PC 11-26-01 LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
41)1 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, on November 26, 2001, at 6:45 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue is hereby given. The following application for action
by the Planning Commission will be heard:
1. Application No.: 01-MCA-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living unit
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt
All environmental documents for the described application are available for public review at the
Cupertino Community Development Department, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California,
95014.
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10
minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
• Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Publication Date: October 17, 2001
G:Planning/Agendas& Hearings/10-10-0 1 legal
City of Cupertino
10300 Torr~ Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF TH~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
November 26, 2001, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission
on issues which are not already included in the regular Order of Business)
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Election of new Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair
3. Application No.(s): 01-MCA-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Municipal Code amendment to define what constitutes a second living unit
Tentative City Council date: January 7, 2002
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny 01-MCA-01
OLD BUSINESS
4. General Plan study session on the amendment process and the major General Plan themes
Planning Commission Agenda of November 26, 2001
Page -2
NEW BUSINESS
$. Sustainable Building Conference (Comm/ssioner Auerbach)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Committee
Mayor's Breakfast
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Please note that Planning Commission policy is to al/ow an applicant and groups to speak for 10
minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
G:Planning/Agendal 1-2601.doc2
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, C~llfomin 9~014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVI~LOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: 01-MCA-01 Agenda Date: November 20, 2001
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Loeation: City-wide
Application Summary: Consideration of a M~mlcipal Code Amendment revising Chapter
19.08 Definitions and Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/Structures in single-family zones as
may be needed to prevent construction of "illegal" second dwelling units, and ensure that
accessory structures ih single-family zones are subordinate to the use/function of the principal
structure in order to reduce visual and ~raffic impacts in single-family zones.
RECOMMENDATION
~taff recommends that the Planning Commission:
· Review, comment and pwvide direction to staff regarding the pwposed Municipal Code
Amendments.
OR if the Piannlng Cowmi~sion is satisfied that the proposed amendments seffi¢ient]y address
the issues:
· Request that the City Council authorize modifications to Chapter ]~.0~ Dcfmifio~ and
Chaster ]~.~0 Accessory B~f~in~,~frl~l'f~re$ based on the Model Ordinance attached as
Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
The Comm~mity Development Deparlment has received several building permit applications for
· additions and accessory buildings with habitable space such as, pool houses and guest cottages,
in R-1 (Single Family Residential) and RHS (Residential Nillside) zones that include habitable
space, bathrooms and '`wet bars". In reviewing these applications, staff has discovered a lack of
clarification of "dwelling _unit" and "guest cottage" in the ordinance. The Municipal Code
defines a "dwelllng unit" as having one '~itchen" and prohibits "kitchen facilities" in guest
cottages~ However, there is no definition of a"kitchen" in the Municipal Code. This has
resulted in the construction of additions.with habitable space (including pool houses and guest
· cottages) with full baths and "wet bars" that have the potential to be used as kitebeus or
converted into full kitchens with very minor changes, often without building permits. -These
impwvements create the potential for "illegal" dwelling units, which do not meet the
requirements of the Second Ihvelling Unit Ordinance, Chapter 19.84 (Exhibit B). 'Staff,
therefore, recommends the following modifications to the Municipal Code to prevent the
'. construction of "illegal" second dwelling units:
· Clarify definition of a "kitchen", "wet bar" and "habitable space"; and
· Limit the number of plumbing fixtures in accessory buildings with habitable space.
Consicloration of a Municipal Codo Amondmont rovising Chaptor 19.08 and Chapter 19.80
Novoml~r 20, 2001
Pago 2
In reviewing Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/Structures, staff also identified loopholes in
the ordinance that allow accessory buiJdings/stmctures in single-family residential zones to be
effectively larger than the ordinanco intends. A pwvision of the ordinance states that,
"accessory uses and facilities ... should be subordinate to the primary activity of the principal
use or principal facility... ", in order to ensure that there are minimal visual and traffic impacts
in single-family zones. The current ordinance however only limits the accessory strtlcttlre to the
allowed lot coverage and does not include basements in the FAR (floor area ratio) calculations.
In some cases, would result in larger accessory structures/buildings than the principal structure
and related visual and traffic impacts. Staff therefore recommends the following changes to the
ordinance:
· · Limit size of accessory buildings/structures; and
· Include basements in the. FAR calculafi0ns for accessory structures in single-family zones.
DISCUSSION
Comuarison Of Remalations In Other Cities
Staff requested information from jurisdictions in California, including thc cities of Sunnyvale,
Los Altos, Campbell, Morgan Hill and San Rafacl, regarding definitions of a dwelling unit,
kitchen, and other me~banism.a to prevent construction of illegal dwelling units in single-family
zones. The following table compares pertinent sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code with
regulations used by other cities to Prevent construction of illegal dwelling uni~:
[TE\I ('1 ['l~lt'l'lN¢) ('()l)l~ ()I'IIIR ('I'IIES
% ,i. i i 'i '..?. iii, :.: :.: ? :.,
Kitchen None. A cooking facility with proximal
arrangement of at least two/three or
more of storage, refrigerator, sink,
cooking appliance, 220V outlets,
separate gaa/wamr connections, space
for appliances between counters, etc.
Wet Bar None. (Policy) Wet bars defined to limit
counter/cabinet space (6 fL max),
number of outlets ( 1 outlet/6 lin. ft.),
restricting sink/appliance size and
prohibiting specific appliances (stoves,
ovens, dishwashers).
Habitable space Allowed. Not allowed except for second dwelling
units by permit.
Size Limited to FAR maximum Limited to maximum size allowed for a
for lot. second dwelling unit.
Nmber of No limit. Maximin of two/three. Require a
plmblng fixture conditional use permit for more
Consideration of a Municipal Cod~ Amepdment revising Chapter 19.08 and Chapter 19,80
November 20, 2001
P~e 3
I'l'l.~,l (~'L I'1 RI'I",,() ( ()1)11 ¢)1 IIIiP,
plumbing fixtures or conformance with
second dwelling unit ordinance.
Deed restrictions None. Detached accessory buildings
w/plumbing fixtures required to record
deed restriction stating that the
accessory building shall not be used as
a dwelling unit.
Post construction Code enforcement in Code enforcement, searching rental
monltorlnR response to calls fi'ompubiic, advertisements, etc.
. Criterin For Seleetinn Rent~tlons
Staff used the following criteda in the developing the ord/nance mod/fications:
1. Utilize Existing City Review Procedures- The regulations should be a~comrnod_nted within
existing City review procedures (such as building permits, address requests, planning
application review, code enforcement).
2. Consiste~y with Uniform Building Code - The definitions and regulations should be
consistent with Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements.
Based on the above rationale, staff developed the following regulations to be added .to Chapter
19.08 Definitions and Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/~tructures.
Recommended Regulations for Prohibitinz llleanl Second Units
Chapter 19.08, Definitions
Del'me "Kitchen"
Since the code currently identifies a dwelling unit as having only one "kitchen", the definition
of a "kitchen" would help staff identify when improvements constitute an additional "kitchen"
and therefore, a separate dwelling nnlt. Staff reviewed various city ordinances for the
definitions of a "kitchen." A number of communities defined a "kitchen" as %.facility that
contains two (or in some cases) three or more of storage, refrigerator, sink, cooking appliance~
220V outlets, separate gas/water connections, space for appliances between counters."
Staff developed the definition for a "kitchen" based on the following discussion:
· Defining a kitchen as containing two of qualifying elements (storage, refrigerator, etc.) the
above is too restrictive, because in some cases laundry areas (containing storage and a sink)
would be defined as a kitchen. Staff believes that including three or more of the qualifying
elements (such as sink, cooking appliance and refrigerator) would meet the criteria of a
kitchen while exempting laundry or workshop areas from qualifying as kitchens.
Considcm/on of a Municipal Code Amendmem revising Chapter 19.08 and Clmpt~r 19.80
Novcml~ 20, 2001
Page 4
· The inclusi°n of '°uabitshle space" was necessary in the definition in order to exclude
garages containing a lannd~ area (with storage, sink) and an extra refrigerator from being
defined as kitchens.
· In many cases, building permit plans do not show a cooking applianc0 but show provisions
for one such as: a gas connection, a 200V outlet or space between counters to hold a stove.
Including such features were therefore necessary in defining a kitchen.
· Wet bars would be allowed in attached/detached family rooms and poolrooms but would be
limited in terms of size and type of appliances permitted. A definition of''wet bar" would
be added as well (see below).
Based on the above discussion, staffproposes to adopt a def~nltion for a "kitchen" as
"An area, in habitable space, for the preparation of food that includes at least three
of; counters, refrigerator, sink, and/or cooking appliance (or provisions for a
cooking appliance such as 220V outlets, separate gas connection, space for
appliances between counters, etc.). Wet bars do not constitute kitchens."
Define "Wet Bar"
Several building permit applications include detached pool houses and family room additions
with "wet bm". Vv'ullc the code does not specifically prohibit '`wet bars" in guest cotta§es,
pool houses and faalily rooms, it docs not permit cooklnS facilities/kitchens. Staff therefore
believes that '`wet bars" should be der'reed in order to distinguish them from "kitchens." In
reviewing ordinances for other communities, staff did not come across a definition of a '`wet
bar." Some communities however, included policies to limit the size of counters, outlets,
appliances, and prohibited certain appliances in wet bm. Staff reviewed and included some of
these policies in developing a definition for '`wet bars."
In order to allow ''wet bars" while deterring illegal ~onversions to "kitchens*', staff proposes
that the size of storage and appliances in "wet bars" be restricted and that they should he
prohibited from. incorporating features that are required in kitchens by the UBC as follows:
· Limit si~e ofcabinet~/counters in wet bar area - Staff proposes that cabinets/counters in wet
bars should be llmltcd to a maximmn of 6 linear feet including sink/appliance area. This
would allow space for storage and serving drink~snacks while n~§ it difficult to add
appliances to convert it into a full kitchen.
· Lbnit size of appliances andprohibit certain appliances/features - Staff proposes that sinks
and refrigerators should be limited to a minimum size (12" x 12" for sjnlrn and 4.3 cu.ft, for
refrigerators). In addition, cooking facilities, dishwashers, gas connectious, 220V wiring,
etc., should be prohibited.
· Limit number of electrical outlets- The UBC requires one outlet every 6 linear fcet.£or living
areas and one outlet for every 2 linear feet of counter space for kitchens. Staff proposes
lirfliting the number of outlets in wet bars to the minimum required; one outlet every 6 ft.
Consiclmttion of a Municipal Code Amendment revising Chapter 19.08 and CImp~.r 19.80
November 20, 2001
Pag~ $
Define "Habitable Space"
Since the ordinance changes refer to "habitable space", staff proposes to use the definition in
the UBC, which states that, "Habitable space is space in a ~tructure for living, sleeping, eating
or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartment, closets, hall~, storage or utility space, and similar
areas are not considered habitable space." However, while the UBC, specifically excludes
hallways, closets, bathrooms, and storage/utility space from the definition of "habitable space",
staff does not propose to exclude them because these areas would be normally be part of the
living space. Staff therefore proposes to amend the definition to add bathrooms and to remove
the exclusion. The new definition would therefore read as, "habitable space is Space in a
structure for living, sleeping, eating, cooking or sanitation."
Charter 19.80 Accessory Buiidint, s/ Structur~
Limit Plumbing Fixtures in Habitable Space
Staff also recommends modifications to Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings/Structures to
ensure that det_~¢hed accessory builflings/stmctures with habit_~bl¢ space (in¢lucling pool houses
and guest cottages) in RI, RHS, A and A-1 zones are limited to three plumbing fixtures. This
would allow guest cottages and pool houses with a hal,-bath and a "wet bar", a full bath and no
'~vet bar" or a detached garage with a laundry and sink. However, full baths and "wet bars"
would not be allowed in detached accessory building/structures, since they could be easily
converted to second units without building permits. Detached accessory buildingZ/stmctures
with habitable space and more than three plumbing fixtures would be required to conform to
Chapter 19.84 Second Dwelling Units.
Reaulatiom Considered but not Recommended
Deed Restriction for Detached Accessory Structures with Habitable Space
A number of communities require a deed restriction for detached accessory buildings with
habitable space stating that the building will not be used as a second ~_mit (unless permits are
obtained in accordance with the second dwelling nnlt ordinance) to alert future property owners
that the accessory building is not a second unit. Staff felt that the new regulations as proposed
were adequate to prohibit illegal conversions to second units. Therefore, the deed restriction
requirement was not included.
Recommended Remdatiom for $inp-le-Familv Residential Zones to Ensure That Accessory
Structures are Subordinate to the Princioal Use Or Facility ..
Chapter 19.80 Accessory Buildings~Structures
· . Limit Size of Accessory BuildingatStmctures in Single Family Residential Zones
Most communities, including Cupertino, limit the size of a second dwelling unit in single-
family zones (currently 640 square feet in Cupertino). A number of communities additionally
Consideralion ora Municipal Code Amesdmcnt mvisi~ Chapter 19.08 and Chapter 19.80
November 20, 2001
limit the size of"habit_~ble space" in accessory structures in single-family zones to the
maximum size of a second dwelling unit.
Currently in Cupertino, the size of an accessory building/structure is limited to the amount of
floor area ratio (FAR) available on the site after deducting the primary residence and garage.
Pool houses and guest cottages are therefore allowed to exceed the maximum size allowed for a
second dwelling unit and, in some cases, even the area of the primary residence. Thi.~ is
contrary to one of the provisions in Ch~.~r 19.80 which states that "Accessory uses and
facilities ... should be subordinate to the primary activity of the pn'ncipal use or principal
facility ..." Staff therefore proposes that accessory detached buildings should be limited to the
maximum unit size allowed in the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. (}arages would not he
included in the FAR calculations since they are not "habitable space." The ordinance change
would have the following advantages:
· It would ensure that the structure is subordinate to the primary single-family residence and
hn.a minimnm impacts (traffic, parking, vis~_~_~_l, etc.) on the neighborhood.
· It would remove the incentive for applicants to build a large "pool house" with a "wet bar"
and illegally convertit into a non-conforming second unit.
· If a resident decides to convert a guesthonse or pool house into a second dwelling nnit,
he/she would not be prevented from doing so because the size of the "habitable space"
exceeds the maximum for a second dwelling unit.
Include Basements in FAR for Accessory Structures in Single Family Zones
In keeping with the purpose of ensuring that accessory buildings are subordinate to the principal
use or principal facility, staff proposes an additional modification to Chapter 19.80 Accessory
Buildings/Structures to limit the size of basements in detached accessory buildings/structures.
While the code limits detached accessory buildings (including d~tached second dwelling nnits)
to a single story, fully submerged basements in these structures are currently exempted from
FAR calculations. Staff is concerned that exempting basements from FAR calculations in
detached accessory structures may have the following consequences'.'
1. Accessory structures with basements would no longer he "subordinate" to the primary
structure in terms of size. Also, in cases where both the prlmnry structure and ~ accessory
structure have full basements, the effective FAR of the lot could be exceeded by as much as
100%.
2. As indicated above, second dwelling nnits in single-family zones are currently limited to
640 square feet to ensure that the second nnlt is subordinate to the primalnj residence and
minimizes adverse impacts to neighborhoods. If basements are built in detached SeCond
units, they could potentially be converted to habitable space and effectively result in units
larger than the maximum size allowed by code. -.
Staff therefore proposes a modification to the code to include basements in detached accessory
structures/buildings in the FAR calculations for single-family zones. Detached second dwelling
nnits would be subject to the same regulations since they are required to conform to Section
19.80 Accessory Buildings/Structures.
Consid~a~ion of ~ Municipal Co~ Amo~,~ut r~vising Cl~p~r ~9.08 ~d Chap~r 19.80
Novombor 20, 2001
Pago7
1. Projects that meet all ordinance regulations will not require additional approvals.
2. Applicants who propose detached accessory structures with more than 5 plumbing fixtures
will need to comply with Chapter 19.84 Second Dwelling Units.
3. Applicants who propose detached accesso~ buildings larger than 640 sq.ft. (excludi_ng
garage space) would be required to apply for a Variance as per Chapter 19.124.
Summary
Given the complexity of the issues, staff has brought this forward to the Planning Commission
for review, comment and to provide direction to staff regarding the proposed ordinance
changes. If the planning Commission is satisfied that the issues have been sufficiently
addressed in the proposed code amendments~ it may request that the City Council approve the
amendments to Chapter 19.08 Definitions and Chapter 19.80 Accessory Build~. gs/Structures
based on the Model OrdinAnce (Exhibit A) with or without revisions. In the event that the
Planning Commission feels that the issues need further discussion, staff will come back at a
later date with proposed amendments based on the Commission's direction.
Prepared by: Aani Shrivastava, Senior Planner · ~-'~^
Approved by: Steve Pinsecki, Director of Community Development
Attachments
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Mod_el Ordinance
Exhibit B: Chapter 19.84 Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance
O:~Nanning~PDRNl~RT~aMCAmpons~01 -MCA-01 .doc
C1TY OF CUPER~O
10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California 9S014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMIflSION OF THE CITY OF
RBCOMM~.NDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AM~.ND CHAPTERS 19.08 AND
19.80 OF THE CUPERTINO ~CIPAL CODE.
Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26e~ day of November 2001 at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: ¢OMMIgSIONERS:
NOES: COMI~gSlONF/[S:
ABSTAIN: COMI~.~SIONERS:
· ABSENT: COMMIgSlONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki Patrick Kwok, Chairperson
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
· G:~Planning~PDRF_.,POR~I-MCA-010 re, so.doc
Exhibit
Proposed text .is underlined. Deleted text is struck through.
MODEL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
A.M~NDING CHAPTER 19.08, DEFINITIONS AND CHAPTER 19.80 ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES/BUr[ .DINGS OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
~ CITY COUNCIL OF TWa. CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS'
FOLLOWS:
Chapter 19.08 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows:
· · DEFINITIONS
"Habitable space" means space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating, coold~g or
sanitation.
"Kitchen" means an area in habitable space used for the preparation of food and including
at least three of the following:
1. Cooking applianceCsl or pwvision for a cooking appliance (such as 220V outlets, gas
connections and space for appliances between counters:
2. Counter.
3. Refrigerator:
4. Sink.
Wet bars do not constitute kitchens.
"Wet Bar" means an area in habitable space used for serving drinks/snacks and shall be
limited to the following:
1. Counter with a maximum length of 6 lineal feet (including sink and appliance areal:
2. Sini~ of maximum size 12 inches x 12 inches and
3. Refrigerators of maximum size 4.3 cubic .feet.
Wet bars shall not include a cooking appliance (or provision for cool~ing appliance such as
220V outlets, gas connections and space for appliances between counters~, built-in kitchen
appliances (such as dishwashers, etc3 and/or outlets less th_an 6 f. aPart in the counter area,
Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby smended to read as follows:
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES
19.80.030 Site Development Regulations
ti. Residential and Agricultural Zones.
2. With respect to detached accessory buildings/structures (including an R2 zoning
district):
lc The maximum lot coverage is thirty percent of the useable mar yard area.
b. The area of an accessbry building/structure, including basements but not includini~
garage space, shall be limited to gross building area of a second dwelling unit as
vex Section 19.84.030D:
~:. e. Tho mlnlm~m distanc, o from a principal dwelling is five feet (measured between
the eaves);
~ d. Small, portable storage buildings less than six feet in height, which are not
attached to a building, pennanent foundation, or pad, may be located closer than
five feet to a principal dwelling, but no closer than three feet from any property ·
llne;
& e. No detached accessory building or structure ShAll be located less than three feet
from any property line,
e:. f. Detached accessory buildings and sffuctures shall be limited to a single story and
shall not exceed a height of seven feet be~t~inning at a three_foot setback from rear
or side property lines. The height encompasses the entire wall plane nearest the
property llne, including the roof, eaves, and any portion of the foundation visible
above the adjoining finished grade. The wall plane height may~oe increased by one
foot for each additional one and one-half feet of setback (corresponding to a thirty-
three-degree angle), up to a maximnm wall plane height of fii~een feet, as depicted
in the diagrsm attached to the ordinance codified in this rifle. The mllxJlTPlm height
of constmcrion shall not exceed twenty feetl
~.. g_Walls which are less than five feet to a property line may not have windows or if
windows are installed they must be obscured glass or have the sill height above five
feet f~om the floor. This requirement shall not apply to skylight or windows which
face a right-of-way or a nonresidential zoning district.
~.. h. Detached recreational buildings/structures, which have a floor or step height
greater than eighteen inches above any point at the adjoining finished grade, must
have a setback of ten feet from any property. An affi,xed play structure, such as a
swing or climbing apparatus, is allowed in the setback area if it is at least three feet
from the property line and if it exceeds the heights and setbacks as required in
subsections B2b and c of this section and meets one of the two following
conditions: It is adjacent to a corner property llne, or if not on a comer, the
immeaiately adjacent property owner agrees to the location prior to construction,
h~. i. The minimum front-yard setbacks for detached accessory buildings/structures
i. Twenty feet in residential zones,
ii. Thirty feet in agricultural zones,
i~. '.~_With respect to comer lots, the street-side yard setback must be no less than
fifteen feet and no less than twenty feet in the event that the comer lot is adjacent to
a key lot,
~ k..~h R-2 and R-3 zones, in the case of an interior lot abuttin§ only one street, no
detached accessory buildin~ or structure, except a detached garage, may occupy the
front f'u~ty percent of the lot area.
L InR1. RHS. A. A1 and R2 zones:
i_. Detached accessory build!~gs/stmc, tures shall be limited to a maximum of three
nlumbinl~ fixtures: and
ii_. Detached accessory buildints/stmcmres, with more than three plumbinl~
fixtures sbsl! conform to Chapter 19.84.
EXHIBIT B 19.84.o10
A, AND A-1 ZONES -,~, shall not ~-___,~__ s~x hundred fcety square feet
of living space, exch, dve of decks and prqes.
Sectleas: B. Lot covmge of an suuctnn~ including scc-
19.84.0S0 O~m~. F. A second dwelling m~, m~y ~ lcc~2d c~ a
19.84.070 Nonconforming and megal 1. ]~nt~ to the ~xmd dw~flln.- unit is not pro-
second dw~ling.units, vided T~ an ext~i~' sta~,,.~m; and
19~L010 ~ Developmmt,. the sec,,-a unit does mX tomb. in
of affordable housing wi~i- the City t. brough pm- 3. It is amcbecl m th~ prinm7 n~idmce. (OrcL
visic~ of addidmal houslna in certain residential 1811 (pan), 1999;, OrcL 1601 Exh, A (p~t), 1992)
and agricultural zml.g disuicu which would other-
whichmlnlmi---advet'so' .m~tctstonoighborhoods. J31 additioll tO fl~ ps~k~ JNu~f~.,~l~ J~ ~
(Ord. 1601 ]~d~. A (lin0, 1~2) ~1~ -~-~ng ~ for a pazticuisr lot, one
functi,~,my i~et~-.~t, ~ved, off-st~et parki~
Notwith~nalv~ any provision of this title to the ..i,~ pmvidecl, however, that the addilic~l space
contrary, a __*~_ond dw~m%- unit is pm-mitred on lots shall not, in the opinim of the Director of O-~,'.,.-
-in R-l, RHS, A and A-I zflnln_a diahicts, provided ney Dev~ d,~n,,t, the ,".~t sethck areas
that in ,aaidonm complying with the sim devMop- of the lot in such a mann~ u to dmigmM tho~
dwelling units, such seco~l dwel~g trait cn,,,:.lies surfaces may no~ exceed fifty pe~cgut of tl~ front
wirhtl~mgulmio~c--*~t-~di~t/ds c~ptcr.(OgL mtb~r ~ (S~ S~io~ 11.29.040 Ale). (O~L
1601 ~ A Cr~t), 1~2) 1601 ~ A (p~), I~2)
19~4.030 8itc devMopme~t ~mhfiom. 19.84.050 OcmlmUCT.
A. A seco~l dw-nl-g--{~, loc~mt eu a lot con- T~ owner of a lot which c~d~s a secomt
m~ached to tl~ l~incipal dw--n~-g m~d imegra~t de,cc m iu the second dwelH-_-, l~ier to the issu-
therewith except m~ A m~l A-1 ~,~;-g districts m~ce of a ~ pem~it for a ~_~co~l dwelling ~r
which c,- bye the secomt dw-m-g ,m~ eith~ the ismmc~ of ~y occupancy ~ use permit ~r a~
B. Ali ~ dwen},_- ~iu d~d] have direct cow-,-* ~ deed reg~i~i~ in a form R~zm~d by
' dwefl~g, occupancy ~q-.'.~-..~..~. Iu addition, the owner of
19.84.0~0
A (p,t),
PHoF to issuanc~ of a bm3din~ permit h' a S~C-
dwnlHn_~ unit is c~m~;~t, nt ~v~& the ~ue~t~t..ttu~ of
tim ~ dw~nh, S;
second unit am ~...,t.~.'ble with the ~,,~,,],~= oolor
t ~ street tz adj--_- ~va~ Ztn~:ty. (Od.
X60X Ez~ A (pzt), ~)
lg~L0'/0 Noneodo,...;-~ and mepl second
A. A second dw~-11;ng which was ccnzstructed
pt~.el' to the ,mn~-.t by tZz, C~y of ny c~dinance
which zeg-1~ seonnd dwellings in R=X, RX-~, A
e~ A-1 zoning dimi~ but wlzich was ~
in con.t'e~mc~ with q~licable site developmen~
and buila{,,~ code reg,,l,,finn_~ in offect at tho ~
of c~,,~ica is ~ by th~ Ftovi~ons of
Chapun' 19.108, lqoac~.rc,...;-~ Uses m~d l~acilifies.
B. mepl Second Units. A seccud dwelling
wMch was c~nstm~_~ witt~u~ ,t b~M~,,~ ~ c~
building zeRm,ln~oUs at tho t{,.r,,, of co~:tstnlcfion may
obt,,;,,;,,g a c,',.di~nn.,t use lx~nit Jss,__,ed by the
]:)iroau:n' of C.n,'mnuni,y Dovelol:~nou~ (Oxd. 1601
~ A (.,~.t), 1~2) ·
~ '-,-~ 588-54
CI~ OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTIVIENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: General Plan Study Session Agenda Date: November 26, 2001
Recommendation:
Discuss the topics presented in the staff report and provide direction desired for the draft
General Plan or the process.
Back~ound:
Staffproposes to schedule two General Plan study sessions before the end of the year,
one at this meeting and the other at the December 10, 2001, Plavnin.~ Commission
meeting. The purpose of the meetings is to review the significant policies of the current
General Plan and to preview possible cl~sn!~es.
Discussion:
The General Plan review l~rocess
The General Plan review has been introduced to the Planning Commission and the
broader community through various means:
· Visioning sessions with City Council and Planning Commission
· Urban design session with City Council and Planning Commission
· Community General Plan Update meeting
· Economic Development Committee brief'mi
· Business Interests briefing
· Park and Recreation Commission (2 meetings)
· Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee meeting
· Fine Arts Commission (November 27)
· Teen Commission (date to be determined)
· Adopted Housing Element
The following activities are anticipated for the remainder of the process: · Review the draft General Plan in February & March, 2002
· Conduct other outreach meetings: civic groups, neighborhood groups
· Planning Commission Hearings, April & May, 2002
· City Council Hearings, May & June, 2002
The City Council's direction was to allow the no,,,,al decision makers, i.e., existing
commissions and the City Council, to serve as the reviewing bodies of the proposed
amendments. Therefore, there is no Goals Committee as in previous years. The rationale
for this approach is that policy changes to the plan are likely to be focused, and a
wholesale review of community goals is not needed. Also, the City has received
significant community input in the last two Community ConEresses and through the most
recent Community Survey. Based on comm~mlty input to date, planning staff, along with
planning cousultauts, Planning Resource Associates, is preparing the draft amended
General Plan Study Session
November 26, 2001
Page 2
General Plan and the environmental assessment. As mentioned above, the draft will be
reviewed in 2002.
The Draft Vision and Maior Themes
The enclosed draft of the Vision statement has been refined since it was previously
circulated. All the goals and policies, both old and new, will stem from this vision.
Based on this vision, staff anticipates that some of the new policy directions will be:
· New development will serve the community, and will not be an end in itself.
· The development potential of the existing General Plan will be reallocated to
achieve revised goals, such as concentrated commercial and more mixed-use
commercial/residential.
· \. Commercial activity will be concentrated in the major nodes (e.g. Vallco,
Crossroads), and discouraged between the nodes. Between the nodes will be
some one to two story neighborhood serving commercial and office mixed with
housing similar to the Pinn Bros. Development on the foii~er P.J. Mulligan's site.'
· Significant emphasis will be placed on pedestrian activity and connectivity.
· The feasibility of a downtown environment in the crossroads area will be
explored, the concept being to possibly reduce the number of travel lanes on that
portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard and bring the buildings closer to the street.
· A lower traffic level of service might be tolerated to achieve new goals, such as
walkability and a downtown environment.
· The relationship ofjobs to housing will be emphasized.
· Neighborhood planning will be emphasized, e.g., connectivity between
neighborhoods, neighborhood-serving commercial; different street standards.
Develol~ment allocation system
One of the most significant policies in the General Plan relates to the Development
Reallocation Table (Exhibit A). StatTproposes to review this policy with the Planning
Commission to held build a foundation of understanding for the upcoming review.
The table in Exhibit A, and the more detailed tables that follow, are the backbone of
development intensity and land use policy in Cupertino. Any new development must
draw from the development potential in those tables. When use permits are granted for
new development, the allocation table is modified, so that the status of the allocation is
always current, although the changes are not reflected in the General Plan version.
Exhibit B shows the current development potential by land use type. The hotel rooms
were converted to square footage in the commercial category. Also, additional hotel
potential is identified than that in the existing General Plan, due to the Vallco Fashion
Park development agreement that locked in hotel potential from the previous General
Plan.
As shown in Exhibit A, development allocations are related to trip factors, so that the
maximum mount of development would not exceed the trips anticipated. (As mentioned
General Plan Study Session
November 26, 2001
Page 3
above, new policy direction may amend the view that traffic' flow drives development
potential.)
A key decision for the revised General Plan is how development will be allocated in the
future. One possibility is that the remaining General Plan development potential could be
reallocated to achieve new goals, such as a desired jobs/housing ratio.
Develol~ment alternatives for the Environmental Imi~act Analysis
The General Plan consultants are perfo, ufing environmental impact analysis on three
hypothetical alternatives:
· Existing General Plan with ABAG Housing Needs (completed)
· x. "Sculpted" development with ABAG Housing Needs. Non-residential build-out
totals are reduced to offset the increase in trips resulting fxom the increased
residential units, using trip factors in the current General Plan. The "sculpted"
term is used because the overall growth, and its associated traffic, is not increased
over the 1993 General Plan, but is "sculpted" to redirect trips fxom non-residential
uses to the ABAG housing units.
· 5% Growth with ABAG Housing Units plus Additional Units. Commercial,
office and industrial areas are hypothetically project~l to grow 5% beyond the
existing General Plan build-out, and residential growth is expanded beyond the
housing need provided by ABAG.
These hypothetical alternatives are defined and tested now because the "preferred
development alternative" won't be known until the General Plan is actually selected. At
that time, it will be determined if the preferred alternative falls within the range of the
hypothetical alternatives and if additional environmental analysis is or is not needed. For
example, in the previous General Plan the preferred alternative closely matched one of
the hypothetical alternatives, and no additional environmental analysis was required.
Next Plannin~ Commission Study Session
Staff proposes that the next Planning Commission study session focus on the land use
element and possible options for policy changes.
Enclosures:
Draft Vision Statement
Exhibit A: Development Reallocation Table
Exhibit B: Cupertino Development Potential
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
O:planning/genplan/Plannins Commission study session112601
4-5
Introduction- ~"a f ~;
..............
Community Vision
Cupertino ,o be a h~h-quality,
balanced community with natural hillMes and creeks, quiet,
attractive residential ne~[~or[~oo~, ~emp£an_l par~.s and
sc.~o~ and a ~rant~ mi~ex[-use '~,art of t~ City." '1~ City
will be safe, friendly, connectecl, walk-able and inclusive for all
residents, ~itli ample places and opportunities for people to
interact and recreate.
Guiding Principles
The General Plan is based on thirteen guiding principles that work together
to realize the vision and create a great community. The principles are
designed as objectives that if implemented will create a great place to live,
work, learn or play. The policy structure of the General Plan elements
directly supports and implernents these principles:
1) Building Community The underlying purpose of the General Plan is
to build a great community that serves the needs of its residents,
maximizes the sense of connection between neighborhoods and the
sense that Cupertino is a great place to live and work. The City
recognizes that the individual needs or interests of a particular street
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Introduction
or neighborhood may need to be balanced with the overall needs
and potentially greater goal of building a community.
2) Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are the building blocks of the
community. They must be safe and attractive and should be
anchored by open space located on park sites or schools. All
residents should have convenient access to parks, trails, bicycle
paths and neighborhood-serving shopping facilities. The plan
identifies strategies to protect and enhance existing single-family and
multi-family neighborhoods, protect residential areas from
incompatibl6 uses and create attractive, new mixed-use
neighborhoods.
,,.'3) Health and Safety. Great communities are places that protect the
health, safety and security of people and property. Safety measures
include conventional police, fire, para-medic and health services.
They also include disaster planning, safe building and site design,
protection from natural hazards including earthquakes and landslides
and extend to safe, well-designed parks, open space, trails and
pathways.
4) Connectivity. Connecting neighborhoods remains one of the major
challenges facing cities interested in enhancing the sense of
community. Freeways and arterial streets sever neighborhoods,
and developments wall themselves off from noisy, incompatible uses
and busy streets. Safe trails, paths and sidewalks and safe streets
with traffic calming measures can help weave the community
together and create neighborhood pride. The plan encompasses
policies that promote a connected, small-town environment.
~'~'-'~.~.~. ~ 5) Mobility. The ability to move about safely and
~.i 'i'~ efficiently is essential to a great community.
'~'~.,:.~ Mobility must include a variety of travel modes to
accommodate all of the city's residents, so a child
is able to bike safely to school, the senior citizen
can access bus lines and the commuter can rely
4' on the regional highway system. The Plan strives
, a to reduce reliance on the automobile as the sole
~ -- ~- means of transportation by improving options for
alternative travel modes. Ideally, alternative forms
Bus stop at Vallco Fashion Park of transportation should be so accessible that use
of an automobile is a choice, not a necessity.
6) Balanced Community. Great communities are rarely single
dimensional. They are places where people of all income and age
groups reside with a full range of local shopping, education,
employment, entertainment and recreational uses. They offer
residents a variety of housing choices as their housing needs
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Introduction
change. The Housing Element outlines Cupertino's strategy for
meeting the challenge of providing a full range of housing
opportunities. The Plan proposes areas where higher residential
densities and mixed uses are allowed to increase housing supply
and help to correct the imbalance of jobs and housing. Overall, the
General Plan strives to offer a balance of land use types and
residential options.
7) Vibrant, mixed-use "Heart of the City." Great communities have
areas that are vibrant, attractive, friendly and comfortable.
Examples include invitin~ pedestrian spaces or well-designed
commercial districts with personal sewices and long-time merchants
who provide personal products and services and stay in business
Ior~ enough to get to know their customers. - ......... ~'~
Examples include the popular coffee shop,
bookstore, restaurant or movie theater that
people enjoy frequenting. Cupertino is
committed to creating and maintaining vibrant
commercial districts with "people-oriented"~a~''~[l~_'J,' , ~ ~ - ----- '
businesses and visual and cultural
, .
enhancements, such as public art and
theaters. The plan seeks to incorporate a
variety of spaces and places that are
The Oaks Shopping Center
activated by and attractive to people.
8) Attractive Community Design. Cupertino prides itself on
maintaining attractively designed buildings, landscapes, and
beautiful streets and pa~ks. New buildings, like pieces of a quilt,
can enhance and complement the overall community fabric.
Buildings should frame the street, and landscaping should be
designed to offer relaxing, intimate pedestrian spaces. The Land
Use and Community Design Element outlines strategies to enhance
the community fabric through building and site design by
encouraging these elements.
9) Diversity. Cupertino embraces and celebrates the diversity of the
community. A diverse population significantly enhances the sense
? ....... ~-! of variety and balance in the
community. The policies and
~ ~ ~ ~ implementation strategies encourage a
i .. ' full range of programs that meet the
. ~_' .~ needs and wishes of the entire
' ~---~ ~,.~ ~ ~. spectrum of demographic diversity in
~" ~ Cupertino. These policies also stress
-~-'-' ~--' the need to enhance equal all of its
residents, due to age, cultural or
Cupertino Village Shopping
c.n~.r physical differences. ·
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
4 Introduction
10) Education and Technology. The educational system in Cupertino
has an international reputation for high achievement and excellence.
Quality facilities and programs that enhance learning (schools,
libraries, book stores, intemet infrastructure) are essential to
maintaining and enhancing the community fabric and identity. The
Plan supports the school districts' efforts to maintain the quality of
educational opportunities in Cupertino.
11) Environment and Sustainability. Great communities protect, cherish
and enhan(fe their environment. Cupertino is fortunate to have a
range of environmental settings, from undeveloped natural hillsides
to semi-natural creeks and active landscaped parks in urban areas.
The Plan addresses how the hillsides will continue to be protected
and how creeks will be enhanced or restored to their natural state in
the urban areas. The environment is further protected by limiting
urban land uses to existing urban areas. Sustainable concepts
encouraging environmental protection, recycling, and minimizing use
of non-renewable resources are all addressed.
12) Fiscal Self Reliance. Local government fiscal resources have been
undermined to satisfy the state of California fiscal or energy needs.
The volatility of local fiscal resources seriously threatens the ability of
cities to deliver high quality public facilities and services to its
residents. Cupertino City government will strive to be fiscally self-
reliant to ensure the continued ability to deliver essential high-quality
municipal facilities and services to its residents.
13) Responsive Government and Regional Leadershio. The Plan
emphasizes the city's commi[,,ent to community participation and
development of leadership, local partnerships and an interested,
active populace. Cupertino will continue to be an active leader on
regional issues affecting its residents and support innovations that
make government more accessible and visible to residents.
Kev Assumotions
Demographic:
Both Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino's population will
continue to grow in the 20-year planning period, with Cupertino's growth
rate projected to be among the highest in the county. The average
household size is rising in Cupertino, with 2.75 persons per household in
2000, compared to 2.6 in 1990. Household size will peak in Cupertino in
2005 with 2.8 persons per household. Persons per household will also
peak in the County in 2005, with 3.05 persons per household.
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Introduction 5
Diversity of the population is increasing in Cupertino. The 2000 Asian
population constituted 44.4 of the population, compared to 23 percent in
1990.
The most dramatic demographic change in the future will be the sharp
increase in the number of people 65 and older. Cupertino median age
follows that trend; it increased form 36 years in 1990 to 38 years in 2000.
Planning implications are that the growth demands and impacts on housing
supply, transportation, schools.~nd municipal services, among others,
experienced in the last decade will continue. Ethnic diversity calls for
community programs that serve residents with different backgrounds and
promote,, bnderstanding among different cultures. An aging population
requires 'consideration of services, transportation, access and programs
geared to their needs.
--~ .. , Economic:
,: T'~I~'.~,* Silicon Valley is distinguished for its
__' j ~'""~ Ir ~ ~ concentration of technology-related
employment. Nearly 40% of Silicon Valley's
...... workforce is employed in technology-related
~i " industries. Santa Clare County will top the
charts for new jobs among the Bay Area
Hewlett Packard campus' counties in the next twenty years, although the
rate of growth will be less than in the past.
Cupertino job growth will be [based on our General Plan allocations - this
will be rewritten when the allocations are known.]
The affordability, variety and location of housing affect a region's ability to
maintain a viable economy and high quality of life. In 2000, 16% of Santa
Clare County houses were affordable for median-income households, in
contrast to the national average of 60%. Future job growth in the area is
projected to substantially outpace household growth, further exacerbating
the cost of housing and long commutes.
Cupertino is the headquarters for Apple Computer, Portal Software and
Symantec, and is home to scores of other high tech firms, including
Compaq computers, Hewlett Packard, HoneywelI-Measurex and Sun
Microsystems.
Balancing the City's revenues and expenditures is a factor affecting
Cupertino's future. The largest single source of Cupertino's revenues is
sales tax. Although Cupertino has one of the lowest property tax rates in
Santa Clara County, these taxes are still an important source of City
revenues. Transit occupancy taxes are levied on hotel facilities in the City,
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
6 Introduction
providing an increasing source of revenues with the addition of several new
hotels.
Planning implications are that job growth will continue to increase in the
region and Cupertino, and will outpace housing growth. Providing adequate
numbers of housing units at affordable prices will continue to be a
challenge. Reliance on sale taxes as a revenue source will continue to
motivate the City to attract commercial businesses to the community.
Public Services:
The General Plan assumes that Cupertino's urban service area will not be
expanded during the 20-year planning period, since future growth can be
accommodated in the existing urban area where services can be provided..
(The following subjects will be discussed after meeting with dept. heads)
Water: The Santa Clara Valley Water District is responsible for water
supply, flood protection and watershed management in Santa Clara County.
About half of the County's water supply comes from groundwater. The
District reports that with the implementation of the Integrated Water
Resources Plan Preferred Strategy, there are sufficient water supplies to
meet the needs of the County through year 2020, assuming the
groundwater storage at the beginning of a drought event has not been
seriously depleted by previous events. Cupertino's water suppliers are San
Jose Water Company and California Water Company. Except in the case
of prolonged drought, the Santa Clara Valley Water District anticipates an
adequate water supply to meet San Jose Water Company's projected
demand throughout the year 2020. The Company has a comprehensive
water conservation program, and reports that water demands can be met
through properly managing available supplies and by encouraging
moderate pe,'l~anent reductions in water use.
Parks
Library
Streets
Sanitary sewer
Sto r~[-, drain
Fire
Education:
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Introduction 7
Cupertino is well known for its excellent elementary
and high schools, and is home to De Anza College, a
community college with 25,000 students in 2000.
School population in the area is increasing. The
Cupertino Union School District (K-8)reported in ~~.i::) ;:_._~.,~
1999 that elementary school enrollments have
increased for 15 years, but should stabilize in the
near future due to a cessation of a 20-year birth
increase. The district has been experiencing in-
migration of school-aged children. There are no
indications of a slow down in this area. The ethnic De Anza College
composition of the district has changed over time,
with increasing numbers of Asian students attending district schools. New
housing ,.'construction has had a relatively minor impact on district
enrollments with .17 students generated per multi-family units and .34 for
single family units in 2000. The increase in household size from 2.6 in 1990
to 2.8 in 2000 may contribute to the increasing enrollment.
The Fremont Union High School District reports that enrollment increased in
the past ten years and is projected to increase in the future. Enrollment
growth is most likely being generated by families moving into the area with
school-aged children who attend public schools.
De Anza College projects a significant increase in enrollment and facilities
in the next decade, with enrollment increases of approximately 3% per year.
Projections reflect the general population increase in the area, the
significant increase in the number of high school graduates and the demand
for higher levels of technical skills. A draft 2000 master plan proposed an
increase to 32,000 students by 2010.
Planning implications are that while school districts in the area are
experiencing growth and schools are at capacity, Cupertino's new
residential construction is not likely to significantly impact the elementary
schools and high schools. The projected growth of De Anza College could
exacerbate Cupertino's jobs/housing imbalance and traffic impacts.
Environment
High-quality air is fundamental to the health of people, nature and the
economy. Ozone standards in the Bay Area were consistently exceeded in
the last decade, although the number of exceeding days per year declined.
Levels of particulate matter- dust, smoke and soot - have been decreasing
since 1990. The Bay Area Air Quality .Management District plans to
address attaining the ozone and regional haze standards in the future.
Sustainable development, which improves the quality of life in the present
while ensuring continued prosperity in the future, is a timely concept that
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
8 Ir~x/ua~n
envisions the use of land, energy, water and other resources effidently and
responsibly. Sites are designed so that rainwater stays on site and seeps
into the ground; buildings are designed for solar access and use of natural
light; water, paper and building materials are recycled and reused. The
plan assumes the need to consewe resources throughout the life of the
plan.
. Both the Santa Clara County Parks and Midpeninsula
'? !.~:J':' Regional Open Space District own and manage public
:~ ~' ~ la ':1 lands in the hillsides adjacent to Cupertino. These part(
~~ open space lands are a recreational,
;ind
visual
and
~;~.- '~:~, biological resoume to all of Cupertino and surrounding
communities. These lands, as well as
potential additions
'~ ~" to them, are hosts to hiking, biking and equestrian trails
that are local- and regional-serving.
~~ ' ~ ~ ' Planning implications are that premiums will be placed on
the use of natural resoumes for both development and
recreational purposes. Use of water, air, energy and
Rancho San .4ntonio natural materials will be monitored and conserved.
Buildings will be retrofitted or designed for energy
efficiency. Open lands will be evaluated for future park pumhases and trail
aCCeSS.
Transportation
Travel demand in the County will continue to increase significentty over the
next 20 years. The widening gap between job and population growth and
roadway capacity expansion means that a growing pool of commuters will
be unable to find room on the roads. The enor,,,ous pent-up demand for
roadway space will limit the ability to significantly reduce congestion over
the 20-year planning horizon. Strategies to address this challenge include
new transit investments, roadway improvements, bicycle projects and
integrating transportation and land use planning that supports walking,
biking and easy auto trips. No major transit improvements are planned in
Cupertino during the 20-year period, although improvements on De Anza
and Stevens Creek Boulevards are future projects.
Traffic volumes on Cupertino streets have decreased in the last decade,
resulting in improved Levels of Service at key intersections that meet or
exceed Cupertino's Level of Sen/ice D standard. Annual monitoring will
allow Cupertino to assess future compliance with the standard.
Planning implications are that regional roadway systems will continue to be
bottlenecks to' Cupertino commuters and residents. Local roadways may
be less impacted. Planning will focus on land use choices that allow people
to walk, bike, use transit and reduce dependence on the automobile.
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
10 Introduction
Community Settina
Cupertino, located in the Bay Area and Santa Clare County, is a blend of
small-town neighborhoods, local and regional serving commercial areas
and high-technology incubators and headquarters, encompassing 11
square miles. Cupertino was incorporeted in 1955. It is served by major
transportation corridors and County bus transit.
Most of Cupertino is on level ground . ~.... .... ......
that rises gently.to the west. The ,':"~-.
incline increases-at the channel of L~ ;'~" ~';
Stevens Creek, forming a short plateau
near Foothill Boulevard. The plateau
ends at the foot of the steep Montebello
system of ridges, which extends along ? --
the west and south edges of Cupertino,
creating a dramatic amphitheater
backdrop to the valley floor. Most of
the hillside lands within Cupertino's West end of Stevens Creek
boundary agreement area are
unincorporated. County lands are included in Cupertino's planning area
because State legislation requires that the General Plan cover not only the
city's boundaries but "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning
agency's judgment beam relation to its planning.~
Purl ose of the General Plan
The Cupertino General Plan provides a coherent vision of the City's future
by integrating the aspirations of residents, businesses and officials into a
comprehensive strategy for guiding future development and managing
change. The General Plan describes the long-term goals for the City's
future and guides daily decision-making. The time frame of the Plan is
2000-2020. The Plan contains the City's official policies on land use and
community design, transportation, housing, environmental resources and
public health and safety. It provides guidance about growth, housing,
trensportation, neighborhood improvement and municipal service delivery.
Conflicts between mutually desirable goals are inevitable. For instance,
automobile mobility will conflict with a safe, walk-able community. The
space and signal time granted to the automobile will expand the street width
and reduce the level of service and perception of safety for the pedestrian.
The Plan attempts to reconcile these conflicts in the interest of building a
cohesive community. In some cases, the conflicting goals must both
compromise to provide a reasonable level of service to both competing
interests. These are conscious choices that the city makes in the interest of
building community. The General Plan reconciles these conflicts in the best
overall interest of the community.
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Ir~'oduc#on 11
Orclanization of the Plan
California state law requires that each city and county adopt a General Plan
for the ~physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its
boundaries which bears relation to its planning." The role of a community's
General Plan is to act as a 'constitution;' a basis for rational decisions
regarding a city's Iong-ten~ physical development. The General Plan
expresses the community's development goals and embodies public policy
relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private.
The General Plan is required to be a collection of seven "elements' or
subject .categories. These elements, and the corresponding Cupertino
element~, are:
REQUIRED ELEMENT CUPERTINO ELEMEN'~
Introduction (optional)
Land use Land Use/Community Character
Circulation Circulation
Housing Housing
Conservation Environmental Resources
Open-space Environmental Resources,
Community Services and Facilities
Noise Environmental Resources
Safety Community Sewices and Facilities
Implementation (optional)
Each element is organized by goals, objectives and strategies, all of which
stem from the Vision and Guiding Principles.
A goal is a broad statement of values or aspirations.
A policy provides more precise directions and guides the actions of staff,
developers and policy makers.
An objective is a measurable standard to help determine if the goals are
achieved.
A strategy is a specific task that the City will undertake.
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
12 Introduction
General Plan Ador)tion
The General Plan is adopted or modified after an extensive public review
process and environmental impact analysis. Public review occurs prior to
public hearings through community meetings, study sessions and advisory
committee meetings. Public hearings allow the community to express its
views prior to City Council approval.
Other soumes of community preferences and concems are considered in
adopting or modifying the General Plan. The Godbe Community Survey
and the Community Congress are examples of useful sources for
understanding community sentiment.
The number of amendments to the General Plan is limited by State law,
which specifies that a mandatory element may not be amended more than
four times a year. Cupertino ordinances require that the City Council
determine if a public hearing should be set to consider a General Plan
amendment.
General Plan Implementation
'The General Plan is the foundation for planning in Cupertino. All physical
development must be consistent with it. State law also requires that zoning
be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan programs are
carried out through a myriad of City plans and approval procedures, such
as special planning areas, use permits, subdivisions, the capital
improvement program and park planning.
The Implementation Section of the General Plan is the tool for determining
priorities and assignments for carrying out the General Plan. The annual
General Plan review, as required by State law, provides the opportunity to
evaluate the City's progress in implementing the plan and to assess if
mitigation measures are being followed and if new policy direction should
be considered.
G:~Planning\GenPlan\G P Introduction3.doc
'THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Exhibit A
Land Uea/Communily Ctmracter ~- ?
These polkies had munerom effeds on ~he Cib/. Non-residen~n~ buildh~g patens
have typically been low profile and uniform in height, making it dlt~cult to focus develop-
merit intensity to shape the City's built form and identity. Imb~h~cas in commerce], of-
tlce/inclustrial and residential development potential in rela~i~ to ~n,lcet demand lmve
nmflted in under u~li~ed comme~i spaces, low oftice vaca~ and high ho-~ng demancL
To address these issues, the development regulatory policies are revised as followed:
· Polic~d 2-3: De~elopii~nt Reallocation
Development activity should b~ conh-olled so that fire City st~-t system is
not overwb,,lmed with tr~qc and the desired transportation levelof s~
vice, is maint*i~ni. To meet the City's goals and priorities, the re~*i,xing
unzmnmit~d developw~at potertfial that achieves the City's transportation
goals should be reaIlocated as shown below. Further acljus~nents to the~e
ate met.
De~e~y.,~t Reallocation Table
Retail 3,359,000 573,000 500,000 4,431,000m 2.60 1,300
(~q.
Offlce/Ind 7,457,000 541,000 1,294,000 9,292,000m 1.70 2,200
(sq. ft.)
Hotel 277 250 500 1,027 0.40 200
(moms)
Housing 17,460 584 2,000 20,044 0.80 1,600
(Du)
Total 5,3OO
Committed growth refem to growth potential that has been approved through use
permits, vesting maps and/or development agreements, but has not been built u of Ss~ POUC~ 2-24
1990. The committed growth will be reallocated by the City if a use permit expires or
the project is determined to be inconsistent with the General Plan.
These numbem are flexible due to the ability to convert retail space to office space at
the northeast comer of DeAnza/Stevens Creek Boulevards, as described In Policy 2-24.
This poUcy recognizes that a iinite amount of development can take place
and still re~;~ within the d~md transportat/on level of S~vlce. The un-
committed development potenH~l from less than buildout prop~ties would
be "ma]located" to meet City development neecls and goals. Development
allocations shall be made by the City.in accordance with its development
approval processes and the following development priorities tables. The
THE ~UPERI'INO GENERAL PLAN"
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMW~r
Subject: RepoFt of the CommunRy Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, November 26, 2001
The City Council met on Monday, November 19, 2001 and discussed the followina item. of
interest to the Planning Commission:
1) International Personnel Management Assodation (IPMA), Award for Excellence: The
City of Cupeffino Department of Human Resources received an award from the
International Personnel l~.n~,~.~ement Association (IPMA) in recognition of Cupertino's
exemplary contributions to the efficiency and effectiveness of government personnel
operations. Mayor James presented the plaque to Administrative Services Director Carol
Atwood, Human Resources Mazmger Sandy Abe, and Human Resources Recruiter
Francine Amarelo. She thanked those people who received the plaque, in addition to
Human Resources Technician Maria Jimenez, former Human Resources Manager Bill
Wosi~a, and former Human Resources Technician Jill Lope~
2) Congratulations to thc proponents for Garden Crate Annexation (Measure D): Mayor
James gave a proclamation to Mr. Lester Bowers, representative of the group, "C-arden
Neighbors for .Annexation" Jessica.Rose.presented a ]amlnsted oloction si~n to Council,
which was signed by the proponents of Measure D.
3) Garden Gate Reorlanization, confirm votes favorin~ annexation: The City Council
'".- declared the. votes for and against annexation and co~f~,~ied their previous action to
approve the annexation of Garden Gate into the City of Cupertino.
4) Authorization for funds for mobile skate park: The City Council authorized the staff to
spend au amount not to exceed $40,000 for purchase of equipment for a mobile skate
park (see attached report).
5) Street Widening Proiect for Stevens Canyon Road from Santa Lucia Rd~ to County Park
Eni~ance: The City Council awarded the contract for widening improvements to Stevens
Canyon Road (see attached report).
6) Verona Apaflments Appeal: The City Council upheld the appeal of Council Member
Burner and approved the Architecture and Site Design details subject to the revised site
plan and elevation drawings and the remaining conditions of approval cont,~ined in the
Planning Commission Resolution (see attached report).
Community Development Dire~.ot's R~ott
November 26, 2000
Pag~ 2
7) R & Z Development, 9 townhomes on Rodrigues Avenue: The City Council approved
thc rezonlng to accommodate the townhouse plan but reduced the density to 8 units;
reduced the size of each -n;t approximately 150 square feet; and required a mln;mnm 15
foot setback f~om the east property llne to the middle two units. The use permlt and
tentative map were continued to December 3, 2001, to coincide with the second reading
of the zoning ordinance.
8) Rezonlnl of Grosvenor Prol~erty: The City Council approved the rezonl,g of
approxlmn~ely 20 acres from Light Industrial to Planned Development Light Industrial to
accommodate a previously approved transfer of development credit to enable a
residential development to be built on the northern portion of the property (see attached
report). ..
9) Al~lication Deadlines and Application Dates for PlanninR Commission Vacanev: The
City Council approved the deadline of December 14, 2001 and interview date of Sanuary
14, 2002 (see attached report).
10) Next Cit~ Council Meetln.~: The swearing in ceremony for the incoming council
originally scheduled for November 15, 2001 was cancelled due to lack of a County
certification of the election. The City Council adjourned to Wednesday, November 28,
2001, at 6:00 PM to swear in the new council members and say good-by to out-going
council member Don Burnett The Council's next regularly scheduled meeting is
Monday, December 3, 2001.
Bnclosures:
Newspaper articles
Staff Reports
G: Plannlng/~e,P/Dir~mr's R~port/2001/pdl 1.26.01
The Chamber ADVOCATE · November 2001
Are 'just cause' ordinances the solution
to landlord/tenant problems .
/~~ - ~-- 'Just cause' - A way to ruin
neighborhoods and slow
rental housing construction
~ '~' By Kathy Thibodeaux
* ~ music at 2 Ah~ before an awner is
gmntecl .leg~.l pe/m. !ss,on to evicl~ .
~ ' The h~hJe~t hit by evictlon cantols
I. Jaw do you make our rental-age ~ few ren.¥ units. ~ .p_.. ' 'cb a
~lhousing situcdion worse for si~.'ficant portion ~ ihe re~zl housing
renlm's and aparlment . _av_~mers.~ in~lt~..~ &q~. 'ally in Ihe law~inceme
Eviction c~anlrals would unclennlne . ' .neigh~flcx~. ~ owners do nat
I!~ slabilily' of ne/Ghborlxx)ds a.nd ' havb lawym an ~ner or Ihe .financial
serve m a major clisincenlive to revest resou .m~ to pay bad tenanb lo leav~
in rental housing. . .1he), w~ll ha~ fiilb r,~mu~ when can-
"' the ~ .chc ~ hausing owners to imm~ci in criminal gang acli~,.
evict ~ tenants. In concept it 'lhe graup~. ~ fa- ~just
i~, in ~ ~hat easy. ~o e~ct a ~ ten- bein~l
ant, awnm must pm? came in court, is a flaw ,n II~eir _c~ntm..fion - a wae~ul
.evicifan mnlmb,' ~ing io Jim hav~ highli~tBd actually undermine
,Smith ~he farmer pmslclent ~/lfle Black their ra~x~le for ~his rcklical policy..
a(mid io Imti¥ in f~ar d relalialion.' - ~ tenants who dislu ./~?e~l. Ihelr
Litigation is expensive. It is nat neigfllx~s or failed Io pay their rent.
unusua[for renlal housing owners in
'just muse' jurisdi.clims Illin Berkeley,
Santa Manica, and San Francisco, ~a Tr/-Caun~/Apa[tnent _ .A~x~,~.., a
~ $20,000, $30,.000 ar more in non- proGt ~de m. sac/a//an w//h over
.l~lal fees. /v~eaver, lhere is no telling 3,000 mem/x~z .s~?g ~e.renta/
hc~w a jury will clecicle. Far instance/ I,~uslng i~.uslO,~n ~n/a C/am, 5an
how ~ will neighbors have to endure Ma~o and ~nta enoz ~oun#es.
'Just cause' - A way to i.rote~l renters
and help neighborhoods thrive
By Lilia Yalencia
ThYouink how your family would bal. A ~ sh~ll aceuscdfon is that
get almock on Jha door. Ju. st Cause laws wfl1 pmve~_ thP.evidi°n
Someone hcTmcls yov a d~eet of paper, at 'problem' ~nants..lagcic~, haw
Yoq are .ordered to leave yaur I~e~e .pr~,... horror storim Imm olher
,,~in..~. c~..-- . luridictk~'d, aileeeay to ~ Ks
1his ~m't a horror ~ tram some mint. In remains, renter adv,~,~m
distant dictotorshiD. This Idnd af experi- have oRrer~ the I~ncllords' organize-
ence happens to thouscn!ds, of..mnters in lion, Tri-Coup~ Apartment..Aszc~,' 'an,
San Jo~. each year. And it will keep an an ~nm_c:l~lccl offer. Lel's dt ctown
happen,ng unfil the Clty..Cou~l adoptsand draft the Just Cause ardlnonm
a Just Cause Eviclion ordinance. ~ to insure good lenin, ts ~re
.acted. in an ~ manner.and move towarm common gmuna ,s as
clme~ to be evlcl~cl. But ~ aihers are embarrassing as it is revealing. It
lng,..msparm'~. ~ who am gaed Jan tenants am s,m~dy a_political radio.
neighbors end laby their rent on fime.The con~. ~. o~ evJcfion can
.Why would ~ landlord evict a be devastating for a fa~.ily. They may
good tenanff. · be forced out ~ the regmn or into
Unfodunat~.', in a fight ~usi~ homdmmess. No ~m~ should ~ to
.marJ, cet, lan~....k~s a.m templ~l...to raise endure these hardships if Ihey've done
~e rant as high m. Itmy possib¥ can. nothing wrong. At lebst, they deserve
But notice ota truly extrusive rent to ba ~wen a reason wh,Z. Ih~y am
increase ma,/cause problems. Tenants beingTorced out of their bomb.
may .grolmt to the . _n~wq~oer.. ~ may ~hat is why we need Just Cause
coml~lain about code violafions Ihat preteen for ~ renters of San Jose.
they'were willi.ng to endure when rents ·IJlia Vabnda is a board member
warn affordable. TheZ may cab Q~, _ of ~n Jose ACORN, Yne Assoda*'on of
Hall. An empty unit~ however, is ?le~_t. Comrnuni~y Organizalic~ for Reform
a.ulhorizm all d the legilimate rec~ns gmssrc~s, ~i/,y origan.'..aaffan et
la~ c/a lease, damqg, i.ng property,
The only action it pr~. ibits is :.arb~ary
Just Cause ordinance___ have worked
.Unfa'tuncdd,/,. ~.' landlords in San
Jme have rmpandec] to ihis issue' with ,-~,
tecfion measures will interfere with San ~ ,'~i ~
Jose's efforts to strengthen vulnerable
neighborhoods. Of course, just the ' '
reverse is kue. What problem neigh- ': *' ~ -;" ~
borhoods need is a stable population . ~:.
They need the renters whaliv~ there to ~' '~ .
hav~ security- so they can. d?elop. ~" ' ':'
mots and participate in schools and ~ /
churches and community act~vilies. ' ~Tr' '
Arbifrary evictions wea[cefl neighbor'-
.hoods;just cause laws help neighbor-
hoods thrive.
built so-ih ~f Wesitield ~hopp~ It's another t~sitmony to the value af
Valley l~r; ~ ~ ,h-,~,lin~ a~ diversit~osaysM~Downmwn, Merk
cordt~g to coml:~my n~l~i,ls Rttchi~ ~ eomm,~rctal ~ e6tat~ bro-
~1 budget. The t~ge~s b,~Ir~ Federal were 8.$ l~-cent v~__c-,nt as of Oct. 2t~
· ... Rea]~ lnvesh-~ Trust. That ~ will rise to 11.$ lX~-cent ~
:first pb-~ In Aul~lat"' square feet :[~m the new Ol:n~ West
;,. ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ comes onltn~ More thall h~le
mnt~ ~ ~ 'i~it stlbmnr~ ill the ~ ~" MI:
Some 16 ~-~ bay, RiChly- ~ "It continues to show ~
Anrl~ ~ All~ He'$1~it, accold~[tos, thl~d~l--~
[] $1mm. and G-a~e & Barrel ~-d San jose walloim other ctfice submar-
~o cost as much as $1 billion -- Is suffer- ' MI: Ritztlie's numl~,s assume that 8o-
Wall~~th~,~tlt~losesla~t- '{~11 ~ two ll~olaerti~ totslin.~
But comMuly executives now Media tlr yi_~ld~l no respcmse.
ditiotisl ~$ mintnn hi ~ t~a~nt ira- C~ New~ mA_~ine ~ 'n~m~d ~
80 ~. 21_8,000 ~mt, e feet -- !~ th~- ~rn~ 1~0 ]~r Aze~ ~n.nln _~_~ ~ae of tl:le
space ~ the p~ojec~'s ~ pk-~-- ha~ wor~ ~he CE News ~. a~ im~e~ ctv-
b~/,O00 sqtlarefe~ Fortlr-nlne oO~Olm-t~ c~llaeted ~ar
mnn_ dm~t~ ~ th,t. f~n~nM S_re II~- vk~lm,-, .l~d ~nd geO~ e[lg~
l~l~ral h-. done ~ame 9revim~ down. l~u:~e~ mad emplol~ tumove~
~ I1~lel~_ m~t~ ~ the ~ ~1._e~__1_~__~s ~ _l~a_ nh~l$1~ mt1.
town 8an Saae.
Hewlett-Packard and Compaq:
Can this marriage be s~ed?
~ - .... their ~ntentLon to pursue the me~
~~. i~.'i~ /' :~,
- ,, over ~mfl~ obJeeUa~ the ~m~
~l, ~ ~~ ~'- '. " ONIIED FRONT:Cady
~'~, ' '~..- ' , Fbdm and Mid.d
aaytn_~ that mm~aSpmm~fS toushqmli Jc
~ ~ ~i~.. ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m.m ~w~ m~ ~, ~ ~ ~d ~bl
VO~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l]~n: ~~. thin~ttht~Wdo~ ~1
~ a~~~~mt17 W~ ~ ~" ~m~ i~ su~ ~~~e~."
~ ~ ~ a~t 5 ~t ~ ~ ~ ~r No~ 7, ~ ~- ~.~ek.~ ~ m.y
~~s~p~s~ce~ ~ld~ ~o~ ~ ~
~d it ~ ~1 b~o~ ~ ~lm. ~ mm~ +~mtn~,
THE BIJSINE~ JOURNAL. NOVEMBER g, 2001
BY SHARON IIMONSON ]:uG'O bem't a.~E~ced b~ tho pl.~]bGck m,~d. wh.~.h, 8omew~
Squeezedb~11i~housi~pr~ces the mo~t dr~m.tic ~1 induc~ ·
This is the house that Jack cUchi't and still-pricey deve~_ument costs, merits to buy hx decad~m. The
builct principals 'for some cf the hu'gest Uon'8 mort~_gfi interest rates are at
lXmlng or ~-etht,~kip_~ new housin8 no longer can afford the financlsl ex- alread~ have been sil~l!ficant de-
''''subdivisions in .Silicon Valley be- posure of Ba~ Area housixt8 devel- nl~ in m~7 Silicon Valley house.
mn~- ~'~-~c~d ~ At least 1,000 produc~8, ventory of homes for sale.
es in v52'lou~s st~_ses c~ development to a pronounced drop in housing de-
Tuesday, November 13, 2001 SANTA cruz SENTIN~ A~
'Single-family'home,. back yard
still Californians' dream
~F'~ WJJ,~ tC sttrprJse to reset'chefs who .~11~.
~,aho~~~ ~d~-~~. ~~m~u~n~
~2u~. ' . for ~e ~t ~ ~," ~ P~C ~- ~fl~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~or.
~ ~ ~ s~ "No, n~ at ~" ~d L~
lt~,~an~~. ~n~ C~., wh~ ~ ~n.
~U~.onemm~~. ~,~~. ~g mo~ ~m~ct dev~o~ment to
~t ~fl~, . · ~k at ho~, ~ ~ ~p app~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ au~ence
s~m~~e ~ a ~m~t-. ~ p~'s ~d~ ~n~ ~ ~d~d, despite mfllio~ of do~
'The* prefomnce for a single-family home is so strong, and ' ~7 c~t~
the desire to live In smaller communities is so'strong that ~e pon tot~.ewed ~,~ ~ult C~-
Eomta re~id~-~ta in ~!,~h or Spmflsh.
it's foidy hard' for those promoting'mm compact ' ~om o~ ~ to o~t aL ~,. ~ of
development to appeal to a large and broad audience of en~r for survey w~ pl~ or ~-~ s
· Californians.' ., vato, nonprofit re~earc~ o~tb~dzat~on,
M~K BA~.D,~aSA~, Pua~IC POUCI,'INSTrm-~',~ OF CALIFORNIA ' .b~sed h~ ~ ~'~ff~CJ,gco. .
, . · . Commissioning the survey are the'
3nines Irvine, Wlllh~l ~ Flora
spent bY foundations ~ul'activiste to with regularity.by the planners and foundations. AIl~ smart 8rowtli
promote fewer cars, higher buildinss poUcy m,kers, like smart 8rowth and tactics With money from companies
andamoreUrbanlUbstyle, only84per- spTaw~ are not' even oh the radar thntspawnedm-_da~Calttbnda'msub-
cent of C-~!t~orn!snm are tkmillar with .screen?'Baldassare said. ' urban 8rowth. Representatives of all
Likewise, only 88 percent know nizin~theword"sprawl"~igpercent results, ' ' '
about the tenn."sprawL" · .~- was to metropolitan Los Angeles, The Hewlett Foundation gave
~Many of the. se .terns that are used which spreads 16 million people across ~70 million in 1995 to create the PPIC.
" CITY OF
CUPEI INO
STAI~ REPORT
Agenda Item Number I ~ Agenda Date: November 19, 2001
Skate Mobile (A mobile skate p~.k)
BACKGROUND
Thc City Council included $450,000 in the 2001/2002 Capital Improvement Program for
construction of a sitste park at the Compaq site; however, negotiatious for the property are
currently on hold. The Skate Facility Ad Hoc Committee is committed tO worL-ing toward a
permanent, concrete facility, but has recommended the skate mobile as an interim solution It is
recommended that Council, by motion, approve the purch~t~e of portable equipment in an amount
not to exceed $41,000 from the skate park capital improvement fund, waive competitive bidding,
{. '!. and provide direction as to whether or not fees shoUld be charged for use.
A vendor in Hollister, California, HarrisbUllt, builds steel ramps ,apd other pieces to
accommodate inline skaters and skateboarders. Harrisbuilt has brought the equipment to
Cupertino and demonstrated its use to the Skate Facility Ad Hoc Committee and city staff. The
... pieces are intended to be mobile; the larger pieces arc on trailers with a hydraulic-lift system that
allows them to be lowered over the wheels after the ramps have reached their destination. The
system allows set-up within minutes. The pieces are con~U~ted of 2" x 2" sq,~re tubing and
sheeted with 10-gauge steel.
We are proposing the acquisition of five large pieces that can be towed using city vehicles.
Smaller pieces (launch ramps, grind box and rails) are lightweight; city staff can transport them
in pickup ~ucks and man,~!ly place them in minutes. The proposed pa~k. will consist of ten
pieces that will appeal, to various skill levels. The proposed park has been quoted at $40,020,
which includes the acoustical treatment and side paneling to baffle sound, product .delivery, and
training on maintenance and operation. The proposal from Harrisbullt is attached.
Staff has looked at a number of pott~ble products on the market, but has not found an option that
is so easy to tow and set up. Harrisbuilt can construct th~ pieces selected for Cupertino within six
to eight weeks.
· ?""L Pursuant to Section 3.23.130 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, E. Mesnlneless Bids. "Where the
~..;..!~.,' nature of the subject of the contract is such that competitive proposals would not produce an
Skate Mobile
November 19, 2001
P~e 2 of 3
advantage when the advertisement for competitive bidding would be undesirable, or
im.~cal...", the project can be exempt fi'om the City's competitive bidding requirements. The
project is below the formal biddb~g amount; however, staffis concerned that it will not be
possible to get three equivalent int~ormal quotes to meet the requirements of the info, a,al bidding
Staffis requesting that Council waive competitive bidding as allowed under Section 3.23.130 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code.
DISCUSSION
Advaotnies of the skate mobile include:
· Low cost- a skate park can be provided for just. over $401000
· The skate mobile will use existing parking lot spaces under a schedule that will not impact
other users of public facilities
· The skate mobile will limit thc impacts to any one neighborhood in the community and will
be accessible to more youths as the park. rotates around town
· Skato/~ will benefit from various layouts - not the .e. sme thing every day
· Skaters will have a safe, supervised place to skate in six to eight Weeks (once approved and
the order is placed)
· The equipment is low maintenance-just paint once a year to enhance the appearance
(approximate cost of ann-Al ,~Ai,,tenance - $300-400)
· Pieces can be made available for commun/ty events, camp programs, and possibly block "
parties
LOGISTICS
.. Staff is working on a schedule for the skate mobile that would allow it to operate approximately'
'three to four days per week, depending upon the availability of parking lots. During non-school
days/vacations, the service level would increase. City locations are preferred so that participants
will have access to restrooms, water, and telephones.
The skate mobile will be stored at the Set~ice Center, and part-time city staff will transport the
equipment to designated locations. Monthly schedules highlighting the locations will be posted
on the City's website and calendars will be distributed to schools. ·
FISCAL IMPACT
Staffbudgeted for staffing at the Compaq skate park for six month% so funds are available within
the 2001/2002 budget for this project. However, Council never addressed the issue regardi.g
whether user fees should be charged.
· Option A: Participants skate free and funds for mnlntennnce, ~g, and transporting the
equipment are subsidized from the General Fund at a cost of $45,000/snmmlly
(this is based on 20 pwgrams hours per week with four staffmembers); or
- Shtte Mobile
November 19, 2001
Pa/e 3 of 3
...... · Option B: Participants are charged a user fee to generate approximately $30,000 (based on
50 participants/four times a week at $3.00/person)
RECOMMENDATION
It is .r~_comm~aed that the City Cbuncil:
· Approve the use of $40,020 from the Capital Improvement Fund for the purchase of skate
mobile equipment
· Waive .competitive bidding pursuant to Section 3.23.130 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
· Authorize the skate park siaffing from the General Fund; there would b~ no fees chnr~ed to
the participants for use of the slrnt~- mobile. Fundi~ for six movths of operation is available
in the FY 2001/2002 operating budget.
SUBM~F~.D BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreation
g:~pndts md m:rmion admln~-~r,~ pnrk4,mdfmpml I 11901
I~OPOSAL
SubmitS! to: Cit~ of'Cupertino Christine Hanzl
Phone No. (40~)7'/7-3125
1133 5an Felipa Rd.
~o~i.~tet Ca 95023
Pben~ No. (408)~48-6776
Da~e: November 8, 2001
Re; Cupertino Mobilz 51ntte Park
We hn'eby propme to fur-i-~h tl~ ma~-rials and perform tl~ labor nec~sary for the eomplztion o~th~ proposed mobil~
sknte park. The proposed park ~ consist often piece~, inzluding two quarter pipes, one spine, onz doubl~ _h~,~ one
table top / roll in combo, two AJl~anl~mo-ht'~, two gfilld lltl'l~ ~ o!~ ~
· General fabrication description
All pieces with the exc~"ption oftbe ~,m,~.,meh~ will ~ consUuctcd with 2" x 2" squa~ tubing nnd ~h~'tod w~th 10
~_~ s~..l. The double bank and the table ~op / roll in ramp~ will featnr~ our e~lusive tongue ejee~on
e6able~ the rampstobe setup inabout 15 secon&. TI~ q~pipes andspine cannot use t~tonguee~-'tion system
due ~o tl~ir r~lative size, how~,ver, they utilize a symm thn~ allows them to be set up in a .~imilar t/me frame. All
ramps will be e, oat~l with a spe,~dly formulated ramp
Ali tiding Stn~ will.be free ofnny h~us bolts, screws, or rivets.
L/f~im,~ a:' u~ttral wnn~ npplies to all framework and .~h_~t surface. Lifetime wammty on labor.
On~ year manufacture warranty on aH hydraulic and electric ~mpon~:~ Followed by a ~ year pro ra~:d warranty at
10% per'year.
Ttme Guarantee
Upon acceptance of proposal ~ will be oomple~ed and d~iivzred within six wzcks.
Prke for Cn~rtino Mobile Skate lark
spa=iSca~ions submitted for the above v~rk nnd completed in = snbstantisl workmanlike manner for the sum of
~orty thousand and twenty dollnrs ($40,020.00) wi~ payments ~o be mad~ as follow~; 50% or $20.0]0.00 upon
· _¢__~ptanc= of propo~. Final payment of'50% or $20,010.00 is due upon delive~ and ~ttir~tion of' outlined park
Th,,~ you for eonsiderin81-~-ds~lt,.
Sine=ely,
Hov 09 O! 04:37p Cupertino Parks
.... DF3CRIPTION OF RAMI~ .
1). QUARTER PIPE: Tlgsp/~ccwillb~8'widex4'~__llx Il'long. Itwilllmvea4' xS' ~p~~a
2) SPINE: Th~s piece will be 8' wid~ x 3' tall x 10' long
3) QUARTER PIPE:
4) DOURLEBANK: T~ispi~c~wl'llb~8'wid~x3'lallx20'long. Itwillbavc20-30d~grccbanks~~.
l~t~ pi~c~ also inolucl~ a t-in~ agncl box tho oolite Ionat~ on ~ sido mi a ~,~ ~1 tl~ ~tir~ I~S~ ot'tho
opposit~
~) TA~ .~ TOI' ! RO~.~. 1~ COMBO: Thls tmiqu~ picco will bc 8' wi~ x 4' tall x 2~' ion&
6) GRIND llAU~: This picc~ to be 12' long with an adjt~___ble height of 12"-18". T~i.~ piece will lmv~ a 2" squaz~
lop. Total pric~ arind rail $180.00.
7) ALUMAIAUNCH: Thisisa2'widexl'tallx4'longlaunch~p~o~~ ·
9) GRIND RAIL: This picc~ will ~ 8' long with an adjustable height of 12'-18". This piece will have a round top."
10)GRIND BOX: This piec~ will be 2' wide x 1' tall x 8' long.
. [~[.,~'~/' City Hall
:. ' ,~ 10~00 Torr~ Av~m~
CITY OF ~p~o, CA g5014-3255
(408) ~7-3354
CUPE INO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMI!NT
summary
AGENDA ITEM t t~ AGENDA DATE Nov~...ber 19, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Award of construction contract for the Street Widening Project for Stevens Canyon Road
fiom Santa Lucia Rd. to thc County Park Entrance, Project No. 98-120 to the low bidder
in thc amount of $ 972,629.10 and approval ora construction contingency of
$100,000.00 for a total of $1,072,629..10.
Ratification ofthe Agreement with Brian Kansas Foulk for Engineering Services for
Stevens Canyon Road Widening Project and encumbrances in the total amount of
$ 228,850.00; and
Approval of an additional encumbrance in the amount of$158~735.00 for additional
Engineering services for the construction phase of the project for a total contract and
encumbrance of $ 387,585.00.
... Authorize the use ors 75,000.00 from the Gene~ul Fund to complete this project.
BACKGROUND
,it the October 15, 2001 Council meeting the Director of Public Works was authorized to
award the Street Widening Project for Stevens Canyon Road from Santa Lucia Rd. to thc
· County Park Entrance, Project No. 98-120 to the low bidder'in an amount not to exceed
$950,000.00. It was understood that if the low bid plus contingency exceeded that amount
statfwould report, ba~k to Council with appropriate reconunendations.
Report of Bids Received
On October 30, 2001 the city received bids from six (6) contractors for this project. The
low bidder is C.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. in the nmoHllt of $ 972,629.10. A conslruction
contingency of $I00,000.00 is requested for unforeseen conditions and additional work
as required during thc course of the work. The low bidder is approximatoly 17% above
'~i ''~ the engineers estimate. Staffhas met with the contractor and evaluated the bid prices and
"~"~ is satisfied the low bid represents a reasonable price for tho work.
Tho following is a sumtnary of bids received for project:
Bidder Base Bid
Duran & Venables, Inc. $ 2,383,~80.~0
O'Grady Paving, Inc. $1,346,989.00
Granite Rock/Pavex $1,2S9,439.00
E1 Camino Paving, Inc. $1,14S,855.$0
ROW Construction, Inc. $1,113,708.00
O.C. Jones & Sons, Inc. $ 972,629.10
Engineer's Estimate $ 829,744.00
As noted above staffis recommenrl~g award of thc contract to the low bidder,
/ones & Sons, Inc. ·
Emgneerin~ Consult,mt Services
Ill accordnnce with Courlcil direction at thc timo, hi December 1999 an agreement was
.approved with Brian Kangas Foulk for the engineering services for Stevens Canyon Road
Widening Project with compensation provided in the total amount of $163,600.00 for
consultant services.
Since that time, three additional encumbrances totaling $65,250.00 were approved for
various additional services not provided for in. the original contt~_ct, but necessary for the
completion of the project. Most of the additional services relate to the redesign that was
directed by the Council after the first bidding process. The current encumbrances for
Engineering services from Brian Kangas Foulk are as follows:
.... Orisinal Encumbrance $163,600.00
Additional Encumbrance No. 1 6,750.00
Additional Encumbrance Bio. 2 3,200.00
Additional Encumbrance Bio. 3 55,300.00
(Redesign seryices)
Total AppFoved Encumbrances S 228,8S0,00
As thc above setwices were acquired at Council direction, staffis recommending that the
Council ratify the original agreement and the previously approved encumbrances as noted
above.
Additional EniineerinR Consultant Services
Beyond the services noted there has arisen the need for additional services for the
engineer, for which the engineer is would be entitled to additional compensation in
accordanco with tho agreement. There are three areas of activity for which the Nmginecr
has been requested to provide services as follows:
1. The redesign and additional engineering services to design a sro,-, drain
in the County Park as required by the County and the filling of a recordof survey
required more additional time and consultant effort than expected.
...... 2. The Biaa;,,s prooess for the seoond bid (i.e., the most current) wu not included in
" ' the oril~al al~'ee~erit and they have completed this phase of the project.
3. The Constriction ndministration for the project was not included in the original
agreement and if the project is awarded this phase of work will start.
Items 2 and 3 above were authorized by the Public Works Director in accordance with
Council direction to proceed with ~e-bidding of the project and that work has been
completed. Item 3 above is work that will begin following award of the contract. A
~ of these additional proposed encumbrances are as follows:
· 1. Rede. si_on; mapping and IKlditionnl drainage design $ 35,700.00
2. Bidding Process 800.00
3. Construction Admlnis~tion 122,235.00
Total Additional EneumbFance Proposed $158,735.00
Ii'approved the total original contract and encumbrances would be $ 387,585.00.
The City Council approved $1,200,000.00 for this project in FY2001-2002 ns part of the
current Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Due to the low bid being higher than'
expected the total project will exceed the amount allowed in the CIP by the following:
~" Engineering Services $ 158,735.00
~" '"' Special Inspection and Testing $ 41,265.00
Construction and Contingency $1,072,629.10
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,272,629.10
The total project cost is $ 72,629.10 over the amount is the CIP therefore it is proposed
that the Council authorize the amount ors 75,000.00 be allocated from the General Fund
to complete this project.
Basements and Property Issues
It should be noted that there still several minor ensmucnts (for roadway and drainage
facilities) yet to ac.quired, primarily in the vicinity of the county park. Staff'is woridr~g
diligently to complete these transactions and expects closure on those easements no later
than December. That being the case, it will not interfere with award of the Contract or
proceeding with the work. The contract has within it what are known as "work around"
provisions which allows the contractor to "work around" those issues until they are ' ·
resolved.
Traffic Issues
As Council h~-q.been aware, this portion of Stevens Creek has some points where sight
.distance and curves in the roadway create potential probit, ms if traffic, particularly track
traffic is moving too fi~st through this area. Staff would therefore suggest that the Council
provide direction to staff to study this issue in the course completing thc construction
project and r~port back to Council in early 2002 with appropriate recommendations. ·
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a Resolution awarrll,g the construction contract for the Street Widening
Project for Stevens Canyon Road from Santa Lucia Rd. to the County Park Entrance,
Project No. 98-120 to the low bidder in the Amount ors 972,629.10 and approval ora
constmotion contingency ors 98,000.00 for a total ors 1,072,629.10;
Adoption of a Resolution Ratifying thc Agreement for Engineering Services with Brsln
Kangas Foulk and current encumbrances in thc ,amount ors 228,850.00 for the Stevens
Canyon Road Widening Project and Approving an addition encumbrance ors 1'58,735.00
for additional services for a total contract and encumbrance in thc amount of
$ 387,$85.00.
Adoption of a Resolution authorizing the allocation of $ 75,000.00 from thc General
Fund to complete this project
Request that staff review traffic issues un the portion of Stevens Canyon Road from Santa
Lucia to thc entrance to Stevens Crcek County Park roadway and report back to Council
with appropriate recommendations .in early 2002.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Qmflis, Jr. David ~.
Dir~tor ofPablic Worl~ City Men~g~r
10300 Torm Avenue
~, CA 93014
· " - (408) ?"/?-3308
C U PEI IN0
co,.m,,.~,1, l~to~,.~., t~amn~nt
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ~ AGENDA DATE: November 19.2001
SUMM~Y: .. .
Application No. 14-ASA-01, regarding ..,.~...~.~: ,a
color, matcrisis, landscaping and other designt~o' ~:"~?~::~-,,'~i~~
~" RF~OMMENDATION:
..... The City Council may take any of the following actions:
l.) Uphold the appeal and modify the conditions ~ appro~ml contqined in P]a~l~ng O~'tmiS8~Oll
Resolution No. 609S to refcrcacc thc rcvb~i ~ plan and elevations.
2.) Deny the appeal and uphold the Plnnnlng Commi*~sion decision.
3.) Continue the appUcation and request add~unal information from the appUc~m:
BACKGROUND: :
On June 9, 2000, the City Council approved the plans for a 206-unit al~bucnt com.nlex at ~
Omter, subsequently named ¥~rona. The Council approval included a condition req~
architectural revicw of ce~n details, as shown in the attached exccr~t of the conditions of
approval for g-U-00 (Exht~it A).
DISCUSSION: '.
The applicant submitted an application for lighting, color, materials and landscaping details to
the city as requbed in the conditions of approval for application ~.U-00. This a~licafion did not
address arcMtcctund changes although staff noted re,my amtdtectural Chnn~eS had been mna~. on
the plan seL St~ff digressed and presented thc PlsnnlaS Commission with only thc item.~ berg
...~ addressed in BxhibR A. Stnf~ also noted in the P]nnnlnS Commission staff repor~ that thc
~.......'"', applicant may be directed to apply for a modification of application 6-U-00 should staff dean the
architectural changes to the buildings si~itqcant. Based on the material reviewed, the Planning
Com,~ission approved thc lighting, color, materials and landscape details for application 14-
ASA-00.
During the 14-day review period, Council member Buraett reviewed the plan set and appealed
· the pls,~i~g Commi.~ion decision. The appeal was based on the architectural details differing
signific.-fly fi'om the City Council approval of 6-U-00. Specifically, Council m~.m!mr Bumett
noted, that m..y of the roofs and window details were differen~ the plans showed an exposed
stairwell that had previously been enclosed with windows, ¢limi.~on of an arched architectural
feature on the north elevation and elimi-.tion of an opeo. area above the Porte Cochere between
the loft units.
Staff discqs, sed the architectural ch~-Ees with the applicant and express~cl Council member
Bumett's Ooncems. The applicant agreed to return to the ori~n~l architectural approval of'the
building and prepared ~0dn'bits to demonat~te the pI~m.~ will subst~,~tially conform to the origiml
approval, including retention of the opening between the nnlts on the north elevation and
retention of the arched element.
Sta~viewed ~e revised pla~s with Council member Bumett ~nd repres~tatives of Prometheus
P~eal Bs~ate Group, Inc. on October 15, 2001. At ~ council meeting later the same day, council
meiaber Bumett expressed his satisfaction with the revised plan set. Staffwill cl;l;gently review
the buildlng plan set to ~are it complies with the .approved pl.n~,
8tlfff l'~oomm~lld$ tho C01.zlloil uphold the appeal ~ approve a mc~;fic~ site and Lrchitcctm-al
application that mod;ecs tho oondilions of approval to rcfcr~ce thc revised sito plan and
elevations.
10300 Tone Avenue
~,' "' Cupertino. CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ~ AGENDA DATE November 19. 2001
SUMMARY:
I~.7.ONING from RI-10 to P(RES), USE PERMIT to demolish an existing house and construct
9 single-family townhomes, and a TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 1.04-acre.parcel into 9
townhome lots and I common lot ( Exhibit A & B).
RECOMMENDATION:
At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Plarmln~ Commission recommended approval of:
1. Negative Declaration, file no. 14-gA-01, on a 5-0 vote,
2. Re'Zoning, file no. 06-Z-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok no),.
3. Tentative Map, file no. 03-TM-01, on a 4.1 vote (Kwok no), and
4. Use Permit, file no. 08-U-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok no) per the model resolutions.
! · Staff recommends approval of the revised 9-unit townhouse plan, with the Council taking the
...... following actions: ,
a) Appwve the Negative Declaration, file no. 14-gA-01,
b) Approve the Rezoning, file no. 06-Z-01,
c) Approve the Use Permit, file no. 0g-U-01, with the revised site plan exhibits, and
d) Approve the Tentative map, file no. 03-TM-01.
If the City Council prefers the g-unit townhouse plan, it should follow the same sequence of
recommended actions with the exception of continuing the Tenative Map to allow the applicant
sufficient time to revise .the map prior to adoption.
PROJECT DATA:
Note: Revised 9-unit project data in boldface italics
Application Nos.: 0~-Z-01, 08-U-01, 03-TM-01 (14-EA-01)
Applicant: R&Z Development ·.
Property Owner: R&Z Development
Property Location: 20075 DePahnn Lane
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Med./Low. Density Residential 5-10 d.u./gr.nc.
~., .... Existing Zoning Designation: RI-10 ·
Proposed Zoning Designation: P(I~ES)
Gross Acres: 1.18 acre (51,202 sq*mrc feet)
Net Acres: 1.04 acre (45,200 sq-sre feet)
Residential:
Dwelling units: 9
Unit type: attached units
Site density: 8.65 d.u./gr, ac.
· Building Area: 21,901 sq-~re feet (revised: 20,603 sq.ft.)
Site FAR: 48.5% (revised: 45.6%)
Parking ratio: 4 spaces per dwelling
Stories/Height: 2 stories/29' 4'
Coverages:
Buildings: 31% (revised: 29%)
. Driveway & Parking: 22%
Walkways: 1%
Landscaping & Pathway: 46% (revised: 48%) ..
Front Setback:
First 'Story Second Story
Rodrigues Ave: 22 feet (rev. 2$ft.) 30 feet
Regnart Creek: 15 feet (rev. 17.fl.) 21 feet
Side Setback:
First Story Second Story
East Side: 7 & 12 feet (rev. 9,1$ & 14ft.) 20, 23 & 30 ft. (22,25 & 31ft.)
West Side: 25 feet min.(rev. 29fL min.) 36 feet min. (36feet min.)
Projec[ Consistency with: General Plan yes Zoning n/a
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
Previous Council Meeting: On October i, 2001, the City Council heard this project, which was
recommended for approval by the Planning Conunission on a 4-I vote (Kwok nny). Six adjacent
residents spoke against the project. Their objections included concerns about traffic, density,
building mass, and loss of privacy due to the publicly accessible pathway between Regnart Creek
and Rodrigues Avenue, and a pathway along Regnnrt Creek. Some also questioned .Why n
rezoning was needed. Staffresponded that the rezoning was n necessary part of the development
application, and the current zoning designation of RI-10 (Single-family Residential with n
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet), was not consistent with the general plan land use ·
designation of Med./Low Density Residential 5-I 0 d.u./gr. Ac.
Councilmember Chang thought the project was too dense and that a smaller project with one or
· '' two fewer u~its would fit into the neighborhood better.
Councilmembers Burnett and Lowenthal both supported the project, although they had
reservations about the density and the amount, of paved area. They cited the need for more
housing in the community, and the development of attached housing as a means of getting morc
affordable housing in the coram~m|ty. Councilmember Bumett felt the project design blcndcd
well ~th the existing housing and Councilme. mber Lowenthal liked the trail and connection.
Mayor James felt the interests of the neighbors and applicant were not that different, and she
proposed that staff work with the applicant and neighbors and try.to bring back a design that was
acceptable to everyone. The wlnutes of the October 1s~ Council Meeting are included (Exhibit
D).
Neighborhood Meeting: City staff sent out meeting notices to every property owner within a
500-foot radius of the project site. Staff, the applicant(s) and IS neighbors participated in the
October 30th meeting held at City Hall. Staff did a detailed presentation of the applicant's
development, proposal to make sure the neighbors understood the project. The applicant then
presented four conceptual development scenarios~the first three: A, B & C bascd on Council
comments, and the fourth, "D" based on neighborhood, input gathered before the meeting
(Exhibit E). ·
Scenario A: The size of the interior units were reduced to increase the setback of
~'.' ".~ the parking spaces from 10 feet to 15 feet, and the pathway from 2.5 feet to 7.$ feet
· -.," respectively from the adjacent residence to the west. With a greater setback in this area,
a more generous landscape buffer can be created.
Scenario B: All of the units are reduced in size, which allows a greater'side setback on
the east side (7 feet to 8 feet), as well as the wider west setback described in Scenario A.
Scenario C: The westerly interior unit was dwpped and the remaining interior units were
· increased in size. This redesign increases the parking stall setback to at least 20 feet, and
the side trail westerly setback to 12.$+ feet. Also the parking was moved away from the
west property line to the east side of the private driveway.
Scenario D: Is a concepl~A! small lot, single-family detached layout based on neighbor
input conveyed to the developer. This subdivision design is a 6-lot, single-family
detached residential development, using 6,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes. The cul-
de-sac would be a private street since it is narrower than public street standards. Some
residents suggested that the residences have not more than 2,000 square feet of living
space. When a garage is added, the floor-to-area ratio will be about 41% for each Io.t.
The pathway to Regnart Creek and the Regnart Creek trail segment would be eliminated.
Of the residents who commented On the Scenarios, most preferred Scenario D because there
were fewer dwellings, the dwellings were detached, and there was no trail. The neighbors on
k.':::~'""'..:~ Las Ondas Way favored the project. An adjacent neighbor also supported the project, but did not
like the trail. Most of those that spoke felt that Scenarios A, B & C were not significantly
different from thc applicant's original proposal and they did not favor them.
The applicant said the 6--alt scenario D was not financially feasible. He felt the concept would
have smaller building setbacks than the traditio~al_ single-family subdivision, and would result in
far more expensive housing.
The attached petition (Exhibit F), requested a continuance of the Council hearing on the project
for further neighborhood review. Staff stated any continuance would have to be authorized by
the applicant or the City Council. Given the wide gap in intcrests between the neighbors and thc
applicant, staff'felt a hearing continuance would be unproductive, since the parties were unlikely
to reach a consensus opinion. The applicant declined to continue thc hearing on his project and
wanted to proceed on November 19th.
DISCUSSION:
.41~Micant's Revised Prol~osal: For this City Council hearing the applicant has reviscd his
original proposal and offers two options:
a) 9-unit Scenario: This is the revision preferred by the applicant.' All of thc units have
been shrunk proportionally to increase thc project setbacks on all sides. The FAR is
reduced from 48.5% to 45.6% Surface parking closest to thc westerly residence was
relocated to other areas, and all of the open parking that is not part of a driveway is
put into a "grasscclls", which reduces thc amount of paved surfaces (Sec the colored
and uncolored site plans labeled "S" in the plan set.) The project architecture remains
thc same. "
b) S-unit Scenario: In this revision, the applicant has dropped thc westernmost interior
unit (unit C) and inc~_~sed the size of the remaining interior units by about 420
sq-~c feet each to partially compensate for the value loss when the unit was dropped.
Path and surface parking setback from thc adjacent westerly residences is increased
"" even more than thc 9-unit plan. The FAR is 44.5%. The applicant also uses thc
grasscells in the open parking stalls. The project architecture remains the same;
however the two remaining interior units (units C) will be longer. Thc 8-unit site plan
is a separate enclosure.
The applicant prepared the enclosed project chronology and submitted thc sample
correspondence (Exhibit G) to demonstrate his efforts to address neighborhood concerns.
Analysis:
The proposed revisions are positive additions to 'the proj~t. The 9-unit, smaller-size townhouse
project provides greater side setbacks, particularly on the western boundary. The surl~ce parking
and pedestrian pathway has been pulled back from the property line so a more generous and
effective landscape buffer can be planted along this fence. The parking closest to thc adjaccnt
westerly neighbor has been relocated to another part of thc site, reducing the intrusion on this
neighbor. Surface parking stalls will be covered with grasscelis, rather than asphalL which will ·
increase the stormwater permability of' the site and its landscaped appearance. Paver accents
have also been added to break up the appearance of thc asphalt driveway.
The 8-unit site plan offers the same positive additions with an even wider pathway and parking
stall setback from the wes~ly property line. However, the mass of the i-unit project with a
FAR of 44.5% is only 1.1% FAR greater than the 9-unit project with a FAR of 45.6%. Stuff
believes the 9-unit plan will provide more affordable, uniforrnlly smaller townhouse units,
adequate trail and parking setbacks and a neglig/ble increase in square footage compared to the
i-unit plan.
EnclosuFes:
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6104, 6105, 6106
Ordinance No. 1889
Exhibit A: plnnning Commission Staff Report dated 9/10~01
Exhibit B: plnnnlng Com~ ission meeting minutes dated 9/10/01
Exhibit C: City Council Staff Report dated i0/I/01
Exhibit D: City Counc'fl Meeting Minutes dated I0/I/01
Exhibit E: Site Design Scenarios A through D presented at neighborhood meeting
Exhibit F: Petition
Exhibit G: Pwject Chronology and Sample Correspondence Prepared by Applicant
Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitted by: " Approved by:
Steve Piasecki . app
Director of community Development City Manager
g:plarming/pdreport/cc/ccOguOla
08-U-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO -'
10~00 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, Californh 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6104
OF THE PLANNINO COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECO~INO APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING
SINOLE-FAM~,Y RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT NINE SINGLE-FAMILY
TOWN'HOUSES ON 1.04 NET ACRES AT 20075 DE PALMA LANE
SECTION h FINDINGS
WH~I~..dt~, tho pJnnning Col~mission of the Cit~ of Cupertino received an appUoatlon for a Use
pe~n!t., as described in Section II, of this Resolution; and
WHF_.RF. AS, the n~cessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural'
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or mor~ public
hearings on this matter;, and
WHEREAS, the appUcant has met the burden of proof required to support said appUcafion; and hn.~
satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at ~ proposed location, will not be dehimenml 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 thc 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 appwval, subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution be~n,~i,~_~ on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusi~ns upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are
based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. 08-U-01 as set forth in
the Minutes of the Plsnning Commission Meeting of September 10, 2001, and are incorPorated by
reference though fully set forth he.in.
SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ApplicafionNo.: 08-U-01 and 14-EA,-01 ..
Applicant: R&Z. Development ~
Location: 20075 De Palina Lane
~ ~' ~ Exhibit A
..' ........... ~ ,,~,uisg. ~ . REZONE: 19.g~- A~S
A ~ ~ ~E ~_ ~: U~T ~DU~
~ ~DS O~J~ W ~ ~ PD U~T INDUS~
161' M ~ ~ ~M~T B 662 ~ 47
~DS ~ U~DI~
~DS ~
S~IN ~ *
. .
, ~os'~ ~ ~ ~ BE
u~ ~ l~.a~
/ 439 M 12-13
.
'
·
· 1 ~ ~ ~-~.o~
P.NT ~ MCCLELLAN ROAD '
BE~NNIN~
ZONING PLAT MAP
~~. CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
/llll Dr~ ~ ~ecked TJE ~proved TJE
J~ ~. 2~31~10 Dnte ~1~1 Sheet 1 of 1
Bl 'r'
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERS i SURYL. YOII~ I PLANNERS ': "~"
AuSust 14, 2001
BKF lob No.: 2JX1~12-10
DESCRIFIION OF AREA TO BE
An that md .Pmpe~ situate in the Cit~ of Cupertino, County of Sau~ O_ara, st_,~ of
Califom~ beiag all ~f Patrols 1, 2 and 3, as said pan:els are shown oa that cemin
parcel map filed for. record oa April 12, 1978 in Book 439 of Maps at pa~s 12 sad 1~
in ~h~ Offim of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, ami lxia~ a pmiion ofth~ lauds
des.'~1~'d ill thai c~rtahl'docnm~t recorded o~ October 14, 1975 in Book 662 at pag~
des,~'bed ss follows:
BEOINNING at the southwes~ly coamr of said Parcel 1; g~ence along the wesimty .
Hne of said Parcels t, 2 and ~ Noflh 00o01'00, W~st, a distance of 1~11S.~2 feet ti) the
southwesmty corner of the lands described in said documm2 tl~nce along the
wml~ly 1~ of said lands 00'00'33" We.~, a distrain of 318.23 ~ ~ l~aving
said westerly llr.~ South 8901F/'36'' East, a distanm of 273.99 f~t to th~ east~r!y linc
of said lands; th~ce along said line and tim easterly line of said Parcels 2 and 3 South ;" ".
19006'48'' East, a distance of 1~86.44 fcct to the most easterly comer of'said Parcel 2
azlc1 ~ .]:)~_~nnlng 0~' a ll~l-t~n~t curve to the le~ ~ which point a radial line
baars South 47~0'32" East; thca~ along said curw havin~ a ~d!us of 387.00 fc~t,
through a. c4mlral angl~ of 42°37'20", an arc l~a~h of 287.89 f~t4 ~ South
00007'52" East, a clistanc~ c~ 9.62 f~-t m tho beL~nnln_~ of ~ tanDmt curve to thc right;
"-. th~:e alon~ said car~ havin~ a radius of 50.00 f~t, throagh a c~atral an~lo of
90o00'00'', an aro length of 78.54 f~t; th~,,,-.~ South 89°52'08" W~, a distanc~ of
576.04 f~, to tho POINT OF BEGINNING and. coatainin~ an aroa of 19.87753 acres,
momorl~s..
A pla~ showing the aboVe-desc~'bed parc~, is o-~¢~ed ]mmto fred m.a~. a part hereof
as "Exhibit B'. ..
Thl. dmcdptioa was. ~ by me ar under my dLrection in co.ore.am with th~
~quirmnmts of th~ L~nd Sm~s A~.
10300 Tm're Avenue
.... Cupe~o, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3223
CUPER TINO F^x: (408)
Website: www.cupeniuo.org
O~C~ OF THE CITY CLERK
Agenda ~tem No. ~ . Meeting Date: November 19, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Selection of application deadlines and interview dates for an -nscheduled vacancy on the Planning
Commission. ·.
BACKGROUND
Commissioner Patrick Kwok was elected to the City Council on November 6, 2001 'and resigned his
te/lu On the commission. The term of this uuacheduled vacancy expires on ~anuar~ 15, 2003.
As required by law, the City Clerk's office posted a Notice ~fUnscheduled Vacancy withi~ 20 days of
~he occurrence of the wcnncy. The Notice nnnounced that applicatiom are now being accepted to fill
the partial tenn. The local news media will be advised and the vacancy notice placed in the Cupertino
Scene and posted on the City Channel.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends ~he following dates for the filing deadline and inten4ews:
Deadline for applications: Friday, December 14, 2001
Council interview of applicants: Monday. J~,._ry 14. 200~'~.
5:30 p.m.. conference room A
Submitted by: Approved for Submission to the City Council:
Clerk David W. Knapp, City Manager