CC 02-11-02 Ci~ o~ Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
· February 11, 2002, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
WRrITEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSJREMOVAL 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
1. Application No.(s): 17-R-01
Applicant: Dennis Norton
Location: '10430 Stem Avenue
Appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of a new 2,605 square foot
two-story residence with a basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel resulting in
a floor area ratio of 45%
Continued frora Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 2002
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
Planning Commission Agenda of February 11, 2002
Page -2
1. Approve or deny 17-R-01
2. Application No.(s): ll-U-01, 16-EA-01
Applicant: Bill Marci
Location: 10056 Orange Avenue
Use permit to construct a 7,912 square foot mixed use building with 4,483 square
feet of office/retail space and 3,429 square feet of residential space (2 units)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny 16-EA-01
2. Approve or deny ll-U-01
OLD BUSINESS
3. General Plan study session regarding the Land Use element (the preferred
alternative)
NEW BUSINESS
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 allow an
applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
G:Planning/Age. ag-Il-02
City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, C~llfomia 95014 (408)
Depa~;..~ent of Community Development
Application No.: 17-R-01 Agenda Date: February 11, 2002
Applicant: Dennis Norton
Location: 10430 Stem Avenue
Application Summary:
Appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of a new 2,605 square foot two-
story reside~.ce with a basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel resulrin~ in a floor
area ratio of 45%.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission may make one of the following actions:
1. Uphold the appeal, overturning Design Review Committee Resolution
No. 69, approving 17-R-01 based on the model resolution or as modified
by the Planning Commission;
Z Uphold the appeal, overturning Design Review Committee Resolution
No. 69, approving 17-R-01 based on the attached plan set (applicant's
preference).
3. Deny the appeal, upholding Design Review Committee Resolution No. 69,
which denied 17-R-01.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Mr. Dennis Norton appealed the Design Review Committee
Resolution 69 (denial) on Decker 24, 2001.
The Committee reviewed the proposed project and made the following findings
for denial:
· The project is not consistent with the Cupertino Comprebensive General
Plan Policy 2-19 regarding neighborhood protection from visually
intrusive effects with adequate site desig~ the zoning ordl,w_nce Section
19[28.060(E)(5)(b) req-lring second story o//sets, and the purposes of this
ritle.
· The granting of this pe~-dt will result in a condition that is detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
· The proposed residence will not be in scale and ha~-,ony with the ~eneral
neighborhood, since the second story does not have a sufficient transition
from single-story to two-story eleraents (see Exhibit 1) and the proposed
residence uses materials that are not compatible with the predominant
neighborhood pattern, nor does the proposed residence achieve a high
level of neighborhood compatibility.
· The proposed resideiac.e is ~_ot consistent with the design ~ticI~.llnes
approved by the City Council. The project ~I.~ ~o provide an adequate
transition from one-story elements to two-story elero~nts at the lefk,,ost
edge of the ~ront elevation, which abuts an existing single-story residence.
· The proposed reside~:e will result in significant adverse visual impac~ as
viewed from adjoinin§ properties, particularly the property to the north of
the subject site, due to insufficient transitionin§ from single-story to two-
story elements.
The Design Review Committee believed that the applicant could meet the
req~ired findings for approval if the second story were redesigned to:
· Improve its visual balance when viewed from the street and provide more
transition from the single-story neighbor to the second-story section (see
Exhibit 1); and
· Decrease the visual impact of the second story addition when viewed
from the northerly property line.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant submitted a letter stating the basis of the appeal (see Exhibit D).
In the letter, the applicant questioned the overall design review process and the
actions of the Committee Chairperson, Mr. M~rc Auerbach (see attached appeal
letter).
Applicant. There was not a quorum at the Design Review Committee meeting on
December 19, 2001.
Staff Response: Chapter 2.90 of the Cupertino Munidpal Code established the
Design Review Committee and states that the two Committee members do fo,,,,
a quor~]~r~.
Applicant. Commissioner Auerbach di.~:ussed design criteria that were not
backed by any code or design ~view criteria.
St~ff Response: Chapter 2.90 ~lso states that the Design Review Committee shall
review all aspects of site and architectural design including the relah'onship of
the building to its surrounding land uses and the street; compliance with
architectural design guidelines; protection of surrounding land uses from
intrusive impac~ including visual'rllsturban~e; and review of the oversll quality
and compatibility of building materlsls and architecture with the surrotmdlr~gs.
Applicant. Commissioner Auerbach's residence is too close to the subject site.
Staff Response: Using digital aerial photography and the City's digital parcel
map, staff dete~.,dned that Commissioner Auerbach lives over 500 feet from the
subject site (approximately 560 feet). If Commissioner Auerbach did live within
500 feet of the subject site, he would have an interest in the project under State
law and would have to di~ualify bim~lf ~rom commen~g and voting on ~
proj .
Applicant. The denial was based on Commissioner Aue~bach's personal biases.
Staff Respome: Th~ Committee requested that the applicant revise the project
plans based on the staff recommendation. Commissioner Auerbach and
Commissioner Chen agreed that the required findings could not be made for
approval based on the present design. The Committee was prepared to continue
the item for one month, but the applicant requested action at that meeting.
Applicant:. The design review process took 6 months.
Staff Response: Below is a timollr~e of the project (items referenced are ai~ac.b, ed):
April 16, 2001 Plans routed to Architectural Consultant
April 25, 2001 Consultant comments received by staff
May 7, 2001 Staff and Consultant comments mailed to applicant
lune 3, 2001 Applicant faxes response to s~ comments
June 28, 2001 Staff replies to applicant revision
November 12, 2001 Owner signs application form
November 13, 2001 Story Pole affidavit signed by Mr. Norton
November 27, 2001 Applicant applies for Design Review Committee
December 19, 2001 Design Review Committee b~aring
Nine months passed from the initial preliminary review to the Design Review
· Committee hearing. However, five of the. nine months passed between the June
28 staff comments and the application submittal on November 27. Staff does not
believe the City subjected the applicant to a prolonged design review process.
Applicant: Extensive modifications and changes were made to the project.
S~aif Response: Significant plan modifications were requested, but very few
were implemented. Throughout the pr~llmivary review process, the applicant
made the following plan changes:
1. Added an entry element to the front elevation.
2. Inset the garage door.
3. Added a srwl! window to the front elevation second story.
4. Changed the roof over the library from a gable to a hip.
Staff and the Committee agreed that these changes were not sufficient to meet'-
the nece-,amry findings for approval.
Applicant: Staff did not mention the use of alternate mater~l~
Staff Response: In the Architectural Consultant Review letter dated April 25,
2001, Mr. Larry Cannon commented on the addition of detailing that could be
added to address the plain stucco appearance. In a staff review letter dated
November 30, 2001, staff recommended the use of wood trim and wood sills.
Commissioner Auerbach stated a preference for wood siding for the project since
the original homes in the neil~hborhood had wood materials. ~ the
Committee was prepared to continue the application, the Committee was
satisfied with the use of wood trim and sills ill lien of full wood sidilll~.
Applicant:. S~//did not mention that a second story is not acceptable.
Staff Response: A second story is allowed, and with the requested design
modifications, the applicant's project would likely have been approved.
Applicant:. The project confom~s to the second story offsets noted in Section'
19.2S.060(a)(5)(b).
Staff Response: Section 19.28.0g0(E)(5)(b) requires wall offsets/or second story
walls over 24 feet long. Tb~ south elevation has a wall plane over 24 feet in
length, without the requized offset. The offset can be provided with minimal
~-ffect on the desi~
Applicant:. The proposed residence is in scale and ha~..,onions with the general
neighborhood.
S~ Response: The Design Review Committee found tb~t the proposed
residence did not provide sufficient trar~sition from the neighboring one-story
residence to the two-story elements in the proposed residence, as recommended
by the Design Guidelines (see Nxhibit 1). The Committee requested that the
applicant redesign the second story to provide more of a transition between the
single-story residence to the north and the proposed house.
Applicant:. The applicant requested past approved designs/or examination.
Steff Response: Staff provided the applicant with plsn sets of the six approved
design review projects in Rancho Rinconada. None of the six projects approved
in Rancho Rinconada have the unbalap~ed second story mass as the proposed
project does.
For reference, design Review for single-family residences began in June of 1999.
Irdo~i~mfion about applications in Rancho Rinconada is shown below.
File # Address Act/on Date Notes
04-RDRC-00 10640 Career Drive 4/6/00 Completed
04-R-00 10~07 Bret Avenue 8/9/00 Construction nearly complete
0S-R-00 18870 Tilson Avenue 8/24/00 Bldg. Permit issued.
12-R-00 18941 Pendergast Avenue 12/13/00 Bldg. Permit not issued yet.
07-R-01 10631 Tuggle Place 5 / 2/01 Bldg. Pe~udt not issued yet
08- R-01 18731 Tilson Avenue 6 / 20 / 01 Bldg. Pe~ufit not issued yet.
[-4
Four of the six were approved in 2000, which was the first full year of residential
design review for the City. Over tlme, the process has evolved from focusing
only on floor area ratio figures, to focusing on prlr~,ily on the mass of the
second sWry, to focusing on the entire house and its compatibility with the
neighborhood.
For example, when staff visited the two sites that are complete, or nearly
complete, a realization was made that tall first-story w~l! planes can add a
sil~i/icant amount of Wnss. Since that time, staff bn~ directed new applicants to
mitigate the impaci~/rom these tall first-story wall planes, no~,,~ly by simply
reducin§ the height.
Applicant:. The Design Guidelines were never mentioned in the preliminary
review process.
S~(4 Response: S~4 does not have personal knowledge of whether Mr. Norton
received the ~uideIines. However, all R-1 Design Review Application packages
have a checklist for applicants to use to detewdw ff their project confo,-,s to the
ordinance and guidelines and a list of the required findings for approval, which
refer to the design guidelines. The guidelines are also available on the
depai-~,ent's website and/rom the planning counter.
Applicant: Commissioner Auerbach should not be included in the discussion on
the appeal.
S~sff Response: Since the Design Review Committee is a subcommittee of the
Planning Commission, it is not inappropriate that Commissioner Auerbach and
Chen comment and vote on the appeal.
Additior~*l Discussion
First-Shiny Side Setback
In a phone conversation with staff, the applicant stated that the second story of
the residence appears more unbalanced became the house was designed with a
ten-foot side setback on the north side. The minimum side setbacks for this
· property are five feet on both sides. S~ff believes that the applicant considers
this to justify' the unbalanced form.
S~/4 prepared an illusaation of what the project might look 1Lke with the/lye-
foot side setback by shi/ting the garage out/urther to the left (see Exhibit 2).
Based on the illustration, staff believes the resulting devation would be
sufficiently balanced, and would provide adequate transition from single-story
elements to the two-story elements. However, the project before the Commission
is not what is shown in Exhibit 2. The proposed plan remains unbalanced and
lacks s~icient transitior~
BY h-xcorporati~ a la~se~ first-story side setbackt the applicant needs to provide a
]arger second-story setback in order for the pr~ect to conform to the Design
Guidelines.
rmclosures:
Model Resolution (or.hun DRC, approve lXOject)
Model l~-esolution (uphold DRC, deny project)
Plan Set
Exbibit 1: Sta~ Pi~uazed Form/Transitioim Ulumtmtion
Exhibit 2: Sta~ Pzepazed Front Elevation with .Minimum Setbacks
Exhibit 3: Sta~ Prepared Front Elevalion Correction
Exhibit A: Desisn Review Committee Resolution No. 69 (denial)
r=xhibit B: StsfI l~port from December 19, 2001 Desilpm Review Commiit~e meeting
Exlu3mit C: Minut=s from December 19, 2001 Desisn Review Committee meeling
Exlu3mit D: Appeal lettez dated December 24, 2001
l~xhibit E: Comments ~rom Larry Cannon dat~-.d April 25, 2001
Exhibit F: Letter ~rom Applicant dated lune 3, 2001
Ibdmibit G: Letter to Applicant dated lune 28, 2001
Exlu'bit H: Letter to Applicant dated November 30, 2001 marked up by applicant
Exhibit I: Copy off Application Form & Story Pole Coimstrudion Forum
Appzoved Plans 4-RDRC-00
Approved Plans 04-R-00
Approved Ylaus 08-1~-00
Approved Plaus 12-R-00
Approved Plans 07-R-01
Appzoved ~ 08-R-01
Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner
Approved by: Steve Piz.~ki, Director of Community Development
· I ~n
) SIT~ . PLAN I
I ~ ~ ~ LIBRARY J t ml, // ~i~ ~ I " ~ Z -
J '~ · · ~ - ~ ~ ~----~ ....
, -- ~ [~, , . . .~'
· ~ ,,.._,. ,, .._. ,, J ,,
~ I 7 I~ ~ ', k~ %
L. ~x ~ '~ " I ~ ~ ....................................................
..... - , '~ 4 ~n.
~ N~UNG ~ ~ 0 12' ~ ~ ~TA ~ .
i ~ B~: 5/8'~ · ~ ~
,' lr~ ,' ~ lr~ ,' U~ER ~ LOWER FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLAN
-'
I
<._.:_ .... · - -. ._._ 1 ...... _-' ........
- ~ ~ '~.--,'~ '-/-"t ' mi . '~ .,...
': .-- "-- 'i r,-t- ~ ~ ...~"F,, _,.,~__~,., ,/:~""-"' ' .-.a~~ ---, I · ~"
,.,.;. ~ I-1" ~ / / ~'Br, Ad~. // _..,. "~"',..~ I"-~"-1-- O,,i:'~"i] '.
..
i~- im-, ..... I.-L- 'Ji- ' ,, -' , ,
~ ~ : -. :, 'r.~,. ~., '" ".,. ~,Z.,",'. . ~~" '~:~: ~'~ ":.' 'it?!'
i --. ....... '~' ~.~:. °,.i~,~.-~.'.
' ' ....... ............. .................. .................................................. .s'-,..,,:~._.., ,., ~ .,,,,..'----'-.-t ~ -; - ~
! "i~ , ' , ~ -. -' " !. ' ,,ii '.' .!. - .
~ --'~l- -- .-;.-- ~ - | -h-- .-N--i ' .--H-, ! / ..
.... ,.-,--, ,. _ ,,..,,-..,..~. , . . . ., ---.,~. , . , ,Z I,.,, ..~..
. I ~.~-.-~ ~ '14-"/~. , . ~ ~.,-I , , !.:-~. I · z ~ ,,, .,-::...-.[ .
': ~ . . Ii- ~--' .' 'u~' '- ' , ' . ,,' '. ; --. ,~ , .,-----------.,~
, ..................... , . ._:... :..:._::.':?:_:==-~=m,T=::' ........ ~JI 'r~ ~'~_. , . - ' ~ ~,.-,~'~
I . ....... 2-P' { ,
I
I .l'-"T- ] I---'~a ' ~ ' I
,__,,_.,_. . . ..
,__ ....... '._1, . .! . __.._,~. · ... _! ,~ ...............
~:_. . .... . _.
.... "- //:- ~"~-~ '.I ~ ' '
· ...' ~ . ~ // .. ~...~".,~;,,~',.~.,,,.. .... ~ ..-.~-,e,,~,..,~,~"
_ . . ,,.
'_ '.~--~"= '. ~' c~-~' '""-~~~_ · · ;/ ~ : ×~, -~ '
· ". '. ~' ' ' ' ' -~- · , ...... : ~l~-~ ' ~ ·
"~ "~.. .~,. .b...?~-.-._-_......-I ' - ~-'~ i.' / ~c.,,.~
- ~ ...... ~.__.,,..., ...~ ........... .... _ .., .. ~..: .... ....... .... .~~:.--,. ~ , ,. ~,,~' ,=,_.--
' ' ' ..-~' '= ~.:.,-'~ ' - ..... ~.' ' ' . :t
, I ., ..... ~ ..... t · ~,. II-=' .":~ . , ~- ~,~:~: ~ ~' ~ '~,' .)~Z" ~h-- '"', i
-.-m ~ · ' '-' .. · ~ '"'..-~.: ......... · · " ~- ....-~...~.~: ' E~.7:'--:~= ;~' ' . ' ~ .' -
· . -" ') ................. '-~?..' ~ .' .~:-~:~,"' ; t : -
_ -.,-. .. ~ . ..~ ___._~~ .... ~.~ ........................ ,..=_~ ........ ,..,:~ ..... .~ ~...,__,~..
....... +- .- . ,,,,.. '. '"'il [. ' '~' · , · ~ ~-~; ,~.-~ ~., ~ .~ ' '~ , i '
___J ,._ . . ~ .--t. i--- :.-:-.-...T::~,..~
· '-! · · . .......... :' . ~'.' ~'~'? '.~'~:: .~;,' ! -,
....,, .. .~ ~-~: ,~ ~'.- ,::.] . tL ...,,.
· . ..~ ............................... _;....,~ ..~ ..=.j ~
. ~ _ ~ . · ' (.":.....'- ,-'-: L-'~ ~,,., ,:.,~[~-[~-~.~'~... :" ~ '" .',' '? .
~ ~" I ......... "F=~,,,,~. '~ "'"':":": ........ ':=:"'i -- "' ' . .~' ;' -'t: .......... ..-'~¥.: ' · ' . ' ~ ·" '
· ~ ..... ,~ ....... . .,.~. ~ ~..!~..,~'-..~.-=.: :=::. ,_:....
'~ - ' , ,,,,,, -: ........ · -:../,~-....~ ?~ : . .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- . .~z.:~ .,, .~ ![,~ .- · . .....
,,_, ....... ; x_~.,~..~,.. I . ~:..../ · .: .?.,:.;:~!,,~ ..~:?' · ,
~G-~*,, i · -- ""~-'~"~ I -~..--- ' · " ' "~" ' ""'"- '
', I~IRTH ' " ' ~:<'~ ' ~.~..~,
E~hibit 1
BALANCED FORM WITH GO~D TRANSITION
~, .'"' .... .[ - ~.. :-..~ /~~ ....... ~:,..~'~_~.~:~_= .
' E.~I" i~- / ~3 ~.~'.';'-~,-~.:=~-" - ~'~'
I ~ -
:. '~ ........... : -: : '' ~ ~,: 'i.., ? ~ ~':
' ~"~ q- ' ' ~ ~ ': "'' ;~' ;
t . ..~ ~ ' "~'-:"='r ' ''?
Exhibi~ 3
FRONT .ELEVATION-~ ..
~~n ~ ~e flint fl~r ~ve IIMb ~h~ in ~1~. ~ adj~d a~ IIM
could a~
. .... It g~L:. :~"~ - ~A~'~ '. ;~' ~ :l il '
.........
,... · . ;..~-;~--~. ~: '. '~f, ~[~. ~,~, .
17-R-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torfe Avenue
Cupertino, Cnlifornia 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION (uphold DRC)
OF TI-lB PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO UPHOLDING DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 69 AND DENYING A NEW 2,605 SQUARE FOOT
TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT RESULTING IN A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF
45% AND AN EXCEFHON FOR A SECOND STORY DECK.
SECTION h PROJECTDESCP. IPTION
Application No.: 17-R-01
Applicant: Papken Der Torossian (Dennis Norton)
Location: 10430 Stem Avenue
SECTION H: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the uecessnry public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedurai
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the plsnnlng Commission has held one or more public
hearin~ on this matter; and
WI~.REAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said applicalion; and
not satisfied the followin~ requirements:
1. The project is not consistent with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan Policy 2-19
regarding neighborhood protecrion from visually intrusive effects with adequate site design; tho
zoning ordinance Section 19.28.060(E)(5)C0) requiring second story offsets, and the purposes
of this rifle.
2. The granting of this pe~tuit will l~t in a condition thst is detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed residence will not be in scale and hei-iuony with the general neighborhood, since
the second story does not have a sufficient transition from single-story to two-story elements
and the proposed residence uses materials that are not compatible with the predominant
neighborhood pattern, nor does the proposed residence achieve a high level of neighborhood
compatibility.
4. The proposed residence is not consistent with the design guidelines approved by the City
.Council. The project fails to provide an adequate transition from one-story elements to two-
story elements at the leflmost edge of the front elevation, which abuts an existing single-story
residence.
Resolution No. 17-R-01 February 11, 2002
Page 2
5. Thc proposed residence will result in significant advorso vi~_~! impacts as viewed from
adjoining properties, particularly the pwperty to the north of tho subject site, due to in.~Ltflicient
trallsitionin.ga from single-story to two-story elements.
6. Since the proposed residence is not consistent with the zon;ng ordinance and design guidelines,
tho findin~ cannot bo made that the deck design is such that it decresses privacy intrusion to
adjoining properties to the groatest extent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the appeal of the Design Review Committoo Resolution No. 69 is hereby denied; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based
and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application 17-R-01 set forth in the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting of, Febr~,,ry 11, 2002, and are incorporated by referemm as though
fully set forth herein.
DENIED this 11~ day of February 2002, at a Regular Meotlng of the planning CommL~sion of thc City
of Cupertino, State of California, by tho following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Steve Piasecld Charles Corr, Chairperson
Director of Community Development pl,nnlng Commission
17-R-01
C1TY O1~ CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION (overturn DRC)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO OVERTURNING DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 69 AND APPROVING A NEW 2,605 SQUARE FOOT
TWO-STORY RESIDENCE ~ A BASEMENT RESULTING IN A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF
4S% AND AN EXCEP~ON FOR A SECOND STORY DECK,
SECTION h PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: 17-R-01
Applicant: Papken Der Torossian (Dennis Norton)
Location: 10430 Stem Avenue
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHERe. AS, the necessary public notices have b~en given in acco~--ce wi~ ~ Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Pla~nlr~g Commission has held one or more public
hearings on this matter, and
WHEREAS, the applicant h,.~ not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and h,s
not satisfied the following requ/remants:
1. Th~ projeet is consis~t with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, the zoning
ordlnsnce, and the purposes of this title.
2. The granting of this permit will not result in a condition that is detrimenlal or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed residence will be in scale and harmony with the general neighborhood.
4. The proposed residence is consistent with the design gnidelines approved by the City Council.
5. The proposed residence will not result in significant adverse vis~a! impacts as viewed fi'om
adjoining properties.
6. The deck design is such that it decreases privacy intrusion to adjoining properties to the greatest
extent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after carefitl consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the appeal of the Design Review Committee Resolution No. 69 is hereby 'overturned and the
request for design review and a deck exception is hereby approved; and
Resolution No. 17-R-01 February 11, 2002
Pag~ 2
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based
and contained in the public hearing record COnC~'ning Application 17-R-01 set forth in the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting of, February 11, 2002, and are incozporated by reference as though
fully set forth herein.
DENIED this 11~ day of February 2002, at a Regular Meeting of the Plsnnin5 Commission of tho City
of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSEI~IT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki Charles Corr, Chairperson
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
Exhibit A 17-R-Gl
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, Califomia 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 69 Denial
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A NEW
2,605 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT RESULTING IN A
FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 45% AND AN EXCEPTION FOR A SECOND STOKY DECK.
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: 17-R-01
Applicant: Papken Der Torossian (Dennis Norton)
Location: 10430 Stern Avenue
SECTION H: FINDINGS
VP'dEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the' Procedural
Ordinance o£ the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee has held one or more public
hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has
not satisfied the following requirements:
1. The project is not consistent with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan Policy 2-19
regarding neighborhood protection from visually intrusive effects with adequate site design; the
zoning ordinance Section 19.28.060(E)(5)Co) requiring second story offsets, and the purposes
of this tifle.
2. The granting of this pc, mit will result in a condition that is detrimental or injuriom to property
or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed residence will not be in scale and harmony with the general neighborhood, since
the second story does not have a sufficient transition from single-story to two-story elements
and the proposed residence uses materials that are not compatible with the predominant
neighborhood pattern, nor does the proposed residence achieve a high level of neighborhood
compatibility.
4. The proposed residence is not consistent with the design guidelines approved by the City
' Council. The project fails to provide an adequate transition from one-story elements to two-
story elements at the leffmost edge of the front elevation, which abuts an existing single-story
residence.
5. The proposed residence will result in si~o~ificant adverse visual impacts as viewed from
adjoining properties, particularly the property to the north of the subject site, due to insufficient
tr~n.~ition~ng from single-story to two-story elements.
Resolution No. 69 Denial "' :""' 17-R-01 b~-~-mber 19, 2001
?a~e 2
6. Since the proposed residence is not consistent with the zoning ordinance and design guidelines,
the finding cannot be made that the deck design is such that it decreases privacy intrusion to
adjoining properties to the greatest ext~t.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the design review application and second story deck exception is hereby denied; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based
and conts;ned in the public hearing record concerning Application 17-R-01 set forth in the Minutes of
the Design Review Committee meeting of, December 19, 2001, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
DENIED this 19m day of December 2001, at a Regular Meeting of the Design Review Committee of
the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chen and Cbnirperson Auerbach
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Cidd¥ Wordell /s/Marc Auerbach
Ciddy Wordell Marc Auerbach, Chairperson
City Planner Design Review Committee
O~V Comm|~f~t~ .Date; December 19, 2001
From: Peter Oilli~ Associate Planner
Subject: Application: 17-R-01
Location: 10430 Stem Avenue
Pro.ieet Deseriotion: Residential design review of a new 2,605 square foot two-story residence with a
basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel resulting in a floor area milo of 45% and a second story
deck exception.
R-I OFdinance Consbtency (Overall) Yes No X
Floor Area Ratio (45% max) Yes 45% No
Second Story to Fl~at .story Ratio ($$% max) Yes 28% No
Setbacks & Suroharge (,,_,t,t;tlona115 ~) Yes X No
Height (28'aMr) Yes 26'6" No
Visible Second Story Walls ($0% of perimeter) Yes 44% No
Second Story Offsets (~r), 24') Yes No X
Maximum Exlzrior Wall Height Yes X No
Roof Eaves (1' rain) Yes X No
Entry Feature (14' mar) Yes X No
Privacy Proi~'fion Yes X No
Design Guidelines (Overal0 Yes No X
Soil grade & Flo~r elevation similar Yes X No
Similar roof pitch, eave& ridge Yes X No
Trsnsifions botw~n buildings Yes No X
Wall articolations and Wall heights reduced Yes No X
Vault~i ceilings Yes X No
Simple building forms Yes X No
Avoid steep roofs Yes X No
Light materials & colors Yes X No
SIroetscape Yes X No
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecomrnends that the Design Review Committee take the following actions:
1. Provide direction to staffand the applicant rega~ting tho issues addressed in this report;
2. CoNtinue application 17-R-01 to the Design Review Committee meeting on January 16, 2002.
BACKGROUND
Story Poles
The purpose of story poles are to give the neighborhood, staff, and the Committee members a sense of
the size and mass of the second story of houses that come to the Design Review Cowmlttee.
Staff visited the subject site on Wednesday, Deeember 12, 2001, one week before the Design Review
Committee hearillg for this item. Many of the poles otltlinlng the second story were blown over, making
it impossible to visually comprehend the mass of the second story. The R-10ralna,~ce requires that
these poles be up for at least the ten days prior to the public hesgn__g. Stsfi~ faxed a letter directing the
applicant to repair the poles. The site was rech6~2,ked on Friday afternoon, December 14, 2001, and the
poles were still not repaired.
Staff believes that the Cowmlttee can hear and act on the application despite the state of the story poles.
It appears thai the poles we~ initially installed correctly, representing a good faith effort by the
applicant. If the item is covtlnued, the story poles should be rein.,aalled.
1
Continuance
This project ha~ a number of unresolved issues. Typically, staff would remove such an item from the
Design Review Committee agenda until the issues are resolved. However, the applicant has not been
%oreeable to further modifications of proposed plan to address staff's concerns. Therefore,'staff is
giving the applicant the opportunity to discuss these issues before the Corem;tree. Staff is
recommending that the item be continued so that the applicant can amend the design based on the
Committee's direction.
A model resolution him bean included that has conditions reflecting the discussion in this report if it is
decided that the project does not need to return to the Commltteo. The design changes required in the
resolution are subject to approval by the Director of Community Development prior to the acceptance of
a building permit application.
DISCUSSION
Ordinance Conformance
The project conform.q to most o£the prescriptive regulations in S~ion 19.28.060, except for the
requital wall offsets every 24 feet, which applies only to the second story. The south elevation has a
30-£oot span without an offset. The m;~m,m size of the o~set must have a depth 0£2 £cet and a span
of 6
Design Guideline Confomance
The project confo~,~s to all of the adopted Design Guidelines except the two guidelines listed below. In
both cases, the element that causes the non-confo~oiance is the library on the second story.
· Use one-story elements at edges of development abutting existing one-story homes to soften
the transition. When viewing the front elevation, the left side of the second story (Library) is set
back only two feet from the first story wall plane. The second story conforms to required
setbacks. The applicant has agreed to change the library roof from a gable to a hip roof, which
will decrease the vis~,s! mass of the library element. Staffwill be referring to this as the
"transition guideline" later in the report.
· When new two story elements are proposed adjacent to single story homes, position new
two story windows to protect the privacy of baekyard and living areas of existing single
story homes. This can be achieved by the use of skylights, clerestory windows, reducing the
size of windows, raising the sill height of windows or installing louvers on windows. The
library has a large window on the north elevatio~ The large window, coupled with the
proximity of the library to the neighboring property, will result in privacy impacts on the
neighboring residence. Staff will be referring to this as the "privacy guideline" later in the
report
Neighbor Concern
The Sennlngs family resides to the north of the subject site at 10420 Stem Avenue. They raised
concerns about privacy and the effect of the second story mA*s on their sun exposure. They object to the
massing of the second story along the side of the residence that faces their property. The Sennlngs
family requests that the Commltt~ require the applicant to shift the second story to the south.
The Sendings are also concerned about privacy impacts fi~m the side-facing library window on the
second story. The Sennlngs privacy concerns can eventtmlly be addressed with privacy planting, but
such planting is not expected to provide a complete screen until three years. Such privacy planting
Resobing Guideline Confon~umee a~d Neigbbor Concern
Sun Exposure
Setback requirements wer~ originally developed to protect neighboring properties access to light and air.
The City's second story setbacks are larger than single story setbacks. Unless the neighboring property
has specific solar access easements over the subject site, staff does not recommend ftirther setbacks to
improve sun exposure.
Transition
While staffdoes not recommend design modifications for sun exposure, it is recommended that the
library element be adjusted to provide a better transition from the single-story neighbor to the proposed
two-story house. Options include:
· Reducing the size of the library; or
· Shifting the library to the other side of the second story.
Privacy
The City has taken a strong stance on pwtecting privacy, numerous ordinance regulations and design
guidelines for privacy protection. The Sennlngs' privacy concern is the wot of the "privacy guideline"
discussed above. Using the direction of the "privacy guideline," staff recommends that the side-facing
library window be adjusted in one of the following manners: · Remove the side-facing window entirely;
· Make the sill height of the window more tb,n five feet above the finished floor height;
· Make the window obscure and unopcnable; or
· Install fixed louvers to the exterior of the window.
Architectural Consultant Review
Larry Cannon, the City's Architectural Consultant reviewed the proposed project and provided
comments. Mr. Cannon's considered a complete redesign to be the best approach. Short of that, Mr.
Cannon provided the foliowing suggestions:
· Add details to the front elevation to de-emphasize the garage: thc applicant set the garage
door back but did not add details to the front elevation.
· Emphasize the entry with details or roofed entry elements: thc applicant added a trellis with
two colum,~q in the front.
· Simplify side elevation eave lines: ~s~_ff does not consider this necessary.
Staff was uncomfortable with directing the applicant to completely redesign the project, and attempted
to move forward with the suggestions that Mr. Cannon discussed, as well as some adch'tional staff
recommendations.
Front Elevation
Staffis concerned with the visor! balance of elements on the
front elevation.
· The second story is weighted to the north, creating an . _ .~
unbalanced appearance, which was discussed earlier;,., ,, ~'~:'~'_..'~--~...~
· The garage door is not centered on the garage wall. Staff recommends that the applicant modify
the gn~age ~e.
Tree Removal
The proposed location of the residence would require the removal of a 24" diameter tree, located where
the fi'oat porch is pwposed. The plan set describes the tree as a fir, but staffbelieves it is more likely
albiziajulibrissin, or Silk Tree. The tree has been wughly cut already, but much of the canopy is still
present. Since the rear setback is 22 feet, it is possible that the tree can be retained if the residence is
pushed back two feet. The tree would still be located close to the entry, but could serve as screen~ns to
mitigate the unbalanced garage element, if the Committee does not require the centering of the garage
door.
The applicant proposes a 1,17g sq. fi. basctttent. Staffrequested that the applicant verify with the
Bullding Depa~;,,,ent that the proposed emergency egress Ughtwells met building code. The applicant
claims that the lightwells do meet building code. At staff~s request, the Building Department reviewed
the basement plan and they also believe there could be problems with the size and con~guration of the
light',veils.
Second Story Deck F.,xcepfion
A second story deck is proposed on the rear elevation. To address the views from the deck, privacy
planting is proposed along the side and rear property lines. The deck is --mall, and has been placed so
that it will be screened from viewing the property to the south. Staff is supportive of the deck design.
Privacy. Plan (Sheet 2a)
The applicant proposes to use Italian Cypress for privacy plat~tlng in thc rear yard. Three of the privacy
trees exist in the rear yard. The plant labeled in the plan set as a cedar is more likely ajunlper species,
which does not appear to be suitable as privacy planting. In order to use the existing trees as privacy
trees, the applicant must provide an arborist report stating that the existing trees will be able to
accomplish the privacy screening that the ordinance requires or provide a signed waiver from the
affected property owner. These privacy issues can be resolved at the Building Permit stage.
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner
Approved by: Ciddy
Attachments:
Model Resolution
Storyboard Copy
Plan Set
g:~amla~'d~/l 7-R. O I
EXHIBIT C Design Rovi0w Committee
December 19, 2001
Cupertino, CA 95014
(40s) 777-330
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF ~ DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE m~.I,D ON DECEMBKR 19, 2001
ROLL CALL
Committee Members present: Maw Auerba~ Chairperson
Angela Chen, Commissioner
Commlttoo Members absent: None
Staffpresent: Peter C411i~ Assodate Planner, Ciddy
Wordell, City Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. December 5, 2001
Minutes of the December 5, 2001-Desi/n Review Comm|tt~e meeting approved.
~tIVRI'I'I'EN COMMUNICATIONS:
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
PUBLIC m~.ARING:
2. Application: 17-R-01
Applicant: Dennis Norton
Lo~afion: 10430 Stern Avenue
Residential design review of a new 2,605 square foot, two-story residence with a
basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel re.suiting in a floor area ratio of 45% and a
second story deck exceptio~
2 De~iga ~view Committ~
Der~mber 19, 2001
De.sign J~evte'w Comml~ee dec~ion fl~ ~le~ ap~aled
S~~on: P~ ~ ~ pJnnn~, b~y d~ ~ ~j~. ~e o~y
o~ ~fion ~t ~ not b~ m~ is ~n~ ~M ~ ~1 offi~ ~ 24
feet. ~e ~pli~t
~e o~et S~w~ ~ conc~ ~ ~me of ~ ~ ~de~es ~ ~s ~je~'s
coMo~
~ ~e applic~t ~d ~ ~n~ne ~ application to ~e ~nd me~g ~ J~,,~ 2002.
Some of ~s ~nc~ ~l~ to ~ ~i~on ~m one-~ el~en~ to ~o-~
elem~. ~v~
~d M not neces~
elev~on not berg cen~ on ~e g~ge ~g it ~ ~c~ Ioo~ ~ ~e ~ha~ is
~po~d ~
~e is ~y
~e ~e ~ ~mov~
~ one. P~v~y pl~ ~ ~ ~ pl~ted ~ ~ ~e ~ond ~ d~k. S~ '
~comme~ ~p~v~ on ~ ~k wh~ ~ ~on is ~ on ~e compl~ applicon.
De~ No~ d~i~/a~lic~g ~efly ~ ~ of ~s commen~. He .feels
~t ~e ~e de~ly ~ to be ~ov~ ~d he h~n no ~bl~ piing ~o ~s
in~ of ~e ~ one. He talked ~o~ ~e ~g ~y pm~on ~ b~g
40 fe~ fo~
~oj~ is soothln~ to ~ nei~rho~ ~ ~e nei~bom ~to co~id~fion ~d he
wo~d like ~ ~ve ~e Commi~ ~e a ~ decisiom
Papken Der Torossian, owner, hAS owned this home for 30 years and feels that his home
is smaller than the homes thst have been built recently.
Tom Sennings, 10420 Stem Avenue, major concern with the project is the privacy issue.
lmm the looks of the story poles, one of the windows will look right into Ms kitchen,
living mom and dlnlnS room. Mr. Jonnings suggested moving thc library on to the south
side.
H_s! Morrison, 10425 Moretti Drive, is concerned about privacy for the long te~,,,. The
proposed home looks into Ms backyard. Mr. Norton showed the landscaping plan to Mr.
Morrison and expressed that ho is willing to add more screening if necessary.
Commissioner Chen said that the Design Review Committee is concerned about the
design of the house fitting in with the neighborhood. The Committee will address the
imbalanced garage door or the imbalanced overall building ak~cture. ChahperSOn
Auerbach agrees with Commissioner Chen's statement and added that many of the new
two story homes, especially in the Rancho l~inconada area, were not subject to design
review. Chairperson Auerbach brought in some images that were ~_~_kcn on December 19,
2001 showing the different styles of homes in the applicant's neighborhood. These
pictures can be located on htto://home.oacbelLnet/paroxysm/cupertino/stermhi~u
3 Design Review Committee
December 19, 2001
Di~on cov~nued ~g~g ~ ~t ~les of ~ese ho~. Chai~on
A~ch wo~d ~e m see a ~ of ~e ~cond floor m ~s ~e ~s~s. He is
not so ~nc~ed ~ &e cm~g of~e g~e, b~ ~ibly ~ing ~od ~ ~ o&~
elem~ m fit ~ ~e ~ nei~rhood. He ~o ~d l~e m ~ve a covert ~
pl~e ~g~ing ~e ~ ~es to ~ ~ ~ ~v~y sc~ni~g, for ~
hom~.
Mr. Gilli stated t_hAt he has already prepared a second Model Resolution allowing the
removal of the tree in the front yard and replacing them with two trees. The other change
is the addition of the covenant to address the privacy protection trees, which is now a
standard condition. Chairperson Auerbach would like to contin_ue the project to the
second meeting in January.
Mr. Noff~on asked the Design Review Committee to deny 17-R-01 and then he can appeal
the project to the Planning Commission- He feels that he h,s met all of the City
ordlnArtCeS inclutllnE setbacks and privacy screening. ChRirperson Auerbach briefly
explained the different criteria that triggers the different levels of review 'and read some
of the findings from the Residential Design Approval Ordinance 19.28.090.
MOTION: Commissioner Chen moved to deny 17-R-01
SECOND: Chairperson Auerbach
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: Denied 2 - 0
Respectfully submitted:
Kie~ Witt
Admini.~tive Clerk
g:planning/DRC Commlttee/Minutes 121901
EXI-tIBIT D
Pemr G~lli 22-24-2002
Planniflg Depad:met
c~ of cup. no
Re: Application No. 17-R-01
104 Stern Ave, Cupertino
Dear Peterv
This _le~e__r is an appeal of the'Decision of the Design Review Committee on
December 19, 2001. This letter also is an appeal of the Oties Proce~___!ng
practices as exerdsed in the processing of this applicatJon.
Rrst of all I shall start wrd~ the hearing itself. The hearing was held with tva:)
member of the Design RevHw' Commrctea, chaired by Marc Aueba~. Only two
member of this committee were present, not a quorum. Mr. Auerbach,
admittedly, lives in this neighborhood, and was clear that he had certain biases
in making any sort of objective Judgment. Not only was he not SubJective, he had
his mind made up before coming to this hearing, and had a slide show
presentation to make his point. The slide show showed stucco houses, two
story houses much larger in mass than the one proposed and a varlet,/of
architecture that he felt was acceptable. HIS design ~ presen'md by this
slide show was truly his own feelings and not backed by any code or design
review criteria set down by the city. One person is not the Judge of a project,
using his own value Judgment and making up rules as he goes. Zs he an
architectural historian or an architect?
Zt was dear that we had solved the problems of the neighbors In our
presentation; it was only the personal biases of Mr. Auerbach that this denial was
based on.
The process to get this application to the Design R~vlew Committee took
approximately 6 months, due to the extensive review and requirements of the
Oty? This project had been reviewed and critiqued by both the Design Review
Architect and the staff. (See attached correspondence) We made extensive
modifications and changes, many being value Judgments, to this project.
At no time did staff or the Architect mention the use of wood siding or that a
second story was unacceptable. The directkm from AaiT and Architect were far
from being directive to the concerns of Mr. Auerbach and his court.
We clearly are in conformance with all criteria as set down in the Oldes
Ordinance. We tit to the second story offsets as noted in Section
19.28.060)(E)(5)(b). As to privacy, we have agreed to obscure the one-second
story North-facing window or reduce its size as directed by staff. The proposed
second story residence is in scale and harmony with the general neighborhood.
Please see previously approved applk:aUons for second story residences as
proposed before and alter the new March 2, 200! Ordinance change.
! am requesting that staff accompany this appeal with pictures of all approved
second stcn/approved application that were approved after Harch 2.
Because many of the houses are now non-conforming now by the new
Ordinance, does not mean they do not exist.
~tom 4 of the Denial states that we are not in conformance with the design
guidelines in new to us. Staff has never ment~ned this to us until this point.
! am surprised that with such extensive review that this was never discovered.
We will gladly con'ecl: what discrepancy b~at may exist there. We needed and
paid for direction from staff and Archrcect, The neighbor to the North is now
comfortable with the design; we have set the house to the maximum setback to
his concerns as well as ~ng the second story in his favor. This appears to
be Hr. Auerbechs value Judgment.
~t is our intension to appeal this application in order to receive a fair hearing
from the full and impariJal Design Review Committee, w~ the absten~ of Hr.
Auerbach. If this is not possible, we are requesUng that we receive a tull Public
hearing with the Qties Planning Commission. We are determined to take this
proposal to any level necessary to receive a fair and Impartial hearing.
Thank You
Dennis R. No,~n
(Representative for the Der Torosslan Family)
EXHIBIT E
ARCI-I1TE~..'i'ORE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
April 25, 2001
Mr. Peter Gilli
Commu~fity Development Depad~ent
City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Der Torossian Residence - 10430 Stern Avenue
Dear Peter:
I reviewed the drawings which you forwarded. The design is pretty straight forward. However, the
garage seems to overly domi,~te the front elevation. I noted that the design is lira;ted by the depth of
the house and the need to maintain the front setback. I don't know how much latitude there is to move
the buiJdi,~g back to bring other parts of the front facade forward of the garage face. The beet approach
would be to redesign the house to allow both the entry and the living room to project out in front of the
garage face. Short of that, the minimum needed to improve the appearance of the house would be to
move the building back and project the entry forward. A couple of general approaches to this are shown
' on the diagrams below and on the next page.
Set garage door beck one foot from wall face
Front Elevation Alternative I
TEL: 415.551.5795 FA~ 415.551.~'P)7 180 HAgBORDRIVE.SDr~ 219.SAUSALITO.CA94~5 ~, ~
Der Toro~ian Residence
Design Review Comment~
March 25, 2001 Pa~e 2
Front Elevation Alternative 2
Consideration should also be given to ~mplif~ing the design o£the side elevation by l{nln~ up the
eave lines between the f~ont and back of the structure through elimination of the vertical jog. This is
show. on the ai~grsm below.
· ' ' ~.~P'.~=~ -.~ '...-' ..~=, ,'..~:~< m'., ~:~ · .,...-.~
· . ~ ! .': ~'' I. tO II~ul~ '~;~'~;,:.~,.~:~,' ~:~:;~ ~"
I. -., ..~-t.'..... ~ ..~.,~
;.; , .:.,., .....~t.~..~,...~. ~~ .,~~:~
Suggested Side Election M~I~Ii~
CANNON DF. SIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSALITO. CA94~5
Der Torosaian Residence
Design Renew Comments
March 25, ~001 Pa~e 3
'I~le last item is perhaps le88 important since it is Ln the rear o£ the house. I do not trove a neighbor-
hood map or neighborhood photos so I do not know whether anyone is impacted by th~ elevation. The
suggestion would be to consider expandin~ the width of the balcony and provid~3 a more vistudly
poaitive means of supporting the Balcony by the use of brackets.
Provide wider balcony
and support with brackets
!~:" '"f" ' ~ ...'~7':: .' ~':."..,: ~:..' ~,.. .. .; ..
Suggested Rear Elevation Changes
Peter, if you have any questions, please ~ive me a call.
Sincerely,
Larry L. C~on AIA AICP
Presk[ent
CANNON DF.~IGN GROUP 180 HARBOR Dlll'~. Slat-tit 219. SAUSAL1TO.CA94~
'OH/F PHRHTOH P. 1/4
] Tcm tt tRTON
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
6-3-200!
Pater. Gilli
Community Development Dept.
'Clty of Cupe~no
10300 Tone Ave,
Cupertino, Ca. 95014
Re: Ocr TorossJan Residenca
1.0430 Starn Avenue
Dear Pel~,
Thank you for your review of the proposed Der Torossian Residence.
In consideration of the comments made on the plans by Cannon Design Gmup~
It is the desire of this firm and the owner to resubmit to you wlth the following
changes. Although we have incorporated some of his recommended changes,
We feel that the house Is asteUcally pleasing and in keeping with this
neighborhood. It is hard for us to understand the architectural flavor that he is
trying to,achieve. LatlJce wo~, expanded decks, and entry columns present
clutter and present a vagarious design.
The following revisions am incorporated Into these new elevations for your
'., , approval.
1) Garage doors are now inset :18 Inches to allow for relief and shadow line.
This did not require moving the house on the Iot~ for It will still mainteln
the 20 foot setback.
2) The back deck now has cosmetic beams to give the deck an addittonal
Detail, It is not our Interest to extend the deck. Small decks and
balconys are cartainly fitting to this archltectura! style.
3) The d~enee in height of the eve is created by the JolstJng requirements
4) at the second story line that requires joistlng. It cannot be lowered
without considerable cost and structural modiflcatJons. It Is the rear side
of the house and a break of this line is not bad design.
, It is our interest to proceed to Design R, evlew wrd~ a Second story deck
%
,. 41315 [~APm:LA RD. · C, APrT01.A, ~ 950'I0, [4~476-g. Ei'10 · FAX476-O730 ·
general ~nea~m.~e St. L~. No.
EXHIBIT G
CUPE INO Community Development Department
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Phone (408) 777-3308
Fax (408) 777-3333
June 28, 2001
Mr. Dennis Norton
4315 Cnpitola Rd
Capitola, CA 95010
Fax: 831-476-0730
RE:DerTurossianl~aldence, 10430St~rnAvenu~ ~ ~
Dear Mr. Norton,
Attached are markups of th~ new elevations and pl~n~ that you submitted earlier this month. There are still a
number of issues, including:
1. Garage and Entry Relationships: it is s~rongly recommended that the garage element be balanced out.
This can be done by decreasing one side from four ~-t to two feet, or by making both sides three feet
(door to comer of wall). By leaving two feet on either side of the garage door, you will be able to widen
the porch and add a little more emphasis to the entry. I added a column to lite marked-up plan to match the
other column, but with the increased porch area, the colunms may not be necessary. You did increase the
garage door inset as the Architectural Consultant requested, but I wanted to let you know that 18'* is.more
' than the 12" he t~luested.
2. Second Story Roof: changing the left side roof element on the second story (when viewed from the front)
to a hip mol would decrease the mass of the second story. Also, it appears that such a change would
improve the relationship of the roof to the rest of the house, which .has hip features on the ends of the first
and second story roofs.
3. Second Story Windows: the primary concern here is balance between the two second story windows near
the stairway with th~ gable end roof end the air vents. Please adjust the windows to improve the
relationship of these elements.
4. First Story Side Elevation Wall Heights: this relates to the change in thc enve heights on the side
elevation (where the eaves don't line up). The City consistently directs applicants to keep wall heights as
low as possible (there are design guidelines that discuss this). Please give me the exterior wall heights of
the two sections on the left side eie~;ation, as well as the corresponding interior ceiling heights.
5. Second Story Deck: the added detail addresses staff*s concerns. An exception is needed for the deck, but
that is standard for all second story deck3,
'You may ~honse to apply for Design Review and a Second Story Deck Exception without moclifyLng your plan, but
staff will be recommending that the design be changed to address the issues above. If the design is revised to
address the issues above, stnffwould recommend approval of the design without further changes.
Assooi~. Planner
EXHIBIT H
CUPE IN0 Community Development Department
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Phone (408) 777-3308
Fax (408) 777-3333
November 30, 2001
Mt. Dennis Norton ~'
4315 Capitola Rd
Capitola, CA 95010 ~'~ ~' t ~
RE: 10430 Stern Ave
Dear Mr. Norton,
Your application for design review and a second story deck has been received. You are' scheduled for the
Design Review Committee meeting of December 19, 2001. While reviewing your application, I
discovered that there are a number of required items missing. There are also some design issues that still
need to be resolved.
Some of the application requirements for the plan sets have not been met:
· The site plan must show the location of buildings on adjoining properties. See marked up Sheet
~,~,~ 2a. The site plan must have the existing/proposed finished floor elevation of the subject property
and the existing floor elevation of adjoining lot buildings. Please take into account the effect of
grading and drainage improvements on the finished floor elevation.
· Add the ratio of second floor to lust floor area and overall floor area ratio to the cover sheet's
General Information table.
· A building cross section from the street through the proposed house is required.
The application requi/ements for the story board have not been completely met. However, I believe you
have enoup, h visual information and data to proceed w~thout redoing the board.
General Comments, not in any particular order:
· ~ · Sheet 2 is not necessary since Sheet 2a,shows the site plan clearly enough. ,
~_ · Sheet 2B is not necessary since Sheet 2a shows the 30 degree vision angles correctly.
~ · Why does Sheet 2a note that the vision angles are "shade"?
Ig,~.'-,...o~ '~ · I~-flost of the sheets i~ the ~uced p~n sets ~ r=dable, but the copy nf Sheet S CSlevation,) did
'-'~[ not come out clearly. Whenyou resubmit revisions, please make sure all the pages ar~ legible.
· Ad'---d d onsions for the distances be ,ean gride and the floor, the floor and the fl.t
floor ceiling, the second floor and the second floor ceiling and the total height.
.~. · Sections are indicated on Sheet 5 but the actual sections were not included.
.,o Thoro are two sections of the house that have a curvilinear bay window feature. The floor plans
,-'-I .) and elevations indicate that these features will have its own roof element, but the site plans
(which show the roof plan) do not show them.
.~~:~ · The sit~ plans show a tiny comer of the living mom in the front setback area. Adjust the plans to
meet the proper setbacks.
· Based on past discussions with the building depa~ t,uent, I do not believe that your lightwell
de,i will be accept,hie at uil,iing Permit st, ge. Plo e untact the uilding
~,~.~-r~. to make sure you meet the/r codes.
The following are design related issues, some of which we have alr~y discussed.
~I intend to make the following conditions of approval for your project:
~k~C.' .~, Wood trimandsills forwindowsanddoors-addsadifferantmaterialtothecommonstucoohileroofmaterials.
.~ · A hip roof over the library on the second story- reduces the second story mass. ,
~aooa- ] · _The curb-cut be reduced to a two-car driveway width & use grass-crete or another semi-pervlous
ff ~'surface for the third driveway parking space - these two changes are strongly recommended by
~ the City's Stonn Water RunoffPrevenfion Manager. There are aesthetic benefits as well of more
of a park strip and less pavement in the front yard.
The following issues may be discussed in the staff'report and at the hearing, but I do not expect to require
them as conditions of approval:
_-O_~ c.~t- · It appears the second floor ceiling height is 9 feet, please consider lowering it to 8 feet and using
vaulted ceilings to achieve higher ceilings. The "neighborly" benefits of sacriftcing to lower
interior heights to lower the overall height always helps. Hopefully, you can get most
of tho
~ higher ceiling back by using vaulted ceilings.
,~~x.~.~i~ The unbalanced garage facade. It still looks awkward and consistently draws my eye, and the
~'~-~' ~ eyes of others in the office. · , ~
. · Shift the entire house backwards to save the significant fir tree in the front yard. ~ I. '~
g~-e~-ve~t. & ~. Incorporating a heavy base material would add texture and interest to the front elevation.
l,~g'~ro~A~'~"~~' Inset the garage door 12" as requested by the _Architeetuml Cons~ulta~n~ .t, not 18_". c~ I cc C) 15 C~ $~' __.
Please submit one revised full size plan set to my attention as soon as possible. I will look it over and let
you know if its okay to make the reduced size plans. 1 Ixl 7 plan sets are the preferred size for
reductions.
Call me if you have ~y questions.
Peter Oilli
Associate Planner ~ c(Og] 9' '~7 - 3~ ) ~ ..
Enclosed:
Marked up plan
;]:GN REVIEW APPL~CA'iION FORH
W ,~,,,,,,~,~lty Development' Departrnen~
10300 Torre Avenue (408) 777-3308 / ~ax (408) 777-3333
ProperS/C:~wer Phme(h)
S ~Contac~Per.o. F'~one(w) ~,,'$ q. F~e(h)
AppllcaUon ~ (~ all ~ a~)
~ ~mE~ DA~ ~ PROPOSED
STORY .P. OLE CONSTRUCTZON
.. Community Development Department
10300 Tone Avenue (408) 777-3308/Fax (408) 777-3333
CUPEi~TiNO cure.o, c4 9so~
PurDose
To provide the decision-makers and neighbors wrd~ a visual tool to evaluate the proposed two-
story residential construction.
Requirement
Install height poles to outline the building's four comers and roof's peak points. Znstall 2' high
pi .asflc snow fencing where the roof meets the wall and along roof .ridges to meet the roof peak
points.
Length of ~nsl:alla~on
The story poles shall remain in place from the time the Residential Design Review application is
filed to the end of the appeal deadline or appeal-hearing.
Installation
A licensed conbactor must install the story poles.
Validation
^ licensed architec~ or engineer shall certify the design and accuracy of the story pole construc-
ton.
Story Pole Cel Ur;cat;on
! cerl~/that the story poles in,tailed at:
are consistent in design, height and location with the site and elevation plans drawn by
~4=Ud ~' t ~ 'P--__..,~ (Architect~ engineer or surveyor name) and dated
Name ~~.~ ,p_. ~~ '.
Title "'l~-'c:l ~--I ~c~. Professional Ucense
Stamp Here
CHECKLI:b'r FORM (1 OF 2.)
Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue (~108) 777-3308~Fax(408) 777-3333
£UPEI TINO o o,c 9 014
Please circle yes or no for each item, Complete ~e written description for each i~em answered
'no'~ describe how the item is Inconsistent, and how it could either be changed to be consis-
tent or how it meets the findings in spite of the inconsistency.
R1 Ordinance Consistency (Overall) Yes No
Floor Area Ratio · Yes No
Setbacks Yes No
Height Yes No
Privacy Protection Yes No
Maximum Extedor Wail Height Yes No
Ofi'~ets Yes No
1' Roof Eaves Yes No
14' Maximum Entry Feature Yes No
Findings Yes No
Describe how l~e project is inconsistent ('No'answers) and how it meats the mandatory
findings in spite of the Inconsistency (attach a separate sheet as necessary):
Design Guidelines (Overall) Yes No
Neighborhood Compatibility Yes No
Soil grade similar Yes No
Roor elevation similar Yes No
Balanced architectural form Yes No
Similar roof pitch, eave & ridge Yes No
Transitions between buildings Yes No
Privacy p~ion Yes No
CITY OF CUPERTIHO
10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, t"'~l~ornia 9501.4
D~~ OF CO~ D~O~ ~RT FO~
Application: ll-U-01, 16-EA-01 Agencla Da~. February 11, 2002
Applicanl: BillMard
Owns:. Bill M~'ci
Loeatiom 10056 Orange Avenue
East of Orange Avenue approximately 100 feet northerly of Granada Ave
Application Summary:
Use pe,,,~.it to demolish a 1,205 sclft single family house, and cor~t~--~ a mixed use
development consisting of a 7,912 sc~m~e [oo[ mixed use building with ~ square ~eet
of o~ice/retail space and 3,429 scpmre ~eet of residential space (2 units).
RECO~ATION:
S~c recommends that tb~ Planning Commission recommend approval off
1. The z~e~ative declaration, file rmr~ber 16-]~.-01
2. Tb~ use pe~a.it application, file n-tuber 11-U-01, irt accordance with the model
resolutioru
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Monta Vista Special Planning Area
Zoning Desig~tation: Planned Development (CN, ML, t~T~ ~-12)
Acreage (Gross/Net): 23 acres / .21 net acres
Density:. 8.7 du/gr, ac.
Height:. 29 feet
Stories: 2 story
Parking: Units~sq ft. Ratio Required
Residential 2 units 2/unit 4 s~ll~
Re~! 1,O 70 sq fl ~250 sq fl S st~ls
Offic~ 1,095 sq ft 1/285 sq f~ 4 sfd~s
Retail & Office Mix (da3r~me 9 n.n~ = 4 p~=) ' 9 s+~".~ '~ T~m ~.~00.0~C
Total 9 + 4 (~.side~) - 13
Proposed: 1~ S~ll.~
Project Consiste~ with: General Plato Yes
Zoning. Yes
Environmental Assessmenl: Ne§afire Declaration
DISCUSSION:
This report will summarize this project's confo,,,~mce with the Gen~l Plan and Monta
Vista Design Guidelines followed by an overview of the commerce!/office component,
residential component, building design, traffic impacts, shared parking analysis, public
improvements, and landscaping/tree removal.
GENERAL PLAN
Tb~ Genial Plan desil~afion for the subject sim is Monta Vista Spe~s! Plannin~ Are~
The project conforms to the Gener~l Plan use, height and density reg~]stions. In
addition, tbe project meets the following C-~ral Plan Polities:
Policy 2-12: Mixed-Use Developmen~
Allow mixed-use development within the area bounded by Grarmd~_ Avenue,
.Stevens Creek Blvd., Orange Avenue and the SP fight of way to rely on public
parking on Pasadena and Imperial Avenues to meet the o~f-street parking needs
for the commerdal part of the project.
Policy 2-13: Store-Front Appearances
Require commerelsl and office saactures to exhibit a traditional storef~oat
appearance to tb~ public street. Req~ire b-ildings intended for i~l office use
to be designed to accommodate future entrances from the sidewalk for re~il
shops. Do not permit tb~ building to be separated from the public sidewalk by
extensive landscaping or changes in elevatioz~
MONTA VISTA DESIGN GUIDEI.INES
The Monta Vista Design Guidelines was developed to guide devdopments in the
Monta Vista Special Planning Area. The I~tidelines provide development standards and
design guidelines for various land uses including mixed use residential and
re~il/comme~. The proposed project confo~,,~ to the various componertts of the
Monta Vista Design Guidelines described in the foliowin~
Building Placement:
Req,~ived Proposed
Front 5 Feet ~ 5 Fee~
Side None 5 Feet (Right Side); 9 Feet (Left Side)
Rear None 44 Feet
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
The commercial and office component of the project is limited by a 33% FAR.
The project is proposing a 32.7% FAR commercial/office FAR. According to the
Monta Vista Design Guidelines tb~e are no FAR reqnlrements for residential.
Tb~ proposed 2 residential units are sllocated from the General Plan's (Policy 2-
2
3) allowance under the undesignated pool of residential development priorities
outlined in the development priorities table.
SITE ANALYSIS
It ~uld be noted that the proposed project site is located in an existing developed
urban area that will be redeveloped eventually as part of the Monta Vista Planning
Area. This project will be the first parcel along this s~etch of Orange Ave. proposed to
be redeveioped. The project site is surround by shnilar and compatible land uses.
The project site will be accessed through an 18 foot wide shared driveway with the
adjacent property immediately north of tb~ project site. The applicant provided staff
with a signed letter from the adjacent property owner Mr. Toni Jarrami agreeing to
enter into a shared access agreement.
COMMERCIAL COMPONENT
The proposed b0ilding provides a traditional store, front appearance dose to the public
street. In addition, each tenant space has pedestrian entrances/access from the
sidewalk that is highly desirable per the Monta Vista Design Guidelines.
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT
The residential component consists of 2 apartment units on the second level above the
commerCe/retail floor. The 2 bedroom 2 bath apatta-umt unit will be served with a
one-car ground level parking garage and an open parking s~il ~ the zear of the
building. The 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment unit will be served with a two-car ground
level garage. Each apa~hz,ent unit has a private balcony that faces the rear of the
building. There are no residential interfaces along the rear of the project site. Access to
the apa~h~umt units will be either from the parking garages or from the rear and right
side of building.
BUILDING DESIGN
The proposed building architecture is consistent with the Monta VLsta Design
Guidpllnes in that the proposed bui]rllng mater~nl., color, and b~ildlr~ fO,,,,~ ate ~11 il't
keeping with the standards recommended.
The building is beige in color sided with hardi-plank horizontal shiplap siding. White
revenl.~/trims are introduced on all four elevations and on the eave and around the
windows/doors. Please refer to the development plans for further illustration of the.
building matexanl.¥features. Not only is the b, ildlng design consistent with the City's
design guidelines, it is also compatible with the existing architec~al style of tb~
surrounding neighborhood. The City's Architectural Consultant has also reviewed the
project and expressed support of it.
SHARED PARKING
The project will s~e parking between the residential, comme~! and office uses. The
City's parkin~ ordinance provides a metb~dolo~/for calculating sbsred parkin~ for
si~u~ll mixed-use projects (Table 19.100.040-C, attached). Based on this methodology,
the project will be at its highest demand for parking between ~ hours of 9 ~n~ to 4
p.nc Therefore 9 stalls will be required to be provided for the mixed-use. A total of 13
s~lls (9 plus 4 s~ll.~ req-lved for the 2 apartment units) are req~ired of the entire
project. The project provides 11 on-site stalis and two off street parking stalls. Under
the General Plan Policy 23, the project site is located in an area where property owners
could ob~dn credit for on-street parking for commerce! activities.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
A 10-foot dedication along the/rontage of the project site is required for street widening
and sidewalk improvements. The applicant/property owner shall be responsible to
install curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The minimum paved roadway shall be 40 feet with
a 5 feet wide monolithic sidew~11c
LANDSCA_PlNGffREE REMOVAL
As part of this project, 13 trees will be removed due to the building and driveway
locations. None of these trees is considered protected trees under ~ City's free
ord/nance. To mitigate the removed trees the applicant is proposing to plant I - 36 inch
box Coast Live Oak at the northeast comer of the project site and 4 - 5 gallon Italian
Cypresses along the front of the building. In addition, the applicant is proposing to
plant various shrubs and vines arow0xi the proposed lmilding to enhance the
Staff recommends that additional Boston Ivies be planted in a 1-foot planter box along
the ri~t side of the buildin~ (except es~s/inS~.~ss locations).
The applicant will be required to preserve a Coast Live Oak (18" in diameter) located at
the southwest con~r of the project site.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Shared Parld~ Table
Exhibit B: Arborist Report
Exhil~'t C: Initial Study
Exhibit D: Reconm~ndation of Environmental Review Committee
Submitted by: Gary Cbao, Assislant Planner
Approved by: Ciddy Wordell, City l~nner ~//.~
11-U-01
16-EA-01
crrY oF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, C~llfornia 95014
MODEL ]~-OLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMr.~ON OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECO~ING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOT.r.qH AN EXIb"TING
I~K'~-'IDENCE AND CONSTRUCT AN 7,912 SQUARE FOOT MIXED USE BUILDING WITH
4,483 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE/RETAIL 5'PAC~-~ AND 3,429 F/~UARE FWA'T OF
I~E-'~IDENTIAL SPACe. (2 UNITS)
SECTION I: PROIECT D~/2RIPTION
Application No.: 11-U-01,16-EA-01
Applicant Bill MA~ci
Locatior~ 10056 Orange Avenue
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMrr
WHEREAS, the Planning Commiss/on of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Pe~,.dt, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHERP~, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WI-H/RI~AS, the applicant has met [he burden of proof required to support said application;
and bas s~ti.~fied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
proper~ or improvements in the vicim'ty, 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 Ger~al Plan and the purpose oi this ritie.
NOW, TI-II~:~OP.E, BE 1T I~k'?,OLVED:
That after carefifl consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and othor' evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use F~,,.~t and Negative Declaration are hereby
recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in tbis Resolution
beginnh!g on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the flndin~ and conditions speC/led in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concentin~ Application No. 11-U-01
Resolution No. 1 l-U-01 February 11, 2002
Page-2-
and 16-EA-01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Febr,~a~y
11, 2002, and are incorporated by reference though f~,lIy set forth herein.
SECTION lH: CONDITIONS AD~ BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELO~
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Sheets 1-5 of the Plan Set dated January 28, 2001 and the Materi'~l
Board dated 12-26-01 except .as may be amended by the conditiom contaived in this
resolution.
2. INGRtE~/EGI?k'~S EASEMENT
The apbl/oknt shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with
the land, subject to approval of the City Attorvey, for the parcel to the nortl~ Said
deed restriction shall provide for necessary reciprocal ingress and egress easements to
and from the subject property and the property to the west. The easement shall be
recorded prior to issua~:e of bui]tli~g per~.its.
3. SHARED ACC3E~ DRIVEWAY
The proposed shared access driveway sbsI1 be f,,lly installed and constructed to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Depa~k, ent prior to the issuance of final occupancy.
4. COM1V[I~CIAL USE
The applic_~_ut shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with
the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney, for the project parcel. Said deed
restriction sb~I! restrict the 1,974 square foot ground floor space to only commercial.
The easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of building pexadts.
5. ~G PLANTERS
A one-foot wide landscape planter box shall be installed along the right side of the
building (except ingress/egress locations). A revised landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building pe~,ats.
6. TREE PROTECTION
The existing tree shall be protected as shown on Sheet 1. A bond for $10,000 for
protection of the Coast Live Oak shall be provided prior to issuance of a building
permit, and shall be released upon a written statement by the arborist that the health of
the tree was not adversely affected during construction, prior to final occupancy.
7. NOTICE OF ~. DEDICATIONS, RKSERVATIONS OR ~ EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of
the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
Re. solution No. 1 l-U-01 Febrtla~ 11, 2002
Page-2-
exactions. You are hereby ~ nogf4ed that {he 90~ay approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservatiom, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the req-lvements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from hter challenging such exactions.
8. BELOW MARKET RATE PROGRAM
The applicant shall comply with the req~irements of the Homing Mitigation Manual.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as req-i~ed by the City Engineer.
10. CURB AND GUTTER IMPRO~
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures ~ be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by tb~ City Engineer.
11. STRI~r LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting sbsl! be ins~lled and sb~l! be as approved by the City ~. Lighting
fixtttres sJ~sll be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and sbsl! be no higher than tb~ maximum height pe~..dtted by
the zone in which the site is located.
12. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as req-lred by the City.
13. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
14. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the sa,'_sfaction of tb~ City Engineer. Surface flow across
public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain
faeillties are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all othei' zoning
dis~dct~ shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities conw-.cted to the City storm
drainage system. If City sto~.~ drains are not available, drainage facilities sb~ll be
installed to tb~ satisfaction of the City Engineer.
16..UNDERGROUND ~
Tb~ developer s~sl! comply with the req-lrements of the Undergrou~xt U~ilities
Ordina~x:e No. 331 and other related Ordir~nces and regulations of the City of
l~solution No. 1 l-U-01 Febp~sry 11, 2002
Page-2-
Cupez'dno, and shall coordinate with ~ced utility providers {or ins~n~tion o{
underground utility devices. The developer shall subudt detailed plans showing utility
underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected
UHlity provider and the City Engineer.
17. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shali be installed in any new construction on Lot A to ~.e approval
City. The driveway to Lot A shall be marked Fire Lane on the ~ map.
18. IMPRO~ AG~~
The project developer sbp11 enter into a development agreement with tl~ City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, includin~ but not limited to checldng and
inspection fees, sto~,,~ drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to Lssuance of construction pe~,.dts.
a. Checking&Inspe~onl~ees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or
$2,268.00 n~imum
b. G~aciing Fe~-dt: $ 5% of Site Iml~ovement Cost
b. Development M~utenance Deposit:. $1,000.00
c. Stoiu~ Drainage Fee: $521.00
d. Power Cost:. **
e. Map Checking Fees: N/A
f. Park Fees: $8,100.00
1~ Street Tree By Developer
**Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule by the PUC
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Gracting Bond: 100% of site improvements.
The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee adopted by the
City Council. However, tb~ fees imposed herein may be modified at the Hme of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a b~dldlrt~ pellllit in the event of said chan~
or ~
the fees changed at that ~im~ will reflect the then current fee schedule.
19. TRANSFO~
Hleci~ical transto~ihers, telephone vaults and siwilnr above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
R~olution No. 1 l-U-01 Febv,~ry 11, 2002
Page-2-
20. DEDICATION OF WATERI.IN'I~
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to
Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the
subject
development.
21. BEST MANA~ PRACTICr~
Utili~.e Best M~nagement Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Iqater Resources
Control
Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in
the gradin~ and skeet improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall
be provided.
CITY ENGINk'iRR'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENG~G/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 t~ali$ornia Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engiw~dng and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. of this
Resolution conform to genernlly accepted engiv~g practices.
Ralph (~;~II.~, City'
PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of February, 2002, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of C~li~ornia, by the following roll call
vote:
AYI~: COMMISSIONERS:
NOk-~: COMONERS:
ABSTAIN: COIVlI~.qSIONERS:
ABSENT: COM1VIr~O~:
A~: APPROVED: '.
Steve Piasecki Charles C. orr, Chak,,~
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
19.1G0.040
~ Way AMa 1 Way Aide
0· tfl 10.0 IlO 19.0 N/A N/A
30* LO I0.0- 18,0 IS.S 43.9 M.S
40' LO !~0 ILO IS.~ 45~ 39.7
4~ LO IIXO lis IS..~ 47.1 40.9
CIlpm SOs LO IirI 19.0 L~ 48.9 41.9
70~ LO 17.0 21.0 l~ S3.7 49.~
gO° LO N/A 23*0 13,S $4~0' N/A
Pm' bmllmp ~-:--- ---'nio qIam, pimm feb' to ~ ! 118A.4 af 1994 LTH:~. Bm'ldbf Codo.
Tnble 19.100.040-C
CALCUlaTING SHARED PAPrlNG FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS
wmm:DAY w.czz~R~D N~GIFFIME
(9Lm.-4pm.) (6p~n.-midaisht) (9&m.-4p.m.) (6p~.-midnisht) (mJdnifht.6~n.)
· . Rem~ 60 ~0 100 70
~, ' Hold 75 100 75 100 75 ?"" '~
Remmmt 100 100 100 100 10
l~nl~l~,~I/ 40 100 ~0 100 10
(OKL 1737 (pm), 1996: OrcL 1657 (pm), 1994; Ord. 1637 (pm). 1993; Ord. 1601 ~ A (part), 1992)
ally ~pplicable m I~mflar u~s which Justify ~ ~ ~M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~y~~~ ~mi~ m ~or~m~~
. ,.,~.../. ~). x~
..
58~
Exhibit
B1/'I-G/2Be2 22:3B 48825'52421 5A~ TRE~ ~E~'ZG ~ 82
SARATOGA TREE SERVICE
1~745 Sh/h, ~
40&.~Z.4)IQ6-
2OO2
Bill Ma~
1934 l~llen Aye.
Sm ~ose, CA 95125-2~21
RE: 10056 Ormp &~,, CupeffJno
Smatos~ T~e Servi~e ws$ asked to sur~7 d~e ~rees.m 1 ~6 ~ A~. ~ ~.
~ lOt b t0 ~ d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cu~ ~ ~ ~g ~o~ ~
~~~, ~~of~u~~on~l~.
incl.. A B~ P~~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ i~ ~ not
A~p ~~~l~of~~~= of;~ 14,
of~ ~ M
RECEIVED
JAN 1 6 ~00~
EXHIBIT B
B.?./~.5/2~82 .T2;36 4662~tS2423. SNM,'I'06~ ~ ~T{~ ~ 94
10056 ~"~
'--.- .% Cl. IZ~
" 0ooo0
#$0 ;
Sh,.,l:l
EA File No.
Ca~ File No.
PRO3ECT DI~.SCIHPT!ON: Attachments
Project Title 100.5/.
I'rojeot Locafiou l OO ~ ~
Proj~'t Description IJ~.~C
~v~nm~ S~
PROJECT DI~-~J[PTION:
Z~e ~{~
~id~
To~ ~V~ ~rms" To~! s.L P~
U~t
T~e
U~t
U~t
App~le Sp~ ~ pI...~ (Check)
~m Vh~ ~i~ ~ ~ S. De An~ ~no~
8~ ~ Blv~ ~ ~ S~ ~ Blv~ SW& L'~ape
If Non-P, midenfial, Building Ama ~0~ ~ ~.f. FAR~ Max. H,,nployees/Sh iff /o/~
PsrkingR.equimd I~ser~ce ParkingProvid~._.l"~
ProjoctSitoisWithinCupertinoUrb~n Area YES ~_ NO. ~-~
EXHIBIT C
IMPACT
WILL ~ PROJECT.. ~o~ s~mcm slsnmnat :~.,.,~. SOURCE
SL--m.~nt (IvlMpdon (No
NO vu~x~oa) ~_~on
1) P. equi~ · cim~e fX'om tho Innd uso · 1.7,8
Oonml Plaa?
2) n~qui~ a chnse ~fan adopmf
4) P--,!t in submndnl chan~ in the
p,~..-~ Ired um of lh~ si~ or Iht of [~ [] [] [] [] 7.12
sUot, ins p~
S) Dism~t o~ dlvlda th, physical
mnfisurlti, of m utablishM [] [] [] [] [] 7.1~'9~41
n~igabodu~od?
l) h~t.~e tho exbtlns mnoval tm, ~r S,lO
result In the removal ora v~.,~ --u~o [~ [] [] [] []
for e~,,~,.~cid purp~.__~__ Onduding iW
su~ ss rock. smd. Faval. uae. s. mimrals
or top4oll)? "
(Clm I ~ II soils) to non-~flcoltaral m~
nndor ~ Willhmsou Ac~ or ~ny Opm
IM])ACT
WILL TWr. PROJECT... N~ SiSnm~ant Stanificant :umulativo SOURCE
sisnmm~ (Mmpmou
NO r,wo~)
3) Chmgo tho e~stins bbitat fc~d
~.~.,~.~..... ~ [] [] I-1. [] ,.,o
endansemd species of plant or mimal?
4) Involve outtlnL removal of
to th~ sim or introduced?
G} ~IL~NS~PO~A~ION
1) Cause an Inaemo tn tndtl~which
is ~ubmnUtd h ~lation to tho axistins
2) ~me n~ publi~ ~ pfiv~ steer
intersection to fonctloa bblow Levol of *
3) lnm~so trafF~
,~.~.:,~.~,~.~,..~ [] [] [] [] []
4) Advmely tffoct .,'~._,_. to
~""'.'~"0~°~" 1~1 .O [] [] [] ,.,o
S) Came nredu~lmt In public -
pmje~t sito?
parking fitoilitim, or en~tudor dcmimd Rjr [] ~ [] [] [] I,.16
now pad~n~ space?
'~) Tnht'h~ttisO of'fdt~miitlvazllod~of'
H) HOUSING
1) Reduce U~o supply off~rdable
IMv.dn~ in the cmmnunlty, or result In tho [] [] [] [] [] 3.16
dlsplb~..mt ofpmmLs fi~xn tl~ir
lx~smt home?
2) Inmuse tim ~ost ofhousl~ in tho 3, 16
mre~ or ,ubmntiolly chanp ~mo vm'l~t~ O [] [] [] []
ofhousin~ t~q~es ~ound Jn the
l ) Xnvolve~bo appli~ation, us~, [] [] [] [] 0 . 32,40,42,43
dlspossl or manufaou~ of potentially
2) Involv~ risk oF ~-plosion or o~e~
f~ns of uncontrolled rolosso of
~ submnco~
3) Involve the removal m' continued [~ [] [] [] [] 33,42,43
mo of s~, oximinL or inmllatlon of
my p. ew Imdeqrmmd chmical orhel
II~ tmlr9
S) Hmploy technolo~ %vltlch ~ould
advorsoiy afoot publl,~ sa.foty in th,* [] [] ~ [] [] d10,43
ovont of a breakdown?
IMPACT
~ TI:I~, PROJECT... sot sL=*~=nt sisnu~= annul=iv, SOURCE
NO ~
2) ~ advor~l~ ~ prolm~ of hism~ I, lO,il
2) hta_'_'~ substmtM ~mm:b, or sirra' [] [] [] I, 46.47
tho lo~tion, distd~tio~ ordmml~ of
tho humm p~nd~lou ofm
incre~ the reed f~:.
,0,*~,~,~s=,~ []~ [] [][] ,9.32
c) Publl,, Sdmols~ 29.30
d) ~on Fa~Hitiu? [] [] [] [] [] J. 17. 19.21
4) Cans= substantial Imp~t upon
~llowin~ cat=~xim:
,*) Stm, m w~5,- ~-*,,_~mt? 36.38
public facll~ which ~',?~' that 9mility [] [] [] [] []
to mar, h or =o:eed its mp~dty?
,~...:.~'/:~i ..~:,i~.~:~:i~:';i~:'~:.'.-~i~!.~j~...;~:~ ~7¢?~:,'.'.i';:.~.,'g"~:~..:,.'~;:./:.,.~.~.~'~l.,i,:::;::~.,.' '.:.;'~:~i~'~::":~;-~.'~'.~ /.-" ~" - '.' ' ' . .
~ ~d Us~l P~ ~ G~lo~Soi~ic ~ ~ ~o~~ ~ Housing
~ S~~ ~ ~ ~n~o~g ~ Flora & Fauna ~ T~spo~tion
~ ~s~~lo~ ~ H~ ~ Sd~ ~ Air O~liW
~ ~blic S~i~filifies ~ ~ ~ A~
ST~ ~UA~0N
On the basis of this Initial Study, tho Euvironmental Review Commiff~ (PR.C) Finds: Select
Tl~t tho proposed proj~'ct COULD NOT l~vo a sj_o~ificant effect on the ~nvironm~nt, and recommends
that a NEGATIVE DBCIARATION'be/ranted.
That althoush the project could have a significant effect on t~o ~vironm~t, no sisnificant eff~'~t will occur
because mM'"'~fion measures are included in tho project. BRC recommends that a I~GATIVg. DBCLARATION
That the proposed MAY have a si_=nificant effect on the environment nd recommends that an [~
b,
S/phnningflnUtdpLdoc
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ]~IVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
lmtmry 9, 2002
As provided by the Bnviro,~r~enUl Assessm~mt Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amenaed, rite following described project was reviewed By the
~,nvil'onme~ ~ovi~w Cornrnltte~ oftlio City of Ctlpertino on Sanuary 9, 2002.
PRO~IECT ~ESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.: 1 l-U-01, 16-EA-01
Applicant: Bill Marci
Location: 10056 Orange Avenue
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Use Permit to construct a 7,912 square foot mixed use building with 4,483 square feet of officeYretail space and
3,429 square feet ofresid~atial space (2 units)
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIV. W COMMITYEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding
Stov~ ?iasedd
Dire:or of Commn~lgr D~wlotmaent
EXHIBIT D
D
FROM THE OFFICE OF
cI-IVaS s~'^t~D~ COLOR BOARD
ARCHITECT 10056 ORANGE AVENUE
801 CAMELIA STREET, SUITE E
BERKELEY CA 94710 CUPERTINO ~ CALIFORNIA
cu P~RTI riO, cA LI F
1l-2-1
PLANTING LEGE~ ~ ~ ~k ~[ 75'
S~ SP~S SIZR
PI COAST L~ O~ 36~ BOX
P2 ME'CAN SAGE 5 G~ SITE DATA
P3 ORC~ R~OSE 5 G~ ~T S~ 3'~ y [ ..... ~--
P4 ST~ ~ 5 G~ GROSS ~EFO~ 10' DEDICATIOn: 10,12~ ~.
IT~ C~SS 15 G~ ~T (~ 10' D~ICATION): 9,375 SQ. ~. ~SH
P~
P6 BOSTON ~ 5 G~ ENC~S~ I [ 2 [ 3
B~D~G ~
~ ~T~ 1970 SQ.
· 7'-;'"""~'"'"-?:'"~ C~ W~I.LS W/ ~S~ 160 sQ.
'~'"' '"v'"'"~/"'""'v'-'"V""? ~OR P~ G~G~ 1258 SQ, ~,
~ E~V, S~ ~R ~S~ 3429 SQ,
~ ~'~ ~ F~: Offl~+~T~ 10~197~ 3~ ~, ~,~ 32,~
.~.-? ...~ -:. TOT~ F~: IST ~+2~ ~R= ~83+342~ 7912 SQ, ~,~ ~,4% 7 8
........ ~.......... 7_..... ?......;_. , ,
~ SOL~ 4" ~. CONC. R~F
..~ ~ ~ ~ ,. PA~GPRO~ED:
... · 7 ~-S~ OP~ SPA~
...... ~ W~D ~ I ~IC~PED OPEN SPACE
............. 5 G~GE SPA~ ~"
~SH ENCLOS~ ELEVATIONS SASE ~. OFFICE: ~ 10~ SQ. FT~S~ 4 SPACm PROPOSED
1/8"=1'~" ~T~: 1970 SQ. FT~5~ 8 SPA~
~. S~D P~G ~.
~~ ~,~ I ~T~H~ 8(.6) + ~.9) + ~1) + ~.7) + 8(.05)
· · , 7....... · ..
~) STO~ D~
~OLE
SITE LANDSC E
· 1/16,,=1,~
~C~ ~ PROPOSED BU~D~G TO BE
" '~ -' I '-G" ' ' CHRIS SPAULDING
4'-4" 20'-3½' { 4'- I 0'~'2' 20'-G" d oARCHITECTo
DECK DINING DECK
b
I
~ L,WO APT. ' ~-
-r- ~ ~TCHEN L~G
~CH~ APT. ~1 b t I
n ~ c~o. ~m ~~-
cm. f. '" "q
BA~ 1 ~ BED~ 2 ~ED~ 2 ~ BED~ 3
,, ~: 12-21~1
SECO~ FLOOR PL~. 1/8"=1'-0"
.~ - HIGH-PROFILE ~ SCALLOPED
COMP. SHINGLE ~ SHINGLES CHRIS SPAULDING
'%.~.i".?..:~:.)i'::~'.di:~::.;~¢!:~::..:!.. :~ii~...:.i:.:~...!!.~.:~!...~i.!!.~i~i::i~L:~::;:~.:.ii~i:i~i~;~!!!ii~ X~'~)~i:~.,.~:? '~''~'' VINYL
........................... ~ ........... =~ ..... ~OWS
~ ............................................................. :....: .................................................................. ~....._...'.:-.'""-'
.om.
= .................................................................. -- ............................................... -~o~
~ :::::::::::::::::::::.:"~ ~ ~ '::":::"::: ~ ~ ":.'..:'"....'....::-::':: ": :'::'.':':.'::"::":':':::: ~ ~ '.'::: '::.' :.:~: -- ~ ~::.'::::: :..:':" :':" ':.':
........... -- ............... ..............
FRO~ ELEVA~ON 1/8"=1'-0"
CHRIS SPAULDING
uARCHITECT~
'": '.~?~ i~ .;~:. "..:." ~'". ~2 }." · 'e'.~ih.~.'.[:.~'''''' ' '.' ;...;.?!.......': .".. e .'.',.'.': ~' '. :.." ." ?..~ .~:.....~>.. ::~ .~
......... ' ........................................................................................................ ;~.~'~'~..~'~;~ ~Y2~.~_~ ........................................................................................................................ ~..~.L~.~....~'~;~.~.~'~ ........................... ~_..~;~ ~ .........
~ ELEVA~ON 1/8"=1'-0"
LEFT-SIDE ELEVA~ON 1/S'=l'-O" 5
CHRIS SPAULDING
oAKCHITECTo
BEDRM 1 HALL LAUND CLOSET BATH 1 ~,~ HALL CLO. CLO.
6
cra, or CUP UUNO
10300 TORRI~ A¥1~IIJE, GLIPERTn~o, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director ..
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, February 11, 2002
The CAtv Council met on Monday, February 4, 2002, but no items relating to the
Planning Commission were discussed.
Items of interest to tb~ Planning Commission:
1. Community Congress: A meeting of the Cupextino Community Congress
ba.u been scheduled for Friday, May 3, 2002. The General Plan will be the topic of
dl.ucussion. More info,,~.ation will be presented at a later date.
2. Crossroads Area: Staff met with seven property owners in the Crossroads Area
on January 29, 2002, Fo discuss proposed amendments to the Heart of the City Plan to
accommodate a Downtown Village concept for the Crossroads area (see.attached
report).
~1'~OSU~eS:
Staff Report
Newspaper/~ide
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, Cal/fornla
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: General Plan Study Session Agenda Date: February 11, 2002
Reconunendatiom
Discuss the topics presented in the staff report and provide direction desired for
the draft General Plan or the process.
BACKGROUND:
This is the fifth smd), session on General Plan background information. The
subject of this study session is the Preferred Alternative, which is a preliminary
approach to deter.,dning land uses and allocating development potential.
DISCUSSION:
The development allocation system and the concept of a preferred alternative
have been discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings. The purpose
of this discussion is to preview an approach for the amended General Plan.
Exhibit A compares the existing General Plan and the preliminary preferred
alternative for various land uses. The underlying themes for the preferred
alternative are based on the Guiding Principles presented at previous meetings:
Vibrant m/xed-use "Heart of the City:" Additional commercial development
potential is directed to the Crossroads and Vallco areas. (see Exhibit B.)
Additional office development is directed to the Crossroads to provide second
stories for buildings along the street.
Balanced community: The preferred alternative plans for mixed-use
development in the Heart of the City, Vallco area and the Homestead area, for
example. Mixed-use development provides opportunities for more affordable
housing, and for housing that balances the jobs created by the commercial/office
development.
Mobility:
Residential, office and commercial development along major transportation
corridors foster the use of transit, as well as easier access to shopping and work
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The preferred alternative will be developed in more detail. Specific policies and
build out data will be provided. Generally, as stated in Exhibit A, commercial
square footage is decreased from the existing General Plan build out; office
square footage is the same, except ut~li~.ation of a portion of the square footage
would require residential development; the n,,nmber of residential units is
increased to achieve a more desirable jobs/housing balance. Hotel development
potential remains the same.
Environmental impact analys~ will'be available for the preferred alternative at
the time the draft General Plan is presented.
NEXT STEPS:
The Enviromnen~l Resource~ Element will be the subject of the next study
session at the regular Planning Commission meeting.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Land Use Development Allocation Matrix
Exhibit B: Urban Design.Overlay
Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION MATRIX Exhibit A
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PRELIMINARY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL
No base FAR is allocated to existing Variable base FAR is allocated to
commercial parcels, existing commercial parcels, depending
Square footage is allocated by type oron where commercial uses are to be
location of commercial area, e.g., Heart emphasized or de-emphasized.
of the City (Policy 2-3, Strategy 2). Square footage is concentrated at the
Allocation is distributed through the Crossroads (Downtown Village and
use permit process. Vallco.)
Mixed-use commercial/residential is
required in certain areas.
Allocations for service commercial are
available for industrial or
neighborhood areas.
OFFICE OFFICE
Base FAR ret~ir~ed by existing office Most base FAR is retained by existing
properties, office properties (maximum FAR is
Additional square footage allocated to.37).
specific type or location of office "Pooled" square footage, consisting of
properties (Policy 3-2, Strategy 3) excess or bonus square footage, is
Existing bonus square footage retained, reallocated to Crossroads for second
story office and to North De Anza for
mixed-use office/residential.
Total office build out is the same as the
existing General Plan, although the
reallocated portion of it will be tied to
mixed-use development.
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
Housing element allows 2,325 units Existing Housing element build out is
above existing built units: retained.
1,378 in Planning Districts Additional units to achieve an
947 in Residential Neighborhoods improved jobs/housing ratio are
(Policy 3-1) identified.
Element allows evaluation of providingAdditional units above 500 may be
an additional 500 units (Policy 3-2) needed to achieve a 1.8 jobs/housing
ratio, if that is the targeted ratio.
HOTEL HOTEL
Of the 750 hotel rooms originally Keep existing policies.
allowed, 284 hotel rooms remain to be
allocated.
Vallco Fashion Park has access to an
additional 696 rooms because of its
development agreement.
G:planning/genplan/LAND USE ALLOCATION
EXHIBIT B
~ '7. --~ ~j % ~ ~ ~ - .-~c~.~ _~' ... ==-=~_~ ~ ,~ .......
*. ~ .-" / '~- ' , ~ ~ . .....N ' ~ _ ~d~id~ ~ I
.... - ~ - ......... . , ~ '.. ~, -~ - ~ ,
/ - ,, ....
/,. ......................... , -.
........................ .~ ///. ~ ~ ~ - /
~ ...................................... I_
~~em ~ .d bsid.~ Sup~ ~n ~ign ~rlay
...................................... - ......
...... ~ i / -~ ' ~ ~i~ Dr ~T~m~l ~md~
, _ ~ ,'~
,