that Corn. 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, lt is not a 15% increase on the size of the upper story, because if the upper story is 35% now, you add 15%, resulting in a 43% increase in the size of the upper story, which is large. · Historically, fonner Commissioner Orrin Mahoney was responsible for arriving at the calculation of 35%. · Said the story poles were evolutionary; he went and took photos in Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and said they modeled the best way for people to see things, as proven by the Crossroads. At the Crossroads, the only buildings that showed were the new ones and not the old Apple building so people got a misinterpretation, but having pictures out front, the average person does not understand and can't read them correctly, The story poles do cost money but they are an exceilent idea, Before you say no to them, talk to the people in Los Altos and why they still have them, · Reiterated that the second story size was being increased 43%, not 15%. Vice Chair Wong: (Directed to Mr. Burnell) . Said he asked Mr. Mahoney the same question about the 35% and would check with him one more time; he recalled Mr. Mahoney believed that the Planning Commission carne up with 35%; it wasn't for the first story, but for the whole two story home, (7-,;)13 PlaIll1ing Commission Minutes 13 September 27, 2004 Com. Miller: · Said he had a long conversation with Mr. Mahoney about this; what he original1y 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 earJier concems of Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller relative to the issue of the RI- 5 zone, Page 2-39 of the staff report. · It is included because there is an RI-5 area which is Rancho Rinconada and it recognizes the fact they exist. You call110t 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 call110t rezone ITom 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 "al1" because there may be existing privacy plantings that would not be recorded unless we say "all", Mr. Gilli: · Relative to the issue of side setbacks, currently 5 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other; two commissioners brought up the concept of can it be changed so that it adds up to 15; so that you can have a situation where it is 9 and 6 or 8 and 7; most of the properties zoned or annexed from the City of San Jose after 1979 were built such that they don't meet our 5 and 10 and they have an existing situation of 8 and 7 and so on; so those cases are treated as legal non-confonning and have to go through the pennitted yard encroachment rules, If change is f 7 - ;;( /'-1 Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 27,2004 made, staff would suggest the minimum always be 5 and the other side be 10, but if they want to make their small side 7, they can make the other side 8, Staff is neutral; except that there are people on the larger lots who expect that one of the sides is going to be 10 feet; beyond that it is not a major change. · Asked for input on three commissioners who had not previously commented, · History of 5 and 10: Said the neighborhoods historically that were developed in Cupertino, had lot sizes of minimum 7,500 square feet and many 10,000 square feet; with those larger lots they were generally wider and when it was decided what the setback would be,S and 5 was not enough, and they decided that one side should be at least 10, with the smallest side allowed to be 5. It may still hold true on the larger lots, but on the smaller lots brought in from San Jose, the RI-6, RI-7,5s those do not necessarily work as well. Com. Chen: · No preference; 15 feet is appropriate. Com. Giefer: · No strong feelings but to get any heavy equipment into your back yard to do construction or excavation or yard re-Iandscaping, you need to have a minimum of space to get back there; which is the only reason to keep 5 and 10 if possible. · I don't know if there are safety issues regarding the fire department. Mr. Gilli: · Said the fire department would likely prefer more clearance. Some neighborhoods, most of Rancho has setbacks of 5 feet on both sides, and there are small lot areas in neighboring cities that have 5 and 5; it may just be an issue for the Commission that do you think the larger lots should have a larger setback or can it be averaged out. Com. Giefer: · Before going with a split the difference approach, would need to give it more consideration than has been given. Vice Chair Wong: · The Planning Commission voted recently on Santa Clara Avenue, that one minimum had to be 5 feet and when it came to the DRC, the other size was only 3,5 feet, so I can see where you are coming from, but it would be dependent on the situation. We have approved something that one side was only 5 feet and the other side was less than 5 feet. Chair Saadati: · My position is we could have minimum 5 feet and flexibility would be good, Also the neighbors have a right to come and speak as long as neighbors do not object to it; it is good to have flexibility like 6 and 9, but this does not include the fireplaces that could encroach into the space. Mr. Gilli: · Two things, the change discussed would affect single story houses that won't have any type of review, so one neighbor wouldn't have input. · On the issue of the fireplace, the fireplace is allowed to encroach 2 feet into a setback, as long as it is no closer than 3 feet and that is regardless if it is on the 5 foot side or the 10 foot side, /7-(9.. rs- Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 27, 2004 Chair Saadati: · Put the flexibility in as long as the neighbors have no objection or their input is received. Mr. Gilli: · The only way to do that is require a minor residential permit for anybody who wants to use that amount of flexibility; that is the only way to get the neighbor input. Chair Saadati: · How many projects in the past have corne and requested to have different setback than what is in the ordinance. Mr. Gilli: · As the rules are now, there are not many applications for smaller size setbacks; if they have an existing house that is non-conforming, they have a rule that allows them to extend a wall so that normally takes care of one side, and the other side meets the 5 foot setback. We haven't seen this in the case of a new house being built, the old house being 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 learn that people want the floor plans and they may not have an issue with it, there is a point to how much detail you put in the ordinance; this was one section to leave flexible so that as commissions and councils change, the ordinance would not have to be amended to say that the floor plan is included now or isn't included. Our intention is to implement it as the Commission stated, but not have it specifically spelled out in the code. · Three or four commissioners indicated you did want specification as to which of the plan sheets are to go to a neighbor in the code. Do all still want that. Vice Chair Wong: · Referred to Page 2-85 on the matrix for summary of decision on floor plans, · Justified his reason for not putting floor plans in is that not only will they get a legal notice, they also get a rendering; they will see the elevations and by using common sense they can tell if the windows are a little smaller on the second story, it's likely is a bathroom; if it a little bigger, mostly likely it is a bedroom on the second story, If they want more information, they should go to the Planning Department and get more information. Com. Giefer: · Asked if the information mailed would indicate to the adjacent neighbors in the noticing that further information and the floor plan is available at the Planning Department. /7- d-/0 Planning Commission Minutes 16 September 27, 2004 Mr. GiIli: · Would state that the complete set is available; I don't think we would spell out that the floor plan is, Com. Giefer: · I think if we said it in common terms that the layman would understand and spell out what plans and permits are available for public review in the Planning Department, it may eliminate the need for an extensive amount of information mailed, but I do think that there is merit to providing the floor plans for neighbors because it may make a difference if a bonus room upstairs or media room upstairs was overlooking your bedroom, where potentially people will be making a lot of noise or looking down into a bedroom in your single story home, Chair Saadati: · My view is as long as the neighbors get the site plan that shows what is on the first and second floor in general, and they are informed that the plans are available for their review, that should be sufficient. The neighbors who are very concerned will usually go to the Planning Department and look at it. Mr. GiIli: · That is how it would be implemented, The issue is whether or not you want to spell out in the ordinance which sheets are included and which are not; it also hurts you in cases where it is a unique case that an additional sheet of a section drawing of the site could be useful if you were limiting it to just the site plan and just the elevations, There are enough reasons in our mind that you shouldn't be explicit but if the Council agrees with the Commission that it doesn't need the floor plans, that is how it is going to be implemented, · What we are asking is don't spell it out so that we have to amend the ordinance if the Council or Commission in a year says floor plans shall be included. Ms. Wordell: · Suggested some wording that could cover both bases, such as "would include plan sets, normally consisting of elevations and site plan" and then if the occasion arose where you felt, or the applicant wanted the floor plan to go out, it still would be possible. Chair Saadati: · That would be appropriate, the main thing is the elevation that each neighbor wants to see how it is going to look from their house. Com. Chen: · Said she agreed, for the purpose of notifying neighbors, I think this said is enough, just to let people know there is a new development going in and what it looks like, · Supports eliminating the story poles, but feel it is helpful information to have the storyboard ready to help neighbors understand how this new development will be like in relation in terms of height, look with neighbors. Questioned if it should be a requirement in the ordinance. Mr. GiIli: · 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, /7-é)(7 Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 27, 2004 · We can still do that, and have it required of the applicant, but it really doesn't need to be in the ordinance. Com. Chen: · Following Mr. Gilli's explanation, concurred that the storyboard should be part of the application for the applicant to prepare, and not included in the ordinance. Mr.GiIli · Asked if there was a majority of the group that accepts the general language that the plan sets will 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. Gilli'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 roof to 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. f7-é}./Ó 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 staff review, Vice Chair Wong: · If we had a DRC because it was staffs recommendation to have the skirt around the turret, it was the DRC that ruled differently, so that it will not come to the attention of the Planning Commission unless the applicant wants to appeal the case. Time is money; there is one instance of an emergency meeting for the DRC last Friday and the applicant was honest that the setback was not done correctly so they had to do a modification vs, the next door neighbor did not bring it to staff S attention, Once something is set, it is hard for them to ask for a change or ask for another public hearing, so hopefully someone will reconsider. Mr. Gilli: · It is one of the more difficult rules, If you look at what it is trying to achieve, it is not possible to simplifY it; it is calling for the second story wall over a portion of the house, over half of the elevation to be pushed back from the first story wall and then to have a roof. In the cases that Com. Wong cited, that didn't have anything to do with this rule; Mann Drive was not asking for an exception to this rule and in the case with the turret, it was a judgment that the mask could use the breakup, but it wasn't to address this rule either, because the turret is straight up and there is no offset. · If the Commission is split on this, one idea that is in the middle would be that allow exceptions to this rule without going through the full exception process; if there is a case where, the design doesn't need it, that the design has mass bulk that is reasonably compatible with the neighborhood, staff has no problems with it, the neighbors have no problem with it, let this be one of the things that avoids having to go through the public hearing and pay the extra fee and have this also be an exception that the director can approve; that allows flexibility but also lets the neighbors have a voice if they like the concept. Chair Saadati: · Having the second level set back, this is similar to some guidelines or ordinances which other cities have in place. /7-¿;(/9 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 ofthe 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 al10wing exception that you mentioned that wil1 give some flexibility. Mr. GiJli: · 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 wi1l be at the DRC with hearings; and we would also have language at the regulation that says you can ask for an exception according to this rule. Com. Miller: · Both ways would achieve the same thing; the only comment I would have is the way the staff is suggesting, is a little more complex, by moving it to a guidelines we are not really changing the requirement because everything goes through staff and you are going to review it in that regard. It does allow the flexibility for an application like the one with the turret that it doesn't require an exception and you are proposing some other way of doing it; my comment it is more straight forward to move it to a guideline. What you are proposing will work as well, Mr. Gilli: · The only caveat about moving it to a guideline is this will be the only guideline that is specific, all the other guidelines are general, like we move the wall offset to guidelines but we didn't keep the exact language, we just said you should have articulation on the second story wall. If we had that amount of specific language it would be awkward with the general comments, Com. Giefer: · Couldn't we leave it to the interpretation of the Planning Director 19.28.130 because he has the discretion to interpret. Mr. 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. Gilli: · That is possible, except as I said that turret was not implementing this rule, because this rule talks about there is an offset between the first and second story, and that turret it went straight up. We just added a band; that roof overhang was not this rule. They met this rule either with that band or without it; they sti1l met it. 17 - ólJ90 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 ¡¡-om making it the guidelines. Vice Chair Wong: · Is that it is "should" YS. "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, ¡fthey 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 ifthere 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 ORe. Vice Chair Wong: · If the exception goes to the Director, that is fine with me. Chair Saadati: · Does the majority concur? Response: · Yes. There was consensus that the ordinance return to the Plauning Commission at the next meeting. f7-d'd-/ Planning Commission Minutes 2] September 27, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Asked for clarification on the three car garages. Mr. Gilli: · There were some people who said it should be guidelines, that it should be a regulation, but there weren't enough people who said one way or the other to change what the language is in the draft. · There was not a majority on any issue regarding garages. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he believed the three car garages should be a guideline; agree with Com. Giefer that the third car should be offset currently as stated in the current ordinance. · Believe that we should take into consideration applicants who are in cui de sacs, Com. Giefer: · Prefer the language that Chair Saadati recommended; it is a simpler way to solve the issue, that no more than 50% of the street facing the plane could be garages; also feel that rather than a design guideline, the inset of a third garage if it works measurably, should be mandatory, not just a guideline. · The 50% rule mitigates the impact of the plane, Com. Chen: · Agrees with Com. Giefer, the 50% rule is easy to understand, · The third garage should be recessed, Com. Miller: · Where are we implementing the 50% from; the face of the house or the street? Chair Saadati: · The elevation; when you look at the front of the house, you don't want to see more than 50% garage. Com. Miller: · That is a good question; so if it is a 50 foot wide lot and there is 5 feet on each side, that leaves 40 feet and a garage would normally take 20 feet; it would meet the 50 foot rule. Mr. Gilli: · Staff recommends it be made a guideline because there will be cases where it may be 55, but it is all they could reasonably do on the lot to get a 2 car garage, Com. Miller: · Prefer staff suggestion of a guideline. Com. Giefer: · Asked if there was agreement on a third garage having a mandatory inset; as opposed to being in the same plane even if it meets the 50% rule, just to break it up. f7 -¿)dé}... Planning Commission Minutes 22 September 27, 2004 Mr. Gilli: o As it is now, having a 2 foot offset on the third car garage is in the guidelines; what Com. Giefer is saying is make that a required ordinance requirement that if you have a three car garage, the third one has to be minimum of 2 feet. Com. Miller: o I agree that in general three car garage across doesn't look that attractive; only concem 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 Housing Commission: o Com, Giefer reported that the eeting was postponed and cancelled. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMIS Environmental Review Committee: o Com. Chen reported that the meetin Mavor's Monthlv Meetine: 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 management to 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. /7-d.d-.3 Planning Commission. lUtes 2 October II, 2004 Minutes of the September 27,2004 Planning Comm· sian meeting: Com. Chen: Page 1, Roll Call: Second refer ce to "Gilbert Wong" shonld read "Angela Chen" Chair Saadati: Page 9, 4'h bnllet from ottom of page: delete "elevation front" and replace with "front elevation" Com. Giefer: Page 7, first line: In rt "I" before "suggest" Motion: Motion by V' e Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the September 2 ,2004 Planning Commission minntes as amended. (Vote 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUN ATIONS: Chair Saadati reported that an e-mail was received and would be discussed und Old Business: Planning Commission Procedures For Public Hearing, None POSTPONEMEN SIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None 1. MCA2003-02 (EA-2002-19) City of Cnpertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 ofthe Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Continuedfrom September 27,2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled. Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport: · Reported that the staff report contains version 2 of the model ordinance based on comments from the last meeting. · Page 6, highlighted the new language; the first part is that the combination of the two side yard setbacks are going to add up to 15 feet, as was agreed upon at the last meeting. The second part at the end of the page refers to certain cases where property may have more than two side lot lines and may be an odd shape; the last part states that whatever setback is used on one side, has to be used on all the sides between the front and the rear. · Reviewed other modifications staff recommended to clean up the ordinance: Page 18: Rl-e ordinance Eichler zone; there is a section that is deleted because it talks about wall offsets not being required in Rl-e there will not be wall offsets, so you don't need that language. What was added was referring to the visible wall height regulation as a guideline in the RI-e district and that is because the roof pitches in the Eichler zone are going to be so low that it is going to be hard to meet that rule. It is recommended to save the guidelines so it is enforced as a regulation, Another option could be because it is so unlikely that you will be unable to meet this rule in the Eichler zone that it could be waived. · Page 19, Section J: is rewording; the intent is not to change anything in the existing wording, but to clean it up; this is for the RI-a zone, which is the Lynwood Acres neighborhood; they IÎ-~4 Planning Commission 1. .,utes 3 October 11, 2004 have a requirement that all two story development has to be approved by the DRC so all that is changed is the reference to the section and the reference to the finding. · Page 21: There is a large section at the end that is crossed out, staff is recommending that it be removed because the RI noticing procedure matches what the Lynwood Acres neighborhood agreed to, there is no need to have the language in there; it is repetitive. With that unless there are other things that staff missed, based on the last meeting, staff is recommending that the Commission recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and the model resolution based on the latest version of Exhibit I. Com. Miller: · Asked staff to clarify Page 1-7, 19.28.060 under b, floor area ratio, Item No, 3, Mr. Gilli: · An interior area that has a height of 16 feet and that is floor to roof rafters, is counted as floor area; if it is a two story house it is counted as second story area; if it is a one story house, it is counted as first story area. If it is a one story house, it is counted twice, but not counted as a second story addition. If there is already a second floor, that is already a floor that has been counted. Com. Miller: · Under design guidelines, the design guidelines were put into the ordinance, there is a minor conflict in tenninology; he asked staff to clarify. · Page 1-4, Purpose, No, C, and Page 1-7, Design Guidelines la,; Page 1-15, 19,28,075, B3, there are three different ways of describing this; he suggested reducing it to one way; preference "that it is hannonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" and dispense with the details shown in Section 19.28.060c which goes into a lot more detail. · Said to him harmonious means that you can have different kinds of construction or fonns but they give a pleasing effect; and his preference is that they leave it and take words such as "compatible" and getting into the details of eave heights which has created a lot of discussion in tenns of whether it should be II feet or 12 feet or something of that nature; and this kind of change would give more flexibility. · Noted that on the matrix, although four commissioners voted to eliminate story poles, the wording in the boxes suggest story poles; the wording spends more time on the minority opinion rather than the majority opinion. He suggested that the wording be changed to reflect his comments in the minutes of the last meeting. Com. Giefer: · Said it is not clearly discussed when a variance is needed; asked if it shouid 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. GilIi: · At this point the ordinance treats a house that is over 45% as a house that doesn't meet a setback; it is just an exception process. In order to do that, the variance process would have to explicitly state that exceptions don't apply to a particular rule and that a variance is necessary. /7- é)é}S Planning Commission. .lUtes 4 October II, 2004 Com. Giefer: · Wauld 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. GilIi: · Currently the process for going over 45% is the same as the process for having a larger second story; it is just an exception. Com. Giefer: · Referred to Page 14, 19.28,076, Section B regarding noticing, and said there was no reference to the notification by both first class mail and e-mail, which was agreed to. Mr. Gilli: · Explained that when people are notified of a proposed project, staff doesn't always have their e-mail addresses at that point; the concept is when they are mailing the notice out saying that there is a project, it would only be by first class mail. Later, Section D, Notice of Action states that the people will be notified by first class mail and e-mail, if they have provided their e-mail address. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked how the implementation of the boards used for posting the second story would be handled. He noted that the City of Palo Alto rents the boards out to property owners if needed. Mr. Gilli: · Referred to the Randy Lane property owner who put up a notice board; and said the property owner was able to locate a board and post the materials without too much trouble. · Said at this point, he did not think that the city would provide them; but if problems occurred, they could consider doing it without having it included in the ordinance. Vice Chair Wong: · Regarding design review guidelines, Mr. Piasecki mentioned that we might still need prescriptive descriptions, pictures or wil1 they be needed at all. Mr. Gilli: · For the concept of graphical representations of all these rules, the plan is we wil1 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 wil1 make the final action on the appeal. /7-d-¡;),0 Planning Commission. .lUtes 5 October II, 2004 · The appeals process for minor residential permits, has the same language except it is C instead of D, but with the same paragraph. The final appeal will be the Planning Commission. · The flow chart can be included in the applícation form. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Said she was surprised at the number of proposed changes for Rl because of the size of the document and the number of strikeouts and replacement of text, which is a compilation of the last four months. · Cautioned that 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 publíc input the last several weeks, is very important. · Opposed to increasing the proposed second story to 800 square feet; if it is being proposed she asked that there be an addition to that statement in the Rl document stating that for R5000 properties, it be kept at 600 square feet because of the negative impact to the neighborhood with the very small lots. The sensitivity should be kept for the neighborhood. · The 800 square feet is a very large second story and does not work well in some neighborhoods in Cupertino, · The second story setbacks should be retained, and if the documents are trimmed, there should be strong adequate wording in the document to protect what has been kept by the current R I document since 2000. · Suggested that different colored documents be sent out when they are noticing residents; she noted that the County sends out different colored ones. · Keep the Rl in tact. Mark Burns, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Silicon Valley Association of ReaItors: · Said they were working hard on "reasonably compatible and harmonious" but emphasized that they were trying to make these neighborhoods great for everyone and there is a tight set of rules for Rl now; making it hard for both homeowners and familíes 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 Rl 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 /7-é<d-.7 Planning Commission h...1utes 6 October II, 2004 and more demand for family housing so the family can be together and not have one master suite upstairs and the remainder of the bedrooms downstairs. o He suggested the Planning Commission refer to the tapes of the meetings where former Com. Mahoney said 6 or 7 years ago, that it needs to be 35% total FAR upstairs and 65% total downstairs, which would give the right ratios to build reasonably proportionate houses that are attractive and not something that only a Y. of it is upstairs and % downstairs, with the pinhead on the large body. That would make a great difference in improving the quality of the neighborhoods, the way the neighborhoods look, and give builders the freedom to build the houses that buyers are demanding in Cupertino. Kwon-Tak Chni, Woodbury Drive: o Supports the changes to the ordinance. o Changes are a step in the right direction; the old ordinance was too restrictive particularly on the setback requirement and also the flexibility in the design. o In the last meeting Corns. Miller and Wong recommended that for the level II large home the prospective rendering be black and white; said he did not think there were any changes to the proposal and wanted the commissioners to reconsider that to change the rendering to black and white. o Said he visited Randy Lane and the posted hand drawn renderings clearly indicated what the house would look; and he did not feel that a colored rendering would give any additional information but would incur additional headaches for the homeowner. o Asked if the property owner could change the color choice once it is posted; and whether or not the owner would have to go to another hearing to get the color approved. o Urged the commissioners to reconsider that. Mr. Gilli: o Clarified that the issues of colors and materials are part of what is reviewed at the DRC at this time, and would still be reviewed if they go to a new process. o He said that going from a light gray to a darker gray would not be a problem; but changing from a light gray to a bright orange could require that the approval be amended. Having the color on the board unless there is some evidence that it is a significant cost, according to an architect consulted, would be an insignificant amount. Unless there is information that it is costly, the addition of color only adds to the effective noticing and it is not going to tie them 100%; it would take an extreme change in order to have to amend the approval. Yvonne Hampton, Oakview Lane: o Expressed concem about color control from the city. o Said her home is painted a giddy yellow color and although some neighbors snickered, laughed and asked questions about their choice of color, they painted it in their choice of color and feel that the city should not decide what color a homeowner can paint their own home as they are not a gated community. o If the city keeps itself flexible in its plans and directives to homeowners, they are less likely to get entangled in issues such as the present one. o They have gone through changes in their home and have become an extended family living together, but have had the capacity to add onto their home and it has worked out well for them. o Many of the old homes are not big homes; people want bigger homes and as a speaker pointed out, when you have spent a lot of money to move into this area, and you have a home 50 years old, you should be able to make the necessary changes. o Under the present regulations, their home would not be compatible with present family needs, /7-é}eXo Planning Commission i .utes 7 October II, 2004 · 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, · Make sure we are friendly to each other but not forced to put on a 35% upstairs when we really need 3 bedrooms and a master bedroom to support our family. Roy Hampton: · Supports the proposed changes. One concern is that the RI-a is specifically for Lynwood; asked if it could be applied to other areas such as Monta Vista because his lot is 10,000 square feet, but he would not want to be in an Rl-a category. · Said the flexibility is good; and commented that the more you expand on the first floor, in his case they do have opportunity to expand on their first floor and not violate the lot requirements, but it would be better if they could expand more on the second floor, still respecting their neighbors and save more of their lot and their trees, since they have many trees on their lot. · The more you force the ratio to be bigger on the bottom and smaller on the top, the more you force the homeowner into taking down trees and shrubs and things that are existing on some of the larger lots such as theirs. · Said he concurred with his wife's other comments also. Mr. Gilli: · Said that 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. · If the home is in the Rl zone now, it will stay there unless a long process is undertaken. Rhoda Fry, San Fernando Ave.: · Said she would like the Planning Commission to be more empowered to encourage outstanding architecture in Cupertino and do design reviews for all second story homes; preferably all homes. · Said she was in favor of story poles, and provided costs of story poles in different cities, stating that the costs were minimal costs for a project running between $700,000 and $1.5 million, and also something that will last for generations and is going to impact the look and feel of the city, · Why is it that other cities have attractive architecture and Cupertino does not? From what I can tell, the current rules allow the property owner to build a small second story without a design review, which means you can build something pear shaped without a design review or pinhead or all these other descriptions, without adhering to anything that I have seen that resemble great American architecture such as Greek 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. · Please toss out the percent rules and do more design reviews. Snsan Lonie, Woodbury Drive: · Supports not requiring the residents to put up story poles when they have additions because they are dangerous because they stay on top of the roof and may cause leakage. · Some people may feel that $3,000 to $5,000 for story poles is a fraction of the budget, but it is part of someone's limited budget; therefore the city moving to use a board to display the actual look of the house instead of story poles would make it easier to envision what the house would look like, since the location of the windows, number of stories, etc. would be visible. Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 17 - ól.d.9 Planning Commission I, .ùtes 8 October II, 2004 Com. Chen: o 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. o 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. o She thanked everyone for helping develop the Rl ordinance, and staff particularly for working so hard in the past few months to develop this rule. She said she supported the Rl ordinance change; and will make the recommendation to City Council and hopes for support ITom all the commISSIoners. Motion: Motion by Corn. Chen, to approve the negative declaration and model resolution. Com. Giefer: o Reiterated her concem that throughout the process there was limited public input. o 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. o Suggested that they separate the second story ratio; and stated for the record her concem, o Said she supported the document and agreed with Corn. Chen; they have done a lot of work; there are many good things in the new RI, but reiterated her concern about the lack of public input in general; and the one data point ITom a large majority of residents indicates that they don't favor increasing the second story ratio. o She agreed that they have to show vision and leadership within the community. Com. Miller: o 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. o 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. o 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. o 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. !7 - d 30 Planning Commission J\...,utes 9 October II, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Commented to Com. Giefer that the process began two years ago, and it was sent to the City Council and because there were a lot of 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. · Beheves that putting the boards in ÍÌ'ont 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 famihes in one home and the fact that some people wanted to hve in a bigger house. · Agreed with Com. Miller that the intent of the ordinance was to address mass and bulk, and said he would hke 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 pubhc 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 coJor 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. 17 -8.3/ Planning Commission II .cltes 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. Mlller 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. Gllli: · 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 pattern, 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. Gllli: · 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. f 1 - d 3d.. Planning Commission Ì\~ _,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 bui1ding pennit and decided to build a one story home; but for the overall community if they wanted to build a two story home, it would be easier for them to build it higher; and it allows more flexibility. · The Planning Commission has put in a lot of hard work during the past 6 to 9 months, staff has been supportive of this 50% to second FAR, and he urged his colleagues to keep the 50%. Com. Miller: · From a procedural standpoint, we have all taken sides on a number of issues, and we are not agreeing with everything in this document, and to single out this one thing, we could probably point to something we would like to single out and do the same issue with, · It was a team effort and we compromised on a number of things and we have admittedly a compromised document, and we should pass that on and not single out one thing for special attention, Com. Chen: · Of all the points we discussed in the past 9 months, this is probably the one discussed the most. We talked about flexible design; dealing with mass and bulk; maintaining the community as it is now; and we also talked about what can be done to 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 !Î-ð-,3::7 Planning Commission ]I. jtes 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 pu1l it out and vote separately on the 50% rule; so a1l 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 ifthat 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 co1lected in the survey, is viable data and she said she wished they had got more public input during the process; it would have alleviated her concerns that were brought up during the data. She emphasized it was not her personal opinion, but her opinion based upon the proceedings throughout the summer months to present; and it greatly influenced her decision, the information collected earlier. · She said she felt the Council meeting would be well attended, with people who have strong opinions about the issue, OLD BUSINESS 2. Planning Commission Procedure for Public He Mr. Piasecki presented the staff report: · Reviewed the revisions made to the Planning ommission agenda cover sheet, and asked for endorsement of the Planning Commission, noted that any suggestions would be considered for the final version. Com. Chen: · Noted for the record that relative to eceiving negative comments from the public on general, not specific items, she asked that e public focus more on issues and not particular persons. She reiterated the role of the P nning Commission is to collect public input and make their decisions and recommendati s to City Council and she would appreciate it if the input focused on issues, not perso s. Chair Saadati opened the m Robert McKibbin: · Commented on th 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 concem that the three minutes a1lotted per speaker was not adequate time for them to expr ss their opinions and speak on the item, 17-(}3t.f EXHIBIT U City 01 Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPERJINO Staff. Use Only EA File No. EA-2002-15 Case File No.MCA-2002-03 '\ttachments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: Amendment to the R1 Ordinance Project Location: City-wide Project Description: Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to sinqle-family residential development in the R1 zoninq district. Environmental Setting: Standard sinqle-family subdivisions, predominantly on flat terrain. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - N/A Building Coverage - N/A% Exist. Building - N/A s.f. Proposed Bldg. - N/A s.l. 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) D Monta Vista Design Guidelines D S. De Anza Conceptual D N. De Anza Conceptual D S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual D Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual D Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - N/A s.l. FAR - 45% Max. Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required N/A Parking Provided N/A Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ŒJ NO D /7 -';;35' A CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 1. Land Use Element 26. Miclpeninsula Regional Open Space Dislfict 2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 31, Pacific Gas and Electric 7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CAL TRANS 10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Excesses Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report (site specific) 39, USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map ptan 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41, County Heritage Resources Inventory 18. City Noise Ordinance 42, Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Development Dept. List Substances Site 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46, Experience w/project of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics 24. Adjacent Cities' Pianning 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 cleariy (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 /7-;(30 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; -_._.~ --- ~--- - ~ - --- >,... c..... 0 ,,- _ t: c: s:: +:I -cu..... fUm ons mæ_ - ~~ ~ ¡::~;5~ 0 ..c: u u u ISSUES: 1-"," o .. " ,- III ,- .:¡: c> C. 111'_ C. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q "E III" .- "- III " E E Õ cn_ Q,) C) :t: 0 Q .~- - .- ..J'-:¡;; u a. en en " ..Jen - I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a D D D ŒJ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D D 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 D D D ŒJ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D D 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 D D D ŒJ Farmland, or FarmJand of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for D D D ŒJ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing D D D ŒJ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] /7-d,37 ».... t: .... 0 t:.... _t: C t: :¡:: t: -l\I+J ItI l\I 0 l\I ItIl\I+J +J !II u ~.g=~5 .!: u U U :.¡:::Ii U m ISSUES: t: ~ C. 1-0::'" o '" I/)'-'j¡; ",c. en .- Q. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] ( ) r::: E (/)1:: ~.... I/) r::: E E õ.~- Q)CJ ._0 ( ) "'_ ....1.- :¡;¡ u Q..en en t: ....I en III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of D D D ŒI the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or D D D ŒJ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net D D D ŒI 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 D D D ŒI pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a D D D ŒI substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either D D D 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 D D D ŒI 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 D D D ŒI federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (iQc:;l udJQg,-~l!lQ~!Jim i1~iL!~1I1 ars.D~'yernaL________ .----.--.....-...--..........--..-.-- n..__n_....___............_.__......_n _m_.'.....__._.............._.. (7 -d.3Ó - ».... c.... 0 c.... _ r: t: c: :.¡:; r: -('I .... ev ('I 0 ('I ev('l .... .... t\\ 0 ~1.}..c:;5 J: 0 0 0 .- 0 n:I ISSUES: .... "" ª ""...... 1-",," o .. ß ï: E '" .- 'jE C) a. (/)._ c.. za. [and Supporting Information Sources] V) s::: .-... '" !:: E E o .~- Q)CJ ~o G> .~- -' .- 2 0 c..en en c -'en pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 ŒJ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 ŒJ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 ŒJ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CUl rURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: --- .- a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ŒJ the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ŒJ the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 ŒJ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 ŒJ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOilS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 ŒJ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthauake Fault Zoning Map issued by the /7-a3~ 1'55u"" ».... ".... 0 ".... - I: t: I: +:i I: -cu.... cu CU 0 CU II! cu.... .... I'I (,) ~u.t:·'05 J:o(') (,) ._ 0 '" .... .. ¡:; ......'" 1-..'" o '" " .- u '-'¡¡: '" c. U)"- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) I: E U) t: ~ ~ u I: E E õ.~- Q¡ en ._ 0 Q) "'- ...J .- :æ u C,.(/) (/) " ...J(/) 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 ŒJ [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 ŒJ liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 ŒJ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 ŒJ loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 ŒJ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 ŒJ in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 ŒJ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 ŒJ the environment through Ihe 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 ŒJ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 ŒJ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 17 - ;}40 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~- of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44J d) Be located on a site which is included on a 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 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopled, 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 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ J g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a 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?[1,2,44J VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality slandards or waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42J ---------------- - ---~ --- :-,.... _ r:: 1ü"'õ .- U \\I ~~::: me: Ë Õ .~- Q..CJ) o o o o o o o o r::: +oJ 1::'- fUæ oñí ç:U'¡::¡:¡"'O \I:....m ~ ï:: .~ .~ ~ Q) C) ~ 0 -Jëñ :¡¡; ~ o o o o o o o r::.... r:: mm.... J: U U 1-\1:\\1 (1)'- c. U) <:: E Q).~- ...JCJ) - o o o o o o o .... U o \\I zc. E - ŒJ ŒJ ŒJ ŒJ ŒJ ..- ŒJ ŒJ "."~_________.__ __0·'__- 17-éJt(/ »... <:... 0 <:... - I: I: 1::;::> I: -(1 .... tV (1 0 (1 1'Ø(1 .... .... n! t,) ~u..t:+::6 .<:: t,) t,) t,) ., <.> ra ISSUES: <:~Q. ""...'" I- "" '" o '" II)'-';¡: c¡c. (1)'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] (!) <: E U) c :.¡::I.... II) <: E E õ.~- Q) C) ._ 0 Q).~- c..m ....Ie¡¡ :æ~ ....1m - --- e) Create or contribute runoff water which D D D Œl would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise sUbstantially degrade water 0 0 0 ŒJ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 D D Œl 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 OO-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, D 0 D 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 D D 0 Œl 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 D D D Œl mineral resource that would be of value to ._.__.._--_..._,.._-_._-_._-_.._.._--~"_.__._._._,--_._------.----.--.............. .. _.,..,.._.._-------~ -- ....___.......__..,._.....__..___._____...._....__........__.._.....__...00.. ...-......---.----- /7-;) 4-8-, »- c.... 0 c.... - c r: t: ;¡:¡ c -ra- ra ra 0 ra rara'" ... ra (J ~.g.;~; .t:o(J (J ISSUES: Æ~ 1-0:::'" o '" en ,- .;¡: C'J c. (1)"- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] U) s::: +:I J- en c: E E o .~- (1) C> ._ 0 Q C'J_ a. en ...J'- :;;; u ...Jen en c the region and the residents of the state? I -- [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ŒJ locaily-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? [8,18J XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: -.------. ----- a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 ŒJ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] --_._---_.,----------------------------,------------~"-~-----_.._- ----- J7-éX43 H ».... c.... 0 c'" - ¡: c t::,¡::¡ ¡: -œ.... IVœ oca IVœ'" ... III I.) ¡;,g-5~5 J: I.) I.) I.) ISSUES: ~~C'G 1-",," o .. c._ º CI)'- '¡E r:n c. (1)'- Co zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] ,SeE fh I:: ._..... u> r:: E ..ê o.~- Q)CJ ~o Q) .~- c,.m -Iëñ :;;g -1m ~ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D ŒJ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D ŒJ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] D D D ŒJ Police protection? [33,44] D D D ŒJ Schools? [29,30,44] D D D ŒJ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] D D D ŒJ Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D D D ŒJ XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of D D D ŒJ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational D D D ŒJ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is D D D ŒJ substantial in relation to the existing traffic 17-é}Lf4 - >...... c..... 0 c..... -c r: 1:;:; c -n¡.... CUn¡ On! CUn¡.... .... n! 0 ¡;UJ:+:~ .cuO l\ .- (.) m ISSUES: -",,º ""-'" 1-",,'" o '" s::: ,_ I/)'-';¡: CJ c. U)"- Q. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] '" s::: E en c: ._ l- I/) s::: E E õ.~- Q) en ~ 0 Q) .~- -' ,- :;;; '-' c..en en s::: -'en load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumuiatively, 0 0 0 ŒJ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 ŒJ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 ŒJ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 ŒJ [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 ŒJ [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 ŒJ 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 ŒJ 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 ŒJ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ŒJ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] - -- -- -- 17-~tfs -. ».... <::.... 0 <::.... - r: t: s:: :.¡:¡ <:: -ra.... IUra ora IUra.... .... (IS l) ¡;.g.s~'õ .r. o·l) l) +:I (.) ns ISSUES: <:: ~ ª l-¡¡::tO o to I/)._.~ '" "- tn.- c. z"- [and Supporting Information Sources] .s I: E (l)t: :.¡:I.... II) <:: E E o "'_ CD OJ ._ 0 '" "'- D..!/) ..J(ñ :;;g ..J!/) e) Result in a determination by the D D D ŒJ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44J f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient D D D ŒJ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local D ! D D ŒJ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] /7-;)40 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? [] c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [} o o o ŒJ o o o ŒJ o o o ŒJ PREPARER'SAFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. D 11.- IÎ jJ ~ , Pre parer's Signature I ( b ~ Print Preparer's Name Peter Gilli. Associate Planner 17-,;1.4- 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) i \ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils 0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water 0 Land Use / Planning Materials Quality 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 T ran spo rtationfT raffi c 0 Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) finds that: ŒJ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed pr 1, , t, nothing further is required. ! Staff Evaluator 0l~ Sc-O ~) ERC Chairperson Date (¡\It\ U2- Date /7 - de¡. t' EXHIBIT V CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 11, 2002 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on September 11, 2002, PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03 (EA-2002-15) City of Cupertino Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single- family residential development in the R1 zoning district. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no sigrùficant enviro ental ' cts. "- ~- Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g! erc!REC EA-2002-15 /7-~4c¡ EXHIBIT W CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Envirorunental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on March 3,2003. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2002-15 Application No.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03 City of Cupertino Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related.to single-family residential development in the R1 zoning district. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The Planning Corrunission granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant envirorunental impacts, Steve Piasecki Director of Corrununity Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200215#2 /7 - é),S'D At the last Council meeting, the following items were agreed upon. This information is also in the staff report. If the Council does not want to adopt any changes other than those that were agreed upon at the last meeting, then Model Ordinance 1 should be adopted. This is the current ordinance with only the changes agreed upon at the last meeting. There are additional changes in the Planning Commission recommendation that the Council can choose to adopt. If the Council wishes to evaluate these, then Model Ordinance 2 should be considered, which includes the color-coded changes that are indexed in an attachment to the staff report. · In green are changes that the Council agreed to last meeting. · Blue consists of reorganized or reworded text. These changes were meant to improve the document without changing the actual meaning of the document. · Magenta is very minor changes that are technical in nature. · Yellow items are changes that the Council may want to consider on an item-by-item basis. Here is the list of yellow items, numbered based on the staff report attachment. The items outlined are guidelines. Staff recommends that the Council adopt Model Ordinance 2 with at least the Green, Blue and Magenta items and any Yellow items that the Council prefers. If the Council adopts a Model Ordinance tonight, it will become effective on February 4, 2005. (7-;;<'51 ! ,........ i n:-i' ·t.\~, /- " I . City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 I CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Agenda Item No.ll. MEETING DATE: January 4, 2005 SUBJECT Consider objections to proposed removal of weeds and order abatement of public nuisance (City- wide weed abatement) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 04-440. BACKGROUND On November 16, 2004, Council adopted Resolution No. 04-440 setting a hearing to consider any objections of property owners to the proposed removal of weeds. After adoption of that resolution the Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program (Department of Agriculture and Resource Management) sent notice of the abatement program and hearing to the property owners on their notification list. A copy of the notice is attached. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Note protest(s) and adopt Resolution No. 05- 011 ordering abatement of public nuisance (weeds). Submitted by: Approved for submission to the City Council: ¡¿ miL¿ ~t! 2-nr;iLJ Kimberly SmiW > City Clerk ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper (t-I RESOLUTION NO. 05-012 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDERING ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 724 AND RESOLUTION NO. 04-440 WHEREAS, the City Council has declared that the growth of weeds, the accumulation of garden refuse, cuttings and other combustible trash upon the private properties as described in Resolution No. 04-440 adopted November 16, 2004 to be a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, after due notice, a hearing thereon was held at the regular meeting of the City Council on January 4, 2005; and WHEREAS, fÌ'om the evidence presented, both oral and written, it appears to be in the best interests of the City to acquire jurisdiction over and abate said nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Agricultural Commissioner is hereby ordered to abate such nuisance or cause the same to be abated by having the weeds referred to destroyed or removed by cutting, discing, chemical spraying or any other method determined by him; that all debris, whether in piles or scattered, be hauled away; 2. That the Agricultural Commissioner and his deputies, assistants, employees, contracting agents or other representatives shall have express authorization to enter upon said private properties for the purpose of causing said public nuisance to be abated; and 3. That any affected property owners shall have the right to destroy or remove such weeds or debris himself or herself or have the same destroyed or removed at his/her own expense provided that such destruction or removal shall have been completed prior to the arrival of the Agricultural Commissioner or his authorized representative to destroy or remove them. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Agricultural Commissioner shall keep account of abating said nuisance and embody such account in a report and assessment list to the City Council, which shall be filed with the City Clerk. 2. Said reports of costs, hearing and collection procedures involved shall be provided as stated in Ordinance No. 724. (g~;¿ ResolutIon No. 04-01~ Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the 4th day of January 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /1-3 TRA 13 Notice to Destroy Weeds NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on November 16,2004 pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the City Council passed a resolution declaring that all weeds growing upon any private property or in any public street or alley, as defined in Section 9.08.010 of the Cupertino Municipal Code constitute a public nuisance, which nuisance must be abated by the destruction or removal thereof. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that property owners shall without delay, remove all such weeds fÌ'om their property and the abutting half of the street in fÌ'ont and alleys, if any, behind such property and between the lot lines thereof as extended, or such weeds will be destroyed or removed and such nuisance abated by the County Agricultural Commissioner, in which case the cost of such destruction or removal will, including but not limited to administration costs, be assessed upon the lots and lands from which, or fÌ'om the fÌ'ont or rear of which, such weeds shall have been destroyed or removed and such cost will constitute a lien upon such lots or lands until paid and will be collected upon the next tax roll upon which general municipal taxes are collected. All property owners having any objections to the proposed destruction or removal of such weeds are hereby notified to attend a meeting of said City to be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at 10300 Torre Ave" Cupertino, California, on Tuesday, January 4th, 2005 at 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. The language and format for this notice is required by California Health and Safety Code Sections 14891 Et. Seq, (over) It-y TRA 13 CITY OF CUPERTINO WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM SCHEDULE January 4th, 2005 Public hearing to consider objection to Abatement List. March 1 st, 2005 PARCEL ABATEMENT DEADLINE Parcel must be free fÌ'om hazardous vegetation by this date or Inspector will order abatement. July/August 2005 Assessment Hearing date to be scheduled by City Council. 2005 COUNTY CONTRACTOR'S WEED ABATEMENT PRICE LIST* Prices INCLUDE a 150% County Administrative Fee A) Disc Work** 2nd Disc = Total Discs $156.25 $625.00 $162.50 $650.00 $156.25 $625.00 (PER ACRE) PARCEL SIZE: 0-12,500 sq.ft. 12,50Isq.ft.- 43,560sq.ft. Larger than I Acre 1st Disc + $468.75 $487.50 $468.75 .. It is required that parcels be disced twice a year. The cost for the fIrst discing is higher due to additional work normally required during the first discing. B) HANDWORK $93.75 PER PERSON. PER HOUR C) FLAIL 6 Foot Mower $225.00 PER HOUR MOWING 12 Foot Mower $287.50 PER HOUR D) LOADER WORK $275.00 PER HOUR E) DUMP TRUCK $275.00 PER HOUR F) BRUSH WORK $87.50 PER HOUR G) BOOM MOWING $325.00 PER HOUR G) DUMP FEE 100% Added to orders with debris removal at 100% of the dump site charge. *Please note-this program does not offer herbicide application as a method of abatement (over) l.r-j ZIP - GA 30348 CA 95014-2435 CA 95014-0106 CA 95014-0121 CA 95115-005 CA 95014 CA 95008-6418 CA 95008-6418 CA 94404-3506 CA 95603-5859 CA 95014-1301 CA 95014-1617 CA 95014-1615 CA 95014-1657 CA 95008-0729 CA 93635 110 CANADA CA 95014-1144 CA 95014-1132 CA 95747 CA 95747 CA 95015-2935 CA 95014-4238 CA 95014-4829 Page 1 2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF CUPERTINO SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE - 19333 VALLCO PY 316-20-085 TANDEM COMPUTERS INC POBOX 105005 ATLANTA 10344 N PORTAL AV 316-29-006 MEMON AJAZ AND NASREEN 19765 DRAKE DR CUPERTINO 22081 CAROLINE DR 326-03-017 YING BING HAND YUK F 22081 CAROLINE DR CUPERTINO 10715 PENINSULAR AV 326-03-044 HERRITT DAVID H AND WATTS 10715 PENINSULAR AV CUPERTINO 326-07-035 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE 21089 GREENLEAF DR 326-08-031 MR. AND MRS. CHIH-HENG WEI 10079 SAICH WAY CUPERTINO 21115 GARDENA DR 326-08-058 BROWN MAURICE F AND MONA T 1506 OBURN CT CAMPBELL 21127 GARDENA DR 326-08-059 BROWN MAURICE F AND MONA T 1506 OBURN CT CAMPBELL 21139 GARDENA DR 326-08-060 YU YUKY ET AL 440 BODEGA ST FOSTER CITY 21151 GARDENA DR 326-08-061 CARR JOHN N 11060 MONT ANA DR AUBURN 21163 GARDENA DR 326-08-062 CHAN WALLACE C AND HELENE W 21326 AMULET DR CUPERTINO 21177 GARDENA DR 326-08-063 VONGAMPAI WISIT AND CHUTIMA 21177 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO 21047 GARDENA DR 326-08-084 JACOBS JOHN W AND WILMA L 21047 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO 21061 GARDENA DR 326-08-085 LlU TOM T AND CHRISTINA S 21144 LAURETTA DR CUPERTINO N FOOTHILL BL 326-15-096 METTE WILLIAM D 1420 MCBAIN AV CAMPBELL 10045 CRESCENT RD 326-16-078 JACKSON ELEANOR A 2142 BLUE RIDGE AV LOS BANOS 10255 HILLCREST RD 326-16-087 GIGNAC, WILLIAM J 2529 MARSHWOOD RD RR#2 CARP ON KOZ 21820 MONTE CT 326-19-083 OLSON MAY A TRUSTEE 21820 MONTE CT CUPERTINO 21852 GARDENVIEW LN 326-19-095 SHANKAR RAVI D AND RENUKA R 21852 GARDENVIEW LN CUPERTINO (LAND ONLY) 326-20-039 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE (LAND ONLY) 326-20-040 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE 10494 ANN ARBOR A V 326-28-020 LO HENRY C AND ANGELINE W POBOX 2935 CUPERTINO 20941 ALVES DR 326-30-005 ZHAO JUN AND XU YUAN YUAN 21068 WHITE FIR CT CUPERTINO 20790 HANFORD DR 326-30-065 VAN BUREN DONALD P AND 21660 RAINBOW CT CUPERTINO ~ -" ~ - Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program ~ ZIP CA 95014-1875 CA 95051-1608 CA 94024-7434 CA 94303-3543 CA 94024 CA 95014-1619 CA 94024-5235 CA 95014-1619 CA 95014-1319 CA 95014-1303 CA 95115-005 CA 95115-005 CA 95115-005 CA 95070-6528 CA 95014 CA 95115-005 CA 95115-005 CA 95014-5063 FL 33305-2424 CA 95014-3985 CA 95014-3904 CA 95014-3939 CA 95014-1174 CA 95014-3937 Page 2 2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF CUPERTINO SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE 10467 GLENCOE DR 326-30-106 DAMASK ROBERT T 10467 GLENCOE DR CUPERTINO 20903 DUNBAR DR 326-30-162 YEH CHI Y AND CHUNG H 2200 SAN ANTONIO PL SANTA CLARA 21179 GARDENA DR 326-40-001 NGAI HARRISON AND MARY 22295 HARTMAN DR LOS ALTOS 21189 GARDENA DR 326-40-002 LlN SHEN-AN 2441 CHABOT TR PALO ALTO 21201 GARDENA DR 326-40-003 Nhan Chu 22351 Starling Drive Los Altos 21219 GARDENA DR 326-40-004 CALLEJAS ALEJANDRO ET AL 21219 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO 21239 GARDENA DR 326-40-005 CHUA H T AND JESSIE TRUSTEE 12410 BARLEY HILL RD LOS ALTOS 21261 GARDENA DR 326-43-036 NGUYEN TRUNG VAN AND 21261 GARDENA DR CUPERTINO 10705 GRAPNEL PL 326-43-055 NGUYEN THANH V AND BUI MY 10705 GRAPNEL PL CUPERTINO 10706 AMULET PL 326-43-062 WILEY ROBERT J AND FELlPA 10706 AMULET PL CUPERTINO STOKES A V 326-49-034 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE STOKES A V 326-49-035 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE STOKES A V 326-49-039 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE 22449 STEVENS BL 326-50-078 CONTRO R MICHAEL AND DEBBIE L 12296 FARR RANCH RD SARATOGA 21090 HAZELBROOK DR 326-55-031 MR. AND MRS. ANUJAN VARMA 21090 HAZEL BROOK DRIVE CUPERTINO 342-12-030 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE STEVENS BL 342-12-055 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE 10141 LEBANON DR 342-14-005 AKVN INVESTMENTS LLC 1060 WEST HILL CT CUPERTINO 10264 LOCKWOOD DR 342-14-037 JONES ROBERT 0 SR TRUSTEE 2308 NE 18TH AV WILTON MANORS 10530 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-16-059 KOLSKI ALICE F TRUSTEE 10530 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO 22600 ALCALDE RD 342-16-111 YU XIAOBING AND JIA YIPING 22600 ALCALDE RD CUPERTINO 10739 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-17-036 KING MARY P TRUSTEE & ET AL 10739 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO 342-17-087 SAN JUAN ROAD ASSOCIATES 21710 STEVENS CREEK BL CUPERTINO 10611 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-17-095 HUNTS SUSAN E ET AL 10611 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO - ~ ~49 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program 2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF CUPERTINO SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIP . 10739 SANTA LUCIA RD 342-17-100 KING MARY P TRUSTEE & ET AL 10739 SANTA LUCIA RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3939 22570 SANJUAN RD 342-18-020 HENRY J & LILLIAN E SEVERIN 15 N MARKET ST SAN JOSE CA 95113-1207 10521 SAN FELIPE RD 342-22-073 KING MARGARET D TRUSTEE 10521 SAN FELIPE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3967 22821 MERCEDES RD 342-22-090 OGI DARRELL H ET AL 22821 MERCEDES RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3919 10645 CORDOVA RD 342-22-099 OGRADY BRIAN J AND THERESA M 853 CAMPBELL AV LOS ALTOS CA 94024-4838 10645 CORDOVA RD 342-22-100 OGRADY KEVIN F 31 OCEAN HEIGHT NEWPORT COAST CA 92657 10645 CORDOVA RD 342-22-101 OSANN KATHRYN TRUSTEE 62 EMERALD IRVINE CA 92614 10625 CORDOVA RD 342-22-103 HO ROSANNA H TRUSTEE 10625 CORDOVA RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3911 22766 ALCALDE RD 342-44-008 GRACIA RICHARD 2 ET AL 22766 ALCALDE RD CUPERTINO CA 9501 4-3905 10500 SAN FELIPE RD 342-44-017 PURUSHOTMA PETER AND 10500 SAN FELIPE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3978 (LAND ONLY) 342-45-001 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 RDWOOD CITY CA 94065 10379 KRISTA CT 342-45-002 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 REDWOOD CITY CA 94063 10414 MELISSA CT 342-45-019 SU ANTHONY TUNG Y AT AND MAN 10414 MELISSA CT CUPERTINO CA 95014-2620 10397 AVENIDA LN 342-45-041 DING INGANTIUS Y AND JOSEPHINE 10397 AVENIDA LN CUPERTINO CA 95014-3946 10427 AVENIDA LN 342-45-043 DEACON THOMAS E AND OBINATA 10427 AVENIDA LN CUPERTINO CA 95014-3946 10437 AVENIDA LN 342-45-044 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 REDWOOD CITY CA 94063 (LAND ONLY) 342-50-019 CHAMBERLAIN JACK T 611 VETERANS BL UNIT 207 REDWOOOD CITY CA 94065 STEVENS BL 342-63-001 PG&E LAND SERVICES OFFICE Attn: 111 ALMADEN BLVD RM 814 SAN JOSE CA 9511 5-005 22530 RICARDO RD 356-01-008 WONG JIMMY HENG-FATT AND 22530 RICARDO RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-5412 10960 MIRAMONTE RD 356-01-019 FORD DANIEL T AND HOLSTEGE 10960 MIRAMONTE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-3974 10885 MIRAMONTE RD 356-01-036 NAMVAR PARVIZ I 10885 MIRAMONTE RD CUPERTINO CA 9501 4-0000 10889 MIRAMONTE RD 356-01-037 CHEN JOHN Y AND KUO HEATHER H 10889 MIRAMONTE RD CUPERTINO CA 95014-0000 22581 RICARDO RD 356-01-058 REPUBLIC PROPERTIES INC 935 RIVERSIDE AV UNIT 1 PASO ROBLES CA 93446 22571 RICARDO RD 356-01-059 REPUBLIC PROPERTIES INC 935 RIVERSIDE AV UNIT 1 PASO ROBLES CA 93446 ~ - \ 73 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program Page 3 O<;? ZIP - CA 95014-5411 CA 95014--4714 CA 95050 CA 95014--4822 CA 95014--4822 CA 95014--4810 CA 95014--4810 CA 95014--4810 CA 95014--4811 CA 94024-6903 CA 95125-2521 CA 95014-5912 CA 95747 CA 95014-4208 CA 95008 CA 95014-2960 CA 95014-4314 CA 95014-2955 CA 95014-4305 CA 95014-4313 CA 95014-2955 CA 95014-4307 CA 95014-4269 CA 95014-4360 Page 4 2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF CUPERTINO SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE . 22561 RICARDO RD 356-01-060 REPUBLIC PROPERTIES INC 22551 RICARDO RD CUPERTINO 21971 COLUMBUS AV 356-14-037 GREIF RICHARD K TRUSTEE 21971 COLUMBUS AV CUPERTINO 10881 SANTA DR 356-15-005 KURSAR EDWARD R AND NANCY C 2144 ROYAL DR UNIT 8 SANTA CLARA REGNART RD 356-23-001 BILLARD DOROTHY L TRUSTEE & ET 21710 REGNART RD CUPERTINO 21710 REGNART RD 356-23-057 BILLARD DOROTHY L TRUSTEE & ET 21710 REGNART RD CUPERTINO 21925 LINDY LN 356-25-014 KNOPP JOHN AND KAREN 21925 LINDY LN CUPERTINO 21949 LINDY LN 356-25-026 MOXLEY PROPERTIES CUPERTINO 21949 LINDY LN CUPERTINO 21951 LINDY LN 356-25-027 SANTORO MARK R 21951 LINDY LN CUPERTINO 22028 LINDY LN 356-27-007 DOZIER JOHN P AND PEGGY A 22028 LINDY LN CUPERTINO 10207 ORANGE AV 357-15-036 CHOU JIN-FENG AND LILLIAN 1972 ANNETTE LN LOS ALTOS 10056 ORANGE AV 357-17-058 MARC I WILLIAM III 1934 ELLEN AV SAN JOSE 21696 NOONAN CT 357-19-072 HOLMES DAVID M 21696 NOONAN CT CUPERTINO BUBB RD 357-20-028 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE 7705 LILAC WY 359-04-002 HUANG WEI CHIEH AND CHANG 7705 LILAC WY CUPERTINO 10040 BIANCHI WY 359-07-021 LYNN WONG 1857 W. CAMPBELL AVE CAMPBELL 20567 SUNRISE DR 359-10-016 HAN YU-WEN K TRUSTEE 20567 SUNRISE DR CUPERTINO 10566 JOHN WY 359-18-006 CHAN PAULINE G 10566 JOHN WY CUPERTINO 20592 MC CLELLAN RD 359-18-010 CHANG LANCE C AND MELODY F 20592 MC CLELLAN RD CUPERTINO 10583 FELTON WY 359-18-015 CHI SHING 10583 FELTON WY CUPERTINO 10574 FELTON WY 359-18-024 CHEN RICHARD Y AND HSIU-SHENG 10574 FELTON WY CUPERTINO 20616 MC CLELLAN RD 359-18-048 HARDEMAN MELODY F ET AL 20616 MCCLELLAN RD CUPERTINO 7614 DE FOE DR 359-25-032 SIMON ROBERT AND HUYNH NGON 7614 DE FOE DR CUPERTINO 940 S STELLING RD 359-25-041 REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH OF 940 S STELLING RD CUPERTINO 7515 DE LA FARGE DR 359-26-023 CHEN ERIC JENHUNG AND TU 7515 DE LA FARGE DR CUPERTINO ã;;' +- - ~97 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program ZIP CA 95747 CA 95747 CA 95014-4932 CA 95747 CA 95014-4911 CA 95014-4950 CA 95747 CA 95014-4906 CA 95014-4951 CA 95014-4966 CA 95747 CA 95747 CA 94304-1323 CA 95747 CA 95014-5134 CA 95014-5150 CA 95014-5150 CA 95014-5204 CA 94583 CA 95014-5206 CA 95014-0000 CA 95112 CA 95014-4824 CA 95014-4517 Page 5 2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF CUPERTINO SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE - BUBB RD 362-01-025 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE CRANBERRY DR 362-02-048 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE 7952 PUMPKIN DR 362-03-005 LAMA PATRICIA M ET AL 7952 PUMPKIN DR CUPERTINO CRANBERRY DR 362-04-058 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE 1109 STAFFORD DR 362-06-008 MCKNIGHT JOHN G AND BRIGITTE H 1109 STAFFORD DR CUPERTINO 1194 ELMSFORD DR 362-09-003 BANDY FREDERIC SAND 1194 ELMSFORD DR CUPERTINO 362-09-026 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE 7852 BELKNAP DR 362-10-042 SUBAGIO PUTU H 7852 BELKNAP DR CUPERTINO 1211 STAFFORD DR 362-11-031 KARUPPANCHETTY PALANIAPPAN 1211 STAFFORD DR CUPERTINO 1240 BUBB RD 362-11-050 HING STEVEN M AND APRIL L 1240 BUBB RD CUPERTINO 362-16-037 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE 362-19-033 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE 362-31-030 ALMASI SHAHRIAR AND AZITA ET AL 965 LAUREL GLEN DR PALO ALTO S STELLING RD 366-09-028 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD ROSEVILLE STAUFFER LN 366-09-044 VARR ANTHONY J TRUSTEE 11505 SUNSET SPRING CT CUPERTINO 11209 STAUFFER LN 366-09-048 MARDESICH CONNIE A 11209 STAUFFER LN CUPERTINO 11229 STAUFFER LN 366-09-050 CHEN SHO-MO AND LlU ROSARY J 11229 STAUFFER LN CUPERTINO 1392 S STELLING RD 366-17-103 FRANKOVICH ROBERT J TRUSTEE 1392 S STELLING RD CUPERTINO 7308 RAINBOW DR 366-19-076 SARON GARDENS LLC 2527 CAMINO RAMON BLVD SAN RAMON 1540 S STELLING RD 366-24-052 DANIEL EDMOND M AND LA YLA 1540 S STELLING RD CUPERTINO 11650 REGNART RD 366-33-007 REGNART HERBERT W TRUSTEE 11650 REGNART RD CUPERTINO 21650 RAINBOW CT 366-38-007 ZANOTTI DAVID M 1645 OLD BAYSHORE RD SAN JOSE 22325 REGNART RD 366-39-001 JACKSON JAMES E AND PATRICIA R 22325 REGNART RD CUPERTINO 10375 LINDSAY AV 369-12-012 TUNG CHARLES C 10375 LINDSAY AV CUPERTINO - on \ - , c;. 121 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program ZIP CA 950144574 CA 950144631 CA 95355-1967 CA 95035-6636 CA 950144560 CA 950144560 CA 95014 CA 950144453 CA 950144410 CA 95014-0000 CA 95112 CA 94023 CA 94309-2422 CA 95032-3607 CA 95014-3601 CA 95014-3645 CA 94040 CA 95014-3646 CA 95014-3807 CA 95014-3601 CA 94086 CA 94309-2422 CA 90036 CA 95014-3814 Page 6 2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF CUPERTINO SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE 10510 OAKVILLE AV 369-13-001 MARCOTTE RICHARD A 10510 OAKVILLE AV CUPERTINO 6387 BOLLINGER RD 369-19-006 QUIROZ JOSE AND SANDRA ET AL 6387 BOLLINGER RD CUPERTINO 815 MILLER AV 369-19-035 ESPIRITU DORA I 3229 Hashem Dr. Modesto 893 BLAZINGWOO AV 369-20-011 TSIANG LELlN 2167 SEACLlFF DR MILPITAS 898 EAST DR 369-24-004 CALLAHAN KENNETH P 898 EAST ESTATES DR CUPERTINO 870 EAST DR 369-24-009 LEE KENNETH K AND CECILIA 0 870 EAST ESTATES DR CUPERTINO 862 BETTE AV 369-24-048 DMITRY LUBOMIRSKY,ET AL 862 BETTE AVE CUPERTINO 10792 FARALLONE DR 369-34-006 WEST RICHARD H 10792 FARALLONE DR CUPERTINO 20091 LA RODA CT 369-34-030 JAMES E C AND COLLEEN P 20091 LA RODA CT CUPERTINO 19337 PHIL LN 375-05-027 RIVERA LlDA L ET AL 19337 PHIL LN CUPERTINO 19160 STEVENS BL 375-07-001 GREEN VALLEY CORP 777 N FIRST ST UNIT 5TH SAN JOSE 10210 STERN AV 375-12-001 WANG HELEN TRUSTEE PO BOX 261 LOS ALTOS 10200 STERN AV 375-12-002 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO 10430 STERN AV 375-14-021 CAPITAL FINANCE 16368 LAVENDER LN LOS GATOS 10280 MORETTI DR 375-15-013 MARTINEZ RICHARD D AND 18831 BARNHART AV CUPERTINO 10305 WUNDERLICH DR 375-16-020 FIROOZBAKHSH BABAK ET AL 10305 WUNDERLICH DR CUPERTINO 10335 WUNDERLICH DR 375-16-023 TRAN-NGUYEN ROSE 1704 MIRAMONTE AV UNIT 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 10330 WUNDERLICH DR 375-17-011 ALAM MUZAFFAR AND SHAKRA 10330 WUNDERLICH DR CUPERTINO 10385 CALVERT DR 375-17-027 MARTINEZ RICHARD D AND 10385 CALVERT DR CUPERTINO 10395 CALVERT DR 375-17-028 MARTINEZ RICHARD D AND 18831 BARNHART AV CUPERTINO 18725 TILSON AV 375-18-001 BALASUBRMANIYAN, PADMINI 2070 NORIEGA AV UNIT #9 SUNNYVALE 10361 JOHNSON AV 375-18-039 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO 10574 STERLING BL 375-23-028 PILlAVIN MICHAEL 171 N GARDNER ST LOS ANGELES 10424 JOHNSON AV 375-26-049 WONG DAMON AND IRENE LAI 10424 JOHNSON AV CUPERTINO ~ ~ - , ::::. 145 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program ZIP - CA 95014-3817 CA 95135-1614 CA 95066-3337 CA 95003 CA 95014 CA 94309-2422 CA 95124 CA 95170 CA 94309-2422 CA 94086-9148 CA 94587 CA 95031 Page 7 2005 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF CUPERTINO SITUS APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE - - 10660 JOHNSON AV 375-28-022 HANSEN CHRISTINE I 10660 JOHNSON AV CUPERTINO 10820 MINETTE DR 375-31-031 KIM NAM HAND YOUN S 3018 HIGH MEADOW LN SAN JOSE 10780 MINETTE DR 375-31-035 REICHLEY EMILIA C 552 BEAN CREEK RD UNIT SCOTTS VALLEY 10700 MINETTE DR 375-31-043 KATZEN DANIEL H ET AL 477 VISTA DEL MAR APTOS 10660 CARVER DR 375-32-017 Jae Sung Kim and Eun Hee Kim 10660 Carver Drive Cupertino 10630 CARVER DR 375-32-020 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO 10827 MINETTE DR 375-32-057 WILLIAMS MARILYN A 2100 CURTNER AV STE C SAN JOSE 18900 NEWSOM AV 375-35-007 KUSJOE P.O, BOX 700366 SAN JOSE 10627 CULBERTSON DR 375-36-027 MC GRATH PATRICK W PO BOX 2422 PALO ALTO 10645 CULBERTSON DR 375-36-029 SANCHEZ YOLANDA I AND TONY J 1228 VALERIAN CT SUNNYVALE 6125 BOLLINGER RD 375-38-010 PETERSON KURT AND RHONDA D 34872 HERRINGBONE WY UNION CITY 910 MILLER AV 375-41-011 FOLEY MARY ANNE PO BOX 21 LOS GATOS - 1" ~ ~ 156 Records Santa Clara County Hazardous Vegetation Management Program \ !.:~I (j.\~ J . F CUPEIQ1NO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 kimberlys@cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ Meeting Date: Januarv 4,2005 SUBJECT Consider a request fÌ'om the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office for a fee waiver for the Quinlan Community Center and the Cupertino Community Hall for terrorism incident preparedness workshops, BACKGROUND The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office and the City of Cupertino are hosting a Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident Preparedness Workshop on February 15 at the Quinlan Center and February 16 at the new Community Hall in Cupertino. The one-day workshops are fÌ'om 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m" with a working lunch provided by the Sheriff s Office, and it expected that there would be 15 to 20 attendees per class. This is an executive-level workshop for the city's elected and non-elected senior officials, such as the chiefs and/or directors of the community's response agencies and departments representing the fire, law, EMS, Hazmat, public works, public health, emergency management, governmental disciplines/services and medical treatment facilities. One of the instructors for the course will be Sam Gonzales, the police chief of Oklahoma City during the Federal Building bombing, This class has received excellent reviews fÌ'om senior officials across the nation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a full fee waiver for the events for the following reasons: · It is an important preparedness training class for city officials · The event is co-sponsored by the City of Cupertino · Grant funds will pay for tuition costs, so participants can attend fÌ'ee of charge. Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~~ Kimberly Smith r City Clerk W1L David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on RecyÇ/ed Paper /1-1 Senior Officials \\ orkshop for "" eapons of Mass Destruction and Terrodsm I ncident Preparedness Dear Senior Officials. We are pleased to offer and encourage you to take advantage of the WMD Workshop for senior officials, Sheriff Smith was able to bring this training to Santa Clara County through State Homeland Security Grant Funding. Although we are making the training available to all in the Operational Area, she wanted me to specifically invite the city managers. department heads, and elected officials from the cities we serve, We hope to see you at the workshop. Please don't hesitate to call Sgt, Shervington or I if you have any questions, Captain Edward Perry Special Operations Office of the Sheriff County of Santa Clara (408) 808-4767 COURSE LENGTH: 6 Hours We are Drovidina two ODDortunities for yOU to attend this course. DATE: Tuesday. February 15, 2005 or Wednesday. February 16, 2005 TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with a working lunch, LOCA TION: Sheriff's Office Auditorium 55 W. Yaunger Ave, San Jase COST: Free, Your agency has State Homeland Security Grant Funds that will cover any associated backfill or overtime costs as a result, p--~ TRAJN.. a&iRVIE. REiaPOND ª8BP Office fDr Dome_tic Prep"T",duøss Senior Officials Workshop fOl' ""capons of Mass Dl'struetion and Terrorism Incident Prepal'edlll'ss The Senior Officials Workshop (SOW) for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Terrorism Incident Preparedness is conducted as an executive-level workshop for a city's elected and non-elected senior officials. The purpose of the SOW is to provide a forum to discuss the strategic and executive-level issues and challenges related to WMD/terrorism preparedness, share proven strategies and practices, and enhance teamwork and coordination amongst the city's senior officials responsible for emergency response to a WMD/terrorism incident. It is a facilitated workshop designed for a small group method of delivery to approximately 15-20 participants. The participants should be the chiefs and/or directors of the community's response agencies and departments representing the fire, law, EMS, Hazmat, public works, public health, emergencv management, governmental disciplines/services and medical treatment facilities. Sr. Officials Workshop Invitation Page ¡ of4 Sheriff's Special Operations Division I q- 2... The 6-hour executive workshop integrates multimedia scenarios and vignettes that highlight the key issues and facilitate discussion. The executive workshop theme is "knowing the right questions to ask ...and getting the right answers ". Workshop participants are provided a SOW for WMD/Terrorism Incident Preparedness Executive Handbook outlining executive-level issues and discussion topics using the preparedness (pre- incident), response (incident), and recovery (post-incident) phases of the traditional emergency management fÌ'amework. Additionally, the executive handbook contains important "desktop" appendices including a basic glossary/acronyms; the Terrorism Incident Annex to the Federal Response Plan (FRP); an explanation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy (SHSAS) Process for WMD equipment, training, exercises, and technical assistance funding processes as well as other federal WMD/terrorism preparedness assistance programs; discussions of the appropriate WMD/terrorism incident courses/training necessary for the community's emergency responders and incident management team; a synopsis of federal WMD operational response capabilities; and an index of internet sites which provide "online" information to assist communities in the preparation for and management of a WMD/terrorism incident. Normally, this SOW can be delivered to a venue/city at a time of their choosing. Each SOW is fully funded by a training grant provided by the ODP. This program funding includes associated workshop site costs and all curriculum-related delivery costs. The discussion topics/issues of the SOW for WMD and Terrorism Incident Preparedness include: · Relevance and importance of WMO/terrorism incident preparedness Senior officials' roles in WMO/terrorism preparedness Leveraging homeland security resources Homeland Security Strategic Planning Risk and needs assessments Implementation plans Integration of state and federal programs into the jurisdiction's strategic plan Incident response and recovery considerations Unique medical and public health aspects of a WMO/terrorism incident Situational appraisal/awareness Incident management Mutual aid agreements Public information Media relations Legal and fInancial considerations Recovery and restoration process Federal recovery assistance for WMO/terrorism incidents Reimbursements and record keeping Business/economic recovery Critical Incident Stress Management (ClSM) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Additional information can be obtained from Mr. Phil Crosbie, (979) 458-6945 or ohil.crosbie(iVteexmail.tamu.edu , the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center (NERRTC) at the Texas Engineering and Extension Service (TEEX), Texas A&M University System. For local additional information contact: Sergeant Skip Shervington at 408.808.4763 or Training Specialist Linda Mirch at 408.808.4620 If you are interested in this course, please fill out the attached Training Request Fonn with the required signatures and fax it to the Sheriff's Office and the number listed. Sr. Officials Workshop Invitation Page 2 of 4 Sheriff's Special Operations Division {?- 3 MGT-312 PLANNING AND MANAGtM.NT ltlft[ COURSt Senior Offidals Workshop for WMDlTerronsm Incident Preparedness Delivered by the National EmergellCY Respome and Reswe Tralnhrg Center (NERRTC), T"a, Enghleerfrlg Extension 5""lœ (TEEX), a member of the NatIOnal Domestic Prepar€dness ComortlUm (NDPC] COURSE DUCRIPTION The Senior Officials Workshop fm WMDand Terrorism Inc1dent Preparedness is an executive-level workshop for eleded and nan-eleded city senioTofficìals to discuss strategic and executive-level issues and challenges related to lJVeapons of mass destruction (WMD)/terrorism preparedness, and to share praveTl strategies and practices for managing such potentially catastrophic events. It is designed for a small group method of deliveTYto approximately '5-20 participants. The seminar integrates multimedia scenarios and vignettes that highJight the key issues and facilitale discussiQn.The executi\le serninar theme ís ;~Knowing the right qUEstions to ask ,..and gethng the right answers,"'Participants receive a Senior Officials Wor'kshopfur WMDlTerrorism Incident Preparedness Executive Handbook outlining µ:Jtential executive-Jevel issues and discussl0n topics using the preparedness (pre-incìdent).Tesponse (incident). and =overy(post-incìdent) phases of the crisis/consequence management fra.mework. DISCUSSION THREADS · Domestic Preparedness Strategic Planning .. Incident management .. Leveraging resources/muiual aid .. Integrating Stale/Federal helpe-rs · Unique public health challenges for WMD + Public information/media relahons .. Legal/financial considerations · Remvery/restoriiltion process COURSE LENGTH 6 hours PREREqUISITE None TARGET AUDIENCEJDISCIPLiNE I» Law Enforcement .. Emergency Medical Services .. Emergenc.y Management .. Fire Service ' . Hazardous Material . Public Works .. Governmental Administrative .. Public Safety Communications ~ Health CaTe ~ Public Health CERTifICATE TEEX CeTtificate of Completion CoUR'E DELIVERV Workshop is conducted at conference fací1ities provided by local or State jurisdictions. CoST An training and course mateT'íals are free to eligible jurisdictions. PLANNIN'... II,ND MANA':;EMtNT If-,Hl COURSE" 57 Sr. Officials Workshop Invitation Page} of 4 Sheriff's Special Operations Division f1~y Homeland Security Exercise Planning and Training Development Exercise Participant/Training Request Fonn INSTRUCTIONS: · Complete this Exercise Participant/Training Request Form. · Obtain the requisite signatures for authorization. · FAX completed Exercise Participantffraining Request Fonn with attachments to Op Area Point of Contact persons: Sergeant Skip Shervington and Training Specialist Linda Mirch at 408.808.4620 EXERCISE PARTICIPANT: Yes D No D SPECIAL TEAM: Yes D No D SPECIFY TEAM COMMAND ST AFFfSENIOR OFFICIAL: Yes D No D Course Title Name Last First Position/Rank BadgellP # AgencyfDepartment Phone Pager/Cell Phone PLEASE NOTE: . Prior approval is reqnired for the expenditnre of State Homeland Secnrity Grant Program (SHSGP) fnnds for costs associated with the delivery of WMDfTerrorism training (tuition, travel, per diem, overtime and associated backfill costs). At this time, training will be provided to Exercise Participants, Special Teams, and Command Staff/Senior Officials. . There are no SHSGP fnnds available to cover costs associated with participation in the exercise. Costs associated with participation in the exercise must be absorbed by the participant's respective agency/department. AgencyIDepartment Approval Immediate Supervisor: Date: Division CommanderlManager: Date: AgencylDepartment Head: Date: Homeland Security Exercise Planning and Trainin2 Development Approved: Yes D No D Signature: Date: Sr. Officials Workshop Invitation Page 4 of 4 Sheriff's Special Operations Division (1~ S- , ""'" I, '~ If.1 ~, ,---" .,.-,¡r· Î 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: :2 0 Meeting Date: January 4,2005 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consider request for waiver of room rental fees for the Quinlan Community Center for the Cupertino State of the City Address. BACKGROUND The Rotary Club of Cupertino and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce are sponsoring this year's Cupertino State of the City Address on January 26,2005. This event provides recognition to members of the Fire and the Sheriffs Departments and gives the attendees the opportunity to hear the Mayor's goals and objectives for the upcoming year, Because the city is an integral part of this program, room rental fees have not been charged in the past. Per our most recent fee schedule, a fee of approximately $120 would now be charged for the use of the Community Center. The Chamber has requested that this fee be waived given the purpose of the event (see attached letter). RECOMMENDATION " Staff recommends that the City Council waive the room rental fees in the approximate amount of $120 for the Chamber and Rotary event. Submitted by: r~ a éf:lu.9-1J7J& Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper .20-1 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Your Partner in Silicon Valley December 7,2004 Carol Atwood Director of Administration City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Carol: This year, as in past years, the City is a co-sponsor with the Chamber for the Mayor's "State of the City Address". The event will be on January 26,2005. At this luncheon, the Chamber honors members of the Fire and the Sheriffs Departments. Since this is a co-sponsored event, we would like to continue the fee waiver for the Quinlan Community Center that has been in effect for previous years. Thank you for your assistance. !1;¡~ &~ek Sherri Caraccilo Program Manager www.cupertino-chamber.org·lnfo®cupertlno-chamber.org 20455 Silverado Avenue . Cupertino, CA 95014 . (408) 252-7054 . FAX (408) 252-0638 :20 ~ .,( /#I'R' I /j 'I \~ -~ City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3210 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Website: www.cupertino.org I F CUPEIQ1NO PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number 2 \ Agenda Date: January 4, 2005 SUBJECT Consider a request fÌ'om Fusako Hoyrup for a fee waiver for use of the Quinlan Community Center for the 2005 Ikebana Flower Show. BACKGROUND The Ikebana Flower Show has been held at the Quinlan Community Center every 18 months since the center's opening in 1990, The show began when resident Fusako Hoyrup, who is accomplished in Ikebana, approached the City with a proposal to do a two-day event showcasing the Japanese art of flower arranging. The event was produced entirely by volunteers and is open to the public for fÌ'ee. The flower arrangers pay for their own materials, City Council officially sanctioned this event and "co-sponsored it" in 1990. Effective July 1, 2004, the Council restricted fee waivers for use of the Quinlan Community Center to those annual community special events that use Memorial Park and the Iranian Women's Federation annual Iranian cultural event. The Ikebana Flower Show, which is not on the annual calendar, was not discussed. This event requires an entire week of preparation; the Social Room, Craft Room and Cupertino Room are utilized Monday through Friday before the weekend show. All materials for the arrangements must be delivered to the Quinlan Community Center and arranged in place. Hundreds of hours of volunteer time are necessary to create the displays, which are worth thousands of dollars. We have never charged for this event. The cost of renting the facility for the set-up and show (one week) is $8,860. Ifwe charge for the use of the facility, it will be impossible for the event organizers to continue the tradition. Printed on Recycled Paper 2\ - I Ikebana Flower Show January 4, 2004 Page 2 Fusako has asked us if the Council would consider a reduced rate for facility rental for this event. In considering this request, staff would ask Council to review the following estimated value of donations of Ikebana arrangements given to the City of Cupertino by Fusako: · Quinlan Community Center grand opening - $900 · Senior Center grand opening - $1,000 · Sports Center grand opening - $800 · Sports Center lobby monthly flower arrangement, January to December - $3,000 ($250/mo) · Library grand opening - $800 · Parks and Recreation's 40th birthday party - $500 · Total- $7.000 The containers the arrangements are presented in belong to Fusako and she expects no reimbursement if they are broken. For example, the container used at the Senior Center opening for the giant arrangement on the stage was valued at $2,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a full fee waiver for this event for the following reasons: · The event raises no revenue and costs the sponsors individually to share their art with the community · It is a cultural event that is very popular with residents and has no commercial component · The event organizers have provided special arrangements for City facilities at no cost and we would like to acknowledge their contributions The group will pay for all staffing costs associated with use of the facility during the event. It is recommended that the City Council waive rental fees for the 2005 Ikebana Flower Show for use of the Community Center. We will bill the event organizers for staffing costs associated with the event. It is also recommended that this request be considered with the budget review during those years the event is offered. Aft the 2005 show, the next show will be in 2007. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: ) L/rYL- ü Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department ~ David Knapp, City Manager .:zl-~ I F CUPEIQ1NO -I ~/!"""~.......' f' ~.. .,¡-'?; _____J City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3262 FAX: (408) 777-3366 PUBUC INFORMATION OFFICE SUMMARY Agenda Item .2,( Date: December 15, 2004 Subject: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the Grand Jury responding to a recommendation on the Valley Transportation authority (VTA) Board of Directors, Background: In June of 2004, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County recommended changes in the size and composition of the Board to provide better governance of Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) finances in the future. VT A faces significant financial challenges. Some are outside of the control of the VTA Board, such as the recent short-term shortfalls of sales tax revenue due to the economic downturn and a less-than-efficient public transportation system due to widely dispersed housing and centers of commerce, Other challenges are the result of decisions made or accepted by the Board. The city is interested in developing long-term solutions to meet the transportation needs of Cupertino by working with neighboring municipalities to develop a regional agreement that would serve the city's residents for years to come. Of overriding interest to Cupertino is the ability for small cities to continue playa meaningful role in transportation policy. Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign and send a letter in response to the Grand Jury recommendations on the VT A. / 9Jì[ David W. Knapp City Manager Approved for submission: / . ck Kitson Public Information Officer Printed on Recycled Paper ;2.:(-1